Analysis of Episode 5 “Shotgun”; or the hubris of Walter White

A few glasses of wine and Walter White successfully put Hank back on “his” trail in the firth episode of season four “Shotgun.” The scene is astounding given that Hank believed Heisenberg to be Gale and thus dead. Walter’s hubris, vanity and pride refuse to allow him to enjoy his wealth, however. Walter’s initial reason for getting “involved” was the money, but is not even a factor for him at this point. Indeed, Walter seems to be suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. I think this notion was established early on in the show, with Gretchen and Elliot—Walter’s grad school pals. It seems clear that it was Walter’s inflated sense of importance that ultimately ruined that relationship—both the personal and professional ones. Walter, like many tragic characters, makes decision that will destroy him, or I predict will as the show concludes.

Skylar must now understand, or should be putting the pieces together of just how close Hank is to “discovering” the “truth” of the Whites’ wealth. And the almost incredulous reason is simply because Walter can’t be the emasculated man. So with a belly full of wine, Walter suggests, as the two families eat dinner, that perhaps Gale is not the evil Heisenberg genius Hank describes him to be. Walter posits that perhaps, just perhaps, it was merely rote memorization, a mere facsimile of the true genius behind the chemical formula in that notebook, the key piece of evidence. Not only does Walter’s hubris refuse to allow Hank’s misapprehension to persist, but also Walter seems to enjoy alluding Hank’s pursuit. Walter likes the idea of his wits outmatching Hank and the law. Though Walter has serious threats to his life, he simply can’t allow. The irony is that the same, to a lesser degree, seems true for Hank.

Hank has been physically emasculated. Hanks physical limitation threatens his sense of worth, much the same way that Walter’s unacknowledged brilliant chemistry work, threatens his. Hank seemed to be recovering his masculinity in last week’s episode, but then it was squashed upon his discovery of what he believes to be Heisenberg death. Although Hank says that realization feels like “closure “and we assume thus a good thing, we don’t really believe Hank. So Hank has the drunken Walter to thank for helping him get his mojo back. Walter likes being pursued in this way by Hank. Walter has issues with Hank, expressed throughout the series in subtle and clear ways. I think part of Walter goading Hank to get back on the hunt, rests in Walter’s pride but also his desire to “outwit” Hank, the manly man’s man.

Further, this notion of masculinity, as I am defining here, plays out with Jesse as well. Jesse desires to be useful and important—like Walter. Gus understands this and so puts a plan into motion to generate some self-importance for Jesse. Jesse, after all, simply wants to be needed, accepted and loved. Propping Jesse up though to help him feel better about his manhood certainly isn’t Gus’s plan. At least, I don’t believe it to be part of the plan. Making Jesse feel important and vital seems likely to represent an affront to Walter and how he sees himself. Walter is no match for Gus.

An interesting aside: I wonder if the show’s writers knew this:
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states precise inequalities that constrain certain pairs of physical properties, such as measuring the present position while determining future momentum of a particle. Both cannot be simultaneously done to arbitrarily high precision. In other words, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled, determined, or known.

I’d say no question about it, as Walter’s chosen “handle” for himself, seems to reveal a facet of Walter’s situation. The more Walter tries to control the events around him, the less influence he has, just like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Review of Breaking Bad: Thirty-Eight Snub

Episode Thirty-Eight Snub illustrates White’s his surprising stupidity fueled by his legitimate fear of Gus. The episode opens with Walter buying a 38-Special Snub revolver from an illegal gun dealer. Walter informs the surprising insightful dealer that the weapon is for “defense.” Walter says this several times as though he is convincing himself more than anything. I suppose Walt might believe in the familiar sporting maxim, “the best defense is a good offense.” He clearly has no intention of purchasing the weapon for defensive purposes; as he sees it, it’s him or Gus, pure and simple. The gun dealer (Lawson what an awesome name for an illegal gun dealer) is aware that something is amiss with the Walter’s explanation and approach. If Walter plans on being offensive, then he should opt for a different weapon. If the weapon is truly intended for self-defense, then going through legal channels makes far more sense, Lawson trenchantly points out. I really enjoyed this scene as it understands that while we, the ever-patient viewer, know Walter is a cold-blooded murder, to the rest of the world, he still looks like a chemistry teacher or something equally as innocuous.

