Right Wing Nut House

Kossaks are crowing. The Post is pontificating. And the DU dummkopfs are dripping sarcasm.

Just another day of reporting on the Gulag for the MSM and their dingbat allies on the left:

In the latest disclosure, declassified FBI reports showed that detainees at the U.S. naval prison in Cuba told FBI and military interrogators on a number of occasions as early as April 2002 _ three months after the first prisoners arrived at the makeshift prison _ that guards abused them and desecrated the Quran.

“Their behavior is bad,” one detainee is quoted as saying of his guards during an interrogation by an FBI special agent on July 22, 2002. “About five months ago the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Quran in the toilet.”

Lawrence Di Rita, chief spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said Wednesday that U.S. military officials at Guantanamo Bay had recently found a separate record of the same allegation by the same detainee, and he was re-interviewed on May 14. “He did not corroborate his own allegation,” Di Rita said.

I like Bill Ardolino’s take on this:

In Related, Breaking News:

The entire Death Row population at the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana testified that “the food is terrible and I’m 110% innocent. I swear. Hey, you wouldn’t happen to have a smoke, would you?”

What’s that you say? How can you make light of these allegations?

Easy. When someone who wants to chop my head off tells me that he’s being abused and put upon by the US military and, after an investigation, the FBI says the guy is lying through his teeth, I tend to believe the people who don’t want to chop my head off.

This rationale seems to escape those who are all to willing to believe murderous thugs trained in the fine art of media manipulation rather than their own government. While I’ve said many times, I have absolutely no doubt that there was desecration of the Koran and that some allegations of physical torture and even death are true, can we please get our facts straight before we, like you know, hand our enemies a propaganda bonanza on a silver platter? Is this really too much to ask?

What’s the real news from the FBI report? Let’s go to a real journalist, Michelle Malkin:

It should be obvious to anyone who so much as glances at the documents being cited that the FBI was reporting the statements of detainees rather than endorsing or validating those allegations. Immediately before describing the Koran-in-the-toilet allegation, the FBI notes the detainee’s statement that “God tells Muslims to do a jihad against non-Muslims.” Does Kos expect us to believe the FBI is endorsing that statement too?

Careful, Michelle. You may not want to know the answer to that.

One detainee who claimed to have been “beaten, spit upon and treated worse than a dog” could not provide a single detail pertaining to mistreatment by U.S. military personnel. Another detainee claimed that guards were physically abusive and told detainees that U.S. soldiers were having sex with the detainees’ mothers. Yet this detainee said he had neither seen any physical abuse nor heard these comments from the guards. Other detainees who complained about abuse of the Koran admitted they had never personally witnessed any such abuse, but one said he had heard that non-Muslim soldiers touched the Koran when searching it for contraband.

This is what passes for front page news at the Washington Post. These are no better than lies, rumors, and exaggerations designed to feed the frenzy of the MSM about the mistreatment of prisoners at Gitmo. Is the FBI report news? Of course it is. The fact that it was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act by the ACLU is also news. After all, anything the ACLU does is news to that segment of the media that believes every iota of information - even false allegations made by terrorists - should be splashed all over the front pages of one of America’s premier dailies.

Can you see the ACLU and the FOIA during World War II? They probably would have been agitating for the release of “Operation Overlord,” the D-Day invasion plans.

I wonder what the ACLU would have said about our plan to shell the bejeebies out of the French villages on the coastline of Normandy?

UPDATE

LawShawn Barber has similar thoughts to what I said here:

Watch and listen today as the libs try to turn this FBI report, which merely repeats Newsweek’s claim, into a “See, it’s true!” moment. Americans may or may not have flushed a Koran, but I’m certainly not taking a detainee’s word for it, especially one who also said this:

“God tells Muslims to do a jihad against non-Muslims.”

John Cole of Balloon Juice is on a tear. In the last 6 days he’s excoriated Hugh Hewitt, raked Senate Republicans over the coals, hyperventilated over right-wing bloggers, ripped LaShawn Barber a new one, and generally ranted, raved, frothed, flaked, and fulminated against what he sees as misplaced loyalty to the military and shilling for the Bush Administration by conservative pundits in the Shadow Media.

On the seventh day, I hope he takes a break.

There’s no doubt that Mr. Cole is passionate. The biggest reason I began reading him was his logical and inspiring defense of the war in Iraq. His arguments, laced with the occasional expletive, are marvelously syllogistic and thought provoking. He was and is great fun to read.

Lately though, reading Mr. Cole has been like having a root canal without a local. And while Cole doesn’t know me from Adam, his bill of particulars against conservatives have hit me where it hurts. I’m sure this was his intention, although not in a personal, blog-to-blog way. In that spirit, I’ll try to address Mr. Cole’s ideas while not attacking him personally. After all, I look at his defection as temporary, a momentary fever brought about by a confluence of events that have disturbed many, including myself. And although it was never his intention, Mr. Cole’s attacks have resonated on the left side of the Shadow Media and given conservative critics plenty of unnecessary ammunition. Contrarily, after doing a cursory Technorati search, I find precious little in the way of conservative response to Mr. Cole’s self described rants. Hence, the reason for this post.

It all started with this post on the Newsweek imbroglio and the response of conservative media critics to the story about the Koran flushing and subsequent riots:

Apparently in the myopic worldview of Mr. Hewitt, reading and reporting the just-released documents the Army itself created is both ‘anti-military’ and ‘re-hashing’ an old story. Let’s not focus on the fact that few, if any, have been punished for these transgressions. Let’s not focus on credible reports that these incidents continue to occur. Instead, if Hewitt is to have his way, we should all focus on the ‘anti-military’ stance of the media.

What is particularly disturbing is how he and others have artificially conflated the Newsweek error and the NY Times story. This is no accident, but an act of intentional and outright propaganda. The Newsweek story may have been inaccurate, but the NY Times story was not. To read Hugh, you would think both were inconsequential and simply the result of a media hostile to the military. “Nothing here- just the military-hating mainstream media.”

First, I hardly think it “myopic” on anyone’s part to criticize the fact that the New York Times was reporting on charges of abuse that have been made and reported on in the past. It’s all a matter of context. While Mr. Cole is correct in pointing out that the Times was quoting from the military’s own investigation of the abuse, what he fails to mention is that the story itself doesn’t say that until about the 20th paragraph. Shouldn’t that fact have been the lead? Why a 5000 word front page story on incidents that have been reported on in the past? Mr. Hewitt was pointing out that the context of this story was deliberately misleading. Hard to argue with that.

Next, Mr. Cole accuses Mr. Hewitt of propagating “outright propaganda.” Cole may disagree with the substance of Hewitt’s arguments but one would need to be a psychic to glean motives from Hewitt’s statements. In short, Cole ends up accusing Hewitt of exactly the same thing he himself is guilty.

Next, Mr. Cole practices a little myopia of his own:

A free, open, and unrestricted press, to include one not cowed by idiotic calls for de facto censorship, is a vital component of a healthy democracy. While I concede and have written at great length that many in the press have all too often painted the picture that everything in Iraq is a failure, or tried to portray everything in Afghanistan as ruinous, I draw the line at bullying the press into refusing to cover stories of abuse, torture, and murder- which appears to be what Hugh and his supporters want.

