What's Next, Putin as Old Scratch?

Not to be outdone by a populist dictator like Chavez, Jerry Falwell upped the ante in the devil wars by saying this about the possible presidential run of Hillary Clinton:

''I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate,'' Falwell said at a breakfast session Friday in Washington. ''I hope she's the candidate, because nothing will energize my (constituency) like Hillary Clinton,'' he said. ''If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't.''

Interesting sentiment. For the record, while Chavez apparently referred to our dear President simply as the devil, the Good Rev. Falwell makes use of Lucifer, the angelic name given to the Prince of Darkness before his fall from grace, when he was still, ironically enough, the Prince of Light. Interesting note on the origins of the name to refer to the Christian Devil:

Jerome, with the Septuagint close at hand and a general familiarity with the pagan poetic traditions, translated Heylel as Lucifer. This may also have been done as a pointed jab at a bishop named Lucifer, a contemporary of Jerome who argued to forgive those condemned of the Arian heresy.

That Jerome played for keeps!

Aside from its historical and humorous features, this incident may make a potent political point. The right wing HATES Hillary. Probably worse than her husband, which is entirely unfair, but hey, politics isn't about being fair. If she runs, the GOP will run mad and hard against her.

But, and stay with me on this, perhaps so mad that they'll alienate the moderate (especially female) voters that they NEED to win any national election? By running on anger would Republicans risk the Dem Curse of '04: Big attacks, little substance to offer in return? And would Americans sympathize with Hillary after months of what are sure to be dirty attacks? Not sure, but with Falwell already comparing her to the devil, the Grillmaster thinks that it's worth keeping this point in mind.

Oh Hugo, You Charmer

Just when you thought that Iran's president was the biggest showman-dictator in the world, good old Hugo Chavez steps up to the plate yesterday with one of the great moments of un-statesmanship in recent memory. Calling a fellow head of state the devil...class.

Not that one feels particularly sorry for Bush. His cowboy-diplomacy has never ventured into declaring opponents literal devils, but he's been loose and fast enough with calling folks evil that Chavez can legitimately say, 'Senor Jorge started it."

The real point once again is that the past five years have been such an unmitigated diplomatic disaster that clowns with guns like Chavez and Ahmedinajad (spelling from memory, so go easy on me) can embarass us a subway ride from Ground Zero while all we can do is unconvincingly pretend not to listen. Torture, a war of choice, a disastrous recovery and the total neglect of Israel-Palestine have characterized a foreign policy that's growing impotent before the midterms even take place.

Blogger Runs Beta

Hey All,
Blogger is apparently upgrading its services, so you'll notice some minor changes to the site in the near future. Let me know if anything bugs out on you.
GM

Madeleine Gets God

The Grillmaster has been making his way through Secretary Albright’s newest book with great interest. It’s not every day that someone of such stature spends a whole book talking directly about one’s research interest. The work, “The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs,” is the kind of wide-ranging and smart effort that one would expect from someone with such a distinguished pedigree.

In a way, it’s the writing of the book that’s as interesting as the content. Madeleine Albright is a progressive A-lister, as close a thing as Democrats have to an elder international stateswoman. And she’s writing about God! Decently well! As the barely intelligible Bob Dylan rasped when I saw him in concert Saturday night, ‘The times, they are a-changing.’ Another sign that progressives at the highest levels are taking religion seriously as a force for social change and academic study.

This is good news for the world (when we get back into the White House), and smart politically. Talking about a foreign policy that works with religious partners for the common good is a massive opportunity for progressives to distinguish themselves from their neo-con opponents and give a strong-headed ethical grounding to their international vision.

Make no mistake that Madame Albright is strong-headed. She reminds you about it every five pages or so. It’s a little much sometimes, like that football player who tried out for the high school play and constantly told his friends he wasn’t turning weird or anything, but it’s honest as well. Albright demonstrates real understanding of faith traditions and a personal candor about her own faith that comes across as genuine, but clearly remains a realist at heart, one who is interested in religion because of the pragmatic advantages it can offer to policy-makers. The Grillmaster thinks that theology risks being all smoke no fire, but it’s still an important imprimatur to secular foreign policy makers that they need to take religion seriously.

I was particularly pleasantly surprised to see Albright explicitly call for the creation of religious affairs liasons at the State Department. Doug Johnston has been calling for those for about a decade over at the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, and we’d be better for them. Would be great if this book convinced some Congressman to make it a pet cause.

This all has the Grillmaster missing his days of reading and writing about this stuff as a day job. Which is probably a sign that I ought to get back to that someday not too far in the future…

You Done Me Wrong

On March 4^th of this past year, the Grillmaster sat down with two old friends in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Well, three friends if you count the bottle of whiskey. Actually, if you count all the bottles, it was four, but that’s another story. We spent a good part of the night doing what old friends should do, catching up on girlfriends, families, and football. Then, perhaps because I’ve caught the DC disease of talking work everywhere I go, we committed a double party foul: debating religion AND politics.

And somehow, against all odds, we’re still friends. The three of us disagree on many things and agree on others, but because of the bonds we’ve built over time, we can yell and swear and laugh about it in the end. Probably most importantly, we respect each other as honest and honorable men (at least about important things that is).

The Grillmaster couldn’t help but think of that long blurry night while reading through Commonweal and First Things yesterday morning. These are two of the leading journals of Catholicism and public life (at fairly opposite ends of the Catholic political spectrum), and both have launched blogs in the past year. Over the past few days, a conversation has developed on those blogs that lacks the charity and respect of our global summit in Chapel Hill.

A snarky but interesting post at First Things by Charlotte Allen, was followed by an adept reply from Commonweal, and then a round of sometimes-witty, sometimes-offensive comments from Commonweal’s blog commenters. Jodi Bottum of First Things then climbed to the summit of victimization to declare that Commonweal readers hate First Things readers. That’s a quote folks. Such melodramatics were simply the last political power play in the exchange, albeit of the passive aggressive variety. Commonweal editors have taken the real high ground, apologizing for the comments while reminding Mr. Bottum that his over-reaction was distinctly uncharitable to the Commonweal editors.

At the heart of both the offending comments and Mr. Bottum’s reply lurked a need for victim-status that requires one portray debating partners as hateful hellions. This need to play the victim may be a distinctly Catholic thing (redirection of our deep down urge to self-flagellate, etc etc), but the use and abuse of victim language by evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, and atheists makes me think something larger is at work: that distinctly human need to feel right in our cause, and the instinct that those who are victims must have right on their side.

