John Lennon had wanted to leave the band for several years, including starting his own side project, the Plastic Ono Band.¹ Although the Beatles were no longer making music in late 1969,² they were not broken up, at least officially. That is, until Paul McCartney announced that he was leaving the group and releasing his self-titled solo album. The world was in shock. So were the rest of the Beatles.

If Lennon had it his way, he would have been out before -- not after -- the Abbey Road album, and certainly before Let It Be was somewhat-posthumously released (shortly after the release of McCartney).³ McCartney contrived what was one of the best PR/marketing campaigns in music history: announce the break-up of the greatest band in history, at his supposed behest, and follow suit with a solo album a few months later. Fortunately for the rest of the Beatles (in a sense), and surely unfortunately for the rest of us, McCartney's solo work was mostly amiss,⁴ although the same could be said of any of the Beatles' solo careers.⁵

Here is a case in point: Give Peace a Chance. John Lennon and Paul McCartney had an agreement, that any song that they had come up, either collectively or individually, would be credited to the writing duo Lennon/McCartney.⁶ Give Peace a Chance -- written by John Lennon and performed by John Lennon -- is arguably his first solo single, however Lennon published the song with Lennon/McCartney as the writing credit. This was Lennon's effort to not publicize the coming end of the Beatles, which had been known internally since the disastrous Get Back sessions, an ultimately fruitless effort that Lennon regretted soon afterward. The Beatles, Paul included, were working through the details as to how to orchestrate the group's breakup, cognizant of the importance. Paul didn't wait however, and lead the way.⁷

Yoko Ono is known as the person that broke up the Beatles, and although she certainly didn't help matters (neither did Linda McCartney⁸), the accusation is entirely unfortunate, unrealistic, and overly simplistic. The fact is that the Beatles themselves -- including Paul and George Harrison -- believed the group had run its course. It was Paul McCartney however that seized on the opportunity to break the news, and do so in the coldest of manners. The Beatles had reached an irreconcilable impasse, but it was Paul McCartney that ended the band. Not Yoko.

Other items to consider:

• Paul was the only member to start a lasting band, not simply a backing band or one-time group for a single project or concert. Wings lasted for nearly a decade, and so did Paul's mullet.
• No one asked Paul to take part in any super-groups, or to sit in on any song for an album. The debate persists and the jury is still out as to why a former Beatle would not be asked (ever), but evidence points to the fact that he was very difficult to work with, and quite possibly, too controlling.⁹
• When Paul took shots at John with his song Too Many People in 1971, John's response, in one of the first known lyrical assault wars, was How Do You Sleep?, which featured former Beatle George Harrison on slide guitar.

Those are my thoughts on Paul McCartney.

1. The Plastic Ono Band featured Eric Clapton, as well as both George Harrison and Ringo Starr, at one time or another, but never Paul McCartney.
2. The coming release of their Let It Be album, originally titled Get Back, was delayed. Most of the material for the album was originally recorded a year earlier, following the release of their self-titled album, and before their last "new" album, Abbey Road.
3. Let It Be was arguably a disaster. The Get Back sessions were Paul's idea to revive the band (and to his credit, at least he tried). It was January 1969. John Lennon was 28 years old. Paul McCartney was 26. George Harrison temporarily quit the group. He was 25. There was no saving the Beatles.
4. If I had to name three good songs, they would be, in order: Eat At Home, Maybe I'm Amazed, and Band on the Run. That is it. Thirty years of a post-Beatles career and Sir Paul couldn't recreate Hey Jude or Let It Be, or even Yesterday; for the most part, the best he could muster was the likes of Jet. McCartney had the tendency, and habit, of overproducing his music, even simple songs. McCartney loved to change the tune, somewhat sporadically, mid-song. As a whole, this practice (or art) has tarnished even his better songs, including portions of Band on the Run.
5. George Harrison's All Things Must Pass album, in which he had a decade's worth of material to work from, is probably the only great album. Lennon had a few great songs (Instant Karma, Imagine, Mother, Nobody Told Me), but no great album. Lennon's Double Fantasy album has been unfairly reviewed, both positively and negatively, because of his assassination mere weeks after its release. Ringo wasn't a real Beatle anyway.
6. Following Lennon's death, Paul unsuccessfully tried to change the order for all of the duo's songs to McCartney/Lennon.
7. This wasn't the first time Paul had taken the lead. He was also the first to publicize the Beatles' use of LSD (in 1967), although George Harrison was quite sure McCartney had never tried it to that point.
8. Linda was surprisingly even less talented than the arguably talent-less Yoko.
9. Michael Jackson and Say, Say, Say does not count as a super-group. It wasn't the Dirty Mac. There was no real Paul McCartney and Friends. Ringo Starr was on drums in the Concert for Bangladesh.