I would like balanced stories about the progress we are making as well as our shortcomings and the failures. The wise path to media balance is not the suppression of our failures, but the promotion of our successes as well as the acknowledgment of our shortcomings. If we, as a public, are unaware of what is wrong, we and our representatives and leaders can not make the appropriate corrections. To admit errors in judgment in order to correct the mistakes made is reasonable, rational, and wise. To demand a loyalty test of the media, requiring that they cover up our shortcomings and mistakes, is petty, demagogic, and a recipe for disaster.

This is a great exposition on the importance of freedom of the press. It’s also hopelessly romantic and idealized baloney. In a perfect world, Mr. Cole’s statements would be applauded for their nobility and purity of purpose. But John, we’re not in Kansas anymore. It isn’t that the media is publishing these stories or even the fact that most of them are probably true. I’ve written on several occasions that I have no doubt the Koran flushing story (or something similar) is probably true. The question is again, one of context. The people responsible for shaping opinion in the Arab world could give a good goddamn about whether the allegations have been investigated by our military or not. They’re not giving us brownie points and patting us on the back for being good world citizens and cleaning our own house. They are using the stories of abuse - stories Mr. Cole points out proudly that have been investigated or are being investigated by our own military - to impede, obstruct, and otherwise hinder our efforts to win the war and bring democracy to the benighted 10th century peasants who are so easily led and misled by their holy men and holy warriors.

Am I saying the press shouldn’t report some stories of abuse? Absolutely. Unless a particular incident can be confirmed independently or is gleaned from the military’s own investigation of abuses at camps around the world, why publish what amounts to a rumor? Should a different reportorial standard be in place to report these abuses than news organs have for reporting criminal activity at a private corporation? This should be the gold standard to follow, not the Newsweek single sourced rumormongering that despite Mr. Cole’s protestations, was indeed the proximate cause of rioting that killed 17 people. To say otherwise would be like saying it wasn’t Germany that started World War II but rather the Polish response to violations of their frontier by the Wehrmacht. It may be technically correct but hardly the point.

Mr. Cole then takes flight with a little hubris of his own:

As I noted earlier, the foreign press is going to cover these issues, and attempts to hide the truth by attacking the media are doomed to fail, so I am at a loss as to what this approach may be attributed to other than partisan domestic political considerations. Acknowledging there is rot in the military is painful and inconvenient. That might entail the admission that we are not a perfect society, but merely a good society. That might require admitting that we have made mistakes, which, in and of itself, requires a level of maturity many in my party have not yet, and in some cases, appear unwilling, to attain. Rather than working on our problems, some choose to instead pretend nothing is wrong, or, in the case of Mr. Hewitt, scold those who refuse to play along.

Nowhere in Mr. Hewitt’s post or in anything written by a conservative blogger has there ever been a hint, a suggestion, a whiff that analyzing media motives in reporting abuse is an attempt to “hide the truth.” (Note: See LaShawn Barber’s defense of her statement regarding the Newsweek story that Mr. Cole attack’s here) Mr. Cole is accusing Mr. Hewitt and, by extension me, of being dishonest. I resent it. I’m sure Mr. Hewitt resents it. And anyone who cares about this entire issue should resent the spurious charges made by Mr. Cole that somehow our concerns are related to “partisan political considerations.” Is it a fact that the left is using Abu Ghraib and other abuse stories to skewer the Bush Administration and try to undermine the war effort? The question answers itself. Demanding that the press treat this issue more carefully by getting their fact straight is hardly cause for accusing bloggers of wanting to hide the truth. How about a little context? How about a little fairness? Evidently, Mr. Cole believes this is too much to ask of our poor, put upon media because by asking this we’re practicing “de-facto censorship.” Rot!

Finally, in an impassioned peroration, Mr. Cole ignores the facts of life and, by logical extension accuses bloggers who disagree with him of unwittingly aiding and abetting the enemy:

Maybe it would be best to ask the soldiers. Would they rather labor in harm’s way with the rest of the world suspecting the worst of them, or would they rather there be a clear and open prosecution of those who ARE the worst of them? Which do you think they would prefer? Which approach makes their lives more dangerous and more difficult? Whose approach to this problem is going to create more IED’s, suicide attacks, and bombings?

To suggest that we do otherwise and to try to bully the media into ignoring these abuses does the administration no good, does our servicemen no good, does America no good, and leads me to believe that Hugh Hewitt and those like him are nothing more than our own right-wing versions of Michael Moore.

Again, no one I’ve read on the right has called for not prosecuting criminal abuse. Why does Mr. Cole persist in this outrageous exaggeration of press criticism - criticism he calls “bullying.” This is nuts. How can the proverbial 98 pound weakling “bully” the 400 pound gorilla? Let’s get our David and Goliath identification right or at least put the matchup in some kind of perspective, shall we?

And being told that my criticism of the press will create “more IED’s, suicide attacks, and bombings” really sticks in my craw. This is the argument used by the left about our entire war on terror - that we’re creating more terrorists by our policies. The idea that the fanatics need any excuse at all to kill us is absurd as is the idea that some mythical “openness” on our part will change some hearts and minds. There is nothing we can do short of surrender, giving an abject apology for all the real and imagined sins we’ve committed, and a humiliating retreat of both our military and our policies to affect a change in the H & M department. And that’s a price I’m not willing to pay.

Neither is Mr. Cole, I’m sure. And in his desire to do what he thinks is best for our military, it appears to me that Cole has unconsciously adopted some of the themes and talking points used by people who actually do hate the military, who lovingly dote on each and every casualty, who oppose the military’s efforts in recruiting and retention, and who by word, by thought, and by deed seek to have the United States military defeated on the field of battle.

We used to call this treason. In this day and age, these sentiments get you invited to the best cocktail parties, has the MSM hang on your every word, and procures the lickspittle a book contract. And these are the people espousing these sentiments who agree with Mr. Cole?

For Cole, it hasn’t just been the Newsweek story. He’s taken conservative bloggers to task for landing so hard on Senate Republicans for the judicial compromise:

I am bashing them for making the option necessary by refusing to play by the rules we lived with for years, and I am outraged that the idiots, upon hearing a reasonable compromise has been achieved, still want to pursue the nuclear option. They don’t have to go nuclear, BUT THEY STILL F**KING WANT TO.

Worse than that, they want the heads of the seven Senators who dared to go against the will of the wingnuts. Because, in the world of idiots, those seats are guaranteed seats for Republicans. Lincoln Chaffee- why, he owes Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council his job.

It is all or nothing for these assholes. You are with us or against us. There can be no middle-ground. We must have complete power, complete control, or we just blow up the fucking system and remake it our way, because, after all, we won an election by 2% of the vote

“Refusing to play by the rules…” Which rule is that? The one that says the minority party that got slaughtered in a Senatorial election has the right to dictate to the Chief Executive which judges he can choose? What’s the point in having an election then?

Elections are about power - the acquisition and exercise thereof. If we had a parliamentary system with many different parties making up a coalition, then Mr. Cole would be making some sense. Instead, Cole takes the position that because the Democrats are yammering about not being able to choose judges - a constitutional privilege clearly reserved for the Chief Executive - that somehow the Republicans (and by extension the “idiots” who support the constitutional option) are a bunch of power mad, precedent-breaking morons hell bent on controlling everything.(See this article that quotes Hillary Clinton saying exactly the same thing).

