Right Wing Nut House

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

In what is being referred to by pro-government forces as an attempted coup, Hezb’allah and their allies in the opposition took to the streets on Tuesday in what was billed as a “General Strike” in order to force the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to capitulate to opposition demands for a “National Unity Government.”

Protestors blocked roads with burning tires in what appeared to be an extraordinarily well organized effort to shut down the country. The roadblocks effectively kept tens of thousands of people from commuting to work and many of Lebanon’s businesses were closed for the day. Also, the road to the airport was blocked when dump trucks appeared and piled dirt and garbage at strategic locations along the route.

Pro government forces clashed with the opposition at many locations throughout the country, but especially in the north in Tripoli where violence continued Wednesday. All told, at least three deaths were reported and 133 injured. Most of the injuries were from gunshot wounds.

As swiftly as the violence broke out, it appears today that the opposition has called off the protests. Hezb’allah leader Hassan Nasrallah may have been taken aback by the intensity of the clashes between his supporters and those of the government and decided to take a step back. Or, he may have planned the strike as a one day demonstration of his ability to shut the country down any time he wishes. In either case, it is clear that Nasrallah has begun to ratchet up the pressure on the government and force them to accede to his demands.

But in so doing, Nasrallah has energized the Sunnis and forced them to confront the Shias. The act of blocking the roads in southern and western Beirut hemmed the Sunnis into their own enclave and was seen as something of a blockade. Not only that, the roadblocks and the shutting down of the road to the airport was all too reminiscent of what transpired during the years of civil war. Many of the same areas that were battlegrounds during that horrible period once again saw blood running in the streets. The significance was not lost on Nasrallah nor on the Sunnis which may be the main reason that the Hezb’allah leader called off the general strike. Nasrallah and his masters in Iran do not want a civil war in Lebanon. He would just as soon swallow Lebanon whole without a messy sectarian conflict on his hands.

This doesn’t take into account what Nasrallah’s Christian ally Michel Aoun would like to see happen. Aoun and Nasrallah appear to be getting farther apart in what each wants to accomplish with these opposition demonstrations that have been going on since early December. Where Nasrallah wants a sufficent number of ministers in the cabinet so that he would have veto power over the government, Aoun’s Presidential ambitions seem to have taken a backseat in Nasrallah’s planning.

And Aoun’s machinations have split the Christian community to the point that some of those clashes yesterday were between Christian factions loyal to Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement and the pro-government Lebanese Forces headed up by Aoun’s longtime rival Samir Geaegea. The Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir has condemned both sides in the conflict but so far has done little to try and heal the split among his people. This schism among Christians is another reminder of what happened during the civil war when the anti-Syrian faction headed up ironically by Aoun fought pitched battles with Geagea’s Lebanese Forces in East Beirut. It is indicative of the tragedy that is Lebanese history and politics that 17 years later, the same forces are fighting again only this time it is Aoun allied with pro-Syrian forces and Geagea in opposition.

Where was the army during these clashes? Early in the day, the army commander Michel Suleiman ordered his troops not to fire on protestors but to try and keep the roads open. This order was honored in the breech as there is ample evidence the army not only assisted the opposition by preventing people from going to work but also stood by and allowed small numbers of protestors to blockade the roads. It is clear that the army failed to do its job. Troops did move in when violence erupted to scatter combatants with tear gas and by firing their guns into the air. But the damage is done. Prime Minister Siniora may not be able to trust the army when Nasrallah makes his next move.

The timing of the protest is interesting in that Siniora was headed to Paris to conclude talks that would bring billions of dollars in aid to the Lebanese economy, devastated by Hezb’allah’s war with Israel last summer. The US has pledged more than $750 million while the French have promised another $500 million to help rebuild much of the infrastructure destroyed in the war as well as help with Lebanon’s crushing debt burden. By any measure, the Paris III Conference, involving dozens of countries in the reconstruction effort, is a triumph for Siniora’s government - something that Nasrallah couldn’t abide. In effect, Siniora is demonstrating that the government doesn’t need Hezb’allah or its allies to govern effectively.

At present, Nasrallah appears to be running out of “peaceful” options in his quest to overthrow the government. Everything he has tried in order to bring down Siniora has failed. He has been stymied not only by the support of the Lebanese people for the government but he has been checked by Lebanon’s friends and neighbors who have worked diligently to help Siniora and his government survive, now holed up in the Grand Serail for nearly two months in order to prevent Hezb’allah from achieving their aims through assassination.

The Arab League has been especially supportive and their appears to be a tentative agreement to end the cabinet standoff that has been negotiated by Saudi Arabia and Iran. Few details are available but the agreement apparently addresses both cabinet representation for the opposition as well as coming to an understanding regarding the International Tribunal that will try the assassins of ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. This is crucial as it is thought that the Tribunal will almost certainly implicate high level Syrian government officials in the death of Hariri as well as other bombings and assassinations in Lebanon over the past 2 years. It is doubtful that the Saudi’s would have agreed to any measures that would dilute the power of the Tribunal which makes Hezb’allah’s acceptance of this agreement problematic. It is equally doubtful that Nasrallah will be handed veto power over cabinet decisions.

This means that either Nasrallah accepts this face saving retreat (he will probably get a near majority of ministers) or he continues his quixotic protests in the hopes that eventually he can wear down the March 14th Forces in government. But it is becoming more apparent as time passes that the only way that Nasrallah will get what he wants is through violence. Siniora and his government aren’t going anywhere. There is no chance that early parliamentary elections will be held that would give him an opportunity to muscle his way into power through voter intimidation and fraud. And his alliance with Michel Aoun may begin to become more of a burden as time goes on. Losing the vain Aoun would doom his faction to a permanent minority as well as taking away any fig leaf of legitimacy he held in his claim that he represented all Lebanese and not just the Shias.

What will he do? A hard man to read, Hassan Nasrallah. He seems unwilling to take the final plunge into civil war (something opposed by his paymasters in Tehran) but will lose credibility if he simply gives in and goes home. His calculations must include the fact that rule by the Shias or a Shia dominated government will be unacceptable to the Sunnis and most Christians. For this reason, I believe that if the agreement ironed out between Iran and the Saudis gives him enough of what he wanted, he may fold and go home, hoping that the next round of elections will give him more leverage in his next confrontation with the government.

Nasrallah knows that no one will dare disarm his militia, something called for in 2 separate UN resolutions and the Taif Accords under which the Lebanese government operates. And as long as his bully boys have the guns, they will have the ultimate veto power over the Lebanese government and society. For this reason, Nasrallah will be able to bide his time and wait for the next opportunity to take Lebanon to the brink.

The first black coaches in the history of the Super Bowl. Tony Dungy of Indianapolis (left) and the Bears Lovie Smith (right)

The National Football League is the most successful professional sports organization in America, light years ahead of Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association in terms of marketing, promotion, and TV viewership. They are also by far and away the most insular, clubby, chummy group of evil rich, white males that ever banded together to make a fortune.

They are the only professional sports league in America who successfully broke a strike (1987) and, in so doing, got the players association union decertified. The way they accomplished this feat was the result of one of the most cynical betrayals of football fans imaginable; replacement players. Placing teams on the field that were little better than junior college outfits and calling them professionals, NFL owners brazenly fobbed off the games to the fans, the media, and even the giant TV networks and had the gall to count the wins and losses of the replacement players toward a team’s final record after the strike ended late in the season.

The league is extraordinarily tolerant of bad behaviour, even criminal activity. At least 35 players were arrested in 2006 - 8 members of the Cincinnati Bengals alone - on criminal charges ranging from gun possession to assault. Steroid use is still rampant, largely because the league continues to refuse to deal with it. A perusal of the NFL Crimes Newsblog will quickly disabuse anyone of the notion that the NFL could care a tinker’s damn what kind of criminals and scofflaws are representing them on the turf every Sunday.

Now don’t get me wrong. I love professional football. I love to watch it, to talk about it, to write about it. But it is good sometimes to take a step back and examine the cost of our obsession - the real human toll in broken lives, broken dreams, and broken spirits that, at bottom, are the responsibility of the owners and, by extension, their creation; the administration of the National Football League, Inc.

The league’s owners ride players like cheap horses until, unable to perform any longer, set them adrift to deal with a myriad of health and psychological problems on their own. The NFL Players Association President Gene Upshaw proudly proclaims:

“The bottom line is, I don’t work for [retired NFL football players]. They don’t hire me and they can’t fire me. They can complain about me all day long. They can have their opinion. But the active players have the vote. That’s who pays my salary.”

