Law & Order devotees have subconsciously felt this moment coming for some time, but now that the axe has finally fallen, many of us are grappling with television-induced heartache.

NBC confirmed Friday that it had canceled the original “Law & Order,” bringing an end to a 20-year-old television drama that jump-started an era of television production in New York City.

“Law & Order” was on the verge of becoming the longest-running drama in prime-time television history, surpassing “Gunsmoke.” But it appears that the “Law & Order” executive producer, Dick Wolf, has settled for a tie. The final episode of the series will be shown on May 24, NBC confirmed in a news release Friday.

As I ponder the unwelcome reality that one of my favorite shows is, well, done-done,  I’m struggling to get past the unsatisfying fact that one of television’s longest running programs was unceremoniously dropped–with neither fanfare nor closure.   As the process shook out, the final episode ended up being shot before NBC decided to pull the plug.  The end result: What was initially written and produced as a season finale (which was excellent, especially S. Epatha Merkerson’s moving performance and Sam Waterson’s epic rant) became the de facto series finale.  Law & Order’s cast, crew, and fans deserve better.

On Sunday, LOST fans were treated to a two-and-a-half hour conclusion to their freaky-deaky science fiction saga.  ABC included a two-hour tribute show before the main event, and enlisted Jimmy Kimmel to host an extensive post game show.  Adopting a decidedly minimalist approach, Monday’s 24 series finale on Fox was preceded by a recorded thank you message to fans from star Kiefer Sutherland. By comparison, Law & Order’s swan song was utterly bereft of any special commentary or even a mere acknowledgment. It started with the show’s trademark “In the criminal justice system” voiceover, and ended with the familiar “Executive Producer – Dick Wolf” full-screen graphic.  For the casual viewer, NBC provided not even a clue that the decades-old series had just ended.  Unacceptable.

But hope springs eternal.  The New York Times reports that in addition to adding a new LA-based show to the L&O franchise (really, NBC?), the network might offer its flagship a “proper send-off,” perhaps in the fall:

NBC is also quietly exploring the possibility with Mr. Wolf that the show may be able to produce some kind of movie or extended retrospective next season to give the series a proper send-off.

An extended, thoughtful series finale is the very least NBC can do.  Being the generous type, I thought I’d offer a few suggestions for a compelling and fitting final show.

(Obligatory note to NBC suits and Dick Wolf: Feel free to steal the entire idea.  I won’t sue or demand compensation…just allow me to be an extra in the episode).

Basic Plot:

The show opens with District Attorney Jack McCoy receiving a phone call that beloved retired detective Lennie Briscoe has been murdered.  Briscoe is a fan favorite, and because actor Jerry Orbach has passed away, a show centered on securing justice for his character would hold enormous sentimental value and would inject a sense of urgency into the investigation.

Detectives Lupo, Bernard, and Lt. Anita Van Buren quickly surmise that Briscoe was almost certainly targeted in a revenge killing by an ex-con whom he had helped put away earlier in his illustrious career–but who? and when?  To gather a list of possible suspects, the current investigative team enlists the assistance of Briscoe’s ex-partners (Logan, Curtis, and Green) and Briscoe-era Assistant ADA’s (Ross, Carmichael, Southerlyn).  This gimmick would help advance the plot, remind viewers of blockbuster cases from seasons past, and allow star-studded parade of Law & Order royalty to make cameo appearances in the final episode.

When the investigation finally implicates a ruthless Columbian drug cartel,  lead prosecutor Michael Cutter becomes obsessive in his pursuit of the killers.  His overzealous posture puts the case–and his safety–in jeopardy, and the cartel murders him in cold blood.  A tragedy of this magnitude forces McCoy to exert executive control over the case, leading to his dramatic decision to return to the courtroom to sit first chair at trial.  Former ADA Paul Robinette and superstar lawyer Danielle Melnick act as co-defense counsel.  At the conclusion of an emotional trial (which would feature obligatory testimony from Medical Examiner and possible Briscoe fling Dr. Elizabeth Rodgers), McCoy delivers a classic stemwinder of a closing argument before a riveted courtroom, packed with luminaries such as Ben Stone, Adam Schiff, and Arthur Branch.

