John Kerry
Comments About Kerry
By Daniel G. Jennings
John Kerry hasn't made a big deal of his Catholicism because doing so would hurt him politically.
If Kerry were to make numerous public displays of his faith, he would open himself up for all manner of criticism. Devout Roman Catholics who would most likely to swayed by such displays would be put off by the candidates' stands on the issues of abortion, war, gay rights and the death penalty which run counter to church teachings. Liberals many of whom view the Catholic Church as old fashioned and reactionary would be upset to see their candidate kowtowing to such an institution.
Kerry runs the risk of loosing working and middle class Catholic voters if he makes his faith an issue because many of them would be offended by his snubbing of church leaders. Kerry runs the risk of driving away gays, the women's movement and other important constituencies if he were to be too closely associated with the church.
Running as the Catholic candidate wouldn't help Kerry because devout Catholics are likely to be social conservatives and Republicans while liberals whose support Kerry needs don't like the idea of Catholic teaching influencing the political process. So don't expect Kerry's faith to be a big deal in this election.
Nor will Bush make a big deal of Kerry's faith, the President needs the support of Catholic voters particularly working class Catholics. He knows that any attacks on Kerry's faith will cost him those votes. Bush not wanting to offend Catholics won't make Kerry's faith an issue of contention.
The other big question dogging this summer's campaign is that of Bill Clinton. Clinton is out hocking his book and promoting his place in history. Many observers think this will help Kerry I'm not so sure.
Kerry will certainly get a boost if he hitches his car to the Clinton train. The problem is Clinton probably won't let him. Kerry is in a different wing of the party that is to the left of Clinton. More importantly, Clinton doesn't want to be associated with a loosing Democratic effort like Kerry. Nor does Clinton want any part of the dirty mudslinging presidential campaign we're likely to see this year. Slick Willy wants his place in history, not a reputation as just another politician shilling for an lackluster candidate. He also wants to see all the dirty laundry from his past buried.
Most likely Clinton will stay away from the election and let Kerry sink or swim on his own. Clinton will only come out and publicly campaign for Kerry if it looks like Kerry is heading for a landslide victory and has a victory whose light Clinton can bask in. Then of course, Kerry won't need Clinton's support.
John Kerry is going to have to win this election on his own without the help of Bill Clinton.

Lens of History
The Lens of History
By Daniel G. Jennings
The Lens of History is easily distorted by victory and defeat in war.
Victory acts as a set of rose colored glasses that makes us forget all the horrors and crimes of a conflict and remember only the glory. Hence, World War II is remembered as America's "good war" even though the US government and military engaged in numerous actions during that war which were morally questionable and even criminal. Japanese Americans were illegally and unconstitutionally interned in what both President Franklin Roosevelt and the Supreme Court described as concentration camps. The US Air Force mercilessly bombed German and Japanese cities killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. American troops often shot unarmed Japanese and German prisoners on the battlefield and America allied itself with one of the greatest tyrants in human history Joseph Stalin.
Yet all that is forgotten and World War II is remembered as the "good war."
Defeat, on the other hand acts as a magnifying glass that blows any crime or atrocity real or imagined far out of proportion. There is no evidence that the behavior of American troops in Vietnam was any worse than that of their fathers in World War II, yet Vietnam is remembered as the war in which American GIs behaved like criminals. In fact, history indicates that American behavior was better in Vietnam than World War II.
American military personnel who engaged in the indiscriminate killing of unarmed enemies were often awarded medals in World War II, including submariners who machine gunned life rafts full of Japanese shipwreck survivors. In Vietnam, GIs who machine gunned unarmed villagers were tried, convicted and imprisoned. The media savagely criticized both the military and America's allies for their tactics. During World War II, the media deliberately covered up both the horrendous nature of America's Soviet ally and morally questionable behavior of US military forces.
The difference between the wars is that America "won" in World War II and "lost" in Vietnam (to be accurate our ally South Vietnam lost in Vietnam after we pulled out but most people see Vietnam as an American defeat). Defeat enables us to look carefully and accurately at our past behaviors. Victory enables us to ignore our shortcomings and troubles.
Of course this means that if history's outcome had been different the way we view it would be different too. Had the United States invaded North Vietnam and dismantled the Communist dictatorship there in 1968. We'd probably remember Vietnam as a great American victory.
The Lens of History is a poor instrument subject to our prejudices and emotions rather than an accurate barometer of historical fact.