But while Walter is clearly intelligent and seeming capable of self-effacement and reflection, he still behaves as though he has learned nothing from his experience in “drug world” and with “drug dealers.” After all, he and Jesse have had many “close calls.” So when Walter simply tries to walk up to Gus’s home, I suppose to gun him down in the doorway, I couldn’t help thinking “that is really stupid.” Can Walter really be that dumb as to think he can simply walk up to Gus’ house and simply shoot him down? His stupidity is demonstrated with banal subtly when he receives a call while walking up to Gus’s house. The voice, and I swear it was Gus, says “Go home, Walt.”

Walter’s paranoia still fuels an even more incredulous request concerning Mike the Cleaner. Walter tails Mike to a bar (not too well, Mike points out) and then attempts to recruit him. Again, Walt’s stupidity is so obvious in his recruitment pitch. Walter misreads Mike entirely. What does Walter know of the relationship between Mike and Gus? Nothing and Walter assumes, incorrectly, that Mike, after the throat-cutting scene in the prior episode, sees Gus as an unstable madman who will turn on his loyal employees without cause. Mike understands what lead to Gus killing Victor though Mike was clearly shocked, surprised and saddened by his untimely death—a death that was caused ultimately by Walter and Jesse.

The paranoia and shock still has Walter’s thinking addled and unclear. Walter’s behavior displays this, and I wonder how he can survive if he continues to brazenly threaten to kill a man, who could kill Walter without much problem whatsoever. Mike kicks his ass for suggesting he turn on his employer, and one can assume that Mike will relay this information along to Gus. Though Gus no doubt understands what Walter is up to. It seems as though Walter is no match for Gus. Walter has to be smarter than to let his emotions overrun his common sense but that’s what emotions do—overrun common sense. One wonders how the tension between Walter and Gus will be resolved. At some point, both Mike and Gus might get a little tired of Walter and his inept attempt to assassinate Gus. If some bumpkin was trying to kill you at every turn, after you made that person massively rich and after that same bumpkin has indirectly or directly caused the death of several loyal employees, how long would your patience extend? As Jesse might intone, “seriously.”

Jesse, on the other hand, deals with their predicament much differently. Constantly trying to distract himself—three-night party, booming stereo, taking drugs, etc.—Jesse also assuages his guilt by giving away a wad of cash to his erstwhile girlfriend, Andrea. The goal of the cash is more for her child, Brock, than for her. Jesse tells her to move out of the bad part of town. Jesse wants to provide the child a chance, and he knows that Brock has little chance living in the neighborhood that he lives in.

Jesse, as I have posited before, serves as the shows emotional and moral compass. So with his newfound wealth, Jesse does the noble thing—he tries to help out those in need. Jesse still maintains his sense of moral rectitude and even better acts on it. Despite being a killer and drug dealer, Jesse is a good man inside. In fact, the entire sticky situation the boys, Walter and Jesse, find themselves in finds its locus in Jesse’s sense of righteousness. It is Jesse who simply could not tolerate the idea of a child being used in to kill his friend, then as a result of his actions, actions which attempt to right the wrong, lead to the pathetic death of that child. Jesse tries upholding some semblance of moral righteousness and fails. At least fails that time, but he is determined to do the right thing.

The juxtaposition between Walter and Jesse—one perceived by society as a decent person, while the other viewed as a scourge as the show begins—demonstrates the most mundane and pedestrian of axioms: you can’t judge a book by its cover. I suspect that once we read Walter White's story, we may not like him much.

Kaelin’s comedic turn, unmitigated disaster.

Live comedy can be great. I have seen many live comics and go often. Most of the comedians I see, I have not heard of. It’s like discovering a great band that has yet to hit it big. Before moving to Vegas, I vacationed here and on one trip, I saw an up-and-coming Joe Rogan at the Rivera. Never heard of him; his Fear Factor show hadn’t aired yet. It was one of the funniest shows ever. Crying, pain-in-the-side laughing. I have many experiences like that since.

However, while there can be exciting and hilarious comedic discoveries, there can also be unmitigated disasters. Such was the case at Big Al’s Comedy Club at the Orleans. Well, let me be more specific, the “real” comics were good, but the MC/Host was a disaster. I felt sorry for the comedians following the MC given how he simply took the life and energy out of the room.

