Mad Men Premiere: Caring For The Wrong People

Mad Men season 6 begins in an odd moment of confusion: a POV shot of a possibly dying man. We feel an instant pang of fear: what if Don is dying???

It turns out our concern is misplaced. It's just the doorman.

Misplaced concern was a major theme of this premiere episode. Almost every character was guilty of it.

Don's got a gorgeous, tv star wife that everybody ogles over: but he's more interested in sleeping with his new buddy's spouse.

Roger just lost a mother who has loved him unconditionally his entire life: he cries over the shoe shine guy. He seeks a connection with his daughter free his Mom's funeral, but there's no acknowledgement of his child with Joan.

Betty's got a daughter, Sally, to whom she's always been cold and distant: she leaves her child at home (while on winter break) to go find Sally's friend instead, and play the mother role for a bunch of east village squatters. She helps them make dinner, while her doting husband eats chicken salad alone.

A woman has Don give her away at her Hawaiian wedding instead of her own father.

Peggy has long late night phone calls with Stan while practically ignoring her boyfriend, Abe.

About the only person who seems to care about the right thing is Peggy's new boss, Ted, who ignores work to spend time with his wife and urges her to let her coworkers go home for new years.

These characters have people who need them, people who care about them, people who can fill the roles they're looking to fill. But their eyes are elsewhere. It's an interesting theme: people who have it all right there, but who are incapable of recognizing it.

"What's it like to have someones life in your hands?"

It's a privilege, and a responsibility.

It makes you wonder what will happen if those ignored constants, those people they've taken for granted, should disappear. Last season, Layne Pryce took his own life. With all the death symbolism in this episode, it may be time to speculate on who will die next.

Who should we be concerned about?

(and... Who was Roger on the phone with when he was interrupted by the news of his mother's death? Who was Sally talking to when she shut the door in her mother's face? Those moments stuck out to me. My guesses? Rogers is having liaisons with Megan's mom... And Sally is still chatting it up with Glen).

Game of Thrones is back baaaaby!

I've let go of Lost, that brilliant, now deceased television show that every subsequent show starring former Lost actors now tries to mimic. I'm now equally enthralled with Game of Thrones, which opened its 3rd season with its main characters strewn across the globe of Westeros, all seeking to define themselves in this next stage of the Game.

Bastard Jon Snow is as far North as far gets, and that little speech he gives to Mance Rayder, King of the Wildlings, almost convinces me he's legit gone rogue. He's not playing for the Black Cloaks anymore. He's had a taste of some red headed wild child and he's seen some shady crow deals with white walkers. I know who I'd rather hang out with.

Jon's Half-brother, the King of the North, finds his bannermen slain at an abandoned Harrenhall. Suddenly, Katelyn's betrayal really becomes clear to me. She deserves to be put in a cell. Probably worse. She made an incredibly stupid and selfish decision to free Jamie. Lady Katelyn, blinded by grief and fear, traded Jamie for her two daughters. Only one of whom is actually in the Lannisters' grasp. He was a bargaining chip that could have ended the war! Winter is Coming. If everyone doesn't start looking north soon, there won't be a seven kingdoms to fight over.

Sansa wants to play pretend. Indeed, that's what she's been doing ever since coming to Kings Landing. She's playing a part, acting courtly while she fears for her life. She may not be the sharpest tool in the shed (unlike her clever sister Arya, off-screen this week), but she is preparing to sail away from all this with Peter Baelish (who has his own designs, as always, and a redhead that looks just a little bit like Sansa.)

Our dear Khaleesi wants to take back the seven kingdoms of Westeros, but she can't do it without an army. Her seasick horsemen are looking like its Sunday morning after the kegger. But she's no fan of buying Ken-doll slaves forced to kill babies. By the way, why did vaguely Arabic Ben Kingsley feel the need to slice off a nipple? That's just rawwwng, man.

But our dear Khaleesi is not the only woman in Westeros with eyes on the crown. Our dearest Marjorie Tyrell, giver of gifts to the impoverished orphans, (and terrific breasts to Jofferey and me). Her blood runs warm, but unless she knows how to bludgeon a prostitute to death, I doubt King Joffery will really get that into her. One thing's for sure, Incest Mama Cersei is NOT a fan.