The verdict?  Guilty on all counts.

The series ends at a reception held in memory of Briscoe and Cutter–a grim celebration of the successful conviction and a time for old friends to catch up.  The camera pans the assembled crowd of current and former police (who investigate crime) and district attorneys (who prosecute the offenders).  Those were their stories.

Fade to black.  Executive Producer: Dick Wolf.

That being said, this season has been refreshingly solid.  Aside from the atrocious “Let’s prosecute Cheney!” season premiere, each successive episode has been vintage “Law & Order.”  The most recent episode (“Dignity,” October 23) bordered on spectacular.  *Spoiler alert*

It did not begin auspiciously.  The opening sequence set the stage for yet another warmed-over episode wherein an abortionist is murdered, and the rest of the program consists of detectives trying to determine which anti-abortion nutter did the deed.  The show’s writers usually permit one character to utter a single token pro-life line (“Just because you might disagree with abortion doesn’t justify this violence!”), while the oh-so-reasonable pro-choice characters get the last word.  Having seen this template before, I almost flipped channels.  It seems as though at least one of the L&O spinoff series airs a “new” abortion-doctor-murder episode every year.  One wonders if more abortionists have been slain on this fictional television franchise over the past 20 years than in real life.

But last week’s episode marked a dramatic departure from the familiar, biased trope.  After detective Bernard makes a few forceful pro-life points in an impromptu squad car debate with his partner, ADA Cutter jumps into the fray. He professes his pro-life views and refutes a condescending response from his pro-choice colleague (Rubirosa) by citing the “turning tide” of public opinion and mentioning that most Americans now consider themselves pro-life.  Apparently Mr. Cutter’s been checking the latest Gallup stats. Rubirosa replies by pointedly referring to those who share Cutter’s views as “anti-choice,” at which point the reliably liberal District Attorney, Jack McCoy, mentions his own daughter’s change of heart on the issue.  She was staunchly pro-choice, he explains, prior to seeing the image of her unborn child in an ultrasound.   End of scene.

Jaw-dropping stuff.

Later in the episode, it’s revealed that the victim was performing illegal, post-birth abortions–more commonly known as murder–at his clinic.  A whistle-blower nurse informs the DA office that she left the deceased doctor’s practice after witnessing a failed abortion result in a live birth, and then a callous killing.  (For those who follow the abortion issue closely, this story may sound familiar.  It also raises an issue that was used to highlight the radical pro-abortion record of a certain post-partisan Messiah during the 2008 campaign). On the stand, the nurse testifies about the repugnant practice, explaining that the baby’s corpse was discarded as “medical waste.” This revelation horrifies both Rubirosa and the jury.

Later in the trial, another witness describes her decision not to abort her severely disabled child.  Her story moves the jury to tears.

The prosecution then calls an expert witness–a doctor–who testifies that his murdered colleague was doing good, medically necessary work.  Upon cross-examination, he’s exposed as a pro-abortion zealot; willing to perform third trimester abortions for any reason, no matter what the law says.  His contempt for Christians and pro-lifers is palpable, and turns off the jury.  The prosecutors are left wringing their hands about how poorly he performed on the stand.

Again, stunning.  I kept checking the channel guide–this really was “Law & Order.”

As the episode drew to a close, ADA Rubirosa offers the following admission:

“I grew up thinking Roe v. Wade was gospel.  That a woman’s privacy was inviolate.  But after hearing that woman on the stand talk about her baby dying in her arms, I don’t know.   I don’t know where my privacy ends and another being’s dignity begins.”

Cutter (the pro-life one, remember) tells her that in the current case, the distinctions are pretty black and white, and that it’s their job to put away the bad guys.  To which Rubirosa replies,

“I’m glad it’s so clear-cut for you, Mike.  Unfortunately, I can’t leave my soul in the umbrella stand when I come into work in the morning.”

