Review of the “Breaking Bad” film series

 

One of the best books ever written on the human shadow is James Hollis’ Why Good People Do Bad Things. That would be a perfect subtitle for the “Breaking Bad” series.

 

But then the series would need a second subtitle, “And Also Why Bad People Do Bad Things,”so I suppose it’s good they just kept it simple. “Breaking Bad.”

 

While watching “Breaking Bad” and “Better Call Saul” and “El Camino” I felt annoyed, amused, upset, saddened, horrified –you name it. It’s hard to watch people shoot themselves in the foot over and over again, even when they finally win terrific battles against amazing odds. Even when they can also be funny and lovable.

 

It’s hard to watch because it’s a lot like real life. (And no, I do not have a meth lab out in my barn.)

 

We are pretty unconscious about the effects our actions have on our loved ones. We do tend to think of ourselves as ‘caring for’ others while we mostly ignore them.We can make questionable little choices every day that eventually pile up into huge multiple-car-life-wrecks. Plus, who doesn’t envy the wildly successful, want revenge on the bad guys, or crave credit for their accomplishments? Who wouldn’t like to strike it rich at least once?

 

You don’t have to work with gangs or drug cartels to practice cringe worthy selfishness on a daily basis. No indeedy. It’s what we do. It’s how humans roll.

 

That’s why this series is so fascinating. While portraying lives most of us will never come anywhere close to living, it very successfully portrays how each of us act.

 

 

 

 

Are we ever gonna learn to say no to despots?

 

Here we are in 2022, rich men flying to outer space and messages bouncing off satellites, yet another strongman, one single despot, ONE man (aided and abetted by those he enriches), can cause thousands of people to suffer. Can wreck havoc on an entire country.

 

While the rest of us bemoan events and wring our hands and count our missiles, Ukrainians suffer and die. As the whole world watches, Putin wastes thousands of Russian and Ukrainian lives in battles that never should’ve happened. That didn’t need to happen.

 

How is this still possible? Why are human beings still allowing obviously warped despots to gain control over their lives?

 

Are we really that desperate for someone to tell us what to do? Do we secretly crave a cozy relationship with Big Brother? Is democracy just too much of a burden for the average human being?

 

Here in the USA, other than Lynn Cheney, there is not a single Republican senator or representative brave enough to tell Trump to sit down and shut up, even though they KNOW he’s not only a crook but wrong, dangerously wrong. Like, no more fair elections, wrong. Like, end of democracy, wrong. How absolutely twisted is this reality?

 

In “The Second Coming,” Yeats said The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

 

Sobering. The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

 

And the world is smaller now than it was in Yeats’ time. Smaller and faster and far more deadly.

 

If we can’t learn how to keep the worst among us from gaining control, the human race really is in trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lead, follow, or get out of the way, Republicans.

 

One definition of the word adult is “someone who makes rational, intelligent decisions.”

 

One definition of the word democracy is “adults who govern together.”

 

One depends upon the other. Unless its citizens are adults, capable of practicing rational, intelligent decision-making, how can a democracy function?

 

About like ours is functioning right now. Very poorly.

 

Way back in ancient political history (the 1990s), when Newt Gingrich saw that Republicans couldn’t hold onto power without demonizing Democrats and adding emotionally laden issues to their platform, rational and intelligent decision-making was consciously dropped by the powers that be in the GOP. In order to stir up subconscious fears in the masses,  emotional issues like same sex marriage and abortion were consciously added to the Republican platform. But not because they really cared about those issues. Nope. Because they wanted to win. Because they wanted to stay in power.

 

When Biden asked, “What are you guys for?” last week, he hit the nail on the head. Republicans are not for anything anymore. They’re just against. Against minorities. Against taxes. Against immigration. Against abortion. Against “government.” Against wearing masks in epidemics. Against vaccinations. Against gun laws. Against looking clearly at their own history. Against equal access to voting.  Against anyone other than their own candidate winning.