Both Jeff Richards and The Greg Wilson were funny. I thought Jeff Richards particularly uproarious, though the audience seemed mixed. His routine is odd, to say the least. Long, awkward pauses throughout the routine, which added to the comedy, I thought. His best stuff was his physical comedy—he is willing to go where many comics won’t. To wit, his Momma Butt skit was funny, gross and uncomfortable—all good things for comedy. Yanking his pants to his chest nipples and inviting he audience to notice his male camel toe is brave to say the least—and to me, fucking funny shit. He also does a great Louie Anderson impression.

The Greg Wilson was funny, but his show funniest moment occurred right way in his act. The MC totally blew the introduction and The Greg Wilson proceeded to skewer, eviscerate and demolish the MC’s introduction and more generally the MC. That was funny.

The irony is that the MC/Host was receives top billing on the flyer—one Kato Kaelin of O.J. Simpson’s guesthouse fame. Yes, that guy. He is now trying, I stress trying, to be a comedian. He was, to put it mildly, an unmitigated disaster. Truly terrible.

Now he has a few jokes that were amusing, but his delivery was off. The timing destroying several jokes, but that perhaps could be overlooked. It is not easy to get up on stage and make strangers laugh, I’d imagine. But the element of his routine that I won’t give a pass to is his “audience participation” part.

Many comedians riff off the audience to generate jokes. Vinnie Favorito does this to mild success. I have seen him twice and once is enough. A much better but lesser known comedian who does the same thing is Joe Lowers at the Alexis hotel next to the Hard Rock. Of course, few know about this show given its off-the-Strip location. For my money, he is the best “fucking-with-the-audience” comic in Vegas. Kato Kaelin is the worst one I have seen.

The conceit of interacting and embarrassing the audience as part of a comedian's routine is that it’s not personal and funny. Kaelin violates both these precepts. His interaction with the audience often began with the general statement: “What’s your story?” This seems to me a poor way to begin. The questions needs to be far more specific. What’s your story? How is someone in the audience supposed to answer? No one is going to respond. The question needs to be specific, like what do you do for a living or as Joe Lowers asked me “what kind of porn do you like?” A loaded question to be sure.

After asking his general question, Kaelin stares at the person waiting for, I suppose, a long monologue outlining his story. The key to making this work is the comic’s ability to think on his feet and come up with something funny. Kaelin did not display this extemporaneous comedic ability whatsoever. This is one example of what he thought was funny:

Kaelin: Hey, is that a tattoo on your leg?

Lady in the front row: Yes

Kaelin: That looks like a scab?

Audience: Crickets chirping, thinking that was mean and not funny.

Thus was his routine. He merely insulted and alienated the audience. If he intends to do that, he had better damn well be funny. Instead, he was an unmitigated, unfunny disaster. But go for The Gregg Wilson Show and Jeff Richards, though with Richards be prepared to look at a fat man’s camel toe. It sounds easy to look away, but truly it is not.

The lack of humanity on True Blood

Now a few espisodes into the fourth season of True Blood, I can assert confidently that I do not like the direction the show is taking. This season reminds me of the 2nd season with the that weird lady controling the good ole folks of Bon Temps. That season was simply too weird. And now we are being introduced to more wierd people--the witches--who can apparently control or brain earse the vampires--alas poor Eric, the only intersting character--save Pam--on the show. So the vampires are not the supreme badasses of the True Blood world. But this added element makes the show less grounded or more fantastical. The more the show moves away from the humans, the less interesting it becomes. Soon there may be no humans.

Within the True Blood universe, I wonder how they are even any humans around. Honestly, everything is something "else": werewolves, vampires, fairies, witches, shifters, whatever Jason is becoming and humans. One of these things is not like the others. How are there any humans left in this supernatural world?

Okay, I do concede that Tara is a cool human, but who else? Terry? And remember that

Lafayette is now a witch.

The promise that the first season offered, I thought, was that we'd see a struggle between vampires and their intergration into human culture and the strains that developed as a result. It could have been frutile grounds for exploring all types of aspects of our humanity and society. Instead, the show has opted for sensationalism. Wierdness. It unsettles, nay, overruns, the "suspension of disbelief" required to enjoy the show--and every other show.

I know that the show is modeled after a series of novels, which I have not and have no interst in reading. So perhaps my anticpation was always ill-informed. I don't know how closely the series aligns with the books. I don't much care, either. All I can do is evaluate the series and enough with the wierdness.