In fact, the real reason I even have a cellphone is because of the number. I know that I will need a cellphone some day -- even an iPhone -- and I do not want to give up the number I've had since 2002. I do not want to port it now, which is an option, of course, but one that makes no difference with regards to my current usage. I would love to pay my cellphone company -- or a third-party -- to hold my number for, say, $5-10 per month.¹ That way, I can forget the hassle of a cellphone I don't use (or an iPhone I don't need), while retaining my rights to a number -- my number -- when I do.

1. Porting my number to Google Voice is another option, however I would like to have my number back at some point. I don't feel that Google Voice's masking of outgoing calls will work for average users. Also, I like my current Google Voice number. I'd like to keep that one in my back-pocket.

That is my position on footnotes.

1. Sometimes I would use an asterisk as a make-shift footnote, but such a system has functionally limited me to one footnote per entry. Maybe that was a good thing.

The House tends to be more radical -- either left or right -- and the Senate tends to be more centrist. The fact that we do not have substantial reform over any given period of time is indicative of the nature of the Senate, in which when you are elected, you are likely in for life.² There is no real value -- in terms of getting reelected -- in rocking the boat or upsetting the status quo.

For the purposes of this list, I will consider those that started serving in the year Ronald Reagan was sworn-in as president (1981) or earlier as the senators from both parties that should collectively retire -- and let some new blood in, so we could get some real reform.

Democrats
Max Baucus, since 1978
Robert Byrd, since 1959 (also 101 years old)
Chris Dodd, since 1981
Daniel Inouye, since 1963
Ted Kennedy, since 1962
Patrick Leahy, since 1975
Carl Levin, since 1979
Arlen Specter, since 1981

Republicans
Thad Cochran, since 1978
Chuck Grassley, since 1981
Orrin Hatch, since 1977
Richard Luger, since 1977

1. I strongly feel that term limits are inherently undemocratic. The more prominent the position, and the longer the election cycle, the more reconcilable the idea of term limits is, however, if a public wishes to elect a person, the worst crime is to withhold their choice because that person has done such a good job for such a long time. Career politicians are not really the problem; I'd argue stepping-stone politicians are.
2. People vote for Senate with an aggravating degree of consistency. The House changes borders every decade, and is a stepping-stone of sorts for senators, governors, and cabinet or administration positions. The Senate is the top job for most politicians.

And what is with the portion? Why do french fries fill up the plate and ubiquitously spill over onto the table when the server puts the plate on the table. Why are the french fries a de facto second entrée, while the coleslaw or potato salad comes in a small little cup that rivals the volume of a Dixie cup? Where is the scale? Why isn't my choice of coleslaw equal in value to my friend's choice of french fries? Is cabbage really that expensive these days? And coleslaw is not simply shredded cabbage. There are other ingredients. If I wanted shredded cabbage, I'd ask for shredded cabbage. What I wanted was a side of coleslaw for my burger. What you brought me was an inferior side that makes me hate my friend and his plateful of french fries. Was that your objective?

Oh, I love Obama's idea on [fill in the blank]. It is such a terrific idea. He is the greatest president ever. I am so proud to be an American right now.

It just doesn't have that zing. It doesn't fill the seats, but it never really has. It simply doesn't light a fire under me. (I hinted towards the demise of the liberal blogosphere a year-and-half ago, when a democrat winning was becoming more and more likely, exactly because of Bush's record and disapproval.¹)

Every person who was alive (voting age, knowledgeable) during the Bush administration will never forget it. I am sure that that could be said of any administration (except possibly Ford's), but the Bush administration was my first. I was not old enough to vote for Clinton. My first vote in a presidential election was for Al Gore when I was twenty.²

Future children will come home from schools (in ten, twenty years) and ask their parents -- "Why was Bush so hated? What did he do wrong?" -- and everyone will answer the question differently.

This is how I would respond to the question, at least today, sincerely...

Never would I have imagined that the president would take such a horrible event -- the tragedy of nine-eleven -- and use it not only for personal political gain, but as an explicit smear tactic against any and all opponents or dissidents, on any and all issues or policies. Bush took a golden opportunity to bring a nation together, and he willingly and blatantly tore it apart. His administration exhibited the most divisive form of government, and the most invidious form of politics.

1. This phenomenon may only apply to me however.
2. This was not the first election in which I had ever voted. The first election that I would have been able to vote in was the mid-term general of 1998. I had come down with mononucleosis in the fall semester of my freshman year. The symptoms started on Halloween. I had stayed home that evening, and spent the entire month of November going in and out of the health center. I wouldn't have been able to vote even if I was registered, which I wasn't. It is still something I regret. I have never not voted, primary or special, since.

"Wow. Bill Donoghue really opened my eyes. I had no idea that secular Jews were keeping Catholics down. Food for thought." -- Steven Colbert, a Catholic

I admit, I didn't get it, so I commented...

Okay, I'm thinking... "secular Jew." Is that the joke?