And so you are left with the fact that many NFL players retire into poverty and die much younger than is normal.

All this would be bad enough. But like other professional sports, the struggle of African Americans to achieve recognition much less equality in this multi-billion dollar industry has been a combination of insidious racism and cloying condescension. And nowhere is this borne out more than in the “storyline” that is emerging during this Super Bowl interregnum regarding the coaches of the Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts - the first black head coaches to win through to the Super Bowl in NFL history.

Please note the year. It is the year of our Lord (or, for you agnostics out there, the Common Era) 2007. I don’t want to be a party pooper - especially since the NFL and an all too willing media are pulling a collective deltoid muscle patting themselves on the back for being so progressive and enlightened - but what exactly is there to celebrate about the fact that 144 years after the Emancipation Proclamation and more than 40 years after the Civil Rights Bill passed Congress, a person of color has led his team to the biggest sporting event in America?

Instead, the story should be what the hell took so long? The reason that this will not be the story is that the answer would reveal several uncomfortable truths about the NFL and perhaps American society in general that some believe should remain buried.

The dirty little secret in the NFL and, in all professional sports save perhaps the NBA, is not the success of Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith but rather of all black head coaches. In fact, black coaches are more successful as a group than the average. Why is that? It’s because the secret that is whispered in the halls of power in the NFL and the various teams is that in order to be hired in the first place, an African American coaching candidate must be better than the white candidate.

Why have black coaches been so successful? Seems as though it’s because a black man can’t get a job coaching in the NFL unless he’s uncommonly impressive. The eight black coaches in the NFL’s modern era have a combined record of 442-368-1, a .546 winning percentage. They’ve made the playoffs in 29 of their 50 combined seasons.

These results mirror what University of Pennsylvania economics professor Janice Madden found in her 2004 study of the differences in job performance between black and white coaches. She determined that the success of black coaches was “consistent with NFL teams ‘requiring’ that African-American coaches be better than Whites to obtain and to keep their positions.”

‘Twas an interesting conclusion, but it didn’t take a Ph.D. to figure that out. Old folks have been saying similar things for years. In a 1999 interview with Time, Chris Rock said he worked as hard as he does because “[he] was raised to believe that [black people] had to be better than white people to succeed,” a take on racism not unique to him.

The same held true for years regarding black quarterbacks and still does to some extent although players like Vince Young and Michael Vick are rapidly changing that dynamic. And the same could be said for front office positions. A variety of reasons have been given for the dearth of black sports executives, including the belief that African Americans aren’t interested in those jobs because of the salary differential between player and front office. But is that the real reason? Candidates for those executive positions come from a wide variety of backgrounds,and not all of them are former athletes. In recent years, there has been some progress in Major League Baseball in that a concerted has been underway to seek out and hire minority executives. And the NBA even has a program in place to promote ownership of franchises by minorities.

But it was only in 2002 that the NFL, threatened with a lawsuit by the Black Coaches Association, initiated a rule that whenever there was a head coaching vacancy, the NFL franchise had to interview at least one minority candidate. To say that this action, forced upon the league because of the scandalous lack of black head coaches, was a little late in coming would be an understatement. And this is the way it has been in the NFL for most of its existence. The rich white man’s club was perfectly content to use the African American to put fannies in the seats. But underneath the glitz and the glamour, the screaming fans and adoring press, there was the ugly undercurrent of discrimination based on skin color.

Can affirmative action “fix” this situation? Perhaps not. Perhaps, it is a simple matter of time passing and barriers being broken one by one until, as Martin Luther King so eloquently said, we begin to judge people “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Or, in the case of NFL coaches, whether they are a part of the “the in crowd” who are at the front of the line when jobs are handed out regardless of past performance. In fact, real progress in the NFL should be measured not by the success to be had by black coaches, but perhaps by their failures as well:

That isn’t to say there hasn’t been progress in minority hiring in the NFL. It’s just that more significant milestones in the fight for equity in hiring have been overlooked. There was greater cause for celebration when Ray Rhodes, fresh off two horrendous seasons coaching the Eagles, was hired by the Packers in 1999. The same could be said when Dungy, after a string of disappointing postseasons in Tampa Bay, was hired by the Colts shortly after being fired by the Buccaneers.

After years of black coaches being passed over for retreads, Rhodes and Dungy — and, later, Dennis Green and Herman Edwards — had become retreads themselves. They’d become insiders, part of the head coaching network. Their names were considered right alongside other guys that, for whatever reasons, hadn’t gotten it done before but were still respected in the business.

That is progress.

Two men doing the jobs they’re paid to do? Not so much.

And to that, I say Amen.

So during the next two weeks as you listen to the self congratulatory tone among commentators and league officials about what a “tremendous achievement” it is to have a black coach in the Super Bowl, it may be well to keep in mind the history of the NFL and why that achievement - so long in coming - should only spur the league to redouble their efforts to bring equality of opportunity to all.

George Bush will go before the American people tonight and perform one of the only Constitutionally mandated duties of a President; he must “from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;” (Article II, Section 3).

It is not necessary that he give this speech before a joint session of Congress. Our first two Presidents felt it desirable to do so but from the time of the Jefferson Administration through President William Howard Taft’s final message in 1912, the “State of the Union” was an often lengthy report to Congress full of wish lists for various departments and boring summaries of the latest wars to kick Indians off their land. Woodrow Wilson invented the SOTU as a modern presidential dog and pony show, believing that the presidency was “dynamic, alive, and personal.”

Even modern Presidents have sometimes not bothered to deliver the SOTU in public and instead, simply handed one into Congress like a kid handing his homework. Jimmy Carter was the last President to forgo the pleasure of appearing before Congress. His final SOTU in 1981 was hand delivered to Congress and judging by its length, they may have had to use a crane to get the damn thing to the Speaker’s office. Reading it through, one is struck by the blindness, the moral cowardice, and the denial of reality that oozes from every page. Even after the whupping the Gipper gave him, Carter could never acknowledge either his own mistakes or that his worldview was warped, stupid and naive.

State of the Union speeches have since become grand civic theater - a cross between a classic melodrama when a President points to the American hero of the day in the gallery and low, bawdy house comedy as the reactions of the opposition party become as much a part of the speech as the words uttered by the President.

But there was a time when the State of the Union speech took on enormous drama and in a very real way inspired millions.

Ronald Reagan’s 1982 speech was his first SOTU. He was at the height of his powers, holding the Congress and the nation spellbound with soaring rhetoric and hardheaded assessments of both our domestic and foreign problems:

But from this podium, Winston Churchill asked the free world to stand together against the onslaught of aggression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke of a day of infamy and summoned a nation to arms. Douglas MacArthur made an unforgettable farewell to a country he loved and served so well. Dwight Eisenhower reminded us that peace was purchased only at the price of strength. And John F. Kennedy spoke of the burden and glory that is freedom.

When I visited this Chamber last year as a newcomer to Washington, critical of past policies which I believed had failed, I proposed a new spirit of partnership between this Congress and this administration and between Washington and our State and local governments. In forging this new partnership for America, we could achieve the oldest hopes of our Republic—prosperity for our nation, peace for the world, and the blessings of individual liberty for our children and, someday, for all of humanity.

It’s my duty to report to you tonight on the progress that we have made in our relations with other nations, on the foundation we’ve carefully laid for our economic recovery, and finally, on a bold and spirited initiative that I believe can change the face of American government and make it again the servant of the people.

Seldom have the stakes been higher for America. What we do and say here will make all the difference to autoworkers in Detroit, lumberjacks in the Northwest, steelworkers in Steubenville who are in the unemployment lines; to black teenagers in Newark and Chicago; to hard-pressed farmers and small businessmen; and to millions of everyday Americans who harbor the simple wish of a safe and financially secure future for their children. To understand the state of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we’re going but where we’ve been.

After detailing the dire straits he found the Republic upon taking office, Reagan ticked off a few of the measures he had taken to remedy the situation. It is important to remember that the recession at that time was really beginning to bite as Fed Chairman Paul Volker put the screws to inflation by jacking up interest rates. And yet Reagan insisted on staying the course with his economic plan, convinced in the end that it would work.

Of course it did - mostly. The deficit soared when Reagan misjudged the Democratic Congress. He thought they would be forced to cut entitlements and other non defense spending in order to avoid all that massive red ink. He was wrong there. But if there is one thing all Americans can be grateful to Reagan for is that he let Volker wring inflation out of the economy. The medicine was bitter but absolutely necessary. It was a courageous choice, one that liberals never give him credit and one that every President since has had reason to silently thank him for.

