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?