Old friends and good Catholics realize that the victim narrative is never as clear-cut as we’d like to make it. Christ crucified is the only pure victim; we followers are at our BEST a blend of that perfect sacrifice and the crowds who called for his crucifixion. What is it about friendship and whiskey that makes this truth more apparent?

First Things First

To say that the Grill has gone a bit untended recently may be a bit of an understatement. As with everything else in DC, this little piece of work has been a bit neglected during the dog days of summer. I plead vacation and moving, and throw myself on the mercy of you the reader (or perhaps readers if I’m lucky).

There’s been just a bit of interest going on since I last wrote. As this Sunday’s Washington Post pointed out, August has a habit of turning up big events even though the President is off bushwhacking. The Grillmaster could return with a post on Israel getting bogged down in Lebanon, the real pain of the ‘birth pangs of democracy,’ the fall of Ralph Reed, the head butt of Zissou or the salvific appearance of Air McNair in the Ravens’ backfield to call plays and lead us back to Super Bowl glory.

But first, a major announcement from the Grillmaster family. As of about a month ago, the Grillmistress has been promoted to Grill-fiancée. May the coals of our love burn ever bright, or some such over-extended metaphor. In a classic move of misdirection, the Grillmaster’s procrastination in this matter led the artist formerly known as the Grillmistress to give up all hope and despair that the question would never be popped. She was pleasantly surprised to the contrary in Charlottesville on the balcony of Pavilion VII overlooking the Lawn. The big day will be just under 11 months from now, so set your calendars.

The Official Fiancée of the Grill (still experimenting with names) departed Virginia this morning for the company of her grad school compatriots and better ice cream and cheddar cheese in Vermont. It’s the first time since summer started that the Grillmaster has been alone in the newly unpacked house without the immediate prospect of company. Grillin’ for one just ain’t as much fun.

Will be back with more regular posts (I promise), now that the summer is coming to an end...

Two Speeches a World Apart

EJ Dionne in the Washington Post is almost always worth one's time, and this morning is must read material. He calls Sen. Obama's Wednesday address on faith and politics,

what may be the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican.

High praise, and almost certainly not the last time that the junior senator from Illinois will be compared to the man who was once the junior senator from Massachusetts.

It's telling to contrast what made those two speeches groundbreaking. Kennedy was set to run for the presidency, to become our nation's first Catholic president. Worried about anti-Catholic attacks on his loyalty to country like those that hampered Gov. Al Smith of New York in the presidential election of '28, Kennedy delivers an address to Southern Baptist leaders that underscored the limits of his faith. It essentially boils down to, 'I'm a Catholic, but I'm not going to take orders from the pope.' Imagine that, a Democrat needing to convince voters that his faith wouldn't matter TOO MUCH.

Fast forward almost fifty years to Wednesday at the Call to Renewal conference in DC. A lot has changed in the party of Kennedy, so much so that conservative Catholics like to make the near-blasphemous claim that JFK would have run as a Republican today. Sen. Obama delivers his address not to assure Americans that he'll maintain the separation of church and state, but to reassert that progressives don't need to advocate a public square stripped of all faith and values.

There's a lot to say about the particulars of Obama's speech, but the contrast between these two historic speeches makes it crystal clear how necessary the senator's words were on Wednesday. If his call for fairminded dialogue is heeded, America and all working of the common good will be stronger for it.

Welcome to the big leagues...

So THAT'S what happens when a top flight European squad takes you seriously in a match in a World Cup. See, the US apparently thought that its experience with Portugal in the opener of the last cup was standard fare. Not so much. In the ever encouraging words of the ESPN commentators, 'the US got smoked.'

The unfortunate thing is that right up until that second beautiful goal rocketed into the side netting from about 80 yards away, the US was right in the thing. Controlling possession. Down 1-0, but on an early goal. The Czechs hadn't looked particularly strong since then. Reyna just had an incredible strike come within two or three inches of tying up the game. All was well in the world.

And then, bad clearance by central defense, and BOOM, 2-0. It was a clean right hook to the jaw, and we went down just like Michael Warrick in the 9th round last Wednesday. Doctors reported only weak signs of life for the remainder of the game.

I read somewhere after our loss to the Germs in the quarterfinals in '02 something like this: 'Congrats America, you've truly arrived. Today you outplayed another team, but got beat anyway. Welcome to World Cup football.' Well, maybe this is another step in our development. Congrats America, you're on your way. Today a European team took you seriously, and beat you mercilessly up and down the pitch. Welcome to World Cup football.

Back to the Land of Guinness and Old Friends

This time there's a good reason for my absence! The Grillmaster returned to his Irish/Northern Irish/[insert Anglo-national reference here] stomping grounds last week for a much needed vacation. Nothing sounded better than a week of quiet countryside, welcoming people, and stirred memories.

HA! The only moments of quiet were while in the pub toilet. Aside from that, the Guinness and old friends kept me well occupied. Such a different experience to cross the ocean and feel like you're going home again. Too many highlights to list them all, but I'll do my best with a top 10 list.

10. An open bar banquet in the Guinness Storehouse in Dublin. Miraculously, less intoxicating than you might think.

9. Sharing R. Kelly's 'Trapped in the Closet' with an international crowd, thus further damaging Euro-American relations.

8. Holding it down in the best table in Belfast, the corner booth at the Duke of York.

7. Defending the honor of the Mitchell class of 2005 by winning the innaugural Guinness chug-off.

6. A glorious lunch with old friends at the best Middle Eastern cafe you've never heard of in Dublin's Chester Beaty Library.

5. Seeing the future of world theatre in '100 Minutes.' Amazingly successful even with so many frightening man-killers...

4. Discovering a whole new painful variety of cider with a crowd sophisticated enough to appreciate the complicated nuances of the cider pallette.

3. Rambling the beautiful emptiness of the Donegal roads with our intrepid and fearless American driver.

2. Meeting young Master James Walker for the first time, and seeing his parents sane and well.

1. Returning to our little piece of paradise at Downhill Hostel. And the fact that if I ever need to start an alternate life as someone named Daniel, I'll have an innkeeper to vouch for me.

Dear George...

So it has come to this: the leader of the free world is upstaged by a two-bit faux-populist anti-Semite from Iran. The letter from Mahmood Ahmadinajad exemplifies that ever so fine line between insanity and genius. It's a brilliant tactical stroke, in all likelihood actually made a difference at the UN yesterday thanks to our cowardly friends in Russia and China, and has at least temporarily put Bush on the defensive.