You can watch the scene described above here.  In case you were curious, the trial ends with the abortionist’s killer being convicted.  (A verdict that all true pro-lifers would applaud).  ”Dignity” provided viewers with a nuanced, layered depiction of a hot-button social issue that did justice–and then some–to the conservative position.

To the writers and producers of “Law & Order,” Bravo.

The leaders of the pack:

-Jennifer Carroll.  Very strong and consistent.  By far the most talented of the female contestants.

-Kevin Gillespie (aka Red Santa).  Seems like a genuinely nice guy with terrific culinary instincts.

-Bryan and Michael Voltaggio. These brothers seem to trade wins every other week.  Bryan is more conservative, straightforward, and thoughtful.  Michael is somewhat of a punk, but an excellent chef in his own right.  Bravo is a bit too enamored with this brother-vs-brother storyline, but the fact that they could both make it to the finals on their own merits breathes life into the drama–which the show’s producers have nearly beaten to death.

Dark Horses

- Michael Isabella.  Extraordinarily cocky and obnoxious, Mike is easy to dislike.  He’s a tough competitor, though, and he has the capacity to take down one or more of the favorites with a well-timed brilliant dish.  (I also happened to dine at his DC restaurant last month, and the food was, admittedly, delicious).

- Eli Kirshtein.  He’s been decent all season — never seems to make it to judges’ table; as a winner or a loser.  He’s managed to hang in there without alienating any of the judges or memorably screwing up, so he might just sneak up on folks with a few solid weeks in a row.

Dead Weight

- Robin Leventhal.  Richly deserves the boot, ASAP.  Over/under – 1 week left.

- Laurine Wickett.  A bit vanilla, not especially creative, and has narrowly avoided the axe a few times already.

- Ash Fulk.  Excuses, excuses.  Has he put out a single good dish yet?  Very forgettable.

- Ashley Merriman.  Despite a minor surge in recent weeks, she still seems weak. Question: Hey Ashley, can you talk about how your family was poor growing up in the woods a little more, please?

I was skeptical of Vegas as a host city for a cooking show, but it’s been wonderful so far. Cool guest judges and creative challenges have made this season quite enjoyable, as has the relative lack of contrived personal drama (think Hosea/Leah kissy-face awfulness). Head judge Tom Colicchio has commented a few times that this is the strongest pool of contestants of any TC season thus far, and it’s hard to disagree.  When the show finally sheds the wannabes, there could be an amazing run of episodes down the stretch–with very little room for error.  Looking forward to the rest of the Vegas run.

Bon Appétit!

–

Hopefully the finished product will explore subjects beyond the (understandable) bellyaching about Fox’s shabby treatment of the show, abysmal ratings, regrettable lack of audience, etc. 

Note to readers: This documentary is not to be confused with the Arrested Development feature film, reportedly in production.

Note to self: Perhaps a separate post featuring a full-fledged ode to this brilliant show is in order.  Stay tuned for that, and join the fan club in the interim. 

[This blog post was sponsored in part by the Law Offices of Barry Zuckercorn, and by "Caged Wisdom," now available on DVD]

Here’s the skinny on Top Chef Masters, courtesy of the LA Times:

The cooking competition spinoff — this one featuring “world-renowned chefs” — has recruited a star-studded lineup of guest judges.

They include Neil Patrick Harris, Zooey Deschanel, Morgan Spurlock, “Lost” writers Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof, “Flipping Out’s” Jeff Lewis, and all of the previous “Top Chef” winners. Tom Colicchio, Padma Lakshmi and Gail Simmons will also appear.

With the large number of competitors, producers have tweaked the format of the original series. From Bravo’s press release:

In each episode, money will be at stake for the chefs, with the winners of eliminations being awarded cash donations for their charities. The first six episodes will consist of four chefs competing against each other to name one winner. The six winners of each episode will then meet up for the final four weeks when one person will get eliminated each episode until the finale where one winner is crowned Top Chef Master. The winning chef will receive $100,000 for the charity of his or her choice.

