A Banjo On His Knee

Father of American Music - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Can you imagine a world in which someone as talented and famous as Mick Jagger has to live on handouts? How about Justin Timberlake having to sleep on a friend’s couch after winning a Grammy award? 150 years ago, we inhabited such a strange world. Artists -- be they painters or musicians, either starved or they found wealthy patrons to pamper them. For song writers, composer royalties hardly existed – but music sheet publishers raked in the dough.

One person who inhabited this financially bleak landscape was a hugely prolific and talented young man --Stephen Foster, now dubbed the “Father of American Music”. Stephen Foster basically wrote the Hit Parade of songs from 1846 through 1864 (the year of his untimely death at age 37). He specialized in light, breezy minstrel music such as “Oh! Susanna” and “Swanee River”. His songs have remained as permanent hallmarks of American culture – still hummed and strummed to this day.

The songs as originally written would be considered politically incorrect to be sure; most of the lyrics are in a Negro slave dialect (using dey versus they)… They have to be considered in the context of the era. Foster wasn’t a racist man – he was just speaking in the argot of the era. Foster was actually a Yankee; he sang about the South but only visited once, briefly on his honeymoon. Stephen Foster’s two biggest influences were a classically trained music instructor, Henry Kleber, and Dan Rice – a blackface singer and clown. Such a diverse influence could explain Foster’s musical bearings.

Stephen Foster was from a middle class background. He grew up near Athens, Pennsylvania and briefly attended Jefferson College in Canonsburg, PA. He precociously composed “Tioga Waltz” at age 14 – and played it at his Athens Academy commencement. Stephen was extroverted and likely to be performing his numbers on a stage somewhere when he wasn't busy writing them. Like so many super-talented young people, he dropped out of college to pursue his passion. Stephen was lucky to have an older brother William who was successful as an engineer and businessman. William served as mentor, sounding board and sometimes employer to a barely solvent Stephen. Stephen worked as a book keeper for his brother in 1846 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Here, he penned “Oh! Susanna” which became a national hit. Stephen was so emboldened by that success that he returned to Pennsylvania to be a professional song writer. Stephen’s total “take” for “Oh! Susanna” was $100.

Foster joined up with a performing group, the Christy Minstrels, who showcased all his latest hits – such as “Camptown Races” and “Old Kentucky Home”. Stephen had never visited Florida or the Suwanee River when he composed “Swanee River”. He found the name in an atlas, dropped the “u” for the sake of song meter, and plugged the name into his song. Floridians love the song and feel honored – maybe they wouldn’t if they knew how slickly and quickly it was originated. (Such is artistic license then and now).

Foster married Jane Denny McDowell in 1852 – they had one daughter. He was so smitten with his new wife, he wrote “Jeanie With The Light Brown Hair”. Jeanie however, was not smitten with the poverty-level existence of a 19th century song writer. She and the daughter parted ways with Stephen in 1860 when he decided to ply his trade in New York, New York. Foster’s folksy style wasn't a match for New York and he probably suffered from having the love of his life, Jeanie, fly the coop. He ended up in the run-down North American Hotel at age 37, battling a bad fever. He stumbled from bed, struck his head on a basin and bled for 3 hours before making it to a hospital. It’s thought he probably died of sepsis in an era without antibiotics.

Stephen Foster’s life was short and his candle was snuffed too soon. He probably would've lived longer as a book keeper, but his spirited songs wouldn’t be with us today. Like the painter Van Gogh who died at the same age, Foster believed in his art. He starved his bank account but enriched the whole world musically.

© 2012 blogSpotter

Incorrectulous

Maher on the Walk of Fame - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
When I just searched for Bill Maher on the Internet, several other Bills and Billy’s popped up ahead of him – Cosby, Clinton and even Billy Joel. That is a total shame; our nation of web surfers should have more curiosity about this insightful, controversial actor, comedian and humorist. Maher’s views do fall askew of the mainstream TV viewers, and he would probably be another type of unwelcome “alien” in deeply red Texas.

Maher is a secular humanist, libertarian, pro-feminist, PETA following, “Apatheist” trouble maker who dares to play devil’s advocate in all too many places. Some people would say he is the devil – usually people of a strident, blinders-on mentality. The son of a lapsed Catholic father and Jewish mother, Maher has the clarity and objectivity that comes from such a varied background. He isn’t a slave to any school of thought so much as an objective, cultural critic to all of them.