Reagan, Addams Family Etc.
The death of Ronald Reagan really floored me. The guy was part of my youth, he was the first President I remembered. Hell to people under forty he was a national institution like FDR was to the greatest generation. The first president we remember, the guy we admired, even if we didn't like his politics. Bush, Clinton and Kerry all want to be him they won't. I can remember where I was when Reagan was shot, I don't remember where I was when Clinton left office and I doubt I'll remember where I was when Bush leaves. Perhaps that's the true measure of a great president.
This weekend I've been watching reruns of one of my all time favorite TV shows the Addams Family on the TVLand cable network. When it premiered back in the 1960s the Addams were supposed to be weird and creepy. Today they would be normal, husband and wife Gomez and Morticia were obsessed by sex like modern married couples. They lived in a weird creepy old house like a lot of modern Americans are abandoning suburbia for. They had weird hobbies, decorated their house with items from third world countries, and even practiced accupuncture like modern yuppies. Morticia wore a slit dress that showed off her brest like many modern women do. The Addams were interested in all sorts of creepy offensive stuff like the generation of Americans raised on Stephen King. Their son Pugsley was a nerdy couch potato, their daughter a creepy sadist, like a lot of modern Americnas. Of course the Addams were also conservative in some ways Morticia was a stay at home mother, Gomez always wore a suit and they did vote and participate in the community. The Greedy Gomez was a self serving businessman reminicsent of the go go eighties than the socially conscious sixties. So I have to wonder were the Addams Family, a harbinger of things to come or harmless nostalgia?

Anti-Americanism
Appeasement is No Answer to Anti-Americanism
By Daniel G. Jennings
One of the greatest problems facing the United States today is the threat of Anti-Americanism, that is the widespread hatred of America and Americans by people around the world. Fortunately we can overcome Anti-Americanism by holding fast to our values and beliefs and keeping our faith in America.
The worst thing America can do at this time in history is to listen to the Anti-Americans and give into their demands as many American intellectuals would have us do. Our media, the Peace Movement, many intellectuals, university professors, movie stars and others claim that America itself is responsible for Anti-Americanism. They believe the claims of the Anti-Americans who brand America and Americans as greedy, warlike, ignorant, uncouth, barbaric, militaristic, materialistic, shallow and imperialistic. Then they claim that America can only overcome these stereotypes by appeasement that is giving into every demand of the Anti-Americans.
Appeasement won't end Anti-Americanism because Anti-Americanism is a collection of prejudices based upon the beliefs of bigots around the world the rather than a legitimate set of grievances. All Americans who try to appease the Anti-Americans do is to empower and embolden the Anti-Americans by legitimizing their beliefs. When we agree with them, the Anti-Americans will hate us all the more for they'll see that we're weak and easy to manipulate.
The answer to Anti-Americanism is for America to stick to its beliefs and values and above all to remain America. That is we must remain the land of freedom, progress, opportunity, justice and hope rather than let our nation be turned into a cheap copy of a European welfare state.
The world today is in the throes of an incredible technological, political, social and cultural revolution that is transforming all aspects of human life for the better. Tyrannies and oligarchies of all sorts have been replaced by democratic governments, capitalism is replacing socialism, feudalism, communism and other primitive and ineffective economic systems, technology and science are improving the lives of almost everyone on the planet, people are enjoying unprecedented levels of social, political and cultural freedom and economic opportunity, and all of these revolutions began in America. The economic and political systems that are transforming the world began in America, so did the social revolutions, equality and empowerment of women, racial equality, gay rights, all began in the United States.
The hatred of the United States embodied in Anti-Americanism is the hatred of this revolution, the hatred of the modern world. To appease the Anti-Americans is admit that we hate America and we don't want to see the world transformed. To give into Anti-Americans is to say that we want the people of the world to live in a hell of poverty, oppression, ignorance and violence. To appease the Anti-Americans is to turn our back on the modern world and live in fear.
If we keep our faith in America and press on we'll overcome Anti-Americanism just as we overcame Communism and Nazism. Anti-Americanism will collapse like the tissue of lies that is leaving only a bad aftertaste, but only if we Americans resist it by keeping our faith in America.