If you need any more proof that our President has made this country less safe, think of this: he has so little international credibility that a semi-coherant rant on Christian theology from a repressive Islamist dictator is all it takes to tip the global balance of power against US interests. Mission accomplished.

Strength through Conviction

Peter Beinhart has an interesting piece in this weekend's New York Times magazine. The title, 'Rehabilitation of the Cold-War Liberal,' is somewhat misleading (the article barely touches on the Cold War liberal in question, Reinhold Neibuhr), but the content is provocative and challenging on a couple of fronts. My friend Paul Musgrave is too caught up in New York cynicism to see the truth in Beinhart's arguments, but I'll let it go this time without imposing Calvinball-related penalties on him.

Beinhart seems to have two points that are most worth pondering. First, he dares to argue that liberal foreign policy ought to draw strength from its convictions. This is no small contention these days. A sizable chunk of liberal elites is thrilled that simply embracing realistic self-interest can make liberals come off like trust-worthy world stewards in comparison with the ideological wrecklessness of King George. But is this enough? Beinhart argues convincingly that it is not only inadequate to the world we face, but a betrayal of the greatest achievements of liberals in foreign policy in the early days of the Cold War. Neibuhr had a deeply calculating, pragmatic streak, but it was grounded in principles far more meaningful than simple 'realistic' self-interest.

Which brings us to his second argument, equally contentious although quite different. What should these neo-liberal principles look like? Beinhart pushes his Cold War analogy in ways that aren't entirely satisfying, but are certainly provocative. In short, Cold War liberals were wise enough to realize that the foreign policy of a democracy must allow for difference in the world if that policy actually believes in its democratic ideals. Thus, the analogue to the socialist allies of Europe (which never fully yielded to communism) is today's popularly supported Islamist parties throughout the Middle East.

The challenge then becomes to determine WHY those European socialists never yielded to the USSR, and replicate those circumstances with contemporary Islamist parties. I'm no Cold War expert, but I'd posit that two features that helped America's cause in Europe do in fact exist today in the world of Islamist politics. First, ethno-nationalism never died in Western Europe. Nations wished to maintain national distinctiveness in a way that prevented submission to the heavy-handed USSR. A similarly enduring national strength remains in the Middle East. Pan-Arabism remains discredited, which ought to limit the threat that Islamist parties will unite in any meaningful way to control the region by force.

Second, I would imagine that US policy-makers indulged the socialistic experiments of Western European leaders, while establishing bright lines that could not be crossed without consequence. Why couldn't such an arrangement allow for engagement of Islamist parties? The United States will tolerate a great deal of internal diversity and autonomy within Islamic democracies, so long as nations eschew things like overtly calling for Israel's destruction, denying basic human rights (especially to women), and fostering terror groups intent on attacking the US.

This list of bright lines is clearly incomplete, but I think it is a viable path for engaging the very real and growing strength of political Islam. It would push liberals beyond short-sighted realistic calculation, indicate to the world that America can balance self-interest with local democracy, and remind us of some of the ideals that gave real strength to liberal foreign policy in the not-so-distant past.

Martick's Restaurant Francais

The best restaurants scare you. You wouldn't set foot in the place unless a trusted friend took you there first. You're a little nervous during your first visit, but after that you relish the chance to be the person bringing your friends there, to watch them while they nervously shift in their seats and wonder, 'What the hell am I doing here?" These places are never crowded, but always seem to be open. You leave for long periods, neighborhoods change, but the scene inside is always more or less the same.

The Grillmaster knows of a few such places, and had the chance to dine in one of my favorites this past Friday. Martick's Restaurant Francais has a bit of a deceptive name. Continental? Sort of. Classy? Eh, well, no. Sophisticated? After a fashion.

Martick's is a Baltimore landmark, and anybody who has the chance ought to get the to appreciate it before the octogenarian crank who runs the place hangs up his apron. He's Mr. Martick (his dad was THE Martick). He was born in the place. It was a speakeasy during Prohibition, a bohemian hip spot after that, a dark shell while Martick fled to France to learn to cook, and now a run-down speakeasy look-alike that just happens to serve some of the best French food in the area code.

You walk up to the door and wonder if you're in the right place. There are no signs of life, just a broken looking doorbell. When you give it a ring you'll either be greeted by a muffled bark or else just silence. After a little while the heavy wooden Prohibition-era door will swing open. If you're lucky, an eccentric host or hostess will ask you what the password is. If you're not, Mo Martick will be there in his boxers asking you what you want.

As your eyes readjust to the dim light, you can hardly believe your eyes. Baroque nude statues. Snakeskin wallpaper. Velvet curtains. Tile floors and a tin roof. The odds are that a half dozen other patrons of varying degrees of uniqueness are scattered across the small room. The menus are handwritten, the air is still, and you swear you don't know where the hell this place came from.

Then the food comes, and you realize why your friend brought you to what upon your arrival you took for the anteroom to Hell. It's French country cooking at its best. Fairly simple, moderately priced, hearty, and fantastically good. It still doesn't make sense, this infernal place with heavenly food. But that's what makes it great and rare. That kind of unsettling juxtaposition is tough to find, especially in these days of exurbs and urban renewal. Take the time to enjoy it while you still can. And try not to let it show that you're a little bit scared.

Mr. Hu Goes to Washington

This morning, the Grillmaster had the opportunity to witness the arrival and formal welcome of Chinese President Hu Jintao. The whole event was quite impressive. Two of my pictures from the morning pretty much sum up my ambivalence towards China. First, the formal shake of the two executives, perhaps the two most powerful men in the world. Second, the protestor who was hauled off right in front of us. Quite the day.

I've recently come across the following thank you note intercepted by the AP...

From: President Hu Jintao
To: President George W. Bush

Dear G-Dubs,

I very much enjoyed my visit to the White House today. Your troops are most impressive, although the ones in white wigs I found a bit curious. Laura is quite the catch! State-sponsored TV doesn't do her justice.

I was a bit put off by the screeching protestor that your officials somehow allowed to infiltrate the press corps. I mean, she writes for the damn Falun Gong newspaper! I have seen your Fox News, so surely you know that all journalists are not objective reporters of the truth. My police would surely have made life quite unpleasant for her and her relatives, but I suppose you all have your democratic processes that must be respected. Perhaps you can find room for her at Gitmo? I kid!