Also, with Eric now reduced to a little boy, which I suppose will ingratiate Sookie to him more, the show really has effectively killed off one of the best characters--Eric Northman. He may return to his confident badass self, but for now the best character on the show is gone. Me no likley.

Why I like Breaking Bad

I caught the third episode of Breaking Bad late one night and thought the episode was simply fantastic. I mentioned this to a friend who happened to have the complete first season on DVD and thus was able to watch the entire season. I have now watched the first three seasons. But this is why I like it and feel that it is the best show since The West Wing, though that show lost its way in the final few seasons; let’s hope that is not the case here. Here are a few points that I really enjoy:
• It is entertaining. Many episodes are simply crazy; that is unpredictable and engaging. The “stakes” are often high and as Walter White slowly “Breaks Bad,” he finds himself in very dicey situations.
• It’s realistic. While this aspect relates to the first point, it can be considered on its own merits. The power of this and most shows rests on its realism—especially with the show’s subject—the meth drug world. Of course, having no knowledge of the “drug world” outside secondary sources, my understanding and appreciation for the realism should be channeled through that perspective. However, not having direct knowledge of a “scene” does not disqualify one from appreciating how it’s rendered and from my perspective, I find it realistic. Walter and to a lesser degree Jesse’s decent into the “bad” must be realistic, for if it wasn’t, the “stakes” would not be as substantial or impactful. Though often in the show they are what I would call very fortuitous situations. To the show’s credit though, these fortuitous situations are not forgotten. Walter sees them and offers his perspective on them, though as a scientist, he doesn’t understand them
• Each character, beside the son RJ, has issues, but his issue, as it were, is physical, so every character has some issue. The show does a nice job of outlining the characters and imbuing them with their own damaged proclivities. More on the characters, since it really is the characters that drive the success of the show, or at least my interest. We must identify with the characters or the show won’t work. If I don’t care what happens to a character, then there are no stakes and whatever happens doesn’t matter. Further we must like the characters, and I simply love several.
o Hank, Walter’s DEA brother in-law. He is the embodiment of masculine braggadocio, or at least his idea of what it means to be masculine. Despite the fact that he is a successful DEA agent, he is an

idiot—not in his work, just as a man. He reminds me of so many men who are constantly trying to act tough. He is racist and often ridiculous. Often I find myself laughing at him, not with him, and I am not sure if the writers intend for that response, but he is so over-the-top with his hyper masculinity that I simply can’t help it. Thought the show does not celebrate this, really. Hank deals with this own substantial problems and because he can’t communicate except in insults and rage, he can’t help himself. And when is physicality is taken from him, well, Hank can’t deal with it. A man must be physically able to take care of himself and when Hank can’t, his idea of what it means to be a man is altered. I am curious as to how he handles this in the following seasons.
o Skylar, Walter’s wife. The show really needs to do more with the women. This is one criticism of the show, but it seems as she “breaks bad,” we might get a little more development of her and perhaps her sister, Hank’s wife. But I like where she heading. I have high hopes for her character in the upcoming season.
o Saul Goodman, Walter’s sleazy lawyer.

Saul’s license plate reads LWYRUP. That says everything about the character, and he is simply fantastic in the show. Funny, smart, untoward, inappropriate, lewd. He really became one of my favorite characters, as every time his is in a scene, just about, he is really funny. He is the ambulance chaser lawyer that advertises via obnoxious and garish commercials. He is great.
o Jesse Pinkman, Walt’s partner-in crime. I am not as high, pun intended, on Jesse’s character, but the interesting character point about Jesse, the meth user and criminal, is that he represents the moral compass of the show. Despite the fact that he is a really stupid and an incompetent drug dealer, and the only character involved in drugs and the drug world as the show begins, aside from Hank that is, he often reminds us and others about what the morally right thing to do is. Of course, Jesse is not quite articulate enough to put it that way, but his strong sense of morality is what makes for an unbelievable season three finale. That season finale can be best summarized this way: “Holy fucking shit. I don’t believe it.” Another aspect I like about Jesse is his vulnerability. He is a deeply flawed person, as his relationship with his parents’ shows. I find that portrayal often heartbreaking, at least initially. I wonder how difficult it must be for parents to deal with drug addled children. The show, I think, does not present the parents as one-note evil, rigid people. They are tormented by what Jesse does, but after all the years and years of problems, they have concluded that they can’t help and must divorce themselves from him.