While self congratulatory, the speech also pointed up the pain that was being inflicted and a warning that things would not get better anytime soon:

No one pretends that the way ahead will be easy. In my Inaugural Address last year, I warned that the “ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away . . . because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we’ve had it in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.” ‘

The economy will face difficult moments in the months ahead. But the program for economic recovery that is in place will pull the economy out of its slump and put us on the road to prosperity and stable growth by the latter half of this year. And that is why I can report to you tonight that in the near future the state of the Union and the economy will be better—much better—if we summon the strength to continue on the course that we’ve charted.

I don’t believe any President since this speech has ever been anything except Little Miss Suzie Sunshine about the current and future state of the Union. And Reagan’s prediction about economic growth was almost spot on; it took until the second quarter of 1983 for growth to begin again. And this time, it was non-inflationary growth. The inflation rate had been whittled down from 12% to less than 4% in two years.

But where Reagan succeeded brilliantly was his inspiration in placing Lenny Skutnik in the gallery to be recognized for heroism. When the President does this nowadays, it seems trite and forced. But back in 1982, Skutnik really was a hero - a very ordinary guy who performed a truly heroic act.

Just two weeks before the speech, on a snowy icy day in Washington, D.C., an Air Florida jet taking off from what was then called Washington National Airport crashed a mile from the airport, hitting the 14th Street bridge and plunging into the icy Potomac River. Six passengers managed to get out of the sinking plane to take their chances in the water.

Traffic on the bridge was at a total standstill which delayed many rescuers from reaching the crash site. A few firefighters with inadequate equipment made it to the river bank and a helicopter began to rescue those in the river by dropping lifelines to the 6 passengers in the icy water. One of the passengers, Arland Williams, began passing the lifelines to others who were too cold to make a move toward them. This eventually cost Williams his life as he became the only passenger who drowned as a result of the crash.

One of the passengers that Williams gave a lifeline to could not hold on as the helicopter began to lift her out of the water. It was then that Skutnik, seeing what was happening and watching as the woman slowly began to go under, jumped into the water. A firefighter leapt in after him to keep Skutnik from drowning and together, they ended up helping the woman to shore.

The crash and aftermath had mesmerized the nation for days and Skutnik was hailed from coast to coast as a true hero. Reagan tapped into all that emotion and skillfully used Skutnik as a prop to underscore his message of courage and that ordinary people can make a difference:

And then there are countless, quiet, everyday heroes of American who sacrifice long and hard so their children will know a better life than they’ve known; church and civic volunteers who help to feed, clothe, nurse, and teach the needy; millions who’ve made our nation and our nation’s destiny so very special-unsung heroes who may not have realized their own dreams themselves but then who reinvest those dreams in their children. Don’t let anyone tell you that America’s best days are behind her, that the American spirit has been vanquished. We’ve seen it triumph too often in our lives to stop believing in it now.

A hundred and twenty years ago, the greatest of all our Presidents delivered his second State of the Union message in this Chamber. “We cannot escape history,” Abraham Lincoln warned. “We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves.” The “trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest [last] generation.”

Well, that President and that Congress did not fail the American people. Together they weathered the storm and preserved the Union. Let it be said of us that we, too, did not fail; that we, too, worked together to bring America through difficult times. Let us so conduct ourselves that two centuries from now, another Congress and another President, meeting in this Chamber as we are meeting, will speak of us with pride, saying that we met the test and preserved for them in their day the sacred flame of liberty—this last, best hope of man on Earth.

It is very hard to recapture the emotions one felt listening to those words, remembering the times in which they were delivered. Those too young to comprehend or who weren’t born at that time will never understand the rank pessimism that Reagan was fighting. Like today, the naysayers were talking about the end of American dominance. We’re through, they said back then. Might was well walk away and let the Soviets have the world if they want it so badly. We’re running out of oil, our economy will never be the same, and we’ll have to learn to live with inflation and slow growth. Better get used to the idea that from now on, we’ll have limits on our power, our hopes, our dreams.

Those warnings sound just as silly today as they did back then. I don’t see anyone anywhere trying to challenge the “broken” American military. No nation wishes to commit suicide. That domestic insurrection directed against Iranian President Ahmadinejad has many elements to it, not the least of which is the realization that unless they shut the guy up, they are liable to be paid a visit by our “broken” military.

And all that paper held by the Chinese and other foreigners? While not dismissing the problem outright it should be pointed out that 25 years ago it was the Saudis and the Japanese buying up the United States that had our doomsayers in such a glum mood.

Our “moral standing in the world” always suffers under Republican Presidents. In 1982, it was Reagan’s “bellicose” rhetoric that was frightening women, children, and the French and causing the rest of the world to hate and fear us. You should know by now that our moral standing can only improve when we fight in places where we have no national interest and then only when liberals can be convinced that we are killing people selflessly.

What we need to hear tonight is a dose of Reaganism - a very large, full measure of the man’s optimism, faith, hope, and will.

But what we definitely won’t hear tonight, what we need to hear tonight, is what we have not heard since Reagan’s 1982 stirring call to action; the kind of pep talk that would pull us together as a nation and send us out to do battle with our enemies if not united then certainly with a helluva lot more confidence in ourselves than we have at present.

George Bush is a lameduck coming before Congress to give a largely meaningless speech during which he will appeal for support on Iraq. The American people do not appear to be in a mood to give their assent. Whether it is because they don’t think him capable or whether they have lost faith in him as a leader is immaterial to the issue at hand; winning or losing what’s left of Iraq.

If there is victory to be had in Iraq - and if it comes it will be with caveats galore - George Bush must use whatever persuasive powers he has to convince the American people that the goals he sets up to measure victory are realistic and can be achieved in a relatively short period of time. No timetable but rather a ticking clock. And with every movement of the clock hand we get closer to the 2008 election where success or failure in Iraq will define his party and his legacy and the President’s room for maneuver will be lost (if it’s not already gone).

The stakes are just as high now as they were in 1982. Back then, Reagan was attempting to infuse the nation with the spirit of optimism. For Bush, he must give the country a reason to support our fight in Iraq. I wish I could be optimistic that the President will rise to this challenge and overcome his limitations to give the speech of his life. But past history suggests all of us will be disappointed and Bush will fall far short of what is necessary to rally the nation to him.

What would really happen if a nuclear weapon had detonated in Valencia, California?

The reason that this is a legitimate question is because the best experts on terrorism and those whose business is assessing threats to America say that it is not a question of if we will get hit by a nuclear weapon but rather when the attack will occur. And the best guess of these experts is sometime within the next decade.

So the “unthinkable” better start to be thought about and in a serious way or such an attack will be much worse than it should be.

The sanitized view provided by the show of the aftermath of a nuclear attack actually does a disservice to the national conversation we must have about the eventuality of a WMD attack on America. A true depiction of the horrors of such an attack was provided by The Rand Corporation in their paper “Catastrophic Terrorism Scenarios.” It paints a horrific picture of what might happen if a small nuclear device hidden in a truck (one kiloton) was detonated in a city of 1-5 million people with few skyscrapers.

What would it be like? Take the worst parts of the Bible and multiply by a factor of ten. First responders in the blast zone would be dead and it would be impossible for others to reach the injured due to high levels of radiation. Communications would be down over a wide area. Electricity, water, gas, would all be disrupted for dozens of square miles outside the blast area. The electromagnetic pulse (EMP) would knock out car ignition systems, computers, and all electronic devices within the line of sight of the blast (horizon to horizon).

The resulting panic (which was hinted at in last night’s episode but looked to be extraordinarily mild compared to what would really happen) would overwhelm the transportation systems in the vicinity of the blast area. Roads would clog with cars filled with desperate, frightened people trying to escape the fallout. Law and order would break down and it would be survival of the fittest. With traffic not moving, people will abandon their cars and move away from ground zero on foot. First by the thousands, then the tens of thousands until, depending on where the blast occurs, as many as a quarter of a million people could become refugees, overwhelming the government’s ability to take care of them or stop them for that matter.

These refugees will flow through smaller towns and villages in their path like locusts, stripping each town bare of food, weapons, and any other items useful to survival. Gun battles would break out in the streets as residents fought for their lives and possessions. The refugees would likely organize themselves into gangs for protection and to acquire food, fuel, and the necessities of life.

The Army? The National Guard? Eventually, force would have to be used ruthlessly to stop the exodus and bring order out of the chaos. But it wouldn’t happen for several days. In the meantime, thousands more would probably have died as a result of murder, mayhem, and even radiation sickness. This is because the radioactive cloud containing the fallout would move much faster than the refugees. And those susceptible to lower dose radiation poisoning - the very young, the very old, and perhaps certain genetic types - would sicken and die without the medical care that could save them.

