I was doing other things for much of the game (and light hitting stalemates, as this game was for about six innings, bore me), so only watched a bit of it, but darn if the Mets' loss vs. the "can't lose" (yeah, for now) Phillies was darn tedious. Pedro gives up three quick runs, does nothing else, and the Mets can't do anything against their starter. You know, until the eighth, when it is 3-2.
But, Do Luca couldn't quite handle the relay, so it's 4-2 in the bottom. New closer, previous Yank (you're the enemy now, man) Tom Gordon, blew the save. Manages a hold though, so some pitch hitter (another ex-Yank, just from a few years back) can hit a ball the perfect spot with two outs ... triple. Another tricky play, Phils win 5-4. No loss for Pedro though -- three runs doesn't quite deserve it, but the Wagner (ex-Phil) blew his sixth win, so here's a partial repayment. Got to deal with these things, but they still are annoying.
A complaint about Richard Cohen's whiny follow-up because people were annoyed about his whiny criticism of the Colbert joke-a-thon was lost because of a saving error. No great loss ... I matched it up to Chait's whiny piece in The New Republic in which he agrees with the "left's" complaints about Lieberman, but still wants them to "re-think" their attacks ... since they are too divisive or something.
And, John Dickerson over at Slate thinks Pelosi's is playing into the Republicans' hands by suggesting oversight is a reason to vote Democrat in November. btw maybe those R. funding letters are suggesting focusing on that (they don't mention the "a") is spin, John? You know, like an attorney getting her client to testify about the bad thing and maybe try to spin it? Kool aid tasty, John?
The "left" are upset about the Republicans (and the media/Lieberman sorts) for a reason -- they are f-ing things up. But, they also have policy proposals. Not that talking about them means much until we get the current bunch out. And, part of the way to do this is to underline how bad they are. The low poll numbers sort of suggest the people are sort of respective to that strategy. Anyway, remember that oversight was only one (no italics necessary) means of attack. She also put forth what we stand for, as does Dean ... you know, if "they" stop stereotyping him. And, what about his opposite number ... Melman or something ... from what I know of the guy, he is no prize. But, it's all about Dean as the crazy, right? Oh wait, am I being too "cannibalistic," Chait?
Anyway, what was I doing while the Mets had their road to nowhere? First, I was listening to the author of the Bush Agenda (5/8), whose overall thesis is also suggested here -- the economic imperialism in Iraq thread. I focus on other things, not quite as wonky as some blogger regulars, but the depth of neoliberalism economic thought is a troubling issue that definitely has enough to it to be scary.
Yeah, and it is discussed on those blogs, not just Bush bashing. Darn if it is divisive though, since many Democrats have drank the kool-aid, even Clinton to some degree. But, wait, wasn't he some big liberal? No? A centrist with some conservative leaning tendencies, you say? Shoot ... I was laughed at when I suggested that a year or two back. It was by someone who turned into a bit of an asshole, but still ...
Seriously, her book sounds good (reserved it), and the second link is worth a read. My thought is that a major reason why we are in Iraq is imperialism of some sort, but the depth of such matters, the details, are interesting to dwell upon. Naomi Klein over at The Nation, etc., also deals with this sort of thing. Anyway, I also saw some of the season finale of Gilmore Girls. Yeah, still mediocre. Also, House -- pretty good episode with a killer piece of dialogue by the father after the tragic death of the baby.* I also saw a repeat of the funeral episode of West Wing yesterday -- missed it the first time around -- it too was a good episode. The last few were so-so, but not too bad. Series Finale on Sunday.
Britney apparently is pregnant. Maybe, Anna Nicole too -- well, she did win that Supreme Court battle and all. Some soft porn special of hers was on last night -- didn't see it, mind you, but it could be considered research and all. You know, the case ....
---
* The mother had delusions that led her to put the baby at risk. That ailment was fixed, but we find out she has cancer of the stomach or something. She doesn't want to treat it, since, well, she blames herself for the death of the baby. The father indirectly helped by not dealing with her condition at home (both are recovering alcoholics). Anyway, House shames him into recognizing this, and he goes to see his wife. Unable to say much to comfort her, he finally asks her to tell the baby (in heaven, apparently) that he was sorry.