We are offered a counter point of view to this in Jesse’s girlfriend’s father, who tells Walter that “you never give up on family.” Jesse’s parents do and are punished for it. So Jesse is a deeply flawed person who simply wants to be loved and accepted, much like most of us really.
o Mike, Gus’s enforcer. I like Mike. He is the strong man who takes care of Gus’ “problems.” We learn a bit of his background which explains his current line of work. He is direct and phlegmatic when discussing and resolving “issues.” Though unlike other stereotypical enforcers, Mike has a heart. This juxtaposition is set-up when we see him interacting with his daughter. He is at once kind, sweet and attentive and in the next scene cruel, violent and deadly. Pigeon-holing him simply won’t work. He too has some moral fiber, though it is very thin.
o Gus, Walt’s nemesis. The thing about that I like is that he is smart, calculating and exact. He seems more like a professor than a drug lord. Seldom are characters written as really, really smart. He has a plan and when his plan encounters “problems” he thinks quickly but with steely control. That is quite unnerving because we don’t really know what he thinks. We can’t read him because he is calm and clear. That often is very scary. Unfortunately or fortunately Walt is his intellectual equal.
o Walter White, the brilliant chemist cum high teacher cum meth producer. Walt makes the show, really. We must be able to believe him as the unappreciated high school teacher who slowly “breaks bad.” This evolution or devolution must be rendered appropriately. His character is tragic in the literary sense of the word. He understand and recognizes his foibles and realizes that he made his choice and must stick with it. Understandably he fights it and tries to rejects it, but ultimately can’t. One of my favorite episodes in season three is “The Fly.” Essentially, there is no “action” and it focuses exclusively on Jess and Walt in the super lab. I find this episode critical in understanding and appreciating Walter. He fully understands that he had his chance to “get out” but not now.

This recognition potentially makes him a tragic figure; I say potentially because tragic figures die—they understand that it is their ambition and the realization of that ambition—in Shakespeare’s play Macbeth, for example, becoming the king—that leads to their tragic end. If Walter eventually dies—he has cancer, too—as a result of his drug involvement, he will be a tragic figure.

A philosophical rumination

I recently came across a blog that represents many of the thoughts I have had about this way of life, the alacritous embrace of capitalism and the consequences it has wrought.

It seems to me, with some exceptions, that most people hate working. That is not to say that they are lazy, though that’s often how they are characterized; rather that what people do is mostly pointless, inane, vacuous, futile, etc and having to experience these feelings 5/6 days a week for a lifetime creates intense hatred then overwhelming depression. That’s why the distractions are so important, of course. Please distract me from my empty life. But does it really have to be this way? Do we really need to be engaged in such a waste of time for our lives?

The blog referenced can be read herehttp://unboughtsoul.blogspot.com/2011/06/anhedonia.html

It begins by defining ANHEDONIA: n. - A lack of pleasure or of the capacity to experience it. That seems like something that did not exist until recently in human evolution. The sad reality is that I know people like this. No way to go through life and the main source seems to be work. Can we really deny that capitalism is not to blame for this? After all, isn’t the entire point of Vegas, or a primary one at least, stems from anhedonia.

So considering an alternative perspective is seldom discussed or considered. Why do we need to slave away making a handful of people obscenely rich, while the rest of us are engaged in pointless activities which prevents us from doing what we would like to do? Is the point of my existence to slave away at some job? Is that why I am on this planet?

The movie Office Space is an excellent examination of this phenomenon. The scene where the main character tells his neighbor that if he had no worries for money he would do “nothing” seems at first blush ridiculous. But how many people out there would love to do nothing for a while? A week, two, a month, two, a year. And what, I ask, is really wrong with this. I know the answer, of course. We have to pay to live. We have to pay someone, or rather some company, to live a comfortable life. I suppose we could be homeless, but that is hardly a way to go through life. Thus we need to work at our shitty jobs.

But does our society and its apoplectic embrace of unfettered capitalism have to be this way? No, the answer is no.

Several essays by Native American authors, who describe their way of life prior to their forced “enlightenment” by the white Europeans, offer a radically different view of an organized society. Each time I read one of these essays, I think there is or was a much better way to live life as a human on this planet. And capitalism is nothing more than a cancer, a soul-corrupting influence that must be mitigated, altered, humanized.