Seriously though, great show yall put on today. It was an honor to be received in such fashion. In a country of less than 300 million people, I can see how a crowd of 2,000 is a sign of respect. Of course, in China we could have convinced at least 25,000 of our 1.3 BILLION people to make an appearance, but hey, who's counting!

I hope we can continue the cordial relationship that we have fostered over the past years. I'm told that you're agenda is fairly open for the next three years, so perhaps you'll have time to pay Beijing a visit. I'll make sure the protestors keep their distance.

Your Comrade,
Hu

The Joys of Spring

Bourbon on the roof, Chipotle with friends, and now the O's have put up 13 on the Indians. Ain't Spring grand. No particularly profound thoughts other than that. I'll leave those to Walker Percy. This is from his classic essay on the aesthetic experience, aptly titled 'Bourbon'

"The pleasure of knocking back Bourbon lies in the plain of the aesthetic but at an opposite pole from connoisseurship. My preference for the former is or is not deplorable depending on one's value system--that is to say, how one balances out the Epicurean virtues of cultivating one's sensory end organs with the greatest discrimination and at least cost to one's health, against the virtue of evocation of time and memory and of the recovery of self and the past from the fogged-in disoriented Western world. In Kierkegaardian terms, the use of Bourbon to such an end is a kind of aestheticized religious mode of existence, whereas connoisseurship, the discriminating but single-minded stimulation of sensory end organs, is the aesthetic of damnation."

Out of the Desert

WARNING: SHAMELESS PLUG

The Grillmaster finds the desert troubling (too much sand, not enough meat). Nevertheless, it has been fertile metaphorical ground in the past for my writing, and seemed fitting in this piece just published through the Center for American Progress. Hope you enjoy.

Lax Standards

The Grillmaster has been resisting the urge to post on the Duke lacrosse saga. It's a story that has left me torn from the beginning, and hasn't gotten any less troubling now that the defense claims that DNA tests have cleared all their clients.

Like most white middle class kids in Baltimore, I played lacrosse early. From 6-16 I played in some form, from winter soft stick clinics through a brief and hilariously injury prone high school goalie career. I love the speed, power, and skill of the game. I love watching goalies throw themselves in front of shots that hurtle towards net in excess of 100 mph. I love that the first warm Saturday afternoons of spring mean lacrosse season is in full swing. And I love that both my alma maters (Loyola High School Baltimore and UVA) are at the top of the lacrosse world year after year.

But there's no getting around the fact that many of the best lax players are rich white guys who can be loosely described as 'assholes'. The Grillmaster has himself certainly done some asshole things in his day, but lax guys tend to take it to another level. This is a long way from saying that they are all aspiring sex offenders, but there's no doubt in my mind that a sizable chunk of the best players in the high school and college game cultivate an air of preppy jock untouchableness. Dave Jamieson's article over at Slate is WAY over the top (at least based on living in the lax mecca that is Baltimore), but most honest players would probably acknowledge he has a bit of a point.

All of these thoughts jumbled together when the initial allegations around Duke's excellent men's team came into the open. I wasn't particularly surprised, although I was really saddened for the sport and most of the guys on the team. I thought that some sexual assault probably did occur, although I was sure they'd have lawyers who would fight tooth and nail to protect them. Now it looks as if the evidence is pointing away from sexual assault, although we'll have to see how the story plays itself out.

It's been morbidly amusing to watch every social theorist in the country link this incident to their cause celebre. When guilt seemed assured, race theorists ranted, feminists fumed, and Marxists muttered. Even conservatives like David Brooks got in on the act, linking this incident to the fall of values-based education. If these allegations are dismissed in coming days, you can rest assured that other 'theorists' will chalk this up to the fact that poor black folks just can't be trusted.

Regardless of what happens at the end of this case, a lot of damage has been done to a good sport and the vast majority of good guys who play it. When over 40,000 fans crowd Ravens' Stadium to watch the Final Four, this will rival the main storyline. 'What if Duke's season hadn't been cut short,' commentators will ask to no end. 'Will the sport's image ever recover,' an earnest sideline reporter might ask. Virginia has one of the most dominant teams in men's lacrosse history (knock on wood), but no one will remember that as the top story of the 2006 season.

And probably most depressingly, this story will set back some of the progress that had been made towards diversifying the game geographically, racially, and economically. You probably haven't heard this on CNN or MSNBC, but lacrosse was actually becoming less of an elite-cornered market. Kids beyond Baltimore and Long Island are starting to play at earlier ages, which in a decade or so almost certainly means that the best players will come from a much more diverse pool. Hopefully the universally despicable actions of one night won't do irreversible damage to the game that reminds me so much of home.

Neuhaus Naked in the Square

If you don't know who Richard John Neuhaus is, you probably should. More than anyone, he has provided the intellectual heft behind contemporary religious conservatism, built the brainy foundation upon which Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and others now rest. Damon Linker, a former editor of Neuhaus' journal First Things, has a comprehensive, somewhat sympathetic, and eventually damning account of Fr. Richard's goals in this week's New Republic (free subscription required). I don't know the story of how Linker parted ways with his former boss, but it makes for one hell of an article.

The Soundtrack

Dear and loyal readers (perhaps that should be singular?):

My apologies for neglecting the grill these past two weeks. I can only plead the combination of much work with a great extended visit from the Grillmistress. I very much enjoy tending this little corner of cyberspace, but certain things have a happy habit of distracting one during free hours at home. As the Grillmistress has returned to the great North for a little while, I can get back to my monastic discipline of blogging.

There have been dozens of newsworthy events during the past weeks, which I may get to in time. But there is pressing business of the musical variety that I simply must put on the grill. After all, every cookout needs background music. The Grillcouple saw both at the Strathmore in Bethesda last week. Think of the USS Constellation meets the Starship Enterprise, and you start to get the Strathmore.

If you don't know who Kurt Elling is, find out, and see him in concert if he ever comes through your neck of the woods. His hipster schtick would be a little over the top if he wasn't so damn good. His lyrics probe philosophical depths, his voice pushes the extremes of pitch and pace, and his band is TIGHT. Listen to his arrangement of My Foolish Heart, and get ready to testify. I'm forever in debt to my first year philosophy of religion teacher who introduced me to this dynamic talent. The old farts at the Strathmore didn't know how good they had it.