 

When the whole world has so many serious problems to face, this is simply ludicrous. You can’t solve problems by being against things. You can only solve problems by engaging with things.

 

As history shows. Every time Republicans have been in power since the 90s the deficit has soared, wars have waged, the gap between rich and poor has widened, pollution has increased, the climate has worsened, and an epidemic spread unacknowledged and unchecked. So what is it that Republicans want to be in power for, anyhow? To hasten the apocalypse? To get a better parking spot in DC?

 

“Lead, follow, or get out of the way,” Republicans. The rest of us aren’t ready to give up on the world just yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s not easy to look at your own shadow

 

“It takes nerve not to flinch from or be crushed by the sight of one’s own shadow. It takes courage to accept responsibility for one’s own worst qualities.”  –Edward C. Whitmont, from “The Evolution of the Shadow,” in Meeting the Shadow

 

It’s not easy to look at your own shadow. 

In order to make our parents happy we started covering up parts of ourselves before we could walk. And we definitely knew the difference between approval and disapproval before we could talk. It’s a basic survival skill. We can’t make it on our own as infants. We have to depend on the goodwill of others. So if we hear we’re too much trouble, or our poop stinks, or we’re too lively or too clingy or too stupid, we learn to stuff those parts down into our shadows very quickly. By second grade, hiding parts of ourselves in order to please other people has become second nature.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing. In order to become a thinking human being who can cooperate with other thinking human beings, some of that old animal instinctual nature needs to be controlled. “Letting it all hang out” just won’t work among intelligent mammals who’ve been honing their warfare skills in dominator societies for thousands of years.

So a bit of repression serves a useful purpose. It allows children to become functioning, cooperative members of society. We learn not to drown our baby sister, or hit our brother over the head with a baseball bat. We learn how to sit still and pay attention to others. We figure out that we are not the center of the universe. (Hopefully.)

But once we grow up, we have a responsibility to get curious about what happened to all that juicy emotional energy we’ve been repressing since childhood. Otherwise, we’re liable to end up becoming a danger to society anyway. For when we refuse to admit that we even have certain feelings, we exclude the possibility of dealing with those feelings rationally. If we don’t take any notice of—or responsibility for—whatever lurks in our shadow, then we set other people up for ambush by our unsupervised inner demons.

In the famous book by Robert Louis Stevenson, Dr. Jekyll was a perfect gentleman, a widely respected, highly cultured, upper class, sterling citizen who spent most of his daylight hours ministering to the poor and needy. Afraid to mar his perfect image, but full of unappeased desires—this was back in the Victorian age, you know—Jekyll created an alternate ego, Mr. Hyde, to act out the less respectable urges in his soul. Bad idea. Because when Hyde slipped out the laboratory door at night and headed straight for the seediest parts of London, Jekyll had no control over him. As time went on and Jekyll kept denying his influence, Hyde’s desires took ranker and ranker forms. He persecuted prostitutes, preyed on the weak, even committed murder. Disavowed by Jekyll’s civilized side, Hyde grew ever more warped, ever more bestial, ever harder for Jekyll to manage. Eventually?  You know it. Hyde took over. Jekyll became all Hyde, all the time.

There’s a recurring theme in movies and literature about taming the Beast, about soothing the savage soul. But for that to happen, someone in the story has got to pay attention to the poor old Beast. Conscious, thinking attention. And as in the outer world, so in the inner world: no creature thrives on neglect. No critter likes to be caged.

There’s a basic psychological rule that any instinctual character prowling around in your psyche will act better and be easier to handle if you can  (1) admit that it exists, and  (2) figure out what it wants. Then you can open negotiations with it. Then you can manage it without harming others. What’s the first step in AA’s famous 12-step program? Admitting you have a problem.

Let’s use selfishness as an example. We have a good strong symbol for selfishness in Western folklore—a dragon hunched over his hoard. Now dragons never actually use the treasure they steal. They just hoard it. Take it from other people, pile it up in a cave somewhere, and lie around on it. Fly out and terrorize the countryside occasionally. Breath fire. Eat whole cows and coy maidens.