John “Lame Deer” Fire and Leslie Marmon Silko are two authors that write about life prior to unencumbered capitalism and an entirely different way of life. I must confess that each time a read one of their essays, I am often struck by just how much better Native Americans lived. Of course, that is not suggest that their way of life was perfect, per se. They were a war-faring lot, but couldn’t we adopt the best aspects and shun the others?

We need a different way of life. Honestly. And when a very few, less than one percent, of the people own the rest of us, (1% of the population control 90% of the wealth) I say something ain’t right. Couple that with just how shitty our jobs are and I say something needs to change. But can we, will we, consider a different organizing system? Socialistic ideals are certainly a place to look. We have been fooled into thinking that we can only act in our own self-interest and that is the best and only way to organize the society. Not true, not true at all. We have lived, so say experts who studied human evolution, in socialized systems for almost our entire existence. Only recently have we corrupted this and it has wrought terrible things--not only for us, but for every other living thing on this planet with only few exceptions.

A different perspective is needed and the hoi polloi need to force it on the 1%.

Something About Mary Jane

A new report confirms what every reasonable-minded person already knows: the “war’ on drugs has failed in a spectacular fashion. Here’s the article discussing the report’s findings, which includes some prominent Republicans, or at least they worked for a Republican administration: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/06/02/136880528/global-war-on-drugs-has-failed-former-world-leaders-say

Sometimes the notion of legalization of marijuana comes up in class. Students often argue that it should be legal. Hardly anyone takes the other side; in fact I recall only one ever taking that side. Curiously, I will ask the class if they know someone who has smoked marijuana. In every class, most, say over 90%, and 100% in some classes, confirm that they know someone who has smoked marijuana. Then I ask if they think these folks are criminals that should be thrown in jail. No one ever thinks that smoking a joint or two should lead to prison-time. The idea seems almost ludicrous, absurd when I pose it. And indeed, it is.

The students are well ahead of the government’s troglodyte-minded perspective. Not only the students, but many people, the regular folks, are far more sophisticated and reasonable about this issue and incline toward legalization. After all consider how many states have approved legalizing medical marijuana in direct conflict with the federal government: sixteen plus the District of Columbia. The government classifies Mary Jane as a schedule one drug meaning that:

(A) The drug or other substance has high potential for abuse. (Umm, doesn’t alcohol and cigarettes meet this criterion?)
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (Not according to several States and many studies.)
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. (This is because it isn't legal.)

Of course, the discussion about legalizing marijuana for medical use is not the same thing as legalizing it for recreational use, but it does suggest an entirely different attitude about the drug. There are no efforts to legalize cocaine, another schedule one drug, for medical use as far as I know. And I do not see a war on, say, “valium,” a medical-prescribed drug. The country is in a weird place about this. Can the tide be turning?

Of course, there is virtually no good reason to maintain marijuana’s illegality. Many of the supposed ills it causes have been refuted. The most pernicious is the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug. This connection is spurious. For example, how many meth, cocaine, or heroin addicts have tried alcohol or smoked cigarettes? Many, most, all? Most reasonable folks do not automatically arrive at the conclusion that Marlboro Lights or Smithwicks leads to meth use. Perhaps it sounds ridiculous to conclude that—a post hoc fallacy—and you’d be correct. So why is cannabis lumped in with other “hard” drugs?

The condescension of “think about it.”

The other day I posted something on my facebook and though I said I was joking about the post, I received a comment from, I assume a self-appointed conscious facebook policeman, who after he finished his comment, invite me to “think about it.” As though the comment in itself defied conventional thinking and would elude my intellectual comprehension without a more contemplative consideration. As if it were Descartes or Nietzche. The ostentatious and obvious comment was not all that insightful and did not demand more than a cursory read. As I pointed out I was joking and indicated so, but some don’t get jokes and feel compelled to comment unnecessarily.

But as I did post the comment publicly, I suppose I can’t get too bent over about lame response—except the stupid condescension with the “think about it” comment. That is what bothered me. Think about what, I thought. I did for second and responded. There was not much to considered, but why did he assume that his comment was complex? The self-righteous intellectual superiority did not settle well with me. I think, therefore I am irritated. Well, a variation on Descartes but it’s the idea of it all.

So, then, let’s hold off with the “think about it” stuff for awhile, unless, a comment absolutely demands it. I mean really demands it. Like, for example, what is the point of working—think about it. Or, what is the point of Dancing with the Starts—think about it. Or what is the point of pineapple on pizza? (Alliteration rules.) Or what is the point of alliteration and what does it rule—think about it.