To be sure, Maher has stepped in it a few times with his strident, opinionated enthusiasm. On his ABC show, Politically Incorrect, he incurred the wrath of many by suggesting that the Islamic jihadists of 9/11 were “brave”. This was in 2002, shortly after the attacks – so many sponsors pulled out that it cost him the show. In context, he was saying that someone flying a plane into a building is not acting timidly. But – and Maher was quick to admit – it was the wrong thing to say.

Maher then moved to HBO and started his still-running talk show, Real Time with Bill Maher. Real Time is similar in concept to Politically Incorrect but features more political figures rather than randomly assembled celebrities. Here he drew fire from Alabama's congressman Bachus for pointing out that the US Military hasn’t met 46% of its recruiting requirements. Maher rightly asked why Bachus didn’t use his energy to correct the recruiting problem instead of starting an “I Hate Maher” campaign. Lastly, Maher angered the AMA by suggesting that swine flu shots were risky and he would pass on it. He backed off of the position a bit after being lambasted from all directions.

Maher isn’t afraid to lock horns, and sometimes his rabble-rousing is very deliberate. His 2008 movie Religulous points up many of the fallacies in organized religion (pretty much all of them are lampooned). Devout people with thick skin should go see the movie – it raises some interesting points. Maher has also won a Richard Dawkins award for working to promote secular and scientific values in our society. He doesn’t claim to be an atheist like Dawkins so much as a questioning agnostic. Both secular and question are red flag words in the faith community so Maher’s noncommittal nature still makes him pretty much a nemesis to the church-going crowd.

Lastly, but not least, Maher is a confirmed bachelor playboy who indulges in non-medical weed. If you weren’t already shocked and appalled by his religious views, you might very well blanch at his libertine lifestyle. What I myself find odd about Bill Maher is not any of his maverick ways – he’s very much in the tradition of his brilliant stylistic forbear, Mark Twain. I applaud his weirdness – our mantra should be “Keep Maher weird”. What I find odd, is that so many people find Maher to be odd.

We live in a nation of cookie cutter homes, does it also have to be a nation of cookie cutter people? Bill Maher is a devilish exception – he’s from an entirely different cookie recipe. And his is a recipe that intellectually curious people should savor.

© 2012 blogSpotter

Superprez

It's a bird, it's a plane! - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I’ve been busy moving to a new office at work and repainting 3 rooms of my house – I guess it’s good to stay busy. It’s kept me from my blog though, so there’s some catching up to do… Today’s topic is all political and I’ll start with a brief remark about Rick Perry’s recently ended campaign.

PERRY CAMPAIGN EULOGY
The fourth grader who forgot his lines in “Sleeping Beauty” still dwells deep in my psyche. I froze up, and my teacher, Mrs. Conwoop (on stage right), had to feed me every line for 5 minutes… The horror! The embarrassment! That part of me feels for Rick Perry’s various campaign freeze-ups – he forgot the government agency he’d like to cancel twice. He thought the Supreme Court had 8 justices. His infractions were actually minor and human if not for the fact he was running for POTUS. His positions were actually Neanderthal and poorly spoken – a columnist for Dallas Morning News condensed them as “more conservative than thou”. Turned out more was needed, even with this weak field of GOP candidates.

Perry’s poor performance actually says more about his fellow Texans than it says about Perry… we’ve had him as governor for twelve years. He skated by in a couple of election cycles with nary a debate and very few interviews. Do Texans want to repeat that cycle? We could just as easily send a door stop or a hat rack to the governor’s mansion. How about a suit on a hanger and a pair of cowboy boots? Texas needs to rethink its red meat/red state mentality. Maybe governance needs people who’ve thought through the issues and know how to present their ideas coherently. This is all something to chew on as we proceed to our next political topic…

ANDREW SULLIVAN and SUPERPREZ
Andrew Sullivan is a talented Newsweek columnist who recently kicked a hornet’s nest with his provocative cover story – “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?” On wonky web sites like realclearpolitics.com, Sullivan’s article prompted a handful of retort articles like “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Smart?” Any article which prompts 5 reply articles merits a read – it got under peoples’ skin….

