"The fourth season of HBO's critically acclaimed mob opera, "The Sopranos," ended on Sunday night with an epochal event of destruction that assures with virtual certainty that the series will never, ever be the same again. But since it was a marriage that was rubbed out and not a mobster, many "Sopranos" fans are likely to walk away from the episode feeling disappointed, if not downright betrayed. "

Blogcritics on the season finale and those that complain about a lack of whack.

Permalink  comment []  

[via MetaFilter]

"Marketplace host David Brancaccio talks with media analyst Marty Kaplan about the struggles of the left to find a media type who's actually interesting enough to get good ratings. "

Minnesota Public Radio's Marketplace comments on this New York Times article discussing MSNBC's search for a "Bill O'Reilly" of their own in order to take on Fox.  Media analyst Marty Kaplan discusses the issues of media bias and why the mass-media news is moving to the right.  The short version: its easier to be entertaining when you don't have to think about and explain your positions. 

The segment in question starts at the 18:39 mark of the show for those that aren't interested in the entire thing.

I mentioned something along these lines earlier this week.

"Here's how I break down the liberal internal debate.

For War

1. Saddam is cruel and dangerous.

2. Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction and has never stopped trying to develop them.

3. Iraqis are suffering under tyranny and sanctions.

4. Democracy would benefit Iraqis.

5. A democratic Iraq could drain influence from repressive Saudi Arabia.

6. A democratic Iraq could unlock the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate.

7. A democratic Iraq could begin to liberalize the Arab world.

8. Al Qaeda will be at war with us regardless of what we do in Iraq.

Against War

1. Containment has worked for 10 years, and inspections could still work.

2. We shouldn't start wars without immediate provocation and international support.

3. We could inflict terrible casualties, and so could Saddam.

4. A regional war could break out, and anti-Americanism could build to a more dangerous level.

5. Democracy can't be imposed on a country like Iraq.

6. Bush's political aims are unknown, and his record is not reassuring.

7. America's will and capacity for nation building are too limited.

8. War in Iraq will distract from the war on terrorism and swell Al Qaeda's ranks.

At the heart of the matter is a battle between wish and fear. Fear generally proves stronger than wish, but it leaves a taste of disappointment on the tongue. Caution over Iraq puts liberal hawks, who are nothing if not moralists, in the psychologically unsettling position of defending a status quo they despise -- of sounding like the compromisers they used to denounce when it came to Bosnia. Fear means missing the chance for what Ignatieff calls ''a huge prize at the end.''

But wish makes a liberal hawk sound like a Bush hawk, blithely unconcerned about the dangers of American power. The liberal hawk is a liberal -- someone temperamentally prone to see the world as a complicated place.

This dilemma is every liberal's current dilemma. "

An interesting article in the Times a few days ago discusses the quandry  many mainstream liberals find themselves in these days.  Those who aren't anti-war loony-lefties and can see the benefits of war with Iraq are still conflicted about the possible consequences.   The article interviews 5 "liberal hawks": Michael Walzer, Christopher Hitchens, David Rieff, Leon Wieseltier and Paul Berman on their - and my own - dilemma.

[via MetaFilter]