The crowd was much younger and more in the know on Wednesday night. You might not have heard of the SFJazz collective, but you probably have heard of some of its members. Joshua Redman, Nicholas Payton, Bobby Hutcherson, and five other world-class musical talents in one band. 8 original compositions from band members. Oh yeah, and 6 covers from some obscure guy named Herbie Hancock. It is a true treat to see a group made up of such explosive individual musicians who know how to play as a band and obviously care about entertaining their audience. Class professionals. And DAMN can Mr. Payton blow that horn.

The River City might not always have the most character, but with regular doses of music like this, there might just be enough soul in my life to get by.

Hope Springs Eternal

A Late Follow-Up

Apologies for the delay in a full post on last week's letter from the Catholic Dems in the House. Was in Durham for a conference on Southern values, and then spent the weekend in the company of great friends down in Chapel Hill. I can now tick 'Roam Franklin Street After UNC Beats Duke' off my list of life accomplishments.

The cynic and the realist (are they the same?) will say that the letter is just an example of shameless Democrats pandering to pollsters. 'What's that, you say? We need religion to win elections? Brilliant!' There's likely a grain of truth in this (after all, the Grillmaster owes his job to the post-2004 upswing in interest in faith and progressive politics), but I don't see any more reason to doubt the sincerity of these Democrats than that of their Bible-thumping counterparts in the GOP. Politics is the art of the possible for all involved; these politicians did an admirable job of explaining how pragmatism meets principle in their very public lives.

At least two things bear particular note from the letter. First, it is signed by some of the strictest 'pro-lifers' in the House and some of those most loyal to the 'pro-choice' community. Can this be? Maybe, just maybe, it's actually possible that reasonable people on both sides of this argument can disagree on the particulars of the issue at hand, and have the courage to acknowledge the legitimacy of that disagreement. Whether motivated by party bonds or the ties of faith, this is a significant acknowledgement. It bodes well for the tone of our public discourse, the health of our courts, and the honesty of our political life.

Second, the signatories of this letter do not fall into the blasphemous rhetorical game of claiming exclusive ownership of faith in politics that characterizes the fringes of the Religious Right. As more faith voices gain the courage to speak up on behalf of progressive political causes, they ought to never replicate the arrogance and pride of Robertson, Dobson, and Falwell. Faith in public life is frought with compromise and ambiguity. Denying the reality of this compromise may be the surest sign of someone so deep in the moral murk of politics that they can't see any light from above.

More on Catholic Dems

So the full letter from 55 Catholic Democrats in the House was released yesterday. It's a fairly eloquent, if imperfect, statement of how these elected officials bring their faiths into their public roles. I'll write a full post after work, but for now check out what Alan Cooperman has to say in this morning's Washington Post. Note the Family Research Council guy playing defense. If that isn't a nice way to start your morning, I don't know what is...

Catholic Democrats in the House

Totally spot on article from EJ Dionne in the Post this morning about an upcoming letter from Catholic Democratic Reps, both pro-choice and pro-life, on their Catholic faith, their public service, and the difficulty of grappling with the abortion issue. To this Catholic Democrat, it's exciting to see such documents in the works. Will write more later.

This Makes Me SOOOOO Mad!

Joking! George Will has a fairly entertaining article in this morning's Washington Post on why conservatives are consistently happier than liberals in polls. I don't dispute the poll, although he doesn't say whether the results are controlled for level of wealth. That obviously could make a huge difference.

Assuming that such controls did take place in the research, he has a point on a number of scores, although as a liberal I'd reframe his argument. Liberals are less happy because we're more outward-looking, more concerned about others, and more determined that the world can in fact be made a better place. Therefore, the darkness of the world upsets us.

Conservatives have more realistic (and mentally healthier) views of evil; they expect it, and deep down don't really think government can do much about it. So they can drink Coors and drive their SUVs in bliss while Iraq burns.

As a Christian, this part of conservatism is one of its great appeals to me. Evil will always exist, and if any of us think we're going to get rid of it with the perfect government program, we're living in a dreamland. Still, I hope I never entirely lose the sense of connectedness and hope that makes me convinced that we can improve the condition of this world through government action, and causes me to be in a bit of funk today because Iraq is as close as ever to civil war.

But Will He Get Tea in Jail...

A fascinating juxtaposition of jurisprudence in the past weeks. In Austria, an English historian is locked up for 3 years for denying the Holocaust. Meanwhile, in America, the Supreme Court upholds the right of a religious group to drink hallucinogenic tea in its rituals. And around the world tensions continue to simmer around the cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed.

The situation in Austria is particularly interesting given the recent hubbub about the freedom of the press in Denmark. They have a thing for cartoons, in case you haven't heard. To hear the Dutch tell it, Muslims should swallow their pride, because freedom of the press is absolute, and democracy demands we know how to be offended.

But not so fast my friend! Austria's laws criminalize "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media." A relic of the post-war period? Not at all. The law was passed in 1992.

As the Grillmaster argued in an earlier post, this freedom ought to be protected except in the most abnormal circumstances. The case in Austria is a sad example of fear of the past violating this principle. Austria's democracy ought to be robust enough to withstand the propostrous historical claims made by this British anti-Semite. He should be publicly condemned as a bigot, and allowed to wander into relative obscurity. Unfortunately, the specter of the Nazi past still looms so large, and neo-fascism remains so visible, that Austria lacks the democratic self-confidence to allow fools to speak their foolish minds. An added misfortune is that this surely reminds Europe's Muslims that while their governments will curb speech to protect Jewish minorities, similar restraints do not exist to insulate their beliefs from doubt and ridicule.

On the heels of these decisions, the Supreme Court today affirmed the right of a small religious sect to drink hallucenogenic tea in their rituals. It's not directly related to either free speech case in Europe, but points again to America's remarkable ability to accomodate difference and free expression. The justices decided that the ritual was a sincere religious expression, and thus accomodated difference rather than impose restraint. If the Roberts Court shows similar consideration for freedom from warrentless search and from inhumane treatment while in detention, it will truly do this country proud.

Unfortunately, the Grillmaster wouldn't bet the smoker on it. Governments tend to err on the side of security, especially in time of threat. It's why Austria has the laws it does, and why the Roberts Court is unlikely to live up to my hopes.

A Humbled Neocon

In yesterday's NYT Magazine, Francis 'It's the End of History, and I Feel Fine' Fukuyama presents an interesting argument he titles, 'After Neoconservatism.' He sees in the Bush Administration's 2005 actions clear signs that neoconservatism is in retreat, crippled by its combination of idealism and militarism.