Just as an aside, I lived and worked in Washington during the 1970’s and 1980’s when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress by huge majorities and saw the exercise of power that left Republicans out in the cold on every national issue. Only when Reagan took office (and Republicans captured the Senate) was there a shift. But that didn’t stop the Democrats from practicing a little power politics of their own in the House of Representatives by severely limiting Republican committee membership and the like.

What conservative bloggers are mad at is that the entire exercise was drawn out over months when competent leadership could have resolved the issue almost immediately after the Senate convened in January. Bill Frist is a disaster as leader. And the Republicans who took part in the compromise are a clear cut example of Frists’s incompetence. The caucus was ready in January to take this step. The fact that all this compromise does is delay the use of the nuclear option has escaped Mr. Cole’s attention. There are three judges who will not get an up or down vote. So Republicans will be forced to change the rules or have the President withdraw the nominees and have the Democrats dictate to him what judges would be acceptable.

Great choice, huh.

Mr. Cole’s recent rants were, as usual, mostly logical and extremely well written. I only wish he would have stayed his poison pen long enough to realize that, in the end, we’re on the same side. Emotionalism is fine as long as it doesn’t allow one to take flights of fancy regarding the motives of people with which you disagree.

In short, Mr. Cole, it’s time to chill. Kick back, open a brew, and dream of the Steelers Victory parade next year. Please no more gratuitous slaps at people who look upon you as a friendly in a media populated by snakes.

UPDATE

Dean Esmay also has some criticism for Mr. Cole:

Meantime, John Cole says that those of us who are mad at the media should take it all back. Sorry John, none for me. The people in the war-coverage press appear to run a broad spectrum: from those who are not on America’s side to those who outright want us to fail. That impression did not occur in a vacuum. As much as some people would like to believe that impression is all the fault of the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, the truth is that the talk radio people are the symptom–not the disease.

Uh-huh.

And Mr. Cole wonders why we criticize the press when they “try to get it right?”

This is a combat unit. They have a gym, and a place to eat. Yet, a consequence of these media releases is that they allow the press to appear omnipresent on the battlefield, when in fact they usually stay close to the Green Zone in Baghdad. Reporters in places like Miami or Flagstaff also scan the stream of media releases on official military information websites. They can report “news just into our station” as if they had a live feed. Satellite communication has made this speed and sleight of hand possible.

Maybe if they tried harder?

STEM CELLS

The House has passed a bill dramatically increasing the parameters of stem cell research:

The House yesterday passed a bill to ease restrictions on human-embryonic-stem-cell research, but it did not gain enough votes to overcome a promised presidential veto.

The bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Michael N. Castle, Delaware Republican, and Diana DeGette, Colorado Democrat, calls for nearly 400,000 human embryos currently in cold storage to be used for experimentation.

First of all, let’s try to maintain a little perspective here. For that, I think we should listen to a scientist. Here are The Maryhunter’s thought’s from his brand-new blog, TMH Bacon Bits:

This topic has ignited passions on both sides. Some scientists and activists believe that embryonic stem cells hold tremendous promise for cures of everything from spinal cord injury and related paralysis to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer and Parkinson. Others believe that embryonic stem cell research is akin to murder, since in order to harvest human embryonic stem cells, one must destroy a living human embryo. The ES-cell proponents counter with the ethical argument that it is wrong, even immoral, to prevent potential medical breakthroughs by squelching federally-funded research on human embryos that would be discarded anyway — and they parade out senile dementia and paralysis victims to plead their case. The other side then parries by suggesting that, through this logic, we should also do research on death-row inmates, since they too are slated for destruction. Then they introduce us to children who were born as the result of the adoption and implantation of unwanted IVF-clinic embryos that were otherwise slated for destruction.

The media battle, however, is clearly being won by the embryonic stem cell forces, despite the fact that this is the more ethically problematic research route that to date has few if any successes to report. This contrasts dramatically with research on adult stem cells, which has resulted in numerous exciting medical breakthroughs. Sadly, popular debate tends toward the newer, flashier research that promises a new world of medicine lying just around the corner.

Embryonic stem cells could turn into a scientific bonanza. The problem as TMH points out in his article is that no one knows what the potential is. By dramatically expanding research, it should become clear just what advances are possible and which are pipe dreams.

President Bush plans to veto this legislation, a course of action I strongly disagree with. I can understand the pro-life stance and admire the thinking behind it. But government cannot legislate science. Government cannot say that “life begins at conception” because there’s not one shred of scientific proof that this is so. What government can and should do is protect life once it is viable outside the womb. This is why I strongly oppose abortion rights activists on a variety of issues including partial birth abortion and unlimited second trimester abortions.

Embryos slated for destruction can in no rational way be construed as life. I hope the President can be dissuaded from vetoing this important legislation.

STARTLING FACTS ABOUT THE PEOPLING OF AMERICA

A new study of DNA suggests North America was originally settled by just a few dozen people who crossed a land bridge from Asia during the last Ice Age.

About 14,000 years ago, humans crossed the Bering land bridge from Siberia to North America, most experts agree. But just how many intrepid explorers were involved has not been known.

Previous DNA analyses of the New World’s founding looked at just one gene and assumed populations sizes have been constant over time. The new study looked at nine genomic regions to account for variations in single genes, and it assumed that sizes of founding populations change over time. The method favored actual genetic data over estimates used in previous calculations

As few as 70 humans made the trek from Siberia to North America.

The study suggests the peopling of America took place 12,000-14,000 years ago despite recent evidence that shows a much earlier date. Some archaeological sites have suggested that humans may have been here as early as 20,000-22,000 years ago. The evidence is controversial and given this genetic study, will have more problems in trying to sway scientific opinion. In addition, this fascinating theory regarding Europeans coming to America also took a hit. The geneticists found no evidence of Caucasian diaspora from Europe.

ANOTHER VOYAGER MILESTONE

From The New Editor:

After a storied, 28-year odyssey, NASA’s venerable Voyager 1 spacecraft appears to have reached the edge of the solar system, a turbulent zone of near-nothingness where the solar wind begins to give way to interstellar space in a cosmic cataclysm known as “termination shock,” scientists said yesterday.

“This is an historic step in Voyager’s race,” said California Institute of Technology physicist Edward C. Stone, the mission’s chief scientist since Voyager 1 and its twin, Voyager 2, were launched in the summer of 1977. “We have a totally new region of space to explore, and it’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

Studying this region of space may be in jeopardy because Congress is thinking of slashing the $4.2 million dollar appropriation that covers Voyager’s explorations.

Don’t worry though, we can always launch another space probe toward the outer reaches of the solar system. Of course, it will only take 30 years or so to reach the point that Voyager is now. And such a mission in today’s dollars would cost a couple of billion dollars. So, we can spend $4.2 million today or a couple of billion tomorrow.

Your government at work.

BLACK HOLES FINALLY GIVING UP SECRETS

Advances in x-ray astronomy are resolving some enduring mysteries about black holes, scientists say. Black holes are places in space where the force of gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape.

In recent years scientists have learned to find black holes by sweeping the skies with space-based telescopes equipped with x-ray “vision.” X-rays are a high-energy form of light that is invisible to the human eye.

“As [matter] falls down into the black hole, it will heat up, and it gets so hot it emits x-rays,” explained Edward Morgan, an astrophysicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge.

Morgan is an instrument scientist for NASA’s Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer satellite. Launched in 1995, the satellite allows scientists to study black holes and other objects such as neutron stars.

