I can’t help but be amused by the firestorm kicked up over the comments by Democratic strategist and “rural liaison” Dave “Mudcat” Saunders (thankfully, no relation). To his credit, he’s savvy enough to realize that the best way to get free publicity and respect among the punditocracy is to pick a fight with the liberal blogosphere. So that’s what he did with a post entitled “Go Ahead And Shoot At Me” in which he argues against the “stereotyping of my people and culture” by stereotyping the people he doesn’t agree with. Taking a lesson from his co-blogger Joe Klein, “Mudcat” hides his criticism behind a vague label (the “Metropolitan Wing”) so he can insult a broad swath of his peers without ever having to name names. That way, if he’s confronted for his actions, he can always pull the “I wasn’t talking about you” trick.

But this isn’t about some Dixie-whistling Mr. Smith taking on the intellectual elitists who have taken over his party. You don’t get to write your first blog post at Time.com by being an outsider. It’s about currying favor with the beltway insiders who pay his bills (like the campaigns of Mark Warner, John Edwards, Bob Graham, and Jim Webb). By provoking a firestorm with the netroots, “Mudcat” not only insulates himself from opinionated brutes like us, but he further cements his reputation as the go-to guy to save the Democratic party from coastal elitists, bile-spewing atheists, and any other GOP stereotype of liberals that he can muster. Any criticism of his broad attack on his fellow liberals is just another example of the “arrogance and intolerance” that he’s up against.

Like John McCain’s straight-talking “Maverick”, Dave Saunders’ “Mudcat” persona is the schtick he uses to get work from campaign managers who are stupid enough to believe you can pay a guy to help you simulate a fondness for “the Heartland”. “Mudcat” is a poor-man’s Carville, Bob Shrum with an accent, and he’s just plain boring. The precision with which “Mudcat” was able to inspire controversy within the liberal blogosphere is impressive, even if it does end up feeling choreographed and predictable. Congrats, “Mudcat”, you’ve made all the right enemies, but to end this on a conciliatory note, let me welcome you to the blogosphere by echoing your wish that bloggers who “believe the only way to win an argument is to shot the loudest with personal attacks, you can go to Hell”. Now, what did you mean by “pseudo-intellectual arrogance” again?

Nothing Earth-shattering here, but this is a nice rebuttal to all the global warming skeptics who prefer inaction and endless debate to actually doing something.

I may be in the minority here, but I think last night’s finale of The Sopranos was fantastic. It contained everything I love about the show and had a perfect mix of tension and humor. Sure, it didn’t provide much closure, but ending the show with a bang would have been too obvious.

In the episode “Relationship Ripcord” of the brilliant, but canceled sitcom “Andy Richter Controls the Universe”, Andy and his friends eavesdrop on the therapy sessions of a woman who’s attracted to dumpy, plain-looking guys, but breaks up with them whenever they say “I love you”. Knowing this, Andy starts a relationship with the commitment-phobic chubby-chaser, gushing that he can have all the fun he wants and end the relationship at any time, guilt-free by just saying he loves her.

Having just seen the news that Peter Pace is suddenly stepping down, I can’t help but wonder if working for George Bush works in a similar way. Except in this case, instead “I love you” (which gets you a Supreme Court nomination), the only thing you’d have to say to leave the administration is “Iraq is an unwinnable quagmire and it’s all your fault.” That’s the way it seems to have worked for the majority of the generals that leave.

I know I’m probably the last person to comment on this, but let me add my voice to the chorus of those who think the Democrats’ war funding bill was cowardly. Then again, is anyone really surprised that the Dems have once again revealed themselves to be gutless? The party has proven itself to be unwilling to take a principled stand so often that I almost feel guilty for getting angry about it anymore. It’s like like yelling at a puppy for shitting on the rug. He doesn’t know any better, what did you expect?