Rather than cede the stage to cynical Kissengerian realism, Fukuyama attempts to construct a foreign policy strategy informed by neoconservatism's foundations, but divorced from its disastrous implementation by the Bush White House. As he puts it, 'What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world — ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about.'

The whole article is well-worth reading. Fukuyama brings a lifetime of scholarship and intellectual engagement with neoconservatism's founders to the table. At the same time he comes across as very fair minded and willing to engage in self-criticism, which immediately disqualifies him from affiliation with the Bush Bunch.

He's so fair minded, in fact, that the Grillmaster could have sworn his article could just as easily have been called After Liberalism. He affirms the need for promoting universal human rights and democracy. He calls policy-makers out for concentrating on military power while ignoring the cultural, economic, and moral 'soft power' that hegemons can bring to bear on the world. He wants to promote robust international organizations and alliances that can grant legitimacy to international action. In this his model is the NATO bombing of Kosovo, hardly what one would traditionally think of as a neo-con triumph.

You'll buy his argument depending on how you view neo-cons to begin with. If you think neoconservatism is primarily characterized by a dedication to human freedom, you're more likely to jump on board, and hope that your ideology hasn't been hopelessly discredited by King George. If you're like the Grillmaster, you'll remain highly suspicious; there's a willingness to arrogantly and wrecklessly use force that seems to be in the water the neocons drink. I don't call into question the genuineness of Dr. Fukuyama, just of those across the river from me in the White House who might have read his article yesterday.

Robert Wright on Cartoons and Riots

Robert Wright in this morning's NYT has a very well-balanced piece on the Islamist riots around the Danish cartoons. Must have read my post last week...

A Question Worth Asking

Is abortion bad? That is the title of an exchange between William Saletan and Katha Pollitt today in Slate. It builds on a column Saletan wrote in the New York Times last weekend, in which he goes so far as to say that "It's time for the abortion-rights movement to declare war on abortion." In the wake of these exchanges, E.J. Dionne gives a gem of a column entitled 'Bridging the Divide on Abortion,' in this morning's Washington Post.

These are debates that have to happen, questions that must be asked. Strict pro-choicers like Pollitt will object that the debates yield too much ground to the opposition and weaken the liberal position, but the truth of the matter is that refusing to engage in such debates would signal the true weakness: that of a shrill and rigid orthodoxy that feels too threatened to engage public opinion or even the mildest dissent.

Because no matter how much strict pro-choicers might want to insist that an abortion is not a moral decision, this is profoundly out of touch with the emotional reality of the situation as experienced by the majority of the American public. Most Americans want abortion to remain legal, but most also want it acknowledged for the tragic moral situation that it is.

Saletan and Dionne both realize that unless liberal politicians take active steps to curtail abortions, primarily through education, poverty relief and contraception, all the Hillary-esque rhetoric of abortions being a terrible tragedy will ring hollow. 'Just those slick Democrats responding to poll numbers,' a lot of people will say.

That's because moral language requires follow through. What's interesting is that there are entirely liberal, progressive methods for reducing abortion. Stressing sex education (not that nonsense of abstinence only), contraceptive use and development, poverty alleviation, and tax credits for adoption are all progressive plans for reducing abortion without attacking women or endangering their health.

Saletan and Dionne certainly don't speak for all Democrats, but they courageously speak a truth that must be heard: those who spout on about 'safe, legal, and rare' must offer concrete proposals that embody that third part of the pro-choice trinity.

EJ Dionne on Abortion

One should pretty much always take the time to read EJ Dionne in The Post, but today is particularly on point. Will write about this at length later on...

E.J. Dionne on Abortion

Flying Tomatoes, Fast Sausages, and Curling

I love the Winter Olympics! The insanity of the luge, the sleekness of the bobsleds, the edge of disaster downhill, the skill of hockey the way it was meant to be played, the grace of figure skating, the powerful fluidity of speedskating, the inexplicable oddity of curling, and even the drug-test-defying snowboarders.

The summer games are probably the most classic tests of athletic prowess, but the little kid in me is always absolutely sucked in by the Winter Olympiad. Maybe it has something to do with the snow and ice, lending a layer of purity to sport. After all, snowboarders might toke, but they don't tend to dope like their summer compatriots. Or maybe the little kid in me just likes to see people playing around in the snow like we all did on the roof in DC this weekend.

Well It's Not Exactly Calvin & Hobbes

Gary Trudeau, eat your heart out. Political cartoonists may spend much of their lives in relative obscurity, but this week has vaulted them squarely into the middle of Mr. Huntington’s sometimes elusive, sometimes imminent clash of civilizations. Now a cartoonist lives under the kind of threat that Islamists once reserved for Nobel Laureate Authors.

The last time the Grillmaster commented on riotous Islamists, the issue was alleged police repression in the suburban ghettos of Paris. This time, it is a series of seriously offensive political cartoons that appeared in Danish papers. Doesn’t take much to see that some of the same issues may be involved.

As with the riots in France, these have been sparked by a relatively minor incident. Altogether now class, can we say, ‘redirected anger?’ The same general resentment, lack of opportunity and isolation that fuels Al Quaeda membership and Islamist electoral victories is at play in these riots. Yet another European country has failed to integrate its Islamic population, and in the process has helped to create the hostile environment that has now left its embassies in ashes.

A few preliminary matters that are seemingly self-evident. First, the paper had every right to publish the cartoons. Second, given Denmark’s internal tensions with its Islamic community, such publishing was less than prudential. In fact, it was stupid and intentionally provocative. Third, this doesn’t make it OK to burn down embassies. As appealing as it is to imagine roasting duck over a diplomatic fire, it’s just poor form. Fourth, it is ludicrous for Muslim countries that regularly allow virulently anti-Semitic cartoons to appear in their pages to condemn the European press for this.

I can't help but think of this situation through my year in Belfast. It's not a perfect analogy, but Marching Season has something to teach us. The Orangemen in Northern Ireland have the abstract right to march wherever they please, even right down the Falls if they'd like. It's free expression, free assembly, free speech, and just about every right we hold dear.

Except that in certain situations responsible citizens limit the exercise of their rights in the interest of the common good. And if they don't do so voluntarily, they ought to be strongly encouraged to do so by their government. In Northern Ireland, the situation has been so dire that it took tanks to make that encouragement strong enough in early July. This must be a last resort in free societies, but given the current state of Islamic-European relations a milder form of such restraint is essential. There's no need to shut down papers, but governments should make it clear to national journalists that now is not the time for provocation. Incidentally, yeah, I know this puts me more or less in line with Bush Administration policy. Strage times around the Grill.