Cersei's not a fan of Our Pal Tyrion either. Cersei visits his cell... I mean, room, and basically tells him she still carries a grudge for some incident involving a servant girl when she was 9. Tyrion's dad, Tywin the well groomed, tells Tyrion that his grudge against his vertically-different son goes back to the day of the boy's questionable birth. No Casterly Rock for him. Ouch.

Sir Davos the Onion Knight is not dead, but his son sadly is. He's loyal to Stannis till the end, which of course means the Red Woman has him immediately locked away. No more demon babies as of yet.

Finally, our Dear Khaleesi nearly falls for the old poisonous-Fukajima-neon-green-scorpion-in-the-wooden-ball trick. Sir Barristan, old guy, sworn defender of two murdered kings, shows up to save her life and to pledge his services. The dragon queen's wannabe-Loverboy looks a bit threatened.

There were a lot of characters we didn't see this week... And that leads me back to Lost. Lost had tons of characters too. All with rich back stories. Ditto for Game of Thrones. Both shows have handled the development of a large cast of characters with ease. Revolution, featuring Juliette from Lost, should take some notes.

Is Post-Jobs Apple Out Of Ideas??

About a year ago, I opined that Apple was flirting with old ideas and possibly stunting their culture of innovation. Now we hear more troubling news that Apple is going ahead with products of questionable utility: a bigger iPhone and an iWatch.

The argument for a bigger iPhone boils down to this-- competitors have offered bigger smartphones, so Apple should follow suit to take back lost market share. This makes a very big assumption-- that people buy larger smartphones because of their size. It's an assumption based primarily on the sales of one phone-- Samsung's Galaxy Note II, which runs the Android operating system. But I have yet to see conclusive evidence that a larger screen is the difference that influences most smartphone buyers. I have no doubt that Apple will be able to sell a version of their most popular device with a differently sized screen-- they've done it with the iPad mini. The problem is, the iPad mini cannibalized sales of the full-size iPad, a more profitable product. Whatever market share it grabbed from Amazon's Kindle and Barnes and Noble's Nook, it's been a dubious boost to Apple's fortunes, and a likely reason for that stock slide.

As for the iWatch... I don't believe there is an argument that can be made for it. Even the slickest-looking iWatch will fail because of a watch's inherent limitations. You've got to develop wireless headphones because no one wants a wire running down their arm. You're got to convince people that your design will compliment whatever style they're wearing (something you have to consider whenever something is worn, rather than pocketed). Even overcoming those hurdles, you've still got to deal with the fact that you've just prevented a usable hand from operating the device, and you've got to develop an interface that's useful within such tiny confines. If they're just making the iPod nano with a wrist strap, how is that different from what's already available for a lot cheaper?

Neither of these ideas creates an entirely new revenue stream. What they do is segment an existing revenue stream into smaller, less profitable chunks. I'm not sure how that's a recipe for success. Simply putting a product out there as an alternative to your competitors is not a growth strategy, it's a holding pattern. It's as if Apple is at the gates of El Dorado, and instead of just going inside and grabbing the gold, they're going after the guys selling cheap souvenirs by the side of the road.

Google, on the other hand, seems to have their gaze fixed firmly on the future. Take out the Android operating system, and the online advertising, and you don't have much currently in terms of money-makers. But they've created the most comprehensive map, directory, and database of the world--necessary framework for their future products, such as real-time augmented reality (Google Glasses) and self-driving cars. They've also begun introducing Google Fiber--free, fast internet--to cities around the country, part of an infrastructure that can increase the usefulness and reliability of Google Glasses and Android phones, as well as make in-development ideas like "Smart" homes (and even "Smart" neighborhoods) a real possibility. Apple users found out how far ahead Google's data is after the Apple Maps debacle. While Apple's been sitting on cash it doesn't know what to do with, Google has spent millions on R&D building a support network for the interconnected world we all know we're headed towards.

Maybe Apple can wake up and recognize their (shrinking) lead in online content distribution, and turn Apple TV from a niche set-top accessory into a more comprehensive experience (i.e. an Apple flat-screen TV). But we haven't heard about that good idea for a while. Only the uninspired ones.

Imagine the future, and it's not a bunch of people staring down at their wristwatches. Changing a screen size doesn't change anything else. Google understands this--so they're building the foundations of the future, and they're offering a glimpse of the products that will take advantage of it.