Future of the Arab World
Future of the Arab World
By Daniel G. Jennings
The major conflict in the world today is the battle between certain radical elements in the Arab World and the modern world as embodied by the United States of America. This is the conflict that led to the Sept. 11 atrocity and the war in Iraq. So it is important to ask: what will the future of the Arab World and its conflict with the United States be?
Now my guess is the next development in the Arab world will be a sort of radical secularism that is secularism forced on the people by the government. This is what happened in the West: the religious fanaticism of the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation and the Wars of religion in the 16th Century were followed by the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. The French Revolution saw an attempt to abolish the Church and to impose a religion of reason on France.
Younger people in the Islamic World fed up with the intolerant religious fanaticism that characterizes today's Islam could very well turn to a rigid government imposed secularism. Polls indicate that these people prefer modern concepts of human rights to the Koran. There is already popular anger at traditionalists among young Muslims on the Internet and elsewhere. We have already seen vicious and violent government crackdowns on Islamic fundamentalists in Egypt and Algeria. We've also seen militaries in Algeria and Turkey force Islamic parties from power in the name of Secularism.
If such radical secularism breaks out in the Arab world, the effect on the rest of the world could be catastrophic. Al Qaeda started as Islamic Jihad, an Egyptian radical group dedicated to Islamic revolution. Islamic Jihad failed in its efforts to overthrow Egypt's secular government fled to Afghanistan and morphed into Al Qaeda. Then at the urging of its new leader and financier the Saudi millionaire Bin Laden redirected its attacks at America.
Al Qaeda's campaign against the West is not the result of the popularity of Islamic radicalism in the Arab World. It is the result of the failure of the Islamic revolutionaries to impose their will on their societies. Unable to win their war at home they exported it abroad.
This means that any future civil war between Arab secularists and Islamists would spill over into the rest of the world. Especially if America and other non-Islamic nations are seen as taking sides in such a war.
One thing is certain the Arab world will remain a source of strife and turmoil for decades to come. The challenge will be finding means of preventing that strife and turmoil from degenerating into all out warfare. Warfare that could destroy the Arab World and the non-Arab World alike.

Iraq Prisoners and the Presidential Election
Could Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Affect the Presidential Election?
By Daniel G. Jennings
The Iraqi Prisoner Abuse scandal has the chattering classes, the European intellectuals, the media, and the Arab street all a blather but it doesn't seem to be having much effect here at home. Average Americans are paying no attention to the scandal.
So could this scandal have an impact upon the Presidential election? Yes, even though the American public is ignoring the scandal.
Bush's whole campaign is based upon the premise that he is a war time president who will deliver strong leadership like FDR did during World War II. If Bush caves in to international pressure and changes policies in Iraq the public could see him as weak. If Bush is seen as listening to intellectuals, the Europeans and peace activists his credibility is gone. There will be no difference between him and Kerry in terms of foreign policy.
An even graver danger to Bush could occur if American military personnel are put on trial for these crimes. Today, the GIs in the pictures are faceless monsters, but they won't be after weeks of trial and legal action. High priced defense attorneys and public relations firms will undoubtedly rush to the GIs' aid. The conservative media led by talk show hosts will join the charge and the regular media will jump on the bandwagon.
Television will be flooded with pictures of the GIs as kids, taking their first communion, going to the prom, playing high school football. We'll see the accused GIs' parents, teachers, clergy, friends, spouses, children, grandparents and countless others all over the talk show circuit telling the public what a wonderful boy or girl GI Joe and GI Jane is. At the same time, defense attorneys will be there saying that the real culprits are evil faceless CIA agents or the whole thing is a hoax.
The result will be that average Americans guilty or not will look like the victims of a witch hunt. The public will sympathize with the men and women in uniform and Bush will look like a modern day Lyndon Johnston sacrificing military personnel for politics.
This could create a real opening for John Kerry, which Kerry already seems to be exploiting. Kerry has all but said that as President he would accept responsibility for the prisoner scandal and not sacrifice military personnel.
Kerry who has no real strategy for Iraq and a history of anti-war activism can't match Bush in foreign policy. Yet he could make Bush look like the weakling if he plays his cards right as the Prisoner Abuse Scandal unfolds.