So there is a duel challenge. Western elites, be they politicians or comic stippers, ought to use prudential good judgment to avoid provoking unnecessary tension with our Islamic communities. We have enough necessary tension on our hands, thank you very much. And many Muslims need to learn how to be pissed off without burning down diplomatic residences.

The Speech that Mattered

Do you know that Tim Kaine was a missionary? It’s true, and if you stayed awake through the ritual in over-hyped self-importance that is the State of the Union address, you heard Gov. Kaine say so himself. In the first fifteen seconds of his speech. Our illustrious President made his usual overtures to the conservative religious community, but for the first time in a while, a major Democratic address beat a Republican one on values.

What do I mean by ‘beat?’ Well first off, Bush’s faith language was much more muted in this speech than in previous years. The speech was heavy on foreign affairs, which did drip with ideological value-based language, but didn’t speak directly to faith issues. Arguably the most bizarre moment of the night came in the realm of faith and politics, with Bush vowing to outlaw ‘human-animal hybrids.’ Confused, anyone? Well Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council thinks it’s an important stand, but somehow I doubt that the fear of giraffe-men walking down the street is what speaks most directly to American values these days.

This stood in contrast to Kaine’s address. He’s not the most thrilling speaker ever, but he IS any number of things that came off very well: genuine, results oriented, and comfortable linking his faith with his public service. He might not be high wattage enough to ever win a national election, but his approach in the rebuttal might point the way to those bright stars who are (ahem, Sen. Obama, this is where you start reading again).

Tell your personal story, with faith if it’s genuine, with values no matter what. Tell how that story has shaped your decision to enter public service. Give brief examples of how that story has concrete policy implications (notably around healthcare, civil rights, and building strong communities). Be firm, but not frantic, oppositional, but not shrill, hopeful, but not naïve. I don’t have the research to back this up (yet), but I don’t think the American people like it when faith is used as a tool of political violence. Avoid this trap, and when the other side falls into it, which they have a strong tendency to do, call them out hard, loud, and without hesitation.

The minority party rebuttal is in some ways always doomed to futility. We're tired of speechifying by the time it comes on, there's no audience, and the speaker is never as high profile as the President. Kaine's speech Tuesday didn't win the Dem's any elections. But if other candidates can learn from his method, it may well be the only speech from January 31, 2006 that anybody cares about in a few years.

Hamas, Sinn Fein, and Avoiding Bad Comparisons

Time for the Grillmaster to put on his Comparative Ethnic Conflict hat once again. With diplomas now officially in hand, the crew of Midnight Marauders from Belfast can call ourselves Masters. Cheers to all. Kate, I assume that yours is still lost in the mail?

It's fitting that we got our parchments the week of a truly historic election in Palestine. There has been much ink spilled in the past few days in turn describing Hamas' victory as a disaster for the peace process and the Palestinian people, or as the triumph of democratic government and a chance for accountable negotiation. The Grillmaster won't add that that general debate, except to briefly say that their victory is obviously disheartening in some ways, but also offers a real opportunity to change the systematized stagnation that the peace process (if you can call it that) has seen over the past five years.

I want to talk a bit about the transitions that militant groups make to democratic parties, and develop a comparison between the current state of Hamas and that of Sinn Fein over the course of the last decade. I've heard it said by a few people (including the BBC's always worth reading Mark Davenport) that Hamas might today be at the kind of transitional stage that Sinn Fein experienced in the last 15 years. There may be some similarities, but responsible comparison of these ethnic conflicts has to acknowledge the differences that will stand in the way of a Sinn Fein-like moderation on the part of Hamas.

The development of Irish republicanism is a powerful example of how a highly organized, highly violent, highly ideological movement can transition its organization and ideology away from violence. That development isn't complete, but is well on its way. What were some key steps in that development, and how might one reproduce them in Palestine?

First, the IRA's core of volunteers had to be absolutely convinced that the political process could advance their cause more effectively than violence. In Palestine, this will require Israeli politicians to make it perfectly clear that IF Hamas transitions away from violence, Israel will be willing to deliver real political consequences. Such assurances will run into a history of mistrust even deeper than that in Northern Ireland.

Additionally, Sinn Fein realized that it HAD to moderate it's use of violence in order to secure broad electoral support within the Irish nationalist community. This is a key difference with the state of affairs in Palestine. Hamas has been delivered to majority status WITHOUT an explicit renunciation of violence. The Palestinian people have given at least implicit approval to Hamas' violence. No such majority support ever existed in Northern Ireland.

Sinn Fein faced pressure both from domestic political constituencies and from key Irish-American allies to moderate the IRA's violence. Funders and highly visible politicians in America made it clear that Gerry Adams would gain a level of public support if he could move the IRA leadership away from violence. American and European governments may be able to exert similar leverage through funding delivered to the now Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority. It would be even more helpful if Arab voices would step forward and encourage Hamas to continued political maturation.

Finally, there is no doubt that a highly ambitious, courageous, and bold group of Sinn Fein leaders dragged Irish republicanism, sometimes kicking and screaming, away from its history of violence. Say what you will about Gerry Adams' flaws, his leadership has overall been a profound force of moderation within republicanism. With so many of Hamas' senior leaders killed by Israel in recent years, there's no doubt in my mind that it will be the character of the rising generation of Hamas leadership that will exert vast influence on its development as a political force.

All of these key factors in the moderation of Irish republicanism are either missing or yet to be determined in Palestine. This also leaves aside the special role of Islam within Hamas and the corruption of the Fatah movement. In a decade Hamas may indeed have given up violence in favor of a non-violent political strategy. But to quickly assume that Hamas will follow Sinn Fein's path is a perfect example of the WRONG way to do comparative ethnic conflict. Trust me, I'm a master of it...

No Pill's Gonna Cure My Ills

Alright, as any number of you have pointed out, the Grillmaster is not, in fact, a doctor. Nor a nurse. Nor a vet. The breadth and depth of my medical knowledge extends to charcoal-filtered self-medication, and not much further. Which is all a round-about way of making excuses for the fact that diagnosing the discourse disease in this country is quite a bit easier than finding the miracle drug to ease our pain.