And the nightmare could be just beginning. Some estimates of the economic impact of the nuclear device detonated on American soil (depending on where it occurs) speculate that upwards of a trillion dollars would be lost. That’s five times the economic price of the attacks on September 11 which sent the economy into a recession. Needless to say, sucking a trillion dollars out of the American economy would be catastrophic, causing unemployment to skyrocket and perhaps even lead to “deflation” - where prices for items collapse. The worldwide economic downturn as a result of this massive hit on the American economy would lead to further instability throughout the world.

Admittedly, the show couldn’t and probably wouldn’t show most of these effects of a nuclear detonation on American soil. But after reading that Rand Corporation scenario, I guarantee you will want to do the minimum necessary to protect yourself and your family. Family Security Matters is an organization dedicated to helping American families prepare for just such eventualities. Their website contains a wealth of helpful information that you need to know in order to survive if worse comes to worst. And here’s another Rand study on the best ways to prepare for WMD attack.

The detonation of the Valencia nuke created controversy because detractors saw the “politics of fear” being advanced. On a superficial level, this is true. But more importantly - and what the critics have failed to acknowledge - is that when such a devastating attack occurs, those who are most prepared for the tragedy will likely be the ones who will survive. And denial of the threat or passing it off as simple politics, given what we know about our enemies, is sheer lunacy.

SUMMARY

The White House - indeed, the entire country - is in a state of shock. As the President’s security team looks on in horror at the mushroom shaped cloud blossoming over suburban Los Angeles, the grim task of dealing with the unfolding crisis begins. Estimates of the dead start at 12,000 with untold numbers of wounded. President Palmer’s first instinct is a good one; he must address the nation as soon as possible.

I am undecided about Palmer. Is he a spineless wimp or a thoughtful, cautious leader? So far, he has acquiesced in security measures that appear to be much harsher than anything President Bush has initiated while giving lip service to freedom and the Constitutional niceties. It could mean he’s indecisive or, like Lincoln, he will do what is necessary to save the Republic. He bears watching in later episodes.

Cut to a street scene where last we left Jack weeping over the now confirmed death of Curtis. The looming cloud in the distance has him mesmerized. People all around him are panicking, loading up cars with possessions and running away from the blast. What is crossing his mind? Shock? Confusion? Bestirred out of his reverie by a man who we learn is a helicopter pilot whose chopper went down as a result of the blast wave and who needs assistance to save his passenger, Jack snaps out of it and rushes to assist. He calls Bill and tells him he wants back in.

At the moment, Jack’s change of heart can be viewed in the context of him being a creature of duty; the country needs him and he responds automatically. How far that will take him remains to be seen.

We meet a Mr. McCarthy who apparently was one of the middle men used by Fayed to secure the assistance of Marcus, the creator of the trigger device. With the trigger destroyed, Fayed orders McCarthy to find him someone else who can make one. For double the money, McCarthy will apparently sell the soul of his mother and find another traitor who will assist the terrorists.

Jack saves the copter passenger using what appears to be a piece of one of the last remaining TV antennas in the United States. Those of you who are too young to remember when fiddling with the rooftop antennae was a rite of passage from boyhood to manhood can be forgiven if you didn’t recognize what Jack was using to jimmy open the door of the copter. After a very nice gratuitous explosion of the copter hitting the ground, Jack learns from Bill that there 4 more nuclear nightmares that must be dealt with. Bill reminds him that he had begged off the job just a few minutes earlier. “Not after this,” says a newly energized Bauer.

Back at the White House, the Secret Service has moved President Palmer into the bunker. A wise precaution given the circumstances. Convening a national security meeting to discuss retaliatory options against countries that sponsor terrorism, the President is confronted by a fire breathing Admiral with the conscience of a serial killer and the bigotry of a Kluxer:

ADMIRAL: We’ve been playing games with these terrorists for 11 weeks now. The only language they understand is force so let’s speak it to them real clearly. We guarantee that if each of these countries sustains three major metropolitan nuclear strikes, they will have neither the time nor the resources to play in our sandbox anymore. These people want to live in the stone age. I say let’s put them there.

Sounds like some horrible caricature of a right wing pundit - which, of course, was the whole point.

The President rejects the Admiral’s “advice” saying that the United States will indeed retaliate but not until the enemy is identified.

At CTU, the enemy is welcomed as a guest. Assad assures Bill that he only wants to help and extends his hand in friendship. Bill looks at the terrorist’s hand as if it had recently been in a vat of warm, oozing cow dung and ushers Assad into the conference room. From Bill’s interrogation, it is clear that this is a massive conspiracy, one that even our own barely competent intelligence agencies shouldn’t have missed. We learn that Fayed tried to acquire nuclear weapons six months ago from a former Russian general named Gredenko. And when Chloe runs the name using her magic terrorist enabler identifier program, we find that one of Gredenko’s business contacts in Los Angeles is none other than Jack’s father Phillip who runs BXJ Corporation.

Bill calls Jack and informs him of this bit of unsettling news and we find out that Jack has some definite “issues” with his father, a man he has not spoken to in 9 years. He convinces Bill to let him do the interrogating of Bauer The Elder, making us wonder just what methods Jack will employ to get the old guy to talk.

At the detention center in Anacostia, the FBI has hit upon a brilliant scheme; why not wire up Walid and allow him to mix with a suspected cell of fanatical, cutthroat jihadis who would just as soon slit your throat as give you the time of day. The mild mannered Walid seems an unlikely candidate for such a job but that doesn’t seem to phase our FBI. After all, it’s not their hides on the line when Walid goes undercover to assist them.

The Feds hatch a plan to grab Walid from the common area of the detention center and take him into the bathroom for a talk. While knocking the Muslim businessman around (while whispering what he’s supposed to do in his ear), they flash him the name of Fayed in hopes he can get the terrorists to open up about his future plans. His girlfriend, the President’s sister Sandra, is fit to be tied but is silenced effectively by the slightly bored and insufferable FBI agent who lets her have it by stating the obvious; if she wasn’t the President’s sister she wouldn’t even be there.

Jack steels himself for the call to his father but instead, gets the butler who tells him dad is out of town and left his cell phone behind to boot. Puzzled, Jack gets the number for his brother while “Liddy” (G. Gordon?), a man who monitors security at Jack’s father’s house calls the brother and tells him to expect the call.

The shock when we see that Jack’s brother is Graham, last year’s “Mr. Big,” the leader of the Blue Tooth Mafia (so named because all the bad guys used Blue Tooth cell phones), is total. Even more shocking is Graham’s disappointment: “We should have killed Jack while we had the chance rather than handing him over to the Chinese,” says Graham matter of factly.

One thing is clear. What with his father perhaps involved with a nuclear terrorist and his brother heading up a conspiracy that killed a former President, almost embroiling the US in a war, Jack sure has one helluva an interesting family. One wonders if his mother may have been Mata Hari.

The phone conversation between the brothers is strained, stilted. Graham assures Jack of his fidelity while he was in China - a hollow assurance given what we saw last year when Graham tried several times to kill Jack or get the President to kill him. And when Jack asks of the whereabouts of his father, there must have been something in Graham’s voice that made Jack suspect his estranged brother knew more than he was letting on.

Jack calls Chloe to get his brother’s address. He will pay him a visit. Not a friendly family get together but by the look on his face, we know Jack will do whatever it takes - even to his own brother - to get to the truth. Chilling, indeed.

At the White House, we are treated to more one dimensional debate on the Security vs. Liberty issue. I found this exchange particularly gruesome in the cavalier way in which Lennox wants to take away constitutional rights by using fear as a political club:

TOM: That’s why I see an opportunity here.

KAREN: Opportunity?

TOM: The bomb will remove any remaining doubt that we should be taking more aggressive measures; suspension of certain freedoms, detention, internment, deportation - Now is the time we hit these topics.

KAREN: Tom, your are counseling that we embrace the politics of fear.

TOM: I’m saying we embrace reality. We ARE afraid. But if fear consolidates public support for measures that can save our country from extinction, then you bet I’m in support of fear.

Spoken like a true walking, talking, Democratic talking point. The accusation that the Administration has used “fear” to gin up support for warrantless wiretapping and other domestic security measures is straight off the Democratic National Committee website. The difference, of course, is between those who believe there is a threat and those who think the threat doesn’t exist or has been overblown for political purposes. I suppose we should come to expect this kind of sophistry from Hollywood regarding this debate, but that last speech by Tom was just a little too much to swallow.