Andrew Sullivan used to be a contradiction to me. Until Obama came along, he was a conservative, gay Republican. He fell under the “Log Cabin” moniker which strikes me a little like being a black Dixiecrat (were that still possible, thankfully not). He became an “Obamican” in 2007, and in his recent Newsweek article he articulates Obama’s 1st term achievements. Here is but a short list for “Superprez”….

o Rescued GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy
o Passed $787 billion stimulus that probably steered us around a depression
o Added 2.4 million jobs, more than entire W Bush years
o Actually lowered taxes – 1/3 of stimulus was middle class tax cuts
o Enacted Obamacare, an approach which encourages individual responsibility.
o Took out Osama Bin Laden and Khadafy, seriously weakened Al Qaeda
o Ended DADT and ended US pursuit of the “Defense of Marriage Act”
o Ended the Iraq war

These are fairly remarkable achievements – any two of them would be lifetime bragging rights for an aspiring, progressive politico. They're all the more impressive coming from a political novice like Obama... I must confess that I myself was for Hillary back in 2008. Obama seemed like an untested “dark horse” (no racial pun intended :-) ) and I wondered what we were in for. It irked me that Caroline Kennedy and her Uncle Ted were pushing Obama – I blogged tirelessly about the unwarranted adulation in articles like “Obaminable”.

Have to say I was mistaken -- I’m impressed by Obama’s achievements. Sullivan describes him as a “long game, show-don’t-tell” politician. He’s more interested in doing than telling (or bragging). I myself think that the watershed moment was killing Bin Laden. Taking out this elusive, evil cancer was important – probably important enough to explain why the GOP has sent in only their “B” Team (maybe their “C” Team) for 2012. The GOP establishment wants to keep the “A” players primed for 2016.

To people all over, who have a secret envy and dismay over a wunderkind newbie with a middle name of “Hussein” no less, I know whereof you sputter with exasperation… how dare he? Well he dared and he did. And in all fairness, we have to give credit to this remarkable Superprez. What might he pull off in another 4 years?

© 2012 blogSpotter

Vertical Evolution

DaVinci's Vitruvian Man - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Who was Gordon Rattray Taylor? He was a little known British journalist who wrote on niche topics such as biotechnology and evolution. As he was dying of cancer in 1981, he put the finishing touches on his magnum opus, The Great Evolution Mystery. The book was a commercial dud when it was published in 1983, but has since been reevaluated and much more appreciated. Taylor doesn’t answer any long-standing questions, but in the book he asks several very worthy questions about evolution.

We have now, as in 1983, two prevailing paradigms to explain the origin of life. In the ivied towers of academia there is the theory of Natural Selection – it basically asserts that life has evolved from an accumulation of beneficial mutations in organic matter. Those mutations are random in nature and have happened over eons. Gordon Rattray Taylor pointed up some problems – particularly with organs of extreme perfection such as the human eye. Such complexity would be unlikely to happen from “happy accidents” – the delicate structure would require special timing and tuning. Taylor’s objections were embraced by the religious community who likened Taylor’s eye concept to the pious William Paley’s watch.

The (Christian) religious community itself believes that a super human intelligence created life in one great instance, in the Garden of Eden. The time is “backed in” by religious scholars using the genealogy of the Old Testament – anywhere from 6,000 BC to 4,000 BC. Even supposing some forbears lived to be 100, this date would be in glaring contradiction to modern geological data. 6,000 BC is recent in geological time and fairly standard techniques have established the earth itself to be nearly 5 billion years old. Life itself probably surfaced over 3 billion years ago. Taylor wasn’t devoutly religious nor was he trying to promote a particular faith – he didn’t adhere to the Bible genealogy idea. Taylor was accepting of basic earth and fossil facts … he just wanted to have all the evolutionary elements fall in place and make sense.


Taylor's book - cover and contents - Pictures courtesy of Secker and Warburg

Taylor was likely on to something. In chapters like “Puzzles and Plans” he notices that evolution seems to follow a winnowing, narrowing process which would almost imply intelligent selectivity. I would join Taylor in posing these kinds of questions. If we go with Darwin’s theory, we must inquire:

- Why have we observed no new species?
- Why have we observed no seriously, naturally mutated species?
- Why is there not one other species of animal that offers competition to humans?

Biology texts of the last 50 years love to point out an English moth which switched from white to black so its wings would be well-camouflaged against factory soot. Another text talked about a species of fish in Africa which changed the color of its scales. In both cases, we’re looking at a minor variation – probably the activation of a preexisting gene. Nowhere have we seen anything sprout horns or wings unexpectedly – unless via deliberate lab tinkering. With due respect to beavers who make dams and ants who build nests, no other species is a master architect. Chimps and gorillas, our closest natural relatives, live in primitive clans. They can poke ant hills with sticks and make grass beds.