Think about this. Why do people think they need to say “think about it?” Stupid is as stupid does, that’s what I think—think about it.

The primative sacrifice is alive and well. Hurray for progress

The discussions of appeasing the “budget” remind me of primitive cultures who engaged in human sacrifice. That seems to be what is happening around the country. The god in this case is something called the “budget,” and it needs to be appeased. It must find equilibrium. Indeed, the “budget,” and let’s say this is like Poseidon to Zeus—Zeus, being the ultimate God, the ultimate “god” here is this thing called capitalism, demands sacrifices. However, in this situation no one is killed right away. Instead, it’s a different kind of death altogether, the kind that’s slow, humiliating and entirely preventable.

The sacrificed are the many working people, who are slowly being broken down financially. Their ability to support themselves is of no consequence. They must sacrifice, and so what if they are hampered finically, the budget gods demand it. Though these sacrifices are not connected to one’s virginity; rather it stems from the idea that they should be able to make a decent wage. How dare they.

The richest 1 percent control 90 percent of the wealth in this country. They are also gods, or more like royalty. The notion that they might “sacrifice,” though “sacrifice” hardly applies to these folks, is summarily dismissed and apparently will not appease the ”budget” gods. No, they need another corporate jet or yacht to convey them about the global. The “budget” believes this is not a fair thing to ask these folks to sacrifice; it must be those making 40,000, 50,000 or even 60,000 a year. They must sacrifice.

When I hear the purveyors of appeasement say “redistribution of the wealth” is a bad idea, I say, huh? Allowing people to have the ability to support themselves is a bad idea. Really? Asking the godly rich to pony up more of their supposedly hard-earned money (another entirely bogus and inaccurate phrase) to pay more to help appease the budget god somehow is evil and anti-American. Lord it is socialism. How evil, though people believe in the ideals of social; indeed, these are the very concepts that allowed us to flourish as a species. But none of that should be considered. Perspective, logic and decency are not terms to consider when discussing appeasing the budget gods.

Have you ever felt like you just don’t understand? I am sure that there were a few people who thought, “Throwing a virgin into a volcano is a shittty idea, that there must be a better way.” I no doubt would have been one of those people entirely uncomfortable with sacrificing the innocent to appease a mythical entity.

Why NV Hates Education

In today's paper, there is an excellent article which discusses education and its connection to job creation. The article by Brian Greenspun can be read by following this link http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/feb/13/status-quo-isnt-good-enough-anymore/

Essentially, he reminds what we already know: education leads to business creation and jobs. Sandoval, however, fails to understand this, as by the way, does the majority of myopically strained Republicans. So, then, antithetical to job creation is cutting education funding. Interesting, the only thing the conservatives can consider for balancing the budget is cutting the thing that will create jobs and, oh yeah, generate more tax revenue.

Stupid is a stupid does. Nevada ranks at the bottom of money spent to educate its citizens by a huge margin and the thinking is to cut more spending from education? This makes no sense, unless, one has an interest in maintaining an uneducated workforce. Perhaps, it not quite that nefarious, as this implies the ability to think and plan--I see no evidence of that coming from the Sandoval regime. But, then again.

Being an educator in a state that, at least from the elected leaders, places no value on his efforts is sad and pathetic. Welcome to Fabulous Vegas where we like our citizens uniformed, uneducated and unemployed. Hurray, baby needs a new pair of shoes: give me a seven. That's the only way to make it--sure luck.

A Student's Name Is Not Mine

This may be the best example of student ineptitude that I can provide. Students submit their papers online, and because I have to download them, I prefer that they save them a certain way. It simply saves me some time. If the papers are not all saved the same way, chaos ensues, as when I return the papers, I am not sure whose paper’s whose. So in order to save time, and not have to re-save them in the manner that is uniform, I had a rather minor, but significant thought: why not ask the students to save it the way I want? Yes, brilliant idea.

So even if only, say, 75% of the students saved the documents the way I ask, it would still save me time. (As all teachers surely understand, one realizes that no matter how clearly, how thoroughly, or how often one presents information, information that requires no thought at all, some students inexplicably fail to follow through—attrition, as it were). So then I supplied instructions as to the manner I want the documents saved. It reads this way on my syllabus:

* Post your outline and paragraphs as a single document and attachment. Use you first initial, period, last name, period and week. For example r.peltier.wk2.

