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.

The World's Game

Alrighty class, it's time for the easiest game in the book: Which one doesn't belong! Pele, Johan Cryuff, Cobi Jones, and Heidi Klum. All were on stage to take part in the World Cup draw on Friday, but one isn't like the others...

Easy, you might say. Three are world class footballers. One is a super fly super model. Sure, Pele has filled out nicely in old age, but there's still only one The Grillmaster would want to see in a bikini. Exit stage right, Heidi, and straight into our dreams.

But not so fast, mes amis! For to judge by international press reaction to the US Team's prospects after the draw, it's apparent that the world still doesn't take any footballers from these 50 States seriously. They'd rather see Heidi Klum win the Cup than any ragtag bunch of Yanks. At least she's German.

Now the US did get a tough draw. Italy plays the beautiful game as do few others. The Czechs are a formidable side with lots of European experience. It will take top-notch football for any team to advance out of Group E.

But that's precisely what the US has been playing for the past four years! We outplayed Germany in the quarterfinal loss in 2002. We have firmly supplanted Mexico as the power of North American soccer, Mexico's inexplicable top ranking be damned. We've climbed to the world top 10, and will field a team that is both relatively young and with serious World Cup experience. The US may have been slightly disheartened by its draw, but you can bet that Italy, the Czechs, and Ghana were none too happy to see us in their segment of the tournament.

Or perhaps they were happy. Perhaps they're every bit as arrogant and dismissive as the international press, which has already declared that Italy and the Czechs will advance with ease. That's our best hope. Underestimate and dismiss all you want. We'll comfort ourselves with the knowledge that this is the best chance ever for the US to make big noise in the one tournament that we're never supposed to win. That and knowing that Heidi Klum comes to America when it's time to pose for swimsuit issues.