Liberals at War
Guess What Liberals, We've Been at War for a Long Time!!
By Daniel G. Jennings
One of the few advantages of reading The Denver Post every morning is to see the idiocy of liberal thought processes in action. Case in point the column by Cindy Rodriguez that occasionally appears in the B section, or the Tuesday, April 26, 2004, column "Nightmare of Iraq War far from over."
The gist of the column is that Rodriguez recently woke up and learned from National Public Radio the astonishing fact that the United States is at war with Iraq. She is suddenly concerned because American military personnel, working class types she probably wouldn't talk to are dying over there. This one year after the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Where has Ms. Rodriguez been for the last year? Or for the matter for the last 14 years? America has been at war with Iraq since 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and started threatening our oil supply. We fought a major land campaign against Iraq in 1991 and were fighting air battles with Iraq between 1991 and 2003.
On another level America has been at war with extremist elements in the Arab and Islamic World since the early 1980s. These extremists have been killing American military personnel on a regular basis since then. These extremists have blown up our embassies overseas, and have even attacked America twice since then. On Sept. 11, they killed nearly 3,000 people in the heart of New York City. If the destruction of the World Trade Center wasn't evidence that we were at war with these people what was? No Saddam didn't commit that atrocity but other extremists who are now waging war on us in Iraq did.
Yet, Ms. Rodriguez can't see this, she blames George W. Bush for deceiving the American people. According to her it was George Bush and his lies that created this war, not the Koran thumping morons and Arab nationalist idiots who started the violence. This is nonsense Bush didn't start the war he committed the terrible crime (in the liberal mind) of actually trying to fight and win it.
Her broken record says Bush's lies caused this war, so if we just vote Mr. Bush out in November the terrible war will go away. This is garbage if Mr. Kerry is elected the war will still be going on, then who will we blame then? Will in two or three or years the liberals brand Mr. Kerry an evil warmonger and try to destroy him for waging war on the terrorists?
Ms. Rodriguez's column demonstrates what is wrong with the news media and the liberal elite that runs much of it today. They can't see what's happening out in the world beyond America's borders: we are at war. Vicious fanatics are trying to kill us and destroy our way of life. They will stop at nothing to destroy us and they will die for the chance to do that. The only way we'll probably be able to stop them is to kill them or beat them on the battlefield.
So why do liberals have so much trouble seeing this obvious reality? Simple, it contradicts the whole view of the world taught them by their college professors. The professors said if we just embraced multiculturalism, placed our faith in the UN and tried to be nice to everyone else we would have world peace. The existence of vicious fanatics that want to destroy us and the UN disproves these fantasies and places their whole world view in jeopardy.
The liberal reaction to this reality is to stick one's head in the sand and pretend it isn't so. Then when that fails to look for a bogie man to blame the mess upon, since Islamic terrorists couldn't have started the war the Republicans must have.
Hopefully the liberals will wake up and in the near future realize that the only way to end the nightmare of this horrible war is to win it by actually defeating the bad guys on the battlefield. I believe that'll happen, the problem is that it'll take the dead bodies of hundreds perhaps thousands more Americans and probably tens of thousands of Arabs, civilian and military to convince these people that we're at war and that we have to fight.

Ideology Paralyzes Politics
Ideology Paralyzes Politics
By Daniel G. Jennings
The major contradiction of modern American politics is this: politics and politicians seem to be almost totally driven by ideology at time when average people seem to be almost completely disinterested in ideology. So why has ideology become the dominant force in American politics, when most Americans don't care about ideology or are hostile to ideology?
Part of the answer to our question lies in the liberal arts departments of our universities where most of our politicos and their retainers receive their educations. Taking their cue from mostly Marxist European intellectuals, modern liberal arts faculties base all their judgements upon ideology. Everything is analyzed for its ideological content including philosophy, education, history, law, art and literature. Art is not valued for its artistic content, history is evaluated or reinterpreted along ideological lines, education, literature and entertainment are reduced to methods of ideological indoctrination.
Since most American politicians are lawyers, teachers, journalists or clergy who received most of their education from such liberal arts faculties they too view the world through an ideological lens. That is they base every judgement on ideology and evaluate every occurrence for its ideological meaning. Even the basic thinking of many politicians is grounded in ideology rather than practical experience, which leads to a world view based upon ideology and little else.
Another part of the answer lies in the media which is also ideologically driven. Since most journalists are the products of the same liberal arts schools as the politicians they tend to the view the world through an ideological lens. That is the journalists evaluate the politicians and their actions through ideology. Politicians actions are judged by ideology and nothing else. The practical effects and actions of political agendas are never considered, only the ideological charged campaign slogans are reported upon.
Worse, the ideologically conscious journalists tend to have a good guys bad view of the world. Those politicians whose ideology they like are the good guys capable of doing no wrong, while those politicians whose ideology they dislike are the villains capable of doing no good. When a politician whose ideology is unpopular does something good or constructive it is ignored, when a politician who passes the ideological litness test does something bad, it is ignored.
Ideology is also entertaining, moderate hard working politicians who get things done and work for the common good are often boring. Extremists and ideologues are almost always colorful and interesting. They are also combative and put on a good show for the TV audience so they are invited back to the television interview shows time and time again. That is why cable TV can't get enough of Al Sharpton, Pat Buchanan, Jesse Jackson, James Carville, Anne Coulter and countless others. Their ideologically charged squabbling is entertaining even if it is essentially meaningless.
Beyond the media and the new breed of university educated politician, the corn belt intellectuals whose major expertise is raising money, who have replaced the old time politicos who were often practical self made men there is the new American intelligentsia. The gigantic new universities created by the GI Bill have given rise to a highly educated class of pseudo intellectuals, mostly professional people like lawyers and doctors, these intellectuals take their cue from college professors and European intellectuals who have taught them to view everything through the tinted glasses of ideology.
This new class of intellectuals is very interested in politics and demands that politicians pander to their crackpot notions. These people are more likely to vote, make campaign donations and work on political campaigns so politicians listen to them. The Internet and other modern tools of communications allow the new intellectuals to network and coordinate their activities on a nationwide basis. Even though they are only a small segment of society, the intellectuals can shape political dialog and set the political agenda. Naturally, this agenda must reflect their ideology or they will ignore politics.
This discussion gives rise to a more important question: how can Americans rescue our politics from the narrow straight jacket of ideology and create a political culture based upon practicality and concern for the common good?