The President responds to Lennox by saying that the speech he was giving was not about policy but rather simply to calm the American people. This is another indication of either his indecisiveness or thoughtfulness. We’ll have to see in the weeks ahead.

Meanwhile, McCarthy picks up his girlfriend who us upset that they are not going to Vegas as planned. Instead, the middleman calls Fayed and tells him that he will probably have a replacement to help him set off the bombs very soon. All he had to do was look in the Yellow Pages under “Triggers: Nuclear” to find the right sort of fellow to help.

AT CTU, before Assad is whisked to Washington to hobnob with State Department and other appeasement types, Bill thanks him for his help and shakes his hand. And if a chorus of Give Peace a Chance had risen in the background, I think I would have been sick.

Over at the detention center, Walid begins to play his role perfectly, being just reluctant enough to impart any information of his own while casually dropping Fayed’s name to one of the terrorists. While he feigns ignorance, the terrorist is evidently impressed with Walid enough that he invites him to join his little terrorist clique. Several dead pools have Walid not lasting until noon. I’m not sure. The writers can drag this detention center thread on for a while, pulling clues that keep Jack hot on Fayed’s trail. I say it will be closer to mid afternoon before Walid is either killed by a terrorist or actually is brainwashed and joins them (if he’s not one already).

Jack shows up at Graham’s house unannounced. This throws his villainous brother for something of a loop - just as Jack intended. After being introduced to Graham’s son, we’re treated to a Scarlett O’Hara-Rhett Butler moment as the camera catches Jack looking up the staircase at Graham’s wife Marilyn before we get a similar shot of her looking down on him. What passes between them makes me think Audrey is going to be a jealous woman before the day is over.

Jack and Graham retire to the study to catch up on old times. Graham is still unsure why Jack is there but he knows he’s in trouble. Jack asks about Gredenko. Graham airily denies any knowledge of the Russian general and begins to tell a story about pre-Chavez Venezuala when Jack brings him up short. Convinced now that Graham is indeed hiding valuable information, Jack strikes a mighty blow and knocks his brother to the ground.

It’s “Bauer Time” and Graham is about to wish he had never been born.

After tying him up, Jack gives Graham the customary one chance to come clean before beginning the torture:

JACK: Graham, people in the country are dying and I need some information. Are you going to give it to me or am I going to have to start hurting you.

GRAHAM: (as Jack is choking the life out of him): You’re… hurting… me… now!

JACK: (deadpan) Trust me. I’m not.

Back at the White House, our angst ridden President can’t let the American people see who truly frightened he is. Tom helpfully informs him that bravado would be no more appropriate than fear. That may be true but the American people don’t need to see a President who is afraid. So perhaps a little bravado would be helpful as well.

The President starts in with what sounds like a pretty mealy-mouthed speech full of empty platitudes and cliches that made him sound more Carteresque than Reagan-like. Oh well. Maybe he’ll grow into the job.

And Graham? The mastermind who was willing to use terrorists for personal profit, who planned the murder of his own brother, and who was willing to sell out the United States for a dollar finally - finally is going to be made to answer for his transgressions. Jack places a plastic bag over Graham’s head, perhaps getting enormous satisfaction out of Graham’s terror as the wicked brother begins to suffocate. How far will Jack go?

As always, as far as he has to.

BODY COUNT

A rare night off for the Grim Reaper although we can now confirm that Curtis is indeed dead. And in the interest of accuracy, a commenter pointed out that I missed the dead soldier slumped over the wheel of the bus that carried Nameer to the airport, killed by the traitorous guard. That means one more for Jack and two added to the total for the show.

JACK: 3

SHOW: 349

CHLOEISM OF THE WEEK

No real Chloeisms this week because of her limited face time. But only because it was such a perfect line and so well delivered by Keifer Sutherland, we will make Jack’s threat to Graham about hurting him (”Trust me. I’m not”) an honorary Chloeism of the Week.

Rex “The Wonder Dog” Grossman celebrates after throwing a TD pass to Bernard Berrian.

There is nothing more satisfying than proving the world was wrong about you. When you know in your heart of hearts that you are right and everyone else is full of it and then go out and show your detractors how ignorant they truly are, the satisfaction is total.

This is how my beloveds reacted following their stunning takedown of the New Orleans Saints in yesterday’s NFC Championship game. Winning 39-14 in the wind and snow of Soldiers Field, the Bears proved many national analysts wrong - analysts who thought that the mighty Saints offense would blow the Bears into Lake Michigan.

Instead, it was the much maligned Bears defense that rose to the occasion. Save for a stretch in the third quarter where New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees shredded the beloveds secondary, the Bears defenders made one big play after another, pressuring the Saints star into numerous incompletions and sacking him 3 times - one of which resulted in a fumble recovered by the Bears. They held the vaunted duo of Reggie Bush and Deuce McCallister to a measly 56 yards rushing. And while Bush burned them once on a spectacular 88 yard touchdown pass, in the end he was a non factor.

The Bears front four played an outstanding game. The pressure they were able to put on Brees meant that fewer blitzes needed to be called. And the Bears corner backs stuck to the Saints receivers like glue, with Peanut Tillman fully redeeming himself from his disastrous game last year against the Panthers.

On offense, Wonder Dog was 3-16 for 37 yards midway through the third quarter. But he had 3 of his passes dropped and simply threw away another 4. He avoided being sacked and made generally good decisions, although he missed several open receivers as the ball seemed to sail on him when he was playing with the wind.

But Grossman stepped it up a notch in the latter part of the third quarter and into the fourth by going 8 for 10 including the 33 yard miracle catch by Berrian for a touchdown. No interceptions, no turnovers and good decision making - about the best you could expect from Wonder Dog for the day.

Where the Bears won the game was on the ground. Nearly 200 yards rushing with Thomas Jones gaining 123 yards on 19 carries. And Cedric Benson pounded out 60 yards on 24 carries. Kudos to the offensive line who also had no holding penalties and no false starts.

Special teams recovered a fumble and covered kicks brilliantly. And Robbie Gould went 3 for 3 on field goals in the difficult conditions. Devin Hester didn’t break one but he did have a couple of significant punt returns. Plus, he held on to the ball.

A true team effort all the way down the line. It’s hard to imagine a better effort given the conditions and the opponent.

And as I mentioned last night, I thought the Saints simply didn’t play their game. Brees ended up 27-49 for 319 yards but he had an interception and a fumble. And 128 of those yards came on two plays; one on the very first series, a 40 yarder and then Bush’s eye popping 88 yard scamper.

And what happened to the running game? In that weather one would think that the best course of action would have been a more determined effort to establish the run. But Coach Payton seemed to lose patience for some reason so Brees continued to test the Bears downfield.

And so this Bears team becomes a part of Bears lore. And the game itself will also be elevated to legendary status, guaranteeing that years hence, people will recall the time when the wind and the snow combined in a spectacle of grit and determination that carried the team from the cold confines of Soldiers Field to the sun drenched pitch in Miami for The Big Game.

Make sure you visit this site often for stories and updates as we Countdown to the Super Bowl here at the House.

I suppose it had to happen sooner or later.

Either out of boredom or because our society is running out of things to be outraged and shocked about, a film director has made a movie about “the last taboo” - as opposed to the “last, last taboo” that was dramatized last year. And of course, this doesn’t include the taboo that was “last” just a few short years ago. The business of taboo breaking is becoming more profitable all the time - if not in monetary rewards then certainly in being on the receiving end of the critical acclaim given out by our cultural overseers who feel it their solemn duty to see to it that breaking taboos is an accepted, indeed praiseworthy goal of art. The idea that a taboo is no longer a taboo when it is considered as normal as a walk in the park seems to elude the post modern critics who see limits on good taste and common decency as artificial constructs created by the white male power structure to oppress the artist.

Of course, pouring this kind of raw sewage into the toxic mix that has become American culture then becomes an act of courage. The artist is speaking truth to power!

Yeah? I wonder what the horse thinks about it?

Zoo,” premiering before a rapt audience Saturday night at Sundance, manages to be a poetic film about a forbidden subject, a perfect marriage between a cool and contemplative director (the little-seen “Police Beat”) and potentially incendiary subject matter: sex between men and animals. Not graphic in the least, this strange and strangely beautiful film combines audio interviews (two of the three men involved did not want to appear on camera) with elegiac visual re-creations intended to conjure up the mood and spirit of situations. The director himself puts it best: “I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it.”