There may be some progress to be made on the political front. There are a few commentators, notably Noah Feldman in his well-worth reading recent book Divided By God, who have tried to propose grand compromises by which the Religious Right gives up on things like mandatory prayer in schools while the secular Left admits that abortion shouldn’t necessarily be as widely available as, say, Big Macs.

The recent opinion in the Dover Intelligent Design case is an excellent example of a judge rejecting a fairly clear violation of the Establishment Clause while explicitly stating that his ruling did not seek to attack religious belief. He even goes out of his way to point out that Intelligent Design might have a place in a comparative philosophy course. It’s the sort of fair ruling that does justice to the Constitution but avoids feeding the fears of militant judicial secularism that fuel reactionary rhetoric from parts of the Christian Right.

I’d like to think that reasonable people could be convinced to reach such an arrangement across the board (mostly because it’s what the Grillmaster believes). Unfortunately, there are a number of reasons to be doubtful. First, even reasonable people have deep differences of opinion on these issues, and it would be either naïve or arrogant to assume that they can just be negotiated away. Second, there are an AWFUL lot of completely UNreasonable people out there, who engage in shrill public rhetoric because they seem to like it (The Grillmaster hypothesizes that they need more beer-can chicken in their diets). And finally, there are well-funded political lobbies on either side that thrive on this devolution of discourse. In the Grillmaster’s growing experience, all of this applies to both left and right.

With these structural and substantive obstacles in place, what’s the hope for restoring our public discourse about religion and politics? In the short run, it might have as much to do with religion as politics. Faith leaders would do a service to both our politics and their religious traditions by speaking with some authority not just on the substance of our policy debates, but the style with which those debates are conducted. We may passionately disagree with one another on the substance of issues, but there is certainly no possible Christian justification for the politics of personal attack that is so venomous in today’s political environment. I’d imagine that Jewish and Muslim leaders could make similar arguments from within their traditions.

To prove the Grillmaster’s ability to be non-partisan, check out this remarkable article by none other than Chuck Colson to get a taste of the type of charitable, humble public discourse that Christians are really called to engage in.

So Much for Prescriptions

Just lost a nearly completed post. Nothing particularly brilliant, but frustrating enough to make me give up and go to bed. More to come shortly.

I Got a Bad Disease

The Grillmaster has remarked before in this space on the remarkable ability of the radical religious right to drum up unreasonable feelings of fear and victimhood in service to political causes. This has caused some grumblings in the ranks of readers, at least in part over the use of the word 'unreasonable.' The counterargument goes, in short, that conservatives in this country have every right to be fearful, and need to rally to defend the Christian (or as we today call them, Judeo-Christian) values upon which this country was founded. The Ralph Reeds of the world don't create fear out of whole cloth; they simply mobilize it to their own ends.

There are a few substantial problems with this counterargument. First, if you look at the history of these fearmongering campaigns, it is clear that Reed and others make their living by exaggerating and generalizing a crisis based upon often innocuous events. That's how politics works, on both left and right, and I would hope that intellectually honest conservatives could admit this. Second, I'm still far from convinced that the kind of aggressive civic religion advocated by these groups is actually good for the churches they want to protect. The ongoing fall from grace of Mr. Reed ought to serve as a cautionary tale to preachers both right and left about the dangers of intertwining one's message too closely with the big business of contemporary politics.

The obvious question becomes this: What is to be done in response to this repeated pattern of fearmongering? For too long, the response from much of the Left has fed these feelings of fear and victimization. It is here that my debate partners have a point. Liberals have talked down their well-educated noses at the uncivilized fringes (or is that masses?) who actually dare to believe in God. How quaint. While conservative operatives may drum up fear to unreasonable levels, snobby secularists have a bad habit of giving them plenty of easy material for their work.

This patronizing cycle has proven threatening to both the Democratic party and American democracy. The threat to the Dems became self-evident in 2004 with the by now well-documented rise of the 'value voters' who in part returned Bush to the White House. The party faces many challenges, but one of the most important is to convince voters once again that it stands for both a set of programmatic prescriptions AND a relatively coherent vision of American values. An increasing number of progressive leaders understand this challenge; it will be interesting to see how that understanding develops in the coming years.

The threat posed to our democracy in general is less obvious, but far more pernicious. Irrespective of who is at fault for the decline in public discourse, particularly around values issues, that decline has thoroughly permeated our political system. Judicial nominations are a pathetically veiled game of interest politics. Lobbying machines on both sides of the aisle perpetuate their own existences by stirring up division. State ballot initiatives 'fire up the base' rather than propose meaningful solutions to the pressing problems of the day.

As Dr. Grillmaster diagnoses things (oh yes, I'm a M.D.), this is one of the most significant ailments of contemporary American politics. The prescription? That will have to wait for Part II...

Poor Peyton; Seattle Super?

Has it been cold without me? Apologies for the extended holiday hiatus on the part of the Grillmaster. Travel, welcome visits from the Grillmistress, sickness, and more travel all conspired to keep me occupied. And yes, as has been pointed out by many, the fact that I have left a soccer post up for nearly a month is enough to question my American citizenship. Sooo, in a shameless piece of ethno-nationalistic jingoism, Over Hot Coals returns to the self-important blogosphere with a brief post on the NFL. That’s right, real football, baby!

Some claim that the Grillmaster is prone to hyperbole, but reputation be damned, this was the best weekend of football I’ve ever seen. All four games featured exciting big plays, controversial officiating decisions, clutch performances from stars, and HUGE choke jobs from some of the league’s greats. And hey, as a loyal Bawlmoron, it was great to see the Colts go down in flames yet again. It’s a cursed ship Peyton; head for the lifeboats if ye ever want to see the sunny shores of a Super Bowl sideline!

The million dollar question now is obviously who winds up winning this thing. The inconsistent Steelers? The one-dimensional Panthers? The lumberjack led Broncos? No no my friends, the Grillmaster will officially go on the record to predict glorious victory on the part of the who-dat Seattle Seahawks. Why not? This has been one of the stranger NFL seasons I can remember, so why not have a team from the far reaches of our country win the big one. Why not have the NFC win it, in spite of being the far inferior conference once again.

My rationale for this pick (when everybody seems to be jumping on the Steelers bandwagon)? I am thoroughly unconvinced that any of the other three teams is Super Bowl quality. Living on the East coast, I haven’t seen the Seahawks play enough to be disappointed by them. Ain’t league parity grand…

With my Americanism firmly reestablished, I’m on to more substantive posting later this evening. But first, dinner calls.