What?!  Mere “appearances” from Tom, Padma, and Gail?  Who will run the show?  Answer:

Food journalist Kelly Choi will host “Masters.” New York Magazine food critic Gael Greene, Saveur magazine Editor in Chief James Oseland and British food critic Jay Rayner will judge.

As for Top Chef proper, rumors are swirling that season 6 will take place in Las Vegas.  Or Seattle.

Dig in.

Neither is mine.

Fortunately Joel McHale & Co. monitor all of these fine programs-and countless others-on my behalf, identify their most absurd moments, then mock them mercilessly in an easy-to-swallow half hour of weekly television fun.  Welcome to The Soup, which airs Friday nights at 10pm ET on E! 

The show, which has existed in various iterations for years, has reached new comedic heights on McHale’s watch.  In a nutshell, it features 22 minutes of distilled television trash; the very worst of what American culture has to offer.  Degenerate attention-seekers looking for “true love?”  Check.  Startlingly self-absorbed celebrities padding their inflated egos?  Indeed.  Washed-up/cashed-strapped stars demeaning themselves for a paycheck?  Oh yes.  The Soup peddles in the lowest- common-denominator programming that’s beamed to cable boxes and satellite dishes from coast to coast every day. 

So why bother to watch? 

First of all, the show is hysterical.  It’s impressive to see what a group of good writers, a charismatic host, a green screen, and a few outrageous video clips can accomplish.  While the humor sometimes falls short (the brief on-camera skits are generally pretty lame), McHale’s sarcastic evisceration of what passes for entertainment these days reliably includes a handful of laugh-out-loud one liners.  Often the clips themselves are so preposterous that they don’t even require an additional punch line, but McHale delivers anyway.

Second, The Soup serves up a convenient Cliff Notes guide to popular culture on a weekly basis.  The fact that it’s so entertaining is gravy.  Like many people with jobs, I have neither the time nor the stomach to watch even a small fraction of the rubbish McHale skewers, but I still value having a basic awareness of the shows that millions of Americans-many of whom are my peers-regularly consume.   Do I care if Spencer (and his creepy flesh-colored beard) and Heidi are still “married” on The Hills?  Of course not.  But approximately 90 percent of high school girls (who will soon be eligible to cancel out my vote) know all about the picayune details of this soulless, made-for-tv couple’s pseudo-relationship.  If conservatives, already panicky about “young people” and how they’ll vote, have no clue what’s relevant to the very group they’re wringing their hands about, it may prove rather difficult to relate to them, no?  Perhaps this is a juicy rationalization I employ to justify watching the show, although point #1 is the only reason I really need.

Finally, the show generally reinforces traditionalist values.  Bear with me here.  Admittedly, when partisan snipes sneak into the script, they’re usually aimed at Republicans.  And yes, I’m aware that Keith Olbermann is a huge Soup fan, which does give me pause.  Nevertheless, the vast majority of The Soup’s content features McHale flogging the entertainment industry for its gutter values.  He repeatedly rips celebrities over their insufferable self-importance-a theme that conservatives can appreciate.  (That McHale reserves a special brand of antipathy for Tyra Banks wins him extra points).  He also blasts the depraved, over-sexed “stars” of reality shows who seem willing to jump into bed with whomever it takes just to extend their 15 minutes of fame by a few seconds.  His frequent references to sexually transmitted diseases are always good for a chuckle, but they also subtly remind the audience of how disgusting promiscuity and its consequences can be.  While many of these dreadful shows actually celebrate the ignorance of those who appear on them, McHale will have none of it; slapping down this type of foolishness with added gusto. 

The implicit message behind the derision is that it really isn’t cool to be myopic, rude, slutty, or ignorant.  The unseemly behavior glorified on these shows may buy someone a few weeks in the limelight, but will serve that person very poorly in the long term.