Devor and his writing partner, Charles Mudede, live in Seattle and were stunned, as were many in the state, by a story that broke in 2005 about a local man who died after having sex with an Arabian stallion. Though bestiality is not illegal in Washington, the subsequent revelation of the existence of an Internet-based zoophile community (the men refer to themselves as “zoos,” hence the title) was a shock.

How does this advance our understanding of humanity? How does this elevate the soul and make the spirit sing? How does this make us question our assumptions about reality or pique our curiosity about something hidden in the dark corners of our own consciousness?

I totally reject the notion that learning about animal abusers and what motivates them contributes anything of beauty or evokes feelings of longing or touches the inner person in all of us. These used to be the artist’s stock in trade; to elicit an emotional response that teaches the consumer of art something about himself, about society, or about humanity.

Now apparently, it is enough to simply make decent people want to vomit:

Though “Zoo” is intent on allowing these men to be heard, Devor’s intention was not polemical. “I’m not in there wrestling with the legal or animal cruelty issues,” he said. Rather, he envisioned a film like his others: “I count on the natural world pulling my films through. I thought the marriage of this completely strange mind-set and the beauty of the natural world could be something interesting.”

In introducing “Zoo” at Sundance, Devor called it “a difficult film and a difficult film to make.”

The key is not “art for art’s sake” but rather “art for the artist’s sake.” In this kind of atmosphere, the artist creates not to express himself but rather to draw attention to himself:

“A lot of people looked at me as if I was an exploitative person, dredging up something for profit, and that bothered me. I was certainly asked many times, often with a wrinkled brow, ‘Why are you making this film?’ It was something I did resent; I thought artists had the opportunity to explore anything.”

In the end, Devor ended up agreeing with the Roman writer Terence, who said “I consider nothing human alien to me.”

“It happens,” the filmmaker said, “so it’s part of who we are.”

In this construct, it is not the film but the film maker that matters. He’s “daring to be different.” He’s “exploring the outer boundaries of his art.” But since those boundaries keep getting pushed farther and farther away from what is elevating or simply enlightening, it is imperative that the artist violate tenets of decency, tradition, or moral order in order to satisfy the artificial rules that have been created. He is as trapped in his little contrived universe as the artists in the past he looks so disdainfully upon and ridicules for their conventions.

Where will it end? What is the real “last taboo?”

Do you really want to find out?

UPDATE

From Libertas, the conservative film blog:

So, this is a non-judgemental look at men raping animals? That’s even possible? And the filmmaker considers nothing human alien to him? The one time I could proudly join a PETA protest and where are they? You think, “Here it is. I can finally find common ground with the Left. We can finally join hands in brotherhood,” only to discover they’re not so sure about this one. It’s like when I was ready to stand with the feminists celebrating the end of the Taliban, but they didn’t show. Or, when I was ready to march with Jesse Jackson to fight for using taxpayer money to send poor inner-city kids to private schools, and he didn’t show. I await outrage from the Left at bestiality only to be told, ”It’s part of who we are?” He just couldn’t quite bring hemself to condemn this behavior?

If beastiality isn’t condemned, no wonder the rape of Dakota Fanning is no big deal. It’s probably gonna seem like a Disney film after this.

The author refers to an upcoming film entitled Hound Dog where the young Miss Fanning is raped and brutalized while Elvis Presely sings in the background.

Sensational! Maybe we can do a sequel and call it A Hard Days Night and turn Haley Joel Osmet into a crack addled male prostitute- unless that’s been done already.

The “Windy City Flyer” aka Devin Hester returns one against the Cardinals.

It’s so close, the city can taste it.

Just one more game. One more obstacle in the form of the New Orleans Saints and my beloveds will be bound for Miami and the Super Bowl two weeks hence.

Everyone in town is talking about the Bears. The story dominates the local news on both radio and TV. They’re front page news on both the Trib and the Sun Times all week. The suburban dailies have gotten into the act as well, running 3 column stories below the fold and giving the local angle on the game.

On sports talk shows, the gloom is palpable. It seems most of the “real” fans - you know, the ones who wanted to feed Rex “The Wonder Dog” Grossman to the lions prior to last week’s game - have given up on the boys in burnt orange and blue while making the Saints out to be the second coming of the San Francisco 49′ers whose Joe Montana led teams dominated the game in the 80’s.

I can understand their trepidation. On offense, the Saints are loaded. A trio of excellent wide receivers and the double doom combination of Deuce McCalister and rookie sensation Reggie Bush at running back make it a difficult task for any defense to stop them.

But there are several factors that mitigate against a Saints victory today, not the least of which is the weather forecast. It will be cold (temp in the upper 20’s) and a fierce wind that will probably play havoc with both the passing and kicking games. And if that’s not enough, there’s a 90% chance that snow will fall during the game. With 1-3 inches expected today, the ground crew at Soldiers Field will keep the field covered until almost game time. This will make the turf a little slick. Generally, this favors the offense since the receivers know where they’re going while defenses must react to the play.

A slick field will also favor the offensive lines for both teams since they will have the advantage of a push off at the snap of the ball. All told, this is where the game will be won or lost; in the trenches.

While this is a truism for any NFL contest, on a cold, snowy , wet day like today, the war at the line of scrimmage will become even more vital. And largely because of that, I have to pick my beloveds to squeak by the Saints in a close contest dominated by the running game and field goal kickers for both sides.

Here’s how I see the key matchups:

SAINTS OFFENSE VS. BEARS DEFENSE

Can the Bears stop the run? Probably not. But they must avoid the big play. They have proven in the past few weeks that even if a running back gains yardage on them, the defense has been able to stifle the opponents offense in other areas. And where my beloveds must absolutely stop the Saints is in the short passing game.

If conditions are as anticipated, Saints quarterback Drew Brees will use the flat pass to both Bush and McCalister as a way to extend the running game beyond the hash marks. Bush had 88 catches during the season and is a deadly weapon on the outside in the flat. And to counter this, Bears corners are going to have to be sure tacklers today. If Bush can get by the cornerbacks on a regular basis, it may end up being a very long day for my beloveds. Charles “Peanut” Tillman is an excellent run defender and a sure tackler. But the other cornerback Nathan Vashar is suspect. Both men must step up and be at the top of their games if the Bears are to stay in the game.

The Saints make devastating use of Reggie Bush by lining him up in several positions. He’s been at tailback, in a split set, in the slot, a motion man, and he’s even lined up at wide receiver. What the Saints try to do is isolate the youngster against a linebacker. Ordinarily, this is excellent strategy. But this would be playing directly to the Bears’ strength. Few linebackers are faster than OLB Lance Briggs and virtually none can beat Brian Urlacher. Brees might get a nasty surprise if he tries sending Bush up against one of those gents. Look for Bush to stay pretty much in the backfield and take those flat passes from Brees while trying to break one for a big play. They may try a few screens with Bush but the Bears have defensed the screen extremely well all year so they probably won’t get anywhere with it.

The Bears will probably employ a nickel package for most of the game. This will put enormous pressure on the defensive line to effectively rush the passer. With 5 defensive backs, they will try and keep blitzing to a minimum - unless Brees begins carving them up in the secondary. If that happens, look for Urlacher to come hard and come often.

In fact, the key to this game for the Bears is Brian Urlacher. If he plays as he’s capable of playing - if he dominates the game as he has shown he can do - there’s a very good chance that the Bears will win regardless of what the offense does. And if they can create some turnovers, it will be a long day for Brees & Co.

If conditions are bad, the Saints advantage at wide receiver may be blunted somewhat. Also, veteran Joe Horn is questionable with a sore groin. All told, I think the Saints will win or lose the game in the backfield. If Bush has a big game, they win.

But in the trenches, I think the Bears defensive line has a chance of dominating the Saints offensive line. New Orleans has a solid if unspectacular bunch protecting Brees but I believe by the fourth quarter, the Bears will have worn them down and will begin applying effective pressure to the quarterback. And if the game is close, that will be a difference maker.

BEARS OFFENSE VERSUS SAINTS DEFENSE

Which Wonder Dog shows up today will be immaterial. Good Rex or Bad Rex won’t matter in snowy, windy conditions, because it will be the running game that will score points. And while New Orleans has two outstanding backs, the Bears also feature two effective runners of their own. Thomas Jones will start the game. But I really think this will be Cedric Benson’s game.

Benson is a bull. Unlike Jones who falls backward when hit, Benson is always moving forward. And that extra half yard that Benson is able to get out of runs may spell the difference in difficult playing conditions.