WATCHING THE WATCHERS

Taylor suggested, but didn’t say outright, that there might be some other kind of force at work. I myself think that organized religion is partly right – there is a super human intelligence. However it is fallible and it works through evolutionary process. There was no grand concoction in the Garden of Eden.

Here are some speculative answers to the questions above. Let me emphasize that these are my own ideas and not Taylor's…

- Humans are the last major new species. Evolution is intelligently driven and doesn’t reinvent the wheel.
- There are many amazing new mutations – but they are subtle and they happen almost entirely in humans. The greatest debates about physical design have already been won and lost – most mutations are to the soft brain tissue of humans. They are probably too minute for even the most advanced human geneticists or DNA experts to unravel.
- Evolution is efficient, selective and intelligently directed. Once a species has a major “design victory” the intelligence driving other species has some ability to realign itself with a “superior” animal. There is some type of dissociative and mobile property in the driving intelligence.

These ideas would probably be disturbing to conventional theists in several ways. Humans are still "superior" by way of evolutionary selection, but the process isn't as tidy as one would like. We actually are derived from animals and the distinction between adjacent species is murky, somewhat clouded. There is an uncomfortable nearness, even overlap with creatures we'd just as soon consign to a zoo.

This idea might also open other cans of worms – are some human subspecies “selected” over others and if so, which ones. What would be the criteria or the signs to see? We live in a world rife with clues – clues planted by a fallible super (but not supernatural) intelligence. There are biological signs all over the place – the truth is immutably there with much of it spelled out in our DNA and other parts spelled out in rich fossil deposits. If we can get past our own self-centered concerns and petty materialism, we can crack these biological riddles once and for all. In the meantime, we can give credit to Gordon Rattray Taylor for asking the right questions.

© 2011 blogSpotter

Rethinking a Paradise Lost

Washington creating our Confederation - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Imagine a USA with no President, no executive agencies, no judiciary and no tax base. In this America, states can send in a suggested amount of tax dollars but there’s no requirement. The Congress must have unanimous buy-in from every state to ratify any treaty or pass any law. Every state is sovereign with regard to its commerce and trade policies… It sounds like the pipe dream of all conservative Republicans, former Dixiecrats and Libertarians everywhere. In some ways it sounds like the current European Union which has foundational cracks and fissures from one rogue member country, Greece, running up a large national debt.

In fact what I’m describing actually did exist – from 1777 until 1789. In 1777, the Articles of Confederation were drafted and sent for approval by the 2nd Continental Congress and were fully ratified by all states in 1781. They were essentially in effect for a dozen years from ratification until replacement with the U.S. Constitution in 1789. They were created at the urging of Thomas Paine, among other prominent colonists, who thought they would give legitimacy to what would otherwise be seen as a scruffy band of rebels. The Articles as written in fact gave us the Confederated States of America – 80 years ahead of the die-hard Southerners who tried to resuscitate it, like Lazarus from the dead, in 1860. The Confederated States could declare war, negotiate treaties, and resolve conflicts between states. For such a noble idea, there were problems…

There was no tax base – tax money was given voluntarily as a “suggested amount”. Not surprisingly, little money came in. Some states wouldn’t even pay off their own Revolutionary War debts. Other states failed to kick in for food and supplies or pay pensions to war veterans. States disbanded their militias as soon as eminent threat went away – laying themselves open to future attack. Sometimes the attack was internal, as with Shay’s Rebellion in 1786 – a group of farmer’s angry at the depressed market struck out at the state government. After the 1783 Treaty of Paris, various countries (primarily Great Britain) declared trade war against the fledgling United States. The United States couldn’t enact any navigation or trade laws to counter the trade threats – when Massachusetts observed a suggested tariff, Connecticut would rake in money by ignoring the same law.

The Confederation was an odd bird in several ways. There was only one house of Congress called “Congress”. The Congress had a President who was more of a figurehead, a Parliamentarian. The most powerful official in this United States was arguably the governor of the most populous, prosperous member state. The Congress itself resolved disputes between states, thereby suspending (on occasion) its legislative duty to serve as a de facto executive branch. A group of Federalists (including George Washington) were starting to see the need for some backbone and order to their bold-but-fledgling Democratic experiment.