The Soup is certainly not for everyone.  Its content and humor is often crass and may offend some people.  It also may take a bit of time to grow on certain viewers.  Not everyone will be instantly enamored with recurring segments such as “Chat Stew,” “Let’s Take Some E,” or “Scenes from Home Shopping.”  Still, if your gut impulse is to ridicule, rather than to accept or even applaud, popular culture, you may find an unlikely ally in Joel McHale.  There will be an extensive menu of television options this Friday night.  May I recommend The Soup?

I caught a media screening of the new Russell Crowe flick, State of Play, in Chicago this week.  It did not disappoint.  The film’s trailers promise a taut, political thriller with a number of dramatic plot twists–and the movie delivers a pretty solid pay-off.  I’ll admit in advance that I was predisposed to enjoy this film, so take my analysis with a few grains of salt: 

1. I love this genre, and since many of these types of movies end up being terribly disappointing, a fairly well-executed thriller with a decent plot is more than enough to satisfy this customer.

2. I got to screen a movie for free that I was planning to plunk down $10 for.  Did that win the movie some points in my book before it even began?  Sure.  Should it have?  Probably not, but whatever…I’m 24.  I’ll happily take the freebie. 

3. The cast contained a number of my favorites, and remaining stars got the job done.  

Crowe, despite being a reputed Class-A jerk, is a phenomenal actor.  His portrayal of a gritty, old-school investigative journalist was very well done.  As a journalism school grad, I still have a soft spot for characters like this, and he nailed it.  The tense garage scene may have been an homage to All The Presidents Men.

Rachel McAdams did a nice job as an up-and-coming blogger who stumbles on a massive story.  Her performance didn’t overwhelm, but she pulled of her role nicely.  Plus, she’s really cute.

Helen Mirren captures perfectly the conflicted role of a news veteran trying to balance her new bosses’ demands for profits with her ingrained sense of responsible news-gathering.  One of the film’s minor themes is the modern decline of newspapers, addressing the desperation in trying to stay relevant–and afloat.

Jason Bateman’s character–a public relations playboy–provides some comic relief that cuts the otherwise nonstop tension.  He’s not just a funnyman, though.  It’s still difficult for me to see Bateman and not think, “Michael Bluth,” which isn’t a bad thing. 

Ben Affleck did a serviceable job as a young Congressman making his way through DC, contending with outside adversaries, personal failings, party politics, and quite a few secrets.  Despite being a featured player in the film, Affleck didn’t ruin it. (Can you tell I’m not an admirer?) 

Jeff Daniels channeled the role of hack politician to a T.  It was almost as if he spent some time in DC prepping for the role. 

Conservatives will certainly have a few gripes with the film, especially the fact that one of its main villains is a big, bad defense contractor run amok.  (Did State of Play’s producers exchange notes with the 24 guys at some point?  They might as well have called the evil company “Starkwood”).  Some may also bristle at the heroic portrayal of the journalists, who at least appear to be the only moral players in the plot.

Despite these quibbles, I’d still recommend seeing the movie.  It didn’t have too many edge-of-your-seat moments, but a few developments drew gasps from the crowd.  The plot was clever enough, and it lacked the tedious predictability from which many similar films suffer.

I’d give it a solid B.

State of Play opens nationwide Friday.

Penn, best known for his roles as Kumar Patel in the “Harold & Kumar” movies and most recently as Dr. Lawrence Kutner on the television series “House” told EW.com that he will be associate director in the White House office of public liaison.

“They do outreach with the American public and with different organizations. They’re basically the front door of the White House,” Penn said. “They take out all of the red tape that falls between the general public and the White House. It’s similar to what I was doing on the campaign.”

The Chicago Sun Times reports that Penn will be working with the Asian-American and arts communities. His start date is unknown. The office is run by senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

Penn was among many celebrities backing Barack Obama in his presidential campaign, and he spent a lot of his personal time volunteering for the campaign. The actor acknowledged that he will take a significant pay cut. “There’s not a lot of financial reward in these jobs. But, obviously, the opportunity to serve in a capacity like this is an incredible honor,” he said. (First daughters Malia and Sasha are also reportedly fans.)