Linkins replied... "Stephen Colbert wasn't exactly 'kept down' by secular Jews, now, was he? One might suggest that Colbert has had a great deal of support from people who fit Donoghue's definition of 'secular Jew.' There is one guy in particular who sort of springs to mind..."

And I commented...

Oh boy, am I slow.

Here is my question: When does a secularist drop the religious affiliation that follows? (e.g., when does a "secular Jew" become a "secularist?")

Does Stewart really believe in the biblical teachings? I have thought that Stewart has been using his Jewish heritage as a punchline, and that he has disavowed of the faith. But the Colbert line is funny, nonetheless.

[...]

Stewart comes across as an atheist (or agnostic) to me, but that may just be his television persona. Who knows what he truly believes? Maybe Larry King does.

Linkins replied, "As for Stewart, I was under the impression that he was a typical Reform Jew. But, fuck, what do I know?"

Yes, I thought that this was "good enough" to share.

Note: I am making a serious effort to break my TechCrunch habit. It's just not going that well... yet.

The most oft-mentioned statistic as categorically "unfair" is the 300 wins for starting pitchers as a requirement to be considered a hall-of-famer. In today's age of middle relief specialists and five-man rotations, it is simply becoming a matter of calculus -- or more accurately, simple algebra (a related form in the language of mathematics) -- that doing such is nearly impossible. For a pitcher to win 300 games, he must register 15 wins for 20 seasons or 20 wins for 15 seasons. That is becoming more and more of an anomaly and doesn't represent "greatness," by any measure, in the sport today.

A lesser mentioned statistic that is equally unfair is the 3000 hit threshold. Using the same math as above, a hitter would require 15 seasons of 200 hits or 20 seasons of 150 hits. Surely any player that would meet such criteria would be hall-of-fame worthy -- besides Pete Rose and Rafael Palmeiro maybe -- or if they had some inordinate number of home runs to complement their hit totals (which may or may not be a function of natural or unnatural strength), like Babe Ruth (2873 career hits) and Lou Gehrig (2721), they would have a key to Cooperstown.

But establishing 3000 hits (or 300 wins) as any sort of threshold of representing greatness is a misnomer. Careers are cut short by injury or death, players can be a part of winning or losing teams (and statistics in playoffs do not count), and who precedes and follows a hitter's place in the batting order has a great effect on pitching decisions (more so today). Having 3200 hits does not necessarily make you a better player than if you had 2800 (unless you also had 540 home runs and 420 steals; then you'd be a god)

Here are some great ballplayers that have not hit 3000, and are either Hall of Famers or should be...

• Frank Robinson 2943
• Barry Bonds 2935
• Mel Ott 2876
• Babe Ruth 2873
• Brooks Robinson 2848
• Andre Dawson 2774
• Roberto Alomar 2724
• Lou Gehrig 2721
• Bill Buckner 2715
• Ted Williams 2654
• Jimmie Foxx 2646
• Tim Raines 2605
• Steve Garvey 2599
• Reggie Jackson 2584
• Ernie Banks 2583
• Joe Morgan 2517
• Fred McGriff 2490
• Frank Thomas 2468
• Ozzie Smith 2460
• Jim Rice 2452

Not every hit is equally important either. A slap single in the ninth when you are down (or up) by six means nothing. The most underrated batting statistic in all of baseball is runs scored. I'd follow that with a statistic that measures all players almost equally, the most normalized batting statistic: doubles. Not every player can belt 50 home runs, nor can every player run-out bunts or infield singles (or stretch doubles into triples). But a double is equally attainable by every player in the league, or it should be, and I'll assume that it is. This is why when you look at the career leaders list for doubles, you immediately recognize not only the greatest players in history, but the best all-around, athletic players; true ballplayers.

When measuring a player's absolute value, assigning an arbitrary number for a given statistic, literally based on nothing (aside from it being a round number), is an unrealistic and inappropriate method. A player's worth should be measured by his contribution to his team (runs, runs batted-in, etc.) and his team's success, not to mention defensive skills¹ and overall gamesmanship.

1. Defensive skills are nearly impossible to statistically evaluate (and always will be; no two ground balls or fly balls are the same).

This is the authoritative list -- and exclusive of any Pixar films, which don't count, because they are always good, and should be measured separately...²

1. Batman Begins
2. Zodiac
3. The Dark Knight
4. American Gangster
5. National Treasure

Runners-up: The Illusionist, Rescue Dawn, 3:10 to Yuma, and Capote.

1. In fact, I purchased Nos. 1 and 3 last week, in a sweet deal on Amazon. I didn't get the special two-disc, limited edition versions with all sorts of useless extras, like behind-the-scenes shit that I would never sit through anyway. Just the movie, widescreen, and not Blu-ray.
2. And I am not just saying that because I am friends and neighbors with Pixar animators/designers.