By 1787, things were visibly falling apart. States were ripping in to one another with law suits, military veterans were rioting for back pay and Barbary pirates were threatening Americans who refused to fund a US Navy. Trade-wise, foreign governments were playing states against one another and gaining a decided advantage. This dismal state of affairs brought top aide Alexander Hamilton to prominence – he argued successfully that the Articles should be replaced by a U.S. Constitution and that a strong Federal government should be established. Even the most devoted States’ Rights supporters had to admit the Articles were not cutting it... It’s a great statement about our founders that they could admit a mistake and right the situation early on. How many other countries have such a capacity for humble self-correction and redirection? While the USA hatched out a bicameral legislature, France had a Reign of Terror followed by an Emperor.

It’s amazing that Southerners, Dixiecrats and many of the current “Tea Party” look fondly to this questionable Paradise Lost. The European Union of 2011 appears to be held together with Scotch tape and Elmer’s glue … it may suit them to read some American history. To borrow from a 1990’s cliché – we’ve been there and done that. The other very necessary shoe didn’t drop until 124 years after the 1789 Constitution was drafted. In 1913 the Federal Income Tax and Federal Reserve System was put in place to help secure the money supply, protect against panics and fund the Federal government. It may not have served all these purposes as expertly as we'd like, but it has helped immeasurably in strengthening a robust, truly United States that acts as one power when it matters.

© 2011 blogSpotter

The M Word

Romney at Battle Creek - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I haven’t done an election piece for a while. Thought I would weigh in on a few things as 2011 draws to a close. Today’s topic is Mitt Romney but I’d like to address a couple of small “nits” first …

Dallas' NBC 5 and its love affair with Rick Perry

I’ve noticed that NBC 5 and the Dallas Morning News run prominent Rick Perry stories every day now. These are nice, softball pieces that show up in on the front page of DMN or the top of NBC 5’s news hour. I’d like to inform these two news agencies that Rick Perry being from Texas does not mean that all Texans are pulling for him. I felt sorry for Perry when he had his (now historic) brain freeze in one debate, forgetting which federal agencies he’d cancel. But more generally when the man opens his mouth he says something appalling – that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme or ending Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell is a violation of Christian morality. I think that if DMN and NBC 5 want to continue running commercials for Rick Perry they should either (1) charge him standard rates for the coverage or (2) give equal time to other candidates. A Texas upbringing is a minor, negligible factor in which candidate is best.

Mark Davis and his hatred of immigrants

Mark Davis, in his 11/30 DMN editorial railed against illegal Mexican immigrants. He compared an illegal immigrant to a bank robber or other serious felon. Really Mark? You’re going to follow that line of illogic? A poor Mexican father of four is probably doing what any “market actor” does – he looks for the job that offers the best salary and benefits. That’s probably what Mark Davis does when signing on with a news program or talk show. Yes, the immigrant may violate US immigration law – does that make him equivalent to a bank robber? Our (Anglo) forefathers came from Ireland, England and Western Europe for much the same motivations as Mexican immigrants. There was a huge, paranoid outcry at the turn of the last century, much like now. I will close this topic by saying that immigrant contributions far exceed what they might cost in social services. Conservatives need to quit looking for hapless scapegoats when Wall Street is much more the problem with our current economy in the dumps. Pick on someone your own size. And President Obama -- tear down that fence along the Rio Grande.

The Trouble with Mitt

Now that Newt Gingrich has overtaken Romney in all the polls, people are wondering how and why. Newt has been described as an ego-maniacal, grandiose windbag with a short fuse, no less. He’s also said to be charming, brilliant and fascinating – none of these traits preclude each other. The essential verdict from pundits who know Newt is that he’s an amazing man who probably shouldn’t be President due to a non-Presidential temperament. Mitt Romney on the other hand is like the devoted High School valedictorian – he’s a picture of discipline, self-control and temperate thoughts. He’s done all the homework. Romney has also succeeded well in business though he modestly keeps his $200,000,000 net worth out of his “humble” biography.

Magazines and talking head shows have pointed to a couple of main things in analyzing Romney… he’s a flip-flopper on issues, he prevailed over a “socialist” government health care plan (“Romneycare” in Massachusetts), and he’s seen as too liberal by the extreme-right GOP. These things may all be true, but we’ve put other flawed men into office – men with heavy baggage and far less to recommend them (e.g., Nixon’s 2nd term, Bush after the Iraq fiasco). What people (and the media in particular) tip-toe around is the fact that Romney is a devout Mormon. “M” in my title is not Mitt – it’s Mormon. Mainstream deep-south Protestants view the Mormon Church as a cult. This might not be as it should be – how unpleasant is the topic of intolerance. This is what is.