And if Benson (or Jones) can move the ball on the ground, look for Wonder Dog to try a few passes in the middle of the field. Otherwise, Offensive Coordinator Ron Turner will have him on a short leash, having him throw flat passes to the backs, quick slants, and quick out patterns to Desmond Clark. In fact, Clark may be another key in this game. If he catches more than 5 balls, Rex is probably playing well enough to win.

The Saints have two good defensive ends in Wil Smith and Charles Grant who are more than capable of blowing up plays. My beloveds will probably double team Grant given right tackle Fred Miller’s less than stellar play lately.

But the rest of their line is somewhat undersized. If the game is close in the fourth quarter, look for the Bears to try and ram it down their throats and pound the ball using Benson as the battering ram.

It is not likely that Rex will take too many shots down the field. But if he does, speedster Bernard Berrian will have the edge on the Saints corners and safeties. Saints CB’s Mike McKenzie and Fred Thomas are adequate but scouts say they can be beat using a double move. Both Bears wideouts Berrian and Mushin Mohammed excel at the double move- especially Mohammed. If Wonder Dog can get them the ball in the windy conditions, my beloveds have a chance for some big plays.

It goes without saying that if Grossman throws two or three interceptions, the Bears will lose. Ron Turner will probably do everything he can to prevent that by keeping the ball underneath. Unless the Bears are getting beaten badly.

The Saints linebackers are quick to the ball and speedy. Any running game the Bears can muster will depend on downfield blocking by the guards who pull often. Rueben Brown is especially effective here and All-Pro center Olin Kruetz will also pull on occasion. If the Bears offensive line can knock the linebackers back a yard or two, the running game should open up a little. Otherwise, expect New Orleans to make Rex Grossman beat them by stacking 9 men close to the line and daring my beloveds to pass.

INTANGIBLES

Forget the fact that New Orleans is a dome team. With the Super Bowl as the prize, both teams will forget about the cold and snow and give it everything they’ve got. There will be no advantage to either team in that respect.

The Bears special teams may decide the ballgame - either way. Devin Hester looked scared last week and fumbled a punt while allowing both kickoffs and punts to hit the ground before he picked them up. He is perfectly capable of turning the ball over deep in Bears territory.

That said, he is also perfectly capable of bringing one back every time he touches the ball. He is an extraordinary weapon. And the Bears could really use a couple of long returns by Hester today.

If the game is decided by field goals, New Orleans must get the edge with the experienced John Carney. Robbie Gould may be going to the Pro Bowl but Carney has the leg to make the ball cut through the wind and split the uprights. Both men have proven themselves when the game is on the line however, so the edge is extremely slight.

And I think the punting game will play a role today. For that, the Bear’s Brad Maynard has it all over Steve Weatherford. In a field position game, the Bears will have a slight edge there as well.

When all is said and done, it will be a good game; hard hitting, good defense, and probably a couple of great plays by Reggie Bush. But in the end, the Bears will force the Saints into kicking field goals while the Bears should score a couple of touchdowns.

Final score: Bears 23-19.

ON TO MIAMI!

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey picks the Saints - partly because of their special teams?

Perhaps I’ve forgotten which Saint returned 6 kicks for touchdowns or which Saints field goal kicker is going to the Pro Bowl. My bad…

UPDATE II

Fifteen minutes to kick off and I just checked the radar. There’s a band of precip headed for downtown that should arrive by halftime. It’s light but appears to be a combination of sleet and snow.

Footing will be treacherous in the fourth quarter….

UPDATE III

Halftime: Bears 16-7.

Bears pressure has thrown Brees off slightly - until that last drive when they moved down the field with ease.

Storm is still moving toward Chicago but still appears around an hour away, Could be that the 4th quarter is played in snowy, windy conditions.

If the Bears are smart, they’ll try and build some confidence for Grossman (3-13 for 37 yards) by having him make short tosses to the backs in the flat. Right now, he’s a non factor.

Saints will come back but Bears will still win - maybe by 10 points.

UPDATE: MIAMI BOUND

I’ll have a recap of the game tomorrow but what we long suffering Bears fans are feeling right now is beyond description. The 1985 team was expected to go to the Super Bowl. In fact, they were expected to dominate the NFL for at least a few years. But injuries to the punk quarterback Jim McMahon and the flight of Defensive Coordinator Buddy Ryan along with some key players made the hill a little too high to climb.

This year’s team was expected to get to the playoffs but the Super Bowl? There aren’t too many pundits who predicted it at the beginning of the year and here they are. And given the angst of the fans and the media over the last few months as the defense disintegrated, the domination of the Saints makes this trip to Miami even more of a shock.

The Saints did not play their game. Field position had something to do with it but it seems like Coach Payton lacked patience when he was down by only two points. Instead of trying to get the running game going (holes were opening up in the 3rd and early 4th quarter) he continued his downfield play calling. He got yardage but no points. And of course, the Bears defense came up with huge play after huge play.

The conditions surprisingly seemed to bother the Saints. As the game went along, Brees got progressively less accurate while Grossman, who started out an unbelievably bad 7-22 ended up completing his last 6 passes - including the miracle to Berrian.

What about Rex? Let’s see how he does in the warmth of Miami. His best games were in the heat of September and October. We’ll see how he responds to this definitely sub par performance. It must be said that he threw no interceptions, no fumbles, and was smart with the football.

At this moment, I don’t really care. Everything else is forgotten as my beloveds - my dearly beloveds - are going to the Super Bowl.

CAIR spokesperson complaining about portrayal of Muslims on 24

The sound is grating to the ears. Whenever there is the slightest opportunity to piggyback a grievance - either real or imagined - on a story that will guarantee a few precious lines of copy in newspapers or a few seconds of face time on television, the Council on American Islamic Relations will turn on the whine and, like a fingernail being drawn slowly across the surface of a blackboard, draw attention to themselves in the most excruciating manner possible.

Today’s torture is the result of the realistic portrayal of Muslim terrorists on Fox’s action series 24. The show has been a favorite target for the group. They pressured the producers to actually change the story line two seasons ago because of characters who they considered were not truly representational of Arabs. The plot that season centered around Jack Bauer’s most evil foe in the history of the series. Marwan was clever, resourceful, brilliant, dedicated, and a fanatical jihadist. This exchange between Bauer and Marwan sums up both sides of the war we are fighting with the jihadis brilliantly.

Marwan is in custody but a cruise missile has been launched in the Midwest and is headed for Los Angeles. In order to get the frequency so that we can destroy the bird, which is just minutes from impact, the President has instructed Jack to make a deal with the terrorist:

Jack: You and I both know all I want to do right now is kill you. But I have my orders. You win. I’ve been instructed to ask you what you want.

Marwan: What I want is already happening.

Jack: The death and destruction is a means to an end, Why don’t we just skip to the end?

Marwan: To the end?

Jack: Everything you did today you did for a reason, for your people. What do you want to change?

Marwan: I have no desire to have a political discussion with you..

Jack: You tell me where the missile is headed, you help me stop it and I’ll guarantee you’ll talk to the President. Believe me, he’ll have no choice but to listen. You have a chance to get what you want.

Marwan: I already have agent Bauer. After this day, elected officials and the American people will know that they can’t intervene in our lives, in our countries with impunity. Besides, your President sees me in only one dimension – evil.

Jack: As you see us?

Marwan: Yes…and vulnerable.

You won’t find a Muslim talking like that anywhere else on television. Which, of course, is why CAIR is desperate to stifle it. And with this year’s story line including the detonation of a nuclear weapon in Los Angeles by other fanatical Muslims, the whine has reached new levels of agonizing discomfort:

Being portrayed again as the heartless wrongdoers has drawn renewed protests from Muslim groups, including one that had a meeting with Fox executives two years ago over the issue.

“The overwhelming impression you get is fear and hatred for Muslims,” said Rabiah Ahmed, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations. She said Thursday she was distressed by this season’s premiere. “After watching that show, I was afraid to go to the grocery store because I wasn’t sure the person next to me would be able to differentiate between fiction and reality.”

Who is it that can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality?

This isn’t even hypersensitivity to slight. It is out and out paranoia. Anyone who is afraid to go to a grocery store in the Washington, D.C. area because they are scared of being attacked is a loon, pure and simple.

In fact, why not just cut to the chase and call the spokesperson a liar?

She might have a point if there was some kind of crime spree directed against American Muslims. But one of the least reported facts in the aftermath of 9/11 was the remarkably low number of “hate crimes” directed against Arabs.