There are two kinds of black holes. Your garden variety black hole results when a sun approximately 10 times as massive as our own star, approaches the end of its life. As it runs out of hydrogen to burn, it first starts to expand, gradually reaching a size perhaps three times larger than it was during its lifetime. Then, as it runs out of fuel made up of other elements in the periodic table it starts to contract rapidly until its weight becomes so massive that it actually collapses in on itself and disappears from normal space. It’s size is very small - smaller than the earth. But any celestial body unlucky enough to be caught in its gravity well ends up as food for this gravitational monster. As it “eats,” it gives off massive amounts of x-rays that are visible to the space-based x-ray telescopes that we’ve launched in the last decade.

The second type of black hole lies at the center of galaxies and is called a “supermassive black hole.” These beasts consume massive amounts of stellar debris and an interesting correlation has been found between the growth of these monsters and the growth of their home galaxy.

SOME THOUGHTS ON SCIENTIFIC DEBATE

The Commissar has some thoughts on “The Elite Control of Scientific Dialog” and how some ideas have a hard time making it into the mainstream of scientific thought. He takes the serendipitous case of William Alvarez, the physicist who first came up with the theory that dinosaurs may have been wiped out by an asteroid:

In 1980, a physicist named Walter Alvarez observed a surprising layer of iridium laid down about 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs went extinct. From that, he hypothesized that a huge asteroid had collided with the earth, triggering a global catastrophe and causing the mass extinction. The scientific community, including paleontologists and geologists, was very dubious. Here was a physicist intruding on THEIR turf! …

What happened? Did Alvarez take his ideas to the Kansas Board of Education? Did he wage a PR campaign? Did he sponsor state referenda to push his point of view? Did he demand that high school geology textbooks carry stickers highlighting his views? Did he gnash his teeth publicly and demand to “teach the controversy?”

No. He, and other scientists, both those who agreed with him and those who vehemently disagreed, examined the facts, ran more tests, looked again at old data, etc. They literally dug into the earth, all over the globe, down to the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (the so-called K-T layer) to determine how much iridium was there.

The results, as they say, are history. The impact theory for the dinosaur extinction is generally accepted as true.

Parallels with the evolutionists vs. “Intelligent” Design wingnuts? Read the whole thing.

TOP 10 WAYS TO DESTROY THE EARTH

Finally, how about “The Top 10 Ways to Destroy the Earth.” I’ m especially intrigued by #7:

You will need: a light bulb

Slightly possible.

Please don’t try this at home.

Watching what promises to be the last Star Wars movie turned into something of an emotional experience for me. When the first film in the series came out in 1977, I was in the business trying to make a living as an actor. Now actors are a notoriously jaded lot and it’s considered to be uncool to get too excited about anything, least of all someone else’s work. So, when I entered the theater to see this movie everyone was talking about (it was about a week after it premiered) I was fully prepared to be unimpressed.

Even though it was a Wednesday night, the theater was packed. The only place to sit was all the way down front in the first row. As my friends and I craned out necks upward, the first scene unfolded and took my breath away. The huge, Corillion Class Imperial Cruiser felt like it was directly over my head and the sound (70MM 6 Track later updated to Dolby) beat against my chest and made my entire body tingle.

The music score by John Williams was like something out of one of the epic films of the 1950’s. And the special visual effects, considered primitive by today’s standards, were imaginative and awe-inspiring. In short, I came out of that movie with a feeling that I had seen the future of film making.

Being out of the business so long, I can now take a more critical look at the movies and judge them from the only standpoint that should matter - as a storytelling experience.

Human beings have been telling stories to each other since the dawn of civilization. It’s been a way to impart universal truths in a memorable fashion. Simply talking about the grand themes of good versus evil or love and hate, life and death has never been enough. These themes resonate with people on a more personal level if the magic of storytelling is involved. From Homer, to Shakespeare, to George Lucas, there is a direct line of storytelling that illustrates themes that unite humanity no matter what culture you’re from.

This is not to compare Lucas to Shakespeare in talent. It is simply to point out that both men tell good stories about things that are important, things that matter.

Revenge of the Sith is a great movie. It’s not just good. It’s not just entertaining. Sith will go down in history as one of the finest examples of storytelling in the history of the American cinema.

And if it doesn’t, it should.

If that sounds a little gushy, please forgive me. After all, there is plenty in the movie to be critical about. Hayden Christiansen, brave lad, still cannot act his way out of a paper bag. Ditto Natalie Portman who at least is fine looking window dressing. And Ewan McGregor’s forced wisecrack’s and stilted banter with Anakin was distracting to say the least. I thought General Grievous was a little over the top and one dimensional to boot. And the general criticism of all Lucas movies - a too cute reliance on special effects - was on display for all to see.

All this being said, Lucas made a great film, perhaps in spite of himself. And the reason is that the primary focus of the film centered on Anakin Skywalker’s descent into darkness.

This aspect of the film could very easily have been mishandled. There is a very fine line between tragedy and melodrama. The difference is in the character’s awareness of his journey into despair. I once saw Arthur Miller’s classic American tragedy Death of a Salesman performed by a Polish Theater Company back when Poland was a communist country. Miller’s play is about the descent of Willy Loman into darkness, despair, and finally suicide and was very popular in communist countries because it ostensibly showed the evils of capitalism.

The production was laughably bad. Not because the actor’s weren’t good. It’s because the actor who played Willy Loman played up the melodramatic aspects of his character’s descent rather than the underlying subtext that gives the play its emotional power. Willy Loman goes to his death without a clue why his wife left him, his sons hate him, and why he’s a failure at his job. The sin of overarching pride dooms Loman, not the capitalist system. To play it otherwise is to invite laughter.

Similarly, Anakin’s seduction is possible only because of both his pride and fear. Anakin’s feelings of superiority are massaged expertly by Palpatine who inculcates a sense of destiny in his young charge that feeds his ego and confirms his own abilities - abilities that go unrecognized by Obi-Wan and the Jedi Council. Palpatine doesn’t cast a spell on young Skywalker. He uses the material at hand, aspects of Anakin’s personality already present to first intrigue, then confuse, and finally lure the young man to his side with the promise of freedom from fear.

With Sith, there was the real potential for disaster. If not handled just right, Anakin’s journey to the dark side could have been comical or worse, painful to watch. Instead, Lucas navigated the dangerous shoals and brought both Anakin and the audience safely through. And I consider this aspect of the movie to be a singular achievement in the history of American cinema.

Lucas couldn’t have pulled it off without the assistance of veteran character actor Ian McDiarmid whose Palpatine was played with a pitch perfect sense of seductive evil. It would have been easy to draw Palpatine with stick figure simplicity. But the depth of the Sith Lord’s evil resonated perfectly with themes familiar to theatergoers. The snake in the garden who offers Anakin a bite of the apple, the easy lie, the blurring of the line between good and evil so that evil actually appears good all work to undermine Anakin’s fragile sense of self, tied up both in his identity as a Jedi and his fear that he will lose everyone he loves.

And let’s not forget Padme’s role in all of this. An idealistic Senator who, too late, recognizes her husband’s transformation despite the signs being there since Attack of the Clones, Padme’s selfishness and single minded belief in the purity of Anakin’s motives blinds her to both Palpatine’s manipulation of her lover and his eventual crossing over to the dark side. Padme goes to her death a tragic character who never understood why the purity and absoluteness of her love couldn’t save Anakin. Love may conquer all - except when love is hoarded, not shared. Padme’s belief that by finally taking Anakin away to a place where he would be safe from harm shows how shortsighted she was. Anakin would never be able to protect himself from his own fear.