Yes, that pay cut will be tough to stomach for Penn, but Malia and Sasha love him!  He’s doing it for the children!

Incidentally, for fans of House, Fox has posted absolutely preposterous “memorial” website for Penn’s character in the show, who committed suicide in last night’s episode.  It features a photo of the “deceased,” an “obituary,” and a link where fans can bid farewell to the departed “doctor.”  How utterly bizarre and macabre.

 1) The contestants were lame:

This season’s contestants generally fell into two categories: Utterly forgettable (Remember Jill?  Me neither!) and cartoonish caricatures of real people. Precious few competitors combined true cooking proficiency with compelling personality.  Most were one-dimensional: Stefan was an excellent chef who, despite being typecast as the villain, never moved me to the point of unadulterated loathing like Lisa did last year.  Pretty boy Jeff cooked creative and interesting food, but could not have been less interesting.  One got the sense that Jeff could literally burst into flames, and it wouldn’t evoke more than a shrug from him.  Fan favorite Fabio (you born, you be rais-ed, and you die) was extremely charming and funny, but he hardly won any challenges and was frequently on the chopping block. His Italian accent alone punched his ticket to the final four.  Even finalist Carla, who I was rooting for, frequently pushed the bounds of my patience with her food “love” philosophy and her over-the-top reactions to pretty much everything. 
 
2) The Judges:

Tom is easily the best judge because he oozes credibility.  I don’t have much of a beef with him.  The legs Padma is proficient at feigning sympathy when instructing the latest loser to “pack your knives and go,” as well as plugging the heck out of the Glad family of products.  The real problem this year was the departure of one judge, and the addition of another.  I am a big fan of Gail Simmons.  Come to think of it, am I the only one who finds her more appealing than Padma?  Anyone with me?  No?  Fine.  Anyway, when Gail took leave from the show to get married, I suspected that any replacement would be a step down.   British food critic Toby Young turned out to be a giant leap down.  Toby thought he was funny, but he wasn’t.  His permanent scowl came across as a forced shtick.  He also never appeared to really enjoy a single dish, which is remarkable considering the talent assembled in the “Top Chef” kitchen.  His “bad soup=the missing WMDs” line was groan-worthy.  Please, producers, banish him to “Hell’s Kitchen” or some other second-rate show.
 
3) Wasting New York City:

Aside from drawing on a series of impressive guest judges who happen to work in New York, this season could have been set anywhere in the country.  Last season, the show really adopted a Chicago flavor.  The chefs cooked for the Chicago Police Department, they catered a tailgate prior to a Bears game, they filmed an episode at the Lincoln Park Zoo, and an entire challenge was inspired by the famed ‘Second City’ comedy troupe.  This season was extremely sterile by comparison.  New York City, and the innumerable opportunities it could have afforded, went to waste.  If memory serves, there was one challenge involving the city’s ethnic neighborhoods in the very early going.  Beyond that, nada.  The show could have been taped on a studio lot.  What a disappointment.
 
4)  Hosea and Leah’s “romance”:

There’s a reason why I don’t watch any other shows on Bravo.  The endless promos for “Manly Millionaire Matchmaker” and “Real Housewives from Hell” continue to haunt my dreams.  My perception of reality television involves a lot of stupid, phony drama swirling in the personal lives of people I don’t care about.  The insufferable “romance” between Hosea and Leah crossed the line into TV wasteland territory.  The producers clearly thought, perhaps correctly, that many viewers might be intrigued that these two non-single contestants (Hosea: “I have a girlfriend.  I can’t do this.  Leah and I are just friends.”) were flirting so heavily.  I also suspect that one of my early favorites, Ariane, faced a premature elimination because producers wanted to keep both lovebirds in the mix.  The infamous “kiss” episode was especially heinous, complete with hidden cameras, drunk whispering, and 1970s porn music.  I began actively rooting for at least one of them to get the boot just to put an end to the uninteresting, ludicrously over-hyped sideshow. During the reunion show, a viewer’s email demanded to know if the two had hooked up post-production.  I’m pretty sure that my whole building could heard me bellow, “Who cares?!”
 