Can we better manage our internal dragon of selfishness by pretending not to be selfish, I’m not being selfish! I deserve a bigger piece than you do! Or by keeping an eye out for our selfishness, so that, when we catch ourselves being selfish, we can just admit it, maybe even laugh at ourselves as we see it happening? Geez, look at that! Cut my piece of pie a lot bigger than yours, didn’t I? I’m such a rascal. Here, let me divvy this up better.

That might work. But if we go around trying to pretend that we’re not selfish, then we’re never going to be able to stop being selfish. We’re never going to have an accurate picture of who we are or what we’re doing. Plus, we’ll have a lousy sense of humor. Where it starts to get ugly is: we’ll have to keep other people distracted, probably by accusing them of being selfish first, so they’ll be too busy defending themselves to notice how much bigger we just cut our own piece of pie.

What a lot of work for a little more dessert! And of course—and most importantly—the chance to appear free from all flaws. In black/white, either/or cultures which are quick to judge and harsh to condemn, children learn that it is very important not to be caught in the wrong, at a very young age.

But, alas… our old dragon of selfishness will only get bigger and more demanding the longer we pretend not to know anything about him. Like a troll under a bridge. Like Hyde. In fact, left alone without supervision, our internal dragon of selfishness will eventually get loose and swoop out over the countryside, torching people and grabbing whatever he wants. And if caught, he will always have good, solid reasons for his behavior. The Dragon of Selfishness can morph into The Victim of Circumstance in an eye blink.

The trick is to look within once in a while and admit that our internal dragon really is selfish, and that he really is a member of our psychic zoo. If we can do that, if we can even manage to say something directly to him occasionally like, “Oh, there you are. I see you, you greedy old thing,” maybe throw him a juicy steak or buy him a new toy, then the dragon of selfishness will settle down and go back to sleep. If we just allow him a little conscious space once in a while—not let him get away with anything, just acknowledge that he’s there—then he won’t have to torch or hoard or get 50 feet long or max out the credit card or have an affair or cheat on exams or embezzle company funds to get our attention.

“Medieval heroes had to slay their dragons; modern heroes have to take their dragons back home to integrate into their own personalities.”–Robert Johnson, Owning Your Own Shadow

DON’T MISS THIS MOVIE! Review of “Don’t Look Up”

“Don’t Look Up,” starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, Rob Morgan, Kid Cudi, Timothee Chalamet, and a host of other fine actors and actresses, is wonderful.

 

It’s an intelligent and entertaining look (pun intended) at what happens when power hungry narcissists hold positions of power in governments funded by uber-wealthy donors.

 

Even when there’s an enormous comet hurtling toward the earth –certain destruction imminent, a mass extinction level event– those who can’t see a way to profit from it simply refuse to listen to the scientists.

 

Even when the comet has gotten so close that earthlings can see it with their own eyes, the powers that be refuse to listen to scientists. That’s when Streep’s party starts pushing the slogan, “Don’t look up!”

 

Instead they back a hair-brained idea by the third richest man ever –and Streep’s major donor– for dealing with the comet, and any scientist who disagrees with the plan is simply thrown off the project.

 

Perfect.

 

And just as dangerous whether it’s a huge comet coming toward us or a covid outbreak among us.

 

When I turned the TV off last night I felt hopeful for the first time in a long time. Really hopeful. We do have the stupids outnumbered, folks. We can pull ourselves out of the calamities hurtling towards us.

 

I love it when dire warnings are entertaining.

 

And this is your chance to get to see Meryl Streep playing Donald Trump. Look up if you want to, but don’t miss it.

 

 

 

 

What I wish someone had told me when I was a kid.

 

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how the Shadow operates in adults. But as a mother, grandmother, and frequent caretaker of other people’s children, I’ve actually dealt with how the Shadow operates in children more often than I have in adults.