One note on the physical manifestation of the evil infecting both Anakin and Palpatine. The disfigurement of both was a master stroke by Lucas, hearkening back to the morality plays if the middle ages (and more recently Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray) that showed the fall of Adam in a series of vignette’s where Adam gets progressively older and uglier, a result of his listening to the serpent in the garden and a consequence of his pride and disobedience of God. Chaucer also dealt with the ugliness of evil as his devil characters almost always had some kind of physical deformity that made them particularly repulsive. It’s no accident that the more revealed Palpatine’s alter ego Darth Siddius became, the less we saw of the harmless, white haired Chancellor and more the ugly Sith Lord. It’s one of the advantages of cinema over other art forms in that it shows image as substance.

So Anakin’s journey - a journey everyone in the audience knows the destination - couldn’t have been handled better. It wasn’t so much the acting that carried it off as it was the utilization by Lucas of universal themes that storytellers have been thrilling audiences with for at least 3000 years. And with some deft writing and some good turns by Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine, the story of Darth Vader, one of the great villains in American cinema, comes full circle.

I know that many will disagree with my interpretation. Or perhaps fault me for not pointing out the superficial political statements that Lucas evidently tried to incorporate into the movie. Either way, I understand where you’re coming from, after having read so many negative reviews from conservatives on the web and elsewhere. Be that as it may, there are things more important than politics. Lucas has made an American masterpiece, a modern American morality play that will live as long as the themes he so masterfully illuminated mean something to all of us.

Bird Dog at the excellent blog Maggies Farm is looking for some help from bloggers:

A Call for Information from the Blog-World

We would like to collect information on the political activities and political agendas of innocent-appearing non-profit organizations.

Evidently some of those non-profits have hidden or semi-hidden agendas. Read the post and give the folks at that eclectic and well written blog some help!

The so-called deal on the President’s judicial nominations has absolutely incensed the right, relieved the left, and pointed out that Republican moderates are a bunch of pansy-assed, lily-livered weak kneed smurfs who are more interested in winning approval from the liberal media than they are from the base of their own party.

I was pretty non-committal about the entire nuclear option to begin with. It wasn’t until the Democrats started their “end of the world” rants, comparing the coming of an up or down vote on judicial nominees with the coming of the anti-Christ that I started to take notice. Here was an issue where the 10 seat Republican majority could be put to use for a good cause. The idea that a minority should be able to dictate to the President on judicial nominations or anything else for that matter, goes against the very idea of free and fair elections. Why bother to have an electoral contest when the losers can act like winners? What’s the penalty for being, like the Democrats have been, obstructionists?

The penalty is that you lose elections. And looking at Congressional and Senatorial elections, the Democrats were slaughtered. Especially in the Senate where Republicans picked up 4 seats, the Democrats entire electoral strategy failed miserably. But wait! Here come the Republican RINO’s to the rescue. It’s enough to turn one’s stomach.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the Captain has hit the bullseye with this analysis:

In other words, welcome to Versailles. The centrists who made their play for power last night have constructed an elaborately meaningless document that holds no one truly accountable for their actions and only applies to five of the controversial nominees, splitting them 3-2 for the Administration. It may sound Solomon-like, but in the end the nuclear option will return to the table as soon as the Democrats filibuster anyone outside of Saad and Myers. They have not ended the war, but have merely set the seeds for a more polarizing battle than ever before, as accusations of “bad faith” will now be added to the abuse-of-power allegations already bandied about so casually during this debate.

In the meantime, the GOP centrists will have explicitly endorsed the use of the filibuster in dealing with interbranch transactions, against the model of equality among the branches, while the Democrat centrists have betrayed the notion that ideology had nothing to do with their obstructionism. The only winners appear to be Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor, and only because they’ve been allowed to escape.

Versailles is right. Immediately after that treaty was signed - the treaty that ended World War I - British Prime Minister Lloyd George said “This isn’t a peace treaty! It’s a cease fire for 25 years!” He was off by 5 years. World War II broke out in 1939, almost 20 years to the day after the treaty was signed.

It seems clear that the next group of nominees that come to the floor will probably be blocked by the Democrats putting us right back where we were yesterday. This time, the Republicans will have the precedent of compromise going against them as the Democrats will be able to say that they tried to make a deal but the Republicans were not operating in the spirit of the agreement. In short, the Democrats will be able to take the high ground and make the Republicans look like a bunch of power hungry politicians who won’t compromise.

The Captain plans on continuing his “Not One Dime” campaign this time refusing to donate money to the party until Bill Frist is replaced as Majority Leader. I couldn’t agree more. Frist has made one disastrous move after another, including his appearance on the Reverend Dobson’s TV extravaganza thus tying the Republican party more closely with the man who believes that Sponge Bob Square Pants is a threat to children’s sexual development because the character espouses a gay lifestyle.

Phooey!

Frist has allowed Harry Reid to outmaneuver him at every turn. And to make matters worse, he can’t even bring his own caucus along with him on the most important issues of the day including social security and tax reform. This “compromise” should be seen as a total unmitigated defeat for the Senator from Tennessee and should in all fairness, lead to someone in the caucus challenging his leadership. Alas, it won’t happen. Frankly, the Majority Whip Mitch McConnell isn’t much better and may be even more of a colorless personality than Frist, if that’s possible.

So it will be up to others in the Senate to hold Frist’s feet to the fire on this deal if only to get the most out of it that we can. In the end, what we’re getting is less than half a loaf. And the baker doesn’t realize it.

It could have been two of the best hours of network television in a long time.

The stage had been set for 22 hours. A nuke headed toward an unnamed American city. An implacable terrorist whose brilliant mind kept him one, sometimes two steps ahead of CTU and the entire US defense establishment. A plan so diabolical, almost satanic in its evil simplicity that it had the US on its knees. A drama at the White House with an incompetent jellyfish for a President being propped up by an ex-chief executive who, like Jack, was willing to do anything to save the nation. And a cast of supporting characters - heroes and villains - who carried out their assigned tasks with skill and courage.

This is the stuff of legendary TV. Instead, the writers either lost their nerve or just couldn’t bring themselves to face the consequences of previous plot threads they created. Instead of a bang, we got a piddle. Instead of a “High Noon” like confrontation between the forces of good and evil, we got soap opera froth.

It was something like hiring a $2500 a night hooker and when crunch time came, having her perform like a crack-addled, $5 whore.

In short, I feel cheated.

This may be one of those situations where the suits stepped in to massage the ending to fit some preconceived formula. Television producers are among the most clueless creative people in the business. It’s why Keifer Sutherland wanted to be an executive producer. Having creative control in the hands of, well, creative people makes for good TV. Unfortunately, given that negotiations for the fifth season were probably at a critical point when the writers were working on the finale, it may be that the suits demanded that the writers had to work certain guarantees regarding characters into the final two hours.

I’m guessing, of course. And maybe indulging in some wishful thinking. After 22 excellent hours, maybe the explanation for this tepid, unsatisfying ending is as simple as the writers just weren’t up to the task.

The first hour and 22 minutes were good. It’s only after the missile was intercepted did the show go to hell in a handbasket. I’ll summarize the first hour here and do the second hour later this morning with some final thoughts.