You see I supplied an example using my name. I thought this would be helpful—for one it was not. This apparently confused a student, for, I swear, I received a paper saved r.peltier.wk2. I did not write this paper, I assure you—instead I evaluate them.

This is not a freshman, but rather an adult student. Well, that’s a bit inaccurate as technically the vast majority of college students are “adults.” But this is a non-traditional, a little older than 18ish age, where new concepts, ideas and commonsense are often in short supply. What, I honestly wonder, was the student thinking when she read the instructions? That I wanted every document saved with my name? Though I often have a burdensome ego, it is hardly that large. Seriously, the lack of common sense makes me wonder how people make it through life without a helmet or training wheels for that matter. Perhaps, and I wish I had the balls to do this, I should simply fail the assignment because she failed to follow through with the instructions. Indeed, that would save me some time, which you might recall was the reason for the instructions in the first place.

The Fresh Wait

The other day I came upon my 10 am class. Ten is a little early, so I think mine is the first class of the day in that room. I round the corner and see my students, those who arrived on-time that is, milling about outside the classroom. This is unusual. Most students enter the room and grab a seat and patiently text their friends waiting for the professor to arrive. So I saw the students standing outside the classroom and thought, "Shit, the room door is locked."

Professors do not have keys to the rooms. Most have a Marlok card which provides entry into “tech” rooms; those with overhead projectors and computers. This classroom is not one of those. So I start thinking whom do I call, but then I remembered that these students were freshmen.

So I approached the darkened classroom and opened the unlocked door and invited my students in. The first student had arrived to find a darkened classroom and assumed it was locked. The next one assumed the first one knew that they room was locked. And on and one went this, until I arrived. Replete with experience and education, I first tried to open the door before assuming it was locked.

I almost certainly can guarantee that had my class been an upper division course, in other words with sophomores, juniors, and/or seniors, they would have tried the door first. But that’s what makes freshman so adorable sometimes. They can be like little puppies; awkward and clumsy, but eager and alacritous and not always thinking before acting.

Capricorn No More. I am Sagittarius.

So I have been living a lie. Granted it was hardly my own doing. Today, the day I was forced into this world against my will, I found out that I am longer a Capricorn. Rather, I am a Sagittarius. The shock of this realization is intense. Suddenly, my identity has been altered. I no longer get along with well with Virgos and Libras. I wonder what my last girlfriend’s sign was. I am sure this factors into the break-up somehow. As a Sagittarius, my ideal sign partner (sounds like a deaf date) is Aries. Aries, according the internets, are symbolized by the ram. The ram has come to represent male fertility, aggression, and courage. This makes it seems as though I might be gay. It says nothing of feminine fecundity, sympathy and compassion. Come to think of it, I have always felt a little off.

As a Capricorn, my animal counter-part is a goat. But now as a Sagittarius, I am the Archer—half-man; half-horse. That’s way better. Capricorns are tenacious, conservative, resourceful, disciplined, wise, ambitious, prudent, and constant. These adjectives do not define me. I am not wise or ambitious. I sat on my fat ass all break. I barely finished one book—a book that was an easy read, to boot. Conservative? No, I’m a liberal. Tenacious? If there’s a long line at the drive-thru, I say fuck this and drive away, hungry. Wise? I can’t even do geometry. What is an obtuse angle? Sounds like an angle that is being a dick and just won't express exactly what it is. Angles are stupid, anyway.

So all along, I was trapped in the wrong sign’s body. Like a woman trapped in a man’s body. And now that I have had my figurative astrology re-assignment surgery—thanks to the science of those astrologers—I can now feel at one with myself. As a Sagittarius, I am optimistic, restless, enthusiastic, adventurous, honest, irresponsible, outspoken, and independent.

My friends often tell me how optimistic I am. For example, someone the other day asked me about God. I said what I believed: that there is no God or after life; the only thing that is real is the now, the right now. Life is a second-to-second existence with no afterlife. When we die, there’s nothing. So you see how truly optimistic I really am. Restless? I have restless-foot syndrome. Enthusiastic? Of course. I am most enthusiastic watching my beloved Lions play football. For example, if they have a big lead, say 6 points, and the other team has the ball with only one minute to play, I am very enthusiastic about their chances of giving up the late score and losing the game.

It is quite a relief to finally understand what I am. I am a Sagittarius. That sounds so sweet.