5.  The final result:

Don’t get me wrong, both episodes in New Orleans were really good.  The setting, challenges, and food were all tantalizing.  This was the “Top Chef” I had grown to know and love.  Sadly, though, the competition ended badly.   Most everyone seemed to be pulling for the eccentric, muppetish Carla, who’d come on strong during the show’s home stretch–and who seemed to be a genuinely nice person.  A similar consensus developed that Stefan, no matter how unlikeable he was, deserved the title of Top Chef.  He consistently put out the best food all season long.  No one else was close.  Hosea meanwhile had managed to slide through to the finals without really distinguishing himself over the course of the season.  He’d won a few challenges, but he’d also narrowly avoided the axe a few times.  The only things we really knew about Hosea were that he HAD A GIRLFRIEND, and that he really, really hated Stefan.  When all was said and done, maybe he cooked a slightly better meal than his nemesis in the final round.  (By the way, Carla, why the hootie-hell did you allow a past season loser to hijack your meal-planning process?)  Still, he seemed to be the least deserving of the three finalists to take home the grand prize. I’d gladly wager that his finale sous-chef, Richard from last season, could out-cook him 9 times out of 10.

Hosea is our Top Chef?  Really?  Season five, please pack your knives and go.

A few weeks ago, I offered my thoughts on the new season of 24, aiming to quell concerns that the show had ‘gone soft’ in the age of Obama.  The piece highlighted the contemptible pansiness of a Lefty senator (Kurtwood Smith) who was on the war path against Jack Bauer, seeking to hold him ”accountable” for his countless life-saving acts of patrioterrorism:

One of the very first scenes of the season took place on Capitol Hill, with Bauer being raked over the coals for his extreme tactics. Consider the portrayal of the senator who’s grilling Bauer just before he’s whisked away to serve an FBI subpoena. The lawmaker comes off as a sniveling know-it-all, eager to score political points by humiliating and demoralizing a man who’s repeatedly risked his life for his country. Bauer’s disdain for his inquisitor is palpable, and the audience isn’t far behind. Incidentally, inquiring minds must know: Was this character an homage to an actual sitting Senator? There are many who’d fit the bill, so let’s just call it a composite.

I argued that the holier-than-thou tone adopted by this fictional senator would turn viewers off, and that 24’s producers were subtly turning public opinion against the weak-kneed bureaucratic class in Washington.

I believe that “24’s” increased attention to interrogation regulations and suspects’ rights does not translate into a newfound enthusiasm for counterproductive caution. If anything, it’s led to the emergence of an entire class of quasi-antagonists on the show: Grandstanding senators and process-obsessed bureaucrats. While this crowd’s motives aren’t nearly as malicious as the terrorists acting in conjunction with the genocidal Senegalese regime in Africa, their actions are still seen as self-serving and risky to the well being of Americans. They’re not viewed as evil, just annoying.

*Spoilers ahead*

Lo and behold, on this week’s two-hour extravaganza, the very same liberal senator’s chief of staff was revealed to be a top enabler of a terrorist plot against the United States.  Ironically, this is the same man charged with developing the federal case against Bauer on behalf of his boss.  After discovering his treachery, Bauer kidnaps and tortures him (inside the White House, no less), seeking information that could disrupt the plot.  Just before Bauer breaks him, the president and the senator intervene, halting the violation of a traitor’s human rights and–as it turns out–clearing the way for a hostile takeover of the White House.  The cessation of Bauer’s dirty business costs more innocent lives and delivers the President of the United States into enemy hands.

Meanwhile the carping lawmaker, even after the revelation that his top advisor is a terrorist, continues to blame Bauer for almost everything.  In one scene, he hisses his disapproval of Bauer’s actions through gritted teeth while being held hostage by terrorists.  Terrorists, mind you, who would never have breached White House security if not for his own preachy grandstanding.

24?  Going soft?  Um, no.