If Tim Cook wants to keep Apple on top, he should take note of that.

Guns Out of Control

Bear with me.

There are many different types of hammers. There's the square, spiked one used for tenderizing meat. There's the flat-head one used for hammering nails. There's the ball-peen hammer used for metalwork. The sledgehammer for breaking down walls.

You can use the wrong hammer for a job and still get it done, but you'll have a harder time, maybe cause some damage you didn't intend.

No one would ban hammers just because someone uses a hammer to kill. This is because, obviously, the hammer is not well-designed for such a thing, and the vast majority of people use hammers safely.

Now, there are many different types of guns. There are guns designed for personal protection. There are guns designed for hunting. Then there are guns designed to kill a maximum number of targets in a minimum amount of time.

Guns of this last type, assault weapons, were originally designed for the U.S. military to fit certain battle specifications. Even though the models sold to the public have been modified to conform to gun laws (mainly, they've been made semi-automatic), the fact remains--they are designed for bloodbaths. That is their designed purpose. Sure, you can use an assault rifle to hunt, or for home protection, or to shoot up targets at the range. But that's not what it was designed for. You're using a hammer that's been specifically forged to kill many people.

So we should not be surprised when a gun designed for massacres is used to carry out its intended purpose. You can argue that "guns don't kill people, people do," but that argument falls apart when the weapon was built with killing lots of people in mind. What you've done is provide the perfect tool for the job.

Like hammer owners, the vast majority of gun owners don't use their guns to kill. They argue that their guns are designed for defense or sport, and that's what they use them for. But assault weapons? They're called "assault" for a reason.

You don't want to ban all guns? Fine. Other weapons may have their place (that's another argument for another day). But saying a weapon that is designed to produce mass casualties won't produce mass casualties when owned by civilians is an argument that doesn't make a lick of sense. We're talking about something with the capacity to end many lives in seconds. Who cares if some people use it to shoot for fun at trees? They're the ones using it WRONG--like using a sledgehammer to build a birdhouse. The school shooters and movie theater shooters? They are the ones using these assault weapons correctly--though they're targeting American civilians, not Taliban.

What I'm saying is, why not ban these things, knowing that they're effectively designed tools for mass murder? It won't stop deaths from gun violence, or even school shootings. But what it will do is save lives. Just like it's harder to drive a nail with a ball-peen hammer, and it's harder to inflict mass casualties without the tool designed for it.Take away the tool, and they'll be forced to find something less deadly to use.

Don't we all win?

What If The Republicans WANT Us To Fall Off The Fiscal Cliff?

Pretty much everyone has been wondering how congressional Republicans can be so boneheaded as to allow this country to "fall off the fiscal cliff," i.e., allow the Budget Control Act of 2011 to take effect that would raise taxes on all Americans and massively cut government services. Economists unanimously agree: this would have a devastating effect on our nation's economy, possibly plunging us into another recessionary period. Look at the effects of Greece's austerity measures, which have resulted in chaos and the rise of Nazi-like fascism.

Jonathan Chait of New York magazine writes, "we are not dealing with rational people here. We are dealing with House Republicans." He, and others have argued that the Republicans have nothing to gain by letting us go over the fiscal cliff. Taxes rise, which is every Republican's nightmare, and then Obama has all the leverage he needs to maintain high taxes on the rich while cutting taxes for middle class Americans, which is the plan he prefers. Republicans wouldn't dare to oppose a tax cut for the middle class just because it doesn't include one for the rich. Such a move would be unpopular. Chait argues that the Republicans have nothing to gain by holding out.

But there's a hole in this logic. And its a big one. What if the Republicans secretly WANT to go over the fiscal cliff? Is there something in it for them?

Hear me out. It makes sense.

Ignore the taxes for a second, and look at what else happens when the Budget Control Act goes into effect January 2nd:

"According to Barron's, over 1,000 government programs - including the defense budget and Medicare are in line for "deep, automatic cuts."

Think about this for a second. Sure, Republicans are big national defense boosters, and they don't want cuts to our war machine. According to the White House, Army operations and maintenance would lose nearly $7 billion next year, the Navy more than $4 billion, and diplomatic programs and embassy security would lose $1.2 billion. 12.2 billion. That's not pocket change, and Republicans will not be happy about that part.