Since 9/11 the Justice Department has investigated 750 “incidents” involving not just Arabs, but others who appear to be of middle eastern origin. Out of all those incidents, federal charges have been brought against just 35 individuals. They’ve also assisted local prosecutors with another 150 cases.

This hardly represents an epidemic of hate directed against Arabs. But you’d never know it listening to the carefully choreographed cries of outrage from CAIR and other Muslim groups:

Watching the show’s characters talk about detonating a nuclear weapon a few blocks from where she works unnerved Sireen Sawaf, an official with the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council, and a self-described “huge `24′ fan.”

“It’s a great show, and I do realize it’s a multidimensional show that portrays extreme situations,” she said. “They have gone out of their way to have non-Muslim terror cells.

“But I’m concerned about the image it ingrains in the minds of the American public and the American government, particularly when you have anti-Muslim statements spewing from the mouths of government officials.”

Sohail Mohammed, a New Jersey immigration lawyer who represented scores of detainees caught up in the post Sept. 11, 2001 dragnet, watched the episode depicting the nuclear attack with an Associated Press reporter.

“I was shocked,” he said. “Somewhere, some lunatic out there watching this will do something to an innocent American Muslim because he believes what he saw on TV.”

Are you kidding me? First, Ms. Sawaf’s belief that the way Muslims are portrayed on 24 will have an affect on government officials? And then the lawyer who makes an outrageous statement about a Muslim being attacked without one shred of evidence that such a crime has ever been perpetrated in the past as a result of any TV show much less 24?

This is grievance mongering at its worst. And the most vile practitioner of it is CAIR whose over the top response to any and all perceived slights actually overshadows the grievance itself. It makes one wish that they would be half as condemnatory about terrorist attacks against innocents as they are about being singled out at airports for security checks or having people cast uneasy glances in their direction on city streets.

Goodness knows that there is plenty of bigotry hurled against Muslim Americans. America is a big country with a lot of ignorant people whose fear of those who are different manifests itself in many hurtful ways. And if the grievance mongers at CAIR would confine themselves to combating this kind of ignorance and hate, then they would be doing themselves and the nation a favor.

But that’s not the way the oppressed minority game is played in America today. If there is no grievance, then manufacture one. Liberal guilt and a willing media will do the rest.

Judging by this statement, Fox Network appears ready to resist pressure this time around to change the story line of 24:

In a written statement issued late Wednesday night, the network said it has not singled out any ethnic or religious group for blame in creating its characters.

“24 is a heightened drama about anti-terrorism,” the statement read. “After five seasons, the audience clearly understands this, and realizes that any individual, family, or group (ethnic or otherwise) that engages in violence is not meant to be typical.

“Over the past several seasons, the villains have included shadowy Anglo businessmen, Baltic Europeans, Germans, Russians, Islamic fundamentalists, and even the (Anglo-American) president of the United States,” the network said. “The show has made a concerted effort to show ethnic, religious and political groups as multidimensional, and political issues are debated from multiple viewpoints.”

Unbelievable that a major television network finds it necessary to point out that they’ve tried to spread the villains around among a variety of races and ethnicities. Kind of makes you wonder who might be keeping score?

Most people don’t put much stock in opinion polls - unless you’re a liberal and the majority supports your position. Then the poll takes on all the characteristics of holy writ. Moses and his commandments have less truthiness than a liberal clutching the results of an opinion poll that agrees with one of his positions. Then, waving the piece of paper aloft a la Chamberlain home from Munich, we lesser beings are informed that Vox populi, vox dei, (”The voice of the people is the voice of God”) and that unless the government alters their policies to conform with the latest skewed data from such unbiased sources as AP, USA Today, and the New York Times, liberals will get mad and throw a tantrum while accusing their political opponents of setting up a dictatorship.

It’s all well and good for a lefty to chortle and point to a poll showing 70% of the American people believing that George Bush is an incompetent fruitcake with the brains of a marmoset and the integrity of a tree sloth. And any old poll on the Iraq War showing the massive discontent in the country with this botched adventure is enough to send the left into paroxysms of joy, seeing vindication of their position as proof positive that while there may not be a God, there is schadenfreud to be celebrated.

Every once and a while, however, some dumb ass pollster will ask a really stupid question that reveals a teensy bit more about the nature of the left than they intend. And in doing so, a shocking truth is revealed that would give the rest of the country pause - if there was a ghost of a chance in hell that the information would be as widely disseminated as say, the number of people who think George Bush has the brains of a marmoset and the integrity of a tree sloth:

A sizable minority is optimistic that the president’s plan will work. About one in four think it is either very (10 percent) or somewhat (29 percent) likely the plan will succeed, 27 percent think it is not very likely to succeed and another 25 percent say not at all likely.

Even though a majority opposes Bush’s new plan and many are doubtful it can succeed, that does not mean they want it to fail: 63 percent of Americans say they want the plan to succeed, including 79 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of independents and 51 percent of Democrats.

On the larger political front, more people think “most Democrats” want the Bush plan to fail and for him to have to withdraw troops in defeat (48 percent), than think Democrats want the plan to succeed and lead to a stable Iraq (32 percent).

There are three separate issues here. First, while most Americans are doubtful that the surge will succeed, a sizable minority - certainly enough to prevent Congress from scuttling the plan - believe it will work. No wonder Pelosi is going to give Bush his head and allow funding for the plan to go forward.

But the real shocker here is the number of Democrats who want the plan to succeed. A bare majority of Democrats (51%) want the United States military to prevail on the field of battle. Now if I were to posit a logical fallacy, I could say that since 49% of Democrats want the military to fail, then it follows that they wish large numbers of American soldiers to die to make their wish come true. But I would never accuse Democrats of any such thing, would I?

What I am accusing them of is that they would rather see the President, and by extension, the United States of America suffer a humiliating defeat than see their cherished ideas of defeatism dribble away like so much frozen custard on a hot summer’s day. They would rather the US lose than be proved wrong.

An exaggeration? The last number quoted above is even more telling. Here’s the breakdown of people who think the Democrats want the surge plan to fail:

Democrats 42% 38 7 12
Republicans 21% 67 7 5
Independents 30% 42 11

The first number refers to respondents who think the Democrats want the plan to succeed. The second number are those who believe Democrats want the plan to fail. The third number reflects those who believe some want one thing, some another. The last number represents those Americans in perpetual obliviousness; they don’t know.

What I find extraordinary is that 38% of Democrats believe that their own party is made up of…what? Traitors? Too harsh. How about a bunch of brainless twits whose myopia is so profound that they would wish for disaster to befall American arms. The fact that this could only mean that a lot of American soldiers would be killed for nothing makes their disconnect from reality complete.

You can be sure that this aspect of the poll will never, ever see the light of day on any other network save Fox News. Nor will it be reported in any major media outlet. And to the extent that lefty blogs pay any attention the poll at all, it will be to highlight the American people’s opposition to the surge.

But there it is in black and white. And no amount of spin or whining about the source or savaging the pollster for even asking the question will change what those numbers represent: That a sizable portion of the Democratic party has a vested emotional interest in the defeat of American arms.

One can argue (and I’m sure the left will) that Iraq is already “lost” and that therefore the poll is meaningless. But the question was specifically about the President’s plan and whether or not the respondent hoped that it would succeed. Even allowing for respondent stupidity (as Ace does here) that still leaves a sizable portion of the Democrats devoutly wishing for failure of the United States military on the field of battle.

Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels. But cowardice is where the scoundrel goes first.

UPDATE

Dean Barnett calls it “The Most Depressing Poll Ever.” I have to agree. Despite my rather cavalier tone above, I find it incomprehensible that people would allow their opposition to the President or even the war itself to overcome their innate sense of patriotism that the overwhelming majority of Americans feel when it comes to our military.

Michelle Malkin contrasts the poll numbers with some steps foward in Iraq.

Sister Toldjah: :

Got that? 59% of Democrats say they would vote against funding the current level of US troops in Iraq in order to try and force a troop withdrawal and 8% “don’t know” (uh huh).

Bbbbut they support the troops.

Curt at Flopping Aces:

I’ve been saying this for so long my fingers cramp from all the typing. Liberals want nothing more then the United Stated to run from Iraq with our tails between our legs, knowing that would make the sacrificies of our troops to have been in vain, all so they could say “See! Bush was wrong!”.

How friggin disgusting.

The votes are in from this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is “Why is There A CIA” from Done With Mirrors. Finishing second was The Colossus of Rhodey for “American Fascists.”

Coming out on top in the non Council category was “A Strategy for the Long War” by Blackfive.

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