To me, the larger failure of the Iraq funding bill is the political incompetence behind it all. Like many have noted, the possibility of the Democratic leadership defunding the war was a pipe dream, but to follow the timetables n’ benchmarks funding bill with one missing any sort of oversight just makes you look weak and foolish. Worse still is what the Dems left in the bill :

The final bill includes $17 billion in unrelated domestic spending, a slight reduction from the $21 billion that Congress added to the first package. The minimum-wage increase would bump the hourly rate to $7.25 an hour from the current rate of $5.15 over the next two years. The wage increase was one of the Democrats’ 2006 election promises, and was attached to the war bill to guarantee that it would reach Bush’s desk.

One of the Democrats’ most popular pre-election promises has just become law and it’s become a mere footnote in an article about how Congressional leaders are afraid of an unpopular President. Why sneak this onto the President’s desk when it’s so popular? Why hide one of your successes behind one of your largest failures?

Furthermore, why didn’t the Democrats throw some oversight into the bill that actually pertains to war funding? Fine, any funding bill with “benchmarks” will get a veto, but that shouldn’t have stopped the Democrats from going after the no-bid contracts, lack of body armor, funding cuts for military hospitals, gutting of the national guard, war profiteering, or any other issue that could be addressed by passing a funding bill that tracks the money that Congress is giving the President. Democrats control the committees and have public opinion overwhelmingly on their side, so there’s no reason for them to come out of this fight looking like a bunch of children. It’s embarrassing.

Tom earlier pointed out the ludicrousness of Wolf Blitzer’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” question, but this deserves to be highlighted again. From the last night’s GOP debate :

BLITZER: Mayor Giuliani, recently we’ve learned that several talented trained linguists — Arabic speakers, Farsi speakers, Urdu speakers — trained by the U.S. government to learn those languages to help us in the war on terrorism, were dismissed from the military because they announced they were gays or lesbians.

Is that, in your mind, appropriate?

Recently??? Take a look at this article :

Nine soldiers being trained as translators at a military-run language school have been discharged for being gay despite a shortage of linguists for the US war against terror, officials and rights activists said Friday.

The nine were discharged from the army’s Defense Language Institute in Monterrey, California over the course of this year, said Lieutenant Colonel Wayne Shanks, a spokesman for the army’s Training and Doctrine Command.

They included six who were being trained as Arabic speakers, two in Korean and another in Chinese, he said. “All the servicemembers had stellar service records and wanted to continue doing the important jobs they held, but they were fired because of their sexual orientation,” said Steve Ralls of the Servicemen’s Legal Defense Network.

“This is a very vivid illustration of how ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and anti-gay discrimination harms the national security of the United States and the war on terrorism,” he said.

That’s from November 18, 2002. Liberals have been complaining loudly about this for years. In the four and a half years since, the President has started a war in Iraq and there’s been a Presidential election, yet with all of the talk about “terrorists” and 9/11, the mainstream press has ignored this issue completely.

Going back to the debate question, the only thing more infuriating than Wolf’s long overdue question is the answers from the GOP candidates. Despite the fact that investigations into 9/11 consider the lack of Arabic translators “one of the most serious issues limiting the Intelligence Communitys ability to analyze, discern, and report on terrorist activities in a timely fashion.” (PDF), Giuliani dismissed the firing of translators as “disruptive issues”. McCain and Romney agreed that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is “working”. And when Blitzer ended the line of questioning asking “Is there anyone here who believes gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the United States military? If you do, speak up now.”, it was met with silence.

After the debate, Blitzer noted that this week’s debate “paints a stark difference between Democratic candidates and the Republican candidates”. Clearly, the Republican party considers institutionalized homophobia to be a higher priority than defeating terrorists. Keep that in mind the next time a Republican tries to imply that they take national security more seriously than Democrats.

I think the only thing I won’t miss about the Sopranos is that awful theme song. With the last episode this Sunday, I can’t stop wondering how it’s all going to end. Any guesses? I’ll put mine in the extended entry for those who haven’t seen the last few episodes.