But what else will be cut? "Over 1,000 government programs and Medicare." To the tune of $87.8 billion. $87.8 billion!!!!!!

Now we're talking about something Republicans want, badly. They've wanted to cut those programs for decades. As my friend Robbie Republican puts it, "It's time to stop giving those communist hippie freeloaders money for their drugs, their spinning shiny rims and ghetto subwoofers. Let them work for a living. I hear McDonalds is hiring." One huge part of the Republican platform is smaller government, cutting "entitlements." And this would be the largest cut in government programs for lower-income Americans in history.

Let's enumerate some of these cuts...

-Most domestic programs would be sliced by 8.2 percent

 -Total payments to hospitals through Medicare would be cut by more than $5.8 billion next year, while prescription drug benefits would be trimmed by $591 million.

-The Library of Congress stands to lose $4 million for its books for the blind and handicapped.

-The National Institutes of Health would lose $2.5 billion. Rental assistance for the poor would fall by $2.3 billion; nutrition programs for women, infants and children would lose $543 million.

-Inquiries and investigations, a mainstay of the Republican House, would lose $11 million. Salaries and expenses in the House of Representatives would drop by $101 million. However, under the terms of the budget law, salaries for lawmakers would be exempt. 

And these are just the bare bones detailed in The New York Times article. The list is much longer. Billions longer. Maybe even Big Bird isn't safe.

I repeat-- these are things the Republicans have been trying to cut for decades. And they get it all, in one fell swoop. They don't even have to lift a finger.

Yes, taxes go up. Yes, defense spending is cut drastically. But both of these issues are temporary, and everyone knows it. It's very, very easy to cut taxes. It's very, very easy to justify defense spending with the global threats America faces. If no deal is struck by January 2nd, taxes will rise and defense budgets will be cut, sure. But by next January 2nd, it's very likely that taxes and defense spending will be restored to somewhere near their current levels.

The other programs? Programs for the poor and middle class? Programs for the arts and sciences? Programs for education? The Democratic desire to restore funding to these initiatives will be met with fierce resistance from the Republican caucus, and the public support behind them will not be strong enough to overcome it. Many of these programs were created back in the salad days of the Clinton Presidency or other Democratic administrations, and have had their funding slowly stripped during the Bush years. It will be very hard to get that funding back with the current makeup of congress.

Obama could try to save these programs, refusing to lower any taxes until the Republicans agree to end or reduce these doomsday cuts, but the Republicans will then argue he's holding Americans hostage, making them pay more unless he can increase the size of government. And they'd be right. That would be a tough position to be in.

When viewed in this way, it makes perfect sense for Republicans to sit on their hands and wait for January 2nd. They get all the cuts they've always wanted, and the things they don't like--higher taxes, lower defense spending-- can be and will be fixed within months. Once taxes are lowered again (even if taxes remain on wealthy Americans), Republicans believe that the "entitlement" cuts won't significantly impact the economy--THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THEIR BELIEF. So they look forward to rolling into the November elections being able to say they took a stand against big government and won. And if the economy doesn't crash and burn, the Democrats will be hard-pressed to argue they're wrong.

Of course, if these spending cuts do have a devastating effect on the economy, as the Democrats and most economists say, the plan goes awry. But even then, Republicans will pivot, and argue the fiscal cliff wasn't to blame. They'll say Obama got the tax plan he wanted. They'll point to billions in government savings, helping to move toward a balanced budget (even if a slow economy has hurt government revenues and isn't reducing the national debt). They'll sell any downturn as a continuation of the previous recession, and you know what? Enough people will believe it to help the Republicans remain relevant.

It's a gamble, but what's the alternative? Make a deal with Obama and give him everything he wants? That's not flying with this group of "boneheads."

Democrats agreed with the Budget Control Act because they thought there was no way it would ever be put into action. To me, this seems to be a very bad miscalculation. They've played a game of chicken with the Republicans-- but the Republicans are willing to get hit by the train, if it means getting what they want in the long run.

Hope you've saved up a nest egg and packed a parachute. Because we're going over this cliff, and it's going to cost a lot to climb back up again.

UPDATE: It appears that I was right.