Bush Kerry and History

Bush, Kerry and History
By Daniel G. Jennings
Since I am a student of history, I have to wonder whose side is history on in this year's Presidential election: George W. Bush or John Kerry? That's a difficult one to answer because history appears to be against both the incumbent President and his opponent.
History is against Bush because no president who got the United States involved in an avoidable major war has been reelected since William McKinley in 1900. McKinley got America into the Spanish American War in 1898 but that was a short conflict with few casualties and little effect on the home front, there was no draft and casualties were minimal. Since then every President who got America involved in an avoidable major foreign conflict lost reelection or was driven from office.
Woodrow Wilson didn't run in 1920 after World War I, and the candidate from his party the Democrats lost. Harry Truman decided not to run in 1952 after the Korean War's unpopularity became apparent, Lyndon Johnson decided not to run in 1968 after seeing the unpopularity of the Vietnam War and George Bush I, lost reelection in 1992 after getting America involved in the Gulf War. The public forgave FDR for World War II largely because the enemy started the conflict and he tried to avoid it, or more precisely claimed he was trying to avoid it.
Of course the current conflict is very different from Vietnam, Korea and World War I, the really unpopular twentieth century wars; there is no draft and no mass casualties, only 600 hundred casualties compared to 60,000 in Vietnam. This current war bears an uncanny similarity to the Spanish American War and the Philippine Insurrection that followed it. The war was a limited one fought by an all volunteer military force and it didn't impact the lives of average Americans. Like the Spanish American War, the Iraq War was followed by a lengthy and vicious guerrilla war and nation building effort the Philippine Insurrection. A war that was unpopular with the intellectual elite but supported or ignored by average Americans.
After that war, William McKinley was able to win reelection easily in 1900. McKinley won largely on domestic issues, he was able to easily best William Jennings Bryan the Howard Dean of his day as he had already done in 1898.
Of course, there was one difference, women who are less tolerant of war than men, didn't have the vote in 1900, they have the vote in 2004. Whether this will make a difference I don't know but it could tip the scales against Bush.
History has three major strikes against John Kerry: he is an incumbent US Senator, he's running against an incumbent president and he's from Massachusetts, a Northeastern state. No incumbent US Senator has been elected President since John F. Kennedy in 1960 and he barely won that election. Voters don't like Congress very much, only two Senators were elected President in the 20th Century Harding and Kennedy and no member of the House of Representatives has won the White House since John Garfield in 1880. Voters refer incumbent Presidents, governors, vice presidents and war heros to legislators. Ex legislators like Truman, Nixon and George Bush get a pass but only after they've served in other offices.
Nor has any Northeastern candidate been elected since Kennedy in 1960, and JFK won that battle with Richard Nixon by a hare. Since 1964, every elected President has been from a Southern, or Western Sunbelt State. Lyndon Johnson and the Bushes were from Texas, Nixon and Reagan were from California, Carter was from Georgia and Clinton was from Arkansas. Every candidate from a Northern or Midwestern state has lost, Humphrey, McGovern, Ford, Mondale, Dukakis, and Dole.
An incumbent President is also a tough obstacle to overcome. In 1912, Woodrow Wilson only beat Taft because a popular third party candidate Theodore Roosevelt (a popular ex president) split the vote, FDR only beat Herbert Hoover because of the Great Depression, Carter defeated Ford because of Watergate, Reagan beat Carter because of a bad economy and Carter's perceived weakness in the face of the Soviet threat only Bill Clinton beat an incumbent President without unforseen circumstances. Since nothing has turned the public against Bush the way the depression turned the public against Hoover and Watergate soured the public on Ford Kerry will have a tough battle.
The question is which candidate will be able to overcome history; Bush or Kerry. I'm betting on Bush because seems to favor him.