SUMMARY

After finding out that Tony is a hostage, Jack and CTU scramble to redeploy their manpower and search the apartment complex for Mandy. Bill tells Michelle that they’ve got to proceed as if there is no hostage, that the number one priority is to get the hostile. Michelle accepts this in a superficial sort of way. It’s only when push comes to shove - when Mandy calls her (how did she get her cell number?) and asks that she duplicate Tony’s betrayal of CTU from last year - that Michelle realizes how much Tony means to her.

Thinking she holds all the cards, Mandy orders Michelle to clear the way for her escape. Wanting to comply, Michelle agonizes over the decision until Bill comes in and reminds her, indirectly, of the consequences.

One wonders if there had been an intervention like this last year if Tony would have carried out the terrorists instructions that ended up costing him his freedom, his job, and his wife.

That said, Michelle pulls back from the precipice and Bill and Jack set a trap for Mandy. But Mandy is too clever by half. Using her next door neighbors, who inexplicably do exactly as she says with no apparent leverage on them from Mandy, she tricks CTU into thinking that she’s blown herself and Tony up when CTU exposes their positions too soon.

CTU headquarters is plunged into mourning for Tony and Bill calls President Jellyfish to give him the bad news and explain that CTU has no expectation of being able to intercept the missile. This causes Jellyfish to quiver like a porn star’s fake bosoms. Palmer tries to calm him down by grasping at straws:

Jellyfish: Do you know how speculative that sounds? My God! We’re never going to find it in time…

Palmer: Don’t say that! We will stop it. But you must believe that if you’re going to lead today.

Jellyfish: How am I going to believe that? Every second that passes brings that missile closer to its target. Which for all we know is us!

Palmer then gives Jellyfish some lessons in “How to be a President Without Really Trying.” He tells the Spineless One to “demand success” from your people and you’ll get it.

If I were Palmer, I would have taken this miserable excuse for a man and whacked him upside the head a couple of times. Conducting a Presidential Leadership 101 class doesn’t help much.

Agent Burns who was briefly exposed during the Consulate Operation, is now at the San Diego airport ready to be whisked out of the country so Bill instructs him to develop an airtight alibi. Great idea except the Chinese have a better one - they kidnap the hapless agent and start to go to work on him.

Back at the apartment complex, Jack is replaying the tape of Tony’s “death” again and again, not quite believing what he’s seeing. Good thing too, because Mandy’s only slip up of the day was that she was talking on the phone at the same time the bomb went off. Seeing the door close as the couple next door get in the car and not hearing the sound of it on the telephone call, Jack realizes that Mandy is still at large. And Tony, after deliberately cutting himself on an eggshell(?), leaves a trail of blood that’s soon discovered and puts Jack on his trail as Mandy and her hostage try to escape.

By the way, one of the burning questions for all female Tony Almeda fans was answered when it was revealed that he is indeed, a boxer man.

After making a heroic attempt at escape by fighting Mandy with handcuffs and losing (Mandy is one tough woman. Tony gave her some shots that would have put an ordinary man down), Jack, following Tony’s blood trail catches up with them in the parking garage.

The cornered terrorist, still confident, looks at Jack as just another soft CTU agent. Bad move:

Mandy: Do you really have what it takes to kill him while looking him in the eyes?

Jack: Yes.

For the first time, Mandy looks scared. That’s because she believes what Jack is saying and says so. While Mandy’s attention is focused on Jack, Curtis flanks her and with Tony’s help, disarms and punches her lights out.

With Mandy in custody. CTU is back in the ballgame. And Tony and Michelle’s emotional phone conversation with Tony actually saying the “L” word while a little sappy was nonetheless nice to see.

And Agent Burns? He’s taken to the Chinese embassy where’s he’s grilled by the intel chief. After being threatened with the prospect of being spirited out of the country and thrown into a communist labor camp, Burns talks. He names Jack as being responsible for the attack on the Consulate.

The fact that we never find out what happens to Burns is one of the many annoyances in the final two hours. But this was a minor one compared to some of the other major disappointments to come.

BODY COUNT

Mandy kills one neighbor in the apartment and is responsible for the young couple’s death when the car blows up. Again I ask what leverage she had on that couple to make them walk to the car? She had a gun on them yes, but it was dark and raining and there had to have been a spot where they could have made a break for it. Just. Not. Believable.

The Chicoms take out two CTU agents at the airport before hijacking Agent Burns.

Jack: 42

Show: 237

Chloe: 1

Stop by around 10:30 AM Central Time for a recap of the second hour, a final body count, and some final thoughts.

UPDATE AND CORRECTION

Reader Greg points out in the comments that Tony did not step on eggshells but rather a busted light bulb. That makes more sense.

SUMMARY

Now in custody, Mandy accepts Jack’s offer of a Presidential deal to reveal where Marwan is. Before President Jellyfish can sign off on it, the Secret Service brings up an old tape of Palmer shaking hands with Mandy at the end of Season 2. She had a biological agent on her hand and almost killed Palmer. Despite this info, Palmer OK’s the deal and Mandy tells Jack that Marwan is in downtown LA ready to take off from the roof for a ship out in the harbor.

Prescient to the last, Marwan realizes that “something’s wrong” after he fails to get in touch with Mandy. Less than 4 minutes after getting the information on Marwan’s location, Jack is there with the helicopter.

Did the writers have to ignore the “real-time” aspect of the show so blatantly so late in the show?

Hovering above Marwan’s still grounded helo, Jack starts shooting at the rotors hoping to disable it. Realizing the jig may be up, Marwan tries to destroy the missile tracking device he just happens to be carrying (why?). Leaving the now smoking helicopter, Marwan makes a last break for freedom. Jack, Curtis, and another CTU agent catch up to him in the parking lot where Marwan offs his last American and wounds Curtis. A pursuing Jack catches Marwan and shoots him in the lower leg which finally brings the elusive terrorist to ground. Seeing no escape, Marwan takes the only logical step left to him; he runs toward the railing of the 20 story parking garage and attempts to hurl himself over the edge.

Jack appears ready for this and sprints to the railing just in time to get a hold of Marwan’s hand before the terrorist falls to his death and reaps his 72 virgin reward. But Jack isn’t ready for Marwan’s fanaticism. While screaming at him “Where’s the missile” Marwan takes out a knife and slices the top of Jack’s hand but good, severing some muscles in the process and loosening Jack’s grip on his hand. Marwan slips away with a look of triumph on his face and his head hits the pavement with a sickening thud.

Marwan, Jack’s best adversary in the history of the series, dies believing he has won. How much more satisfying if he had known that he failed before he died? One more missed opportunity for satisfying drama by the writers.

President Jellyfish has a cow when he finds out CTU has lost Marwan but he’s got bigger problems. The Chinese, who broke CTU Agent Bierne simply by threatening him with the Gulag, inform Jellyfish that they want Jack’s head on a platter. Palmer, while opposed, knows its the only thing to do. But Logan’s top aide Cummings has a different idea. Why not kill Jack and solve the problem that way? Saying that “This Administration does not condone murder and it never will,” Jellyfish leaves the door open for Cummings to play Ollie North to his Reagan.

Back at the helicopter, CTU finds Marwan’s tracking device and, even though badly damaged, are able to pull some information off of it. It’s enough for the geek squad of Chloe and fat geek Edgar who, working some really fast geek magic, are able to find the track of the missile so that the US Air Force can save the day.

