Chuck is first up. Monday's episode was the best episode of the year. It was so good, it was almost as good as the first season and parts of the second season.
Last time, Chuck's mom had been captured by Sarah just as she was about to meet Elle whom she hadn't seen since Elle and Chuck were children. This time, Chuck was trying to prove his mother was still working for the US. To do so, he talks to her (against the rules) and she sets him up to meet her handler played by Timothy Dalton. He and Chuck are kidnapped by Volkoff (for some unknown reason). They escape. They meet up with Sarah and Chuck's mother at a bank (to get discs that prove his mother is still working for the US) but there's a big battle and shoot out and Timothy gets shot.
So they take the discs to Chuck's old house where his father kept an old computer and put the discs in and they're all blank. Chuck's mom grabs this device and has Chuck look at it and it takes out the intersect. Timothy shows up - not dead -- and He's Volkoff. They tie up Chuck and Sarah and set bombs. Chuck's mom slips Sarah a razor blade and tells her to protect Chuck.
Chuck's bashing himself for trusting his mother when Sarah tells him that his mother slipped her a razor blade. She cuts herself loose then Chuck and then they run out just as the house explodes.
Before the bank meet up, Sarah took Chuck's mother to meet Elle. It was a nice meet up. She reminded Ellie that when she was a little girl, she'd sit between her father and her on the blue seat of an old car . . . After she leaves, Elle tells Devin that the ad for that car has been running every day since her father died. They go to buy the car. There's a note addressed to Eleanor and it's from her father. And under the seat (driver's seat) is a flashing device that no one notices. (Probably a computer of some sort.)
So that's basically the show and it was a really strong one. I'd like to see so many more like this. And Linda Hamilton is a great addition to the show.
Okay, this is from John B. Judis' "Obama Deserved to Lose -- But the Country Doesn't Deserve the Consequences" at ZNet:
Asked on Monday to assess the significance of the coming Democratic defeat, Tim Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, tried to portray this election as fairly typical. "Since Teddy Roosevelt," Kaine told Gwen Ifill of the PBS NewsHour, "the average midterm is, you lose 28 House seats and lose four Senate seats if you're the party in the White House." Does losing over 60 House seats and as many as eight Senate seats simply make this a below average outcome, or did something much more serious and significant happen in yesterday's election?
Republicans might say it's the re-emergence of a conservative Republican majority, but that's not really what happened. What this election suggests to me is that the United States may have finally lost its ability to adapt politically to the systemic crises that it has periodically faced. The U.S emerged from the Civil War, the depression of the 1890s, World War I, and the Great Depression and World War II stronger than ever-with a more buoyant economy and greater international standing. A large part of the reason was the political system's ability to provide the leadership the country needed. But what this election suggests to me is that this may no longer be the case.
This economic downturn structurally resembles the depressions of the 1890s and the 1930s rather than the cyclical recessions that have recurred since World War II. The American people, mired in debt, with one in six lacking full-time employment, are not spending; and businesses, uncertain of demand for their products, are not investing no matter how low interest rates fall. With the Fed virtually powerless, the only way to stimulate private demand and investment is through public spending. Obama tried to do this with his initial stimulus program, but it was watered down by tax cuts, and undermined by decreases in state spending. By this summer, its effect had dissipated.
The Republicans may not have a mandate to repeal health care, but they do have one to cut spending. Many voters have concluded that Obama's stimulus program actually contributed to the rise in unemployment and that cutting public spending will speed a recovery. It's complete nonsense, as the experience of the United States in 1937 or of Japan in the 1990s demonstrated, but it will guide Republican thinking in Congress, and prevent Obama and the Democrats from passing a new stimulus program. Republicans will accede to tax cuts, especially if they are skewed toward the wealthy, but tax cuts can be saved rather than spent. They won't halt the slowdown. Which leads me to expect that the slowdown will continue-with disastrous results for the country.
I really think Judis had some strong analysis. I hope you'll read the whole critique.
I also hope you'll visit community sites at Blogspot and not at Blogdrive. I think you'll hear more about this at other sites but you don't want me weighing in tonight unless you want a stream of curses.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"