 

Poor dears. They hate to be wrong. Hate to be caught in the wrong, that is. The most loving child will lie shamelessly to cover up a petty error that no one cares about anyway. Cannot stand to lose at games. Thinks nothing of cheating. And it takes a power of parenting to even make a dent in this apparently innate human outlook.

 

Then there are those of us who grow up in fundamental religious families, as I did. Where everything is black and white. Where your parents know all, their world view is iron clad and unassailable — divine no less — and no matter how ridiculous they act or how absurd they sound, you must honor and obey them on pain of corporal punishment and fear of eternal damnation. Where a child cannot afford to be caught making a mistake… Fertile breeding ground for the human shadow, indeed. If I’m not a good girl even God won’t love me. It takes children raised like I was a long time to be able to admit their own mistakes or to see a bit of their own Shadow. I will always struggle with an unconscious desire to be right, to know it all.

 

Here’s what I wish someone had said to me when I was a kid:

The best and brightest of us still make at least 3 or 4 mistakes every day. The very worst of us operate from a continual state of error. But most of us lie somewhere in between. We do a lot of things we can be proud of, we do a lot of things we can’t be proud of — that’s just the way it is.

Trying to pretend you haven’t made a mistake when you have made a mistake, trying to cover it up, merely adds another mistake to your running total. It adds telling a lie to what would have otherwise been just another routine slip-up.

Besides, we actually have to make mistakes. Human beings learn by trial and error.

So, give it up. You don’t know it all. You’re not always going to win. You’re not perfect.

Let go of being “right.”

You’ll be happier. You’ll develop a sense of humor about yourself. You’ll become less judgmental about others.

And you’ll be a lot more fun to be around.

 

 

 

 

 

Let’s call the USA what it is, a minoritocracy.

 

I’m making up a new word. The old one just doesn’t describe our situation anymore. This is not a democracy, where the majority rules. This is a minoritocracy, where a minority rules by any means necessary, chiefly obstruction and outright lying.

 

One person, Mitch McConnell, from the tiny and sparsely populated state of Kentucky, has managed to block legislation and kill judicial appointments that effect the entire country for years.

 

One person, Joe Manchin, from a state that leans hard on government handouts, is keeping all the rest of us, in all the other states, from benefitting from the Build Back Better plan.

 

We need to stop bleating about how democratic the USA is and make our democracy actually work. How can we ever hope to address serious problems like worldwide climate change when we can’t even agree on how to fix our own road and bridges?

 

And a large part of any cure? Establish some serious consequences for lying.

 

Sure… gerrymandering, legislative obstruction, and voting rights restrictions form part of our problem, but lying is the glue that holds it all together and makes minoritocracy work.

 

Anyone can say anything now, about anything or anyone, the more outrageous and untrue the better, without legal consequence. We just lived through the most corrupt President in history, and not only has he NOT suffered any legal consequences whatsoever, he’s planning on running again.

 

51 little Senators (all beholden to their big donors) should not be able to control the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans.

 

And no one — and no news media outlet — should get away with lying.

 

In a democracy, that is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We’re all like Anna Karenina

 

“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”

That’s the famous opening line of Anna Karenina, by Leo Tolstoy. Which I just spent two days re-reading. Which I re-read every two or three years, actually. My copy is held together by postal tape now, and has highlighted passages and notes scribbled all over the margins, because something new always occurs to me while I read it.

(Confession: I adore re-reading books. You can see more deeply into characters you’ve already met in situations where you’ve already been. Plus, you can skim over passages that no longer apply — like philosophical or political issues of 1875 — without feeling guilty because you’ve already read them once.)

This trip through, what stood out was Anna’s inability to see her own faults. She could see that Karenin was half-dead, or that Vronsky was only interested in his own desires, or that her society was full of hypocrites. She could see the faults in others. But in herself? No way.