The F-15’s scream toward the target area and using their multi mode “look down shoot down” radar are able to acquire the target. One well aimed Aim 9x air-to-air missile and poof! Los Angeles is saved. Somewhat anti-climactic after Marwan’s death but still satisfying.

In past seasons, the show’s writers would then take the last 30 minutes and try and tie up a few loose ends and set the stage somewhat for next season. Not this time.

Palmer calls Jack with the bad news that the Chinese want him and that the US government is going to turn him over. Jack takes it like a good soldier, realizing that once the Chinese had Bierne that there was nothing else to do. Meanwhile Cummings gets in contact with the Secret Service agent being sent to arrest Jack and makes it clear in no uncertain terms that it would be better if Jack died.

This is the second time that I can recall Hollywood sliming the Secret Service, some of the most selfless people in government. Oliver Stone thinks they had something to do with JFK’s death. The idea that Cummings could call a random agent and have that guy agree to kill Jack is outrageous and a slap at the dedicated men and women who willingly give up their lives to save the ones they protect.

Novik, being something of a creep himself, eavesdrops on Cummings conversation with Agent Spaulding about killing Jack and immediately informs Palmer. This sets the stage for one of the most maddening exchanges in the entire 24 hours.

Jellyfish, all smiles and relaxed now that being President means simply being a politician, grandly motions Palmer to join him while he’s receiving the undeserved congratulations from world leaders for his “leadership” during the crisis.

Palmer informs him of Cummings duplicity and Jellyfish, probably more out of a reluctance for confrontation than anything else, refuses to talk Cummings out of his plan to kill Jack. He praises Palmer for “playing a role” in resolving the crisis and dismisses him. On his way out the door, Palmer gives Jellyfish a look of contempt that could have withered an evergreen.

Palmer calls Jack to warn him of the danger. Upon hanging up, Jack gets a rueful smile on his face and looks at Tony.

Agent Spaulding shows up at CTU to claim his victim but Jack has evidently escaped. He’s cold cocked Tony and made a bid for freedom. Spaulding goes after him with Tony and they corner Jack in the utility room. In the exchange of gunfire, Jack is apparently hit and, upon approaching him, Tony realizes that he’s dead. Spaulding checks to make sure. Yep, he’s a goner.

Right.

As soon as they’re alone, Tony get’s an ephenedrine shot from Chloe to revive Jack from…what? What drug could stop his heart and breathing so effectively and how did Jack and Tony 1) get the drug and from where, and 2) get the fake blood they smeared all over Jack, and 3) while we’re thinking about it, where the hell did they get the ephenedrine?

No matter, with a little coaxing from Tony, Jack revives. I’m sort of glad we didn’t have to see Tony giving Jack mouth to mouth - maybe they could have enlisted Chloe for that job.

Anyway, after telling Chloe to run interference with the coroner until they could switch bodies (where they gonna get a body this time of the morning anyway?), Jack, Tony, and Michelle pile into an SUV and make their escape from CTU. Before getting out of the car, Jack waits for Tony to say something, anything. After all, it’s supposedly the last time they’re going to see each other. Tony says nothing until Jack is walking away when he manages to mumble “Jack. Be careful.” You can always tell when Tony is under great emotion. He get’s this look on his face like he’s disgusted with himself for being so weak. Tony looked real disgusted when Jack left.

Talking to Palmer one last time, the men exchanged words of respect and affection. When Palmer said that “Jack Bauer is now dead” Jack got that rueful smile on his face again. It’s almost as if the idea appeals to him immensely. No more days like this. No more doing things that make him hate himself for the thug that he his. No more having the weight of saving the country on his shoulders.

He walks off into the sunrise. Alone as always.

FINAL BODY COUNT

I tried my best but there were two gun battles where you knew there were CTU casualties but no mention was made of them. There were also the untold number of people who died in the meltdown of the powerplant. And there were a couple of times where you thought there might be wounded but no mention was ever made of that fact. Given these and other limitations that I’m sure you readers could point out if you put your minds to it. Here are my figures for the final body count.

First, the last hour saw Jack add one notch to his gun when he offed the helicopter pilot. Marwan killed his last American, the CTU agent. And Marwan himself fell to his death with a sickening splat. Because I’m in a charitable mood, let’s give Marwan to Jack, shall we?

Jack: 44

Show: 237

Chloe: 1

Forty Four people dead in 24 hours. And only a couple of them friendlies. Way to go Jack.

FINAL THOUGHTS

First, a speculative thread for next year.

Tony, Michelle, Jack, and Palmer are now all “retired.” How about a scenario with Jack working with CTU from the outside in a foreign country to stop a terrorist attack in the states? Jack tracks down Tony and he joins him while Michelle stays behind and coordinates with CTU. Palmer is enlisted to get Jack help from foreign governments.

One thing is pretty clear, unless Jack is caught by the Chinese and the show opens with him being released from the Gulag, Jack is through at CTU. And the foreign locales would be another breakthrough for network TV. Never been done as far as I can remember.

As far as this year, the first 22 hours I’d put up there with the best TV drama done in a while. I know there were other moments where you had to ignore some of the more outrageous plot devices, but I really thought a lot of them could have been explained by a mole - either in the Defense Department or CTU itself.

The fact that there was no mole pokes so many holes in the plot that most of them are too ridiculous to mention. I will say that I think that if they had stuck with one terrorist plot - to meltdown the reactors - and not had a mole, the plot would have worked perfectly. The override device (itself a ridiculously concocted invention) and everything that happened from that could have been traced back to the defense contractor McGlennon Forster. Corporate bad guys working with Islamic fruitcakes would have been better than the virtual army that Marwan had at his disposal.

There are dozens of terrorists and mercenaries armed to the teeth still loose in the United States when the show ends. And no hint that CTU, the executive branch, or anyone else cares very much about that.

All this being said, it was still enjoyable. I don’t know whether I’m going to blog the series again. It depends on a lot of things, not the least of which is where this site will be come January 2006. Regardless, I hope you enjoyed visiting and sharing this experience with me. I hope you come back often.

The New York Times, one of the United Nations biggest cheerleaders, has an article today that reports on UN peacekeepers getting tough when carrying out their peacekeeping duties.

Given the problems and scandals in the Congo and Darfur with the Blue Helmets, does anyone else think that the timing of this article is just a little suspicious? Could the Times be doing the PR flacks at the UN a favor by pushing this flattering story of gallant UN peacekeepers battling against foes that want to break the peace?

No matter. Although not in the Times article, here are ways for UN Peacekeepers to get get tough with insurgents that continually try and upset the status quo.

1. Don’t say “please” when asking rebels to stop firing.

2. Move forces within 50 miles of insurgent activity. This will prove you mean business.

3. Relocate command headquarters from four star to three star hotel.

4. CHANGE THE COLORS OF UNIFORMS AND VEHICLES. ANYTHING BUT “ROBINS EGG” BLUE!

5. Remove all French and French trained troops from UN command. Replace with mannequins.

6. Put cardboard guns on turrets of APC’s. Better yet, put real guns on cardboard APC’s.

7. Put saltpeter in troops food and tell them to stay away from little boys and girls.

8. Take comfy chairs out of tanks.

9. Require commanders to take a course in how to be mean.

10. Require UN Security Council members who vote for peacekeepers to join them in the field. (The “Chickenhawk” argument)

At the very least, people may stop laughing at these guys if they follow my suggestions. Then again, maybe that’s the only thing they’ve go going for themselves.