(more…)

Am I the only one that thinks this bit from Slate’s review of Knocked Up is really nitpicky?

On their second date, Alison tells Ben she’s eight weeks pregnant, and, this being a mainstream movie in which the word abortion literally cannot be uttered—when Ben’s pal Jonah briefly invokes the procedure, he says it “rhymes with ’shmashmortion’ “—she needs to know whether Ben’s onboard for the whole fatherhood thing.

Allow me to briefly divagate here on the nonexistence of abortion as an option in Knocked Up. This omission smells of the focus group, and it’s a disappointment in a movie that otherwise prides itself on its unsentimental honesty about the realities of unplanned parenthood. It’s just not believable that, in Alison and Ben’s upper-middle-class, secular L.A. milieu, abortion would not be matter-of-factly discussed as a possibility in the case of a pregnancy this accidental. If she doesn’t want one, great—obviously, there’d be no movie if she did—but let’s hear about why not. Otherwise, her character becomes a cipher, a foil for Ben’s epiphanies about growing up, without being allowed any epiphanies of her own. The biggest unanswered question about Heigl’s character is one the movie never tiptoes near—why does she decide to keep the baby?

I’m pretty sure they didn’t cover this because abortion isn’t funny. When you’re making a comedy, having a scene in which a pregnant woman agonizes over whether or not to have a baby is sure to be a laugh-killer.

Today’s the 40th anniversary of Sgt. Pepper? Cool. In a post about The Beatles, Tristero notes :

Sorry, I can’t suggest a bio as I grew up with the story, so there hasn’t been much need to read about it.

It’s been a while since I’ve read any books about The Beatles, but there was a time when I read every Beatles book I could get my hands on. Here are the ones I liked the most :

Beatlesongs - My first Beatles book and still one of my favorites. A great song-by-song reference book full of trivia.

A Day in the Life: The Music and Artistry of the Beatles - Probably the first book I’d recommend to anyone interested in reading more about The Beatles

The Beatles - A biography/musical critique from Allan Kozinn for the “20th-Century Composers” series. My favorite until “A Day in the Life” came out.

The Beatles: An Oral History - Avoid any book written by an “insider”. They’re usually lame, self-serving, poorly-written, and transparent attempts to cash-in. This book, however, is a well-organized compilation of quotes from dozens of people that knew The Beatles that’s informative without being boring.

Revolution in the Head - A great examination of The Beatles’ music that, unlike many Beatles books, puts things in historical perspective. For example, the section on Helter Skelter mentions Charles Manson.

Tell Me Why - Another good song-by-song analysis that goes into greater depth musically. If you’re a musician, check this one out.

I’ve also heard good things about The Beatles: The Biography and Walter Everett’s The Beatles As Musicians series. Whatever you do, avoid any Beatles book by Geoffrey Giuliano.

Since this is the 40th anniversary of Sgt. Pepper, here’s a treat for you. When the Beatles were originally mixing the album, they were only present in the studio for the mono version. To them, the stereo version of the album (which is the one currently available on CD) was an after thought. There are numerous subtle differences between the mono and stereo versions, but the biggest difference is this mix of “She’s Leaving Home” :

Happy Birthday, Sgt. Pepper. Maybe someday we’ll get to hear the definitive version without having to buy or download bootlegs.

Like every year, last night’s Scripps National Spelling Bee was awesome. Among my favorite moments was the fact that the kid who won this year thinks spelling bees suck :

“My favorite things to do were math and music, and with the math I really like the way the numbers fit together,” Evan said. “And with the music I like to let out ideas by composing notes – and the spelling is just a bunch of memorization.”

The best moment of the evening was during one of the bio-clips when one of the spellers revealed her favorite word, kakistocracy :

kak·is·toc·ra·cy n., pl. -cies.

Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

Who says TV can’t be educational?