When JFK ran for President in 1960, his Catholicism was an issue – would he be taking orders from the Pope? Political Correctness hadn’t yet put the stranglehold of an overfed boa constrictor on our society. The topic was allowed to be broached and even discussed at length. When discussion was allowed, the silliness of the original proposition was fully apparent. Kennedy made it clear that he would be foremost a U.S. President, for all Americans. What is disturbing in 2011 is that a significant viewpoint probably knocks all the ex-Confederate states out of Romney’s support column. And that viewpoint is a forbidden topic. Conservative Texans, when asked why they don’t like Romney, will pussyfoot all the way around the sagebrush… he’s “too liberal…a Rockefeller Republican”.. Translation …. “There is no way in Hell that I’d ever vote for a Mormon cultist”. This blog’s author sees Christianity and Mormonism as similar types of cults. One simply has more history and infrastructure surrounding it. In 2012, we’ve closed the door on the discussion because it might lead to another discussion about religion. Now is the PC moment for all of us to clear our throats uncomfortably and change the subject.

But let’s just put the 2012 GOP race into perspective. Because of all the weirdness in this year’s candidates it’s indeterminate what will happen. Bachman developed crazy eyes, Rick Perry forgot his lines and Herman Cain had bimbo eruptions. But it’s looking like Mitt will not be the guy either – for a reason that in 2012 “dare not speak its name” – religion and cults.

© 2011 blogSpotter

When Breaking Bad is Good

A touch of evil? - Picture courtesy of AMC

by blogSpotter
On my Apple TV, I frequently surf over to Netflix and check out what’s new. New on Netflix means new to Netflix. I stumbled upon the 2008 AMC television series Breaking Bad, and was intrigued by the disheveled image of Bryan Cranston on the series publicity poster. How did this humdrum sitcom dad from Malcom in the Middle fetch 3 Emmys as a “broken bad” teacher-turned-meth-cook? I watched the first episode and was hooked.

Let me preface that crime dramas are not my usual thing – I find them usually to be very cliché and the characters struggle to get past two dimensions. Breaking Bad breaks past many of the crime drama limitations in a most pleasing, daring way. The director, Vince Gilligan, is a young “artsy fartsy” film school grad from NY University whose previous writing credits are X Files, Hancock and Home Fries. X Files is probably the unlikely progenitor of Breaking Bad. Breaking Bad isn’t sci-fi but it ties our mundane reality into a surreal landscape of grizzled drug lords, cold-blooded, axe-wielding hit men and mid-air plane explosions.

The stunning, stark beauty of Albuquerque New Mexico provides the backdrop to this series, strongly flavored with Hispanic culture. The stucco buildings and azure, southwest sky offer a strangely precise punctuation to all that happens – every chilling, twist and turn in the life of Walter White – our chemistry teacher turned drug aficionado. I’ve been to New Mexico a few times and long to go back after watching this show (albeit not working in the meth business).

Breaking Bad will challenge your many precepts about right and wrong or good and evil. You find yourself rooting for the meth dealers and seeing law enforcement as plodding, pedantic pains in the ass. In some ways the show is a black comedy and the moral role-reversals call to mind the authority-dinging dialog in a John Waters movie (say, Female Trouble) or a David Lynch miniseries (such as Twin Peaks). The sly, crooked lawyer Saul Goodman is like an archangel who alights just in time, every time to save Jesse and Walt from jail or worse.

Of course every Faustian bargain begets another, larger one and one can’t help but know down at the bottom of it all – selling meth is wrong. Something bad is going to befall these men who are breaking bad; it’s the law of the cinema but also the law of common sense. None the less, you’ll want to climb into Walt’s beat up Pontiac Aztec and go for a criminal joy ride. The acting in this series is both subtle and superb. I can’t single out everyone or each actor’s name. Let’s just say that wife Skyler, son Walter Jr., lawyer Saul and brother-in-law Hank all add very convincingly to the action. I entertain in my head where they might steer the next episode – it’s very witty, fast-paced and intense.

I’m only on Season 3, so am not wanting to see spoilers or delve too far ahead. I know that when the series is done I’ll put everything back into its proper perspective… “Meth is bad. DEA agents are good”… I hear that Walt becomes more maniacal and greedy in future episodes. Power corrupts, and so it probably must be with our main character. I’ll hold on to see what happens – a reported Season 5 (2012) finale will bring it all to a conclusion. If you have AMC or Netflix, tune in to this most amazing series (dubbed by some critics as the best TV drama ever) and you won’t be disappointed.

© 2011 blogSpotter