Everyone likes clowns.

The title of this post is in reference to one of the most thrilling political potboilers ever written. “Come Nineveh, Come Tyre” was written by Alan Drury and it was the last in a series of political novels by Drury that started with the Pulitzer Prize winner and hit movie “Advise and Consent.”

In the book, a Clinton like President faces mounting challenges and incursions from the old Soviet Union. Each time he backs down, he’s cheered on by liberals and the MSM. Finally, realizing he’s destroyed Americas position in the world (and after a clumsy effort to remove him by the Joint Chiefs) the Russians come calling. The President committs suicide and the reins are handed over to his Vice President, a Soviet agent.

The real reason for the references to these cities is in a biblical context. Nineveh was the city that God told Jonah to save from their wicked ways or he would destroy it. Eventually, after Jonah’s little adventure with the whale, he did indeed reform the people and save the city.

Tyre wasn’t so lucky. The prophet Ezekial predicted that Tyre would be destroyed for its wickedness and sure enough, it was.

One city saved…One city destroyed. What will it be for America in these final two hours? Here follows my predictions as well as some excellent, funny, wild, and weird speculation from the readers.

MARWAN

Marwan will be killed. Some commenters, notably Sue, would like to see Marwan resurrected next season. This would be a possibility and not without precedent. Nina survived till season 2. However, the pure evil that Marwan represents necessitates his destruction if only to make a satisfying ending.

So who kills Marwan? The Maryhunter and Beth agree it could be Behruz, a very intruiging possibility. My speculation about Behruz was that the terrorists would reprogramme him and release him with a bomb belt to blow up CTU. That still may be a possibility (nice way to knock off Michelle, eh?) but the boy may be just as angry at Marwan for killing his mother.

THE MOLE

I don’t know. I can’t even hazard a guess at this point. I will say that whoever it is, we’re going to be surprised. On the wild guess side, there’s Diamond who thinks Palmer may be the traitor. The writers have done things more outrageous so I wouldn’t put it past them.

Beth jumps the shark by guessing President Jellyfish. The Maryhunter is going with Secretary Heller (he obviously missed the last show!) James Wright thinks it’s Audrey; still a possibility but both Hellers were taken out of play I thought in the last episode.

Beth also jumps back over the shark by guessing it’s someone already dead, maybe Paul. The problem there is that the mole tipped off Marwan’s men when CTU stormed the warehous and originally captured him. If the men had been there before CTU got there why didn’t they open fire then? Clearly, someone in CTU - someone close - organized Marwan’s rescue.

More speculation centers on someone we know but haven’t seen yet. Diamond thinks Wayne Palmer, President Palmer’s amoral brother. Not bad but maybe not in the loop enough to help Marwan very much.

In the past, I’ve guessed both Audrey and her father and wildly speculated on both Tony and Michelle. Here’s one out of the blue.

How about Bill Buchanan from division?

I say Buchanan only because he’s in a position to carry out everything the mole has done.

Then, as Brendan suggests (and others) there’s the possibility there is no mole in which case the show has failed miserably and will sputter to an inconclusive and unsatisfactory conclusion.

WHO’S GOING TO DIE?

Universal agreement that either Tony or Michelle will get whacked. Michelle is expendable but one wonders how they will be able to kill her off with her safe and sound at HQ. This is why I think…I think there’s a possibility the nuke may be deflected from it’s original target - but land close enough to cause massive damage.

Target: Los Angeles.

It all fits (plus an emailer that will remain anonymous says that the radar screen in the teaser for this week shows that it is indeed LA).

If indeed LA is the target all bets are off as to who lives and who dies. Since Fox has already announced that season 5 of the show will premier in January of 2006, they can’t kill off too many of the stars.

My own guess is that Tony will get whacked. And despite the convoluted reasoning of Hector (A “triple reverse strategery” used by the writers in which they know that we know that they know that we know…) I think Tony gets it at the hands of Jack who then completes his descent into Dante’s 9th Circle of Hell.

AUDREY AND JACK

Again, universal agreement that Audrey gives Jack his permanent marching orders. I’m not so sure. The writers may leave an opening for Jack and Audrey to do it again next year as the chemistry between them was better than it was between Jack and any other woman in the show’s history.

Unless Audrey is the mole in which case Jack pops her and, after killing Paul, Tony, and now Audrey, sees that life isn’t worth living and tries to off himself. Unsuccessfully of course.

THE CHINESE

I like Brendan’s take on this:

The Chinese will capture the CTU agent that they photographed and torture a confession out of him. They’ll demand that Jack be handed over for trial in China.

This would make an intruiging opening for next season, yes?

THE IOWA CELL

No brainer. They’re either caught or the writers forget about them. Which brings up an interesting scenario.

There are so many Americans working for Marwan. Remember the highway crew that helped the one terrorist switch cars in the tunnel? Then there are all the terrorists who fired on CTU to help Marwan escape. The list goes on and on.

Even if they catch Marwan, there are a hell of a lot of people out there - enough for 10 more seasons - that want to kill us all.

Kind of frightening when you think about it…

CHLOE AND FAT GEEK EDGAR

This elicited the funniest comments.

James Wright: “For the sake of all that is good and decent, Chloe and Edgar will never get it on.”
Bert: Chloe is SOOOO hot!
Diamond: Bert: It seems that your above statement has brought this posting place to a screeching halt. Maybe you should re state your affection for Chloe.
Hector: Chloe and Edgar will get it on. I said it before and I will say it again, these computer geek guys like abuse. > but, image Chloe in black leather with a cat of nine tails whipping naked fat geek Edgar bend over a double processor computer. (This is a family website…please. Ed.)
The Maryhunter: prep for future nasty geek love sammich.

Chloe and fat geek Edgar will in fact become an item and have an ongoing relationship played out next year.

THE FINAL TWO HOURS

Jack kills Tony but takes swinger woman (who I’m informed and now remember was “Mandy” in the first season, the one with the greedy lesbian lover) back to CTU and grills her. She reveals a location for Marwan and he’s recaptured. Taken back to CTU, Marwan reveals (under hideous torture and Dr. Feelgood’s ministrations) a frequency that the missile can be accessed on.

It’s too late to blow it up but fat geek Edgar and Chloe are able to deflect it where it explodes out in the ocean. LA is sideswiped by the blast which destroys CTU headquarters just after Jack discovers who the mole is. The mole escapes in the confusion.

The rest of the show is the chase for the mole (fill in your favorite candidate here). Palmer is left to try and defuse the Chinese situation. Jellyfish collapses in a quivering heap of manflesh following the blast. Novik betrays Palmer again by telling Speaker Ashton about the incapacitation of Jellyfish. Ashton takes over, declares martial law (which is what the mole wanted) and tells the Chinese he’ll hand them Jack’s head if they don’t attack.

Jack catches up to the mole and kills him/her. We’re left wondering if there is someone else in the government - someone who profits by a declaration of martial law - that the mole reported to.

This scenario leaves a lot of openings for the writers next year which is how they’ve ended the previous seasons. Expect some threads to wither away but others to be carried over till next January.

Tomorrow, I’ll post in two parts. First part should be up by 7:00 AM Central time.

So hold on to your hats…this is going to get bumpy!