The SHIELD
Mood:  energetic
Capsule TV Review: The SHIELD

By Daniel G. Jennings

Forget "The Sopranos," the best drama on American TV is "The SHIELD" a brilliant hour long drama that appears on the FX cable channel every Tuesday night.

The SHIELD is the best and most brilliant thing on American TV today because it is utterly relevant to the modern American experience in a way that the Sopranos is not. Basically the SHIELD is a drama about the police officers who work out of a decrepit Los Angeles precinct house but it is far more than that. On it's most basic level the SHIELD is a brilliant and provocative examination of the present day American experience.

The centerpiece of the show is veteran actor Michael Chiklis (who won an Emmy for best actor in a dramatic series a couple of years back shocking the entertainment industry), Chiklis plays Vic Mackey, a corrupt white police detective who leads an elite police squad in present LA. Mackey is a brutal, greedy and corrupt cop with a heart of gold who wants to do the right thing for the people he is pledged to protect and cash in at the same time.

The SHIELD is effective and entertaining because it is relevant to the present day American experience in a way that the Sopranos is not. The Sopranos are a whiff of nostalgia, an old time mob family from the old neighborhood transferred to the suburbs, the SHIELD is so starkly contemporary that it is frightening.

The cops on the SHIELD are all ruthless middle class professionals who are more interested in advancing their personal positions than anything else. The corrupt white working class cops simply want to steal enough money to leave town and forget about their jobs. The smarmy educated Hispanic police Captain is more interested in running for city council and becoming a rich and influential politician than doing his job. The arrogant intellectual detective is more interested in clearing lots of cases than the people whom he is supposed to protect. The white female cop is more interested in protecting her job which she worked hard to get than enforcing the law. The sexually ambiguous tough guy black cop is more interested in protecting his he man reputation than following orders.

The show centers around Vic Mackey, Mackey is the highly corrupt leader of a vicious squad of ruthless LA police detectives. Mackey, a good cop who wants to protect the people of Los Angles is also corrupt and self serving. Mackey is trying to enrich himself through involvement in the drug trade and other crimes. Yet we quickly learn that Mackey is not evil, his corruption is motivated by concern for his family and his retarded son who can't be helped by the public school system. The only way Mackey's kid can learn is in expensive private schools. Mackey pays for these by killing gangsters and stealing their loot. Mackey's violent and ruthless methods are tolerated by his superiors because he takes lots of bad guys off the streets. He often goes after criminals that other cops are afraid or unwilling to do anything about. Mackey isn't a villain, he is a decent man whose corruption and violence may actually be justifiable.

Unlike the Sopranos the SHIELD is set in a cotemporary Western American city where race and other traditional American distinctions of life mean little or nothing. The greedy black gang banger and the corrupt white cop do business together because they want the money the drug trade can bring in. The sleazy Hispanic police Captain is more interested in getting into political office and winning the power and money that comes with it than the people in the barrio. A race riot in the ghetto is sparked by a crooked Irish American police official who diverts cops away from a crime ridden apartment house in order to drive down property values so he can buy up real estate at a low price. The only things the characters on the SHIELD care about are money, power and personal honor.

The SHIELD is a frightening view of the dog eat dog existence in the modern American urban jungle. A place where none of the traditional values or stereotypes seem to apply.

The show is made all the more frightening by the presence of vicious foreign gangsters, Armenians who have far more money than any of the Americans. The third world Armenians have a far easier time adapting and thriving in this post modern American urban landscape than the native born Americans. The only way Mackey and his boys can make real money is to rob the Armenians then live with the fear that their utterly sadistic and psychotic boss will return in search of his cash.

The SHIELD is the best show on present day American TV, the only problem is that it is too provocative a work to become the kind of pop culture phenomenon that the Sopranos is.