She could not accept that she, herself, ever did anything wrong. So the more “wrong” she did, by the standards of her time, the more her psyche split in two. Her charm and beauty morphed into weapons, rather than gifts.  She started refusing to answer hard questions, while looking down and away from the questioner with half-closed eyes.

“The thought of the harm caused to her husband aroused in her a feeling like repulsion, and akin to what a drowning man might feel who has shaken off another man clinging to him. That man did drown. It was an evil action, of course, but it was the sole means of escape, and better not to brood over these fearful facts.”

By the end of the book, Anna is a roaring drama queen who flies into daily rages and relies on morphine to get through the night. Then she kills herself to punish Vronsky for things he didn’t even do. She simply goes nuts.

I  know, I know. She was a young, beautiful woman living in a highly restrictive culture who married a stodgy older man when she was 18 years old. She’d probably never heard of an orgasm until she met Vronsky, much less had one. I cut her slack for all that. I have great sympathy for women whose passions were/are squelched by their cultures while their men lived/live large. Conditions like that make you crazy.

But what would’ve happened if Anna had stopped blaming and cut the drama? What if she’d simply taken the divorce when Karenin first offered it? What if she’d stopped creating untenable situations that were doomed to fail because she couldn’t bear to face her own guilt?

One of the reasons this novel is so famous is that we can all relate to Anna. We’ve all been there, at one time or another. We’ve all gotten dramatic or violent to change the course of a narrative when we should have gotten introspective. We’ve all pretended that there was absolutely nothing else we could have done, when in fact there were several other things we could have done. We’ve all spent a lot of time pointing out what others were up to, to keep from seeing what we were up to ourselves.

Denial? Blame? Substance abuse? Obsessive relationships? Self-destruction? Anna Karenina, written in 1875, is just as compelling, just as true, as ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can we face up to our past?

 

Michele L. Norris has written an excellent essay, “Germany has faced its horrible past. Can we do the same?” which appeared in the Washington Post on June 3rd. Here’s the link:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/03/slavery-us-germany-holocaust-reckoning/

 

In it, she outlines the process that Germany has gone through –and continues to go through– to face up to the horrors it perpetrated as a country in WWII. Which approaches have worked well, which approaches haven’t worked so well.

 

And then she asks an extremely timely and important question: can the USA do the same?

 

Can we face up to our history, which includes genocide and forced relocation of native populations, as well as 246 years of lawful and institutionalized slavery, followed by decades and decades of overt ‘Jim Crow’ oppression (which is staging a comeback with voter “restrictions” and police brutality)?

 

Can we accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good in our history? Can begin to move forward without blinders on? Or will we continue to try to sweep our sins under the carpet until denial, projection and blame tear us apart?

 

This is the very conversation we need to have.

 

Amnesia is not atonement.

 

Educational inequality in the US of A

 

Now that my kids are all grown up and have kids of their own, I live in a beautiful rural spot. I would have never lived in this beautiful rural spot while my kids were still at home. Back then I chose a dwelling according to its corresponding school system: the best neighborhood, with the best school system, that I could possibly afford.

 

What that says about the Unites States is appalling. It means that we all participate, every day, without thinking about it, in an educational system designed to reward those who are already well off while punishing those who are not. By basing public school funding on local property tax revenues, the United States overtly and covertly perpetuates inequality in education. A child whose parents can afford to live in a good neighborhood in a big city can get a good education in public school. A child whose parents can’t afford to live in a good neighborhood in a big city is on their own.

 

Yesterday afternoon I waited where my gravel road joins the paved road while local kids piled off the school bus. The little kids looked pretty much like little kids everywhere look. Excited to be alive. The older kids, the middle schoolers, looked pretty down in the dumps. I thought about that as I drove to a doctor’s appointment.

 

What if you’re one of those middle schoolers getting off the bus yesterday whose parents are–and will probably always be–achingly, grindingly poor?

 

And what if your only ticket out of a similar life of poverty was the public school system in a rural county in the United States of America?