Great Characters Make Great Stories

Two sides of the same coin.

John Daniel Davidson has a piece in which he talks about the "literary genius" of Justified, it's good and worth a look, but I think it could be more accurately titled "Great Characters Make Great Stories".

In the world Yost and Leonard spun out of one of those “oddball tales,” Boyd is no more a villain than Raylan is a hero; each man is a kind of shadow of the other, ill-suited to their assigned roles and unfit for the wider world. Cold and remorseless, justified in all his killings, Raylan is knotted up with anger and violence. His moral conscience amounts to allying himself with the law, though he ignores it when it’s convenient and flouts it openly to protect an ex-wife he loves but refuses to be with.

By contrast, Boyd exudes a kind of joie de vivre amid his many depredations while betraying a moral sensitivity far more developed than Raylan’s. He does wrong but doesn’t try to justify it to his conscience. In season three, Boyd kills a man on his crew, Devil, after learning of the man’s plans to betray him. While dumping the body, Boyd quotes something his father used to say: “Once you make up your mind to kill a man, ain’t nothing left to talk about.”

For me, what really makes Justified a great story is the complexity of Boyd and Raylan. Neither man is the classic one-dimensional hero or villain, and their interactions are the best part of the show. It's almost like they are each other's alter-ego, and I could almost see Boyd coming over to the right side of the law as easily as you could see Raylan slipping into a life of crime. Perhaps there's something to be said about how these two characters embody the opposing forces in human nature, and how they struggle against one another.

Similarly, the character of Walter White is probably why I liked Breaking Bad so much. Walter White was a complicated character, and it was fascinating to watch his story unfold. The transition of Walter White from a high school chemistry teacher to drug kingpin was quite a character arc than ended the only way it really could.

Hopefully, Justified wraps up as nicely as Breaking Bad did. Boyd Crowder may be one of the few "bad guys" I'd like to see get away. Maybe.

Congratulations to Clemson and Advice to Gamecock Fans

My three year old son is starting to learn to play games. He loves games. Right now, one of his favorite games is "Go Fish", which he calls "Go Fishing". Every time I say "go fish", he says "No, Daddy, it's go fishing".

When he first started to play Go Fish a/k/a Go Fishing, we let him win almost every time. Now, I'm letting him win about 2/3 of the time because he got really upset the first time I beat him. He didn't understand the concept that he could lose the game, and he didn't like it. However, I explained to him that you don't always win, and it was important to not get upset when you lose.

Now, my son is starting to take losing in a much more mature way. This is good, because he's going to grow up a Gamecock fan, and he needs to understand that losing is something you deal with on a regular basis. Which brings me to the Carolina/Clemson game.

Although I would have certainly like to see Carolina win yesterday, I can easily say that Clemson was the better team yesterday. It really wasn't even close. I know lots of you Clemson fans who are very happy that their team came out on top. I would probably guess that this win was sweeter for many Clemson fans specifically because of the last five years.

I give my Clemson friends a hard time, but it's all in good fun. If you can't trade a little paint over a college football rivalry game, then what's the point? Accordingly, you won't hear me complaining when my Clemson friends enjoy this win. That's the whole point of being a fan. For those of you who are Carolina fans, remember to be a gracious loser.

No one likes to lose, but without the struggle winning doesn't mean much. Winning this rivalry game is hard. But it's the "hard" that makes it great.

Congratulations to Clemson. Enjoy the win this year. But don't slack up, we'll be coming for you again next year. (Hopefully, with a better defense!)

Obama's Big Mistake

Back in high school, I had a friend who was fairly smart. However, instead of working relatively hard and making great grades, he was always looking to circumvent the rules. He spent almost all of his time and energy trying to find loopholes in school rules and regulations.

More often than not, his actions would get him in trouble with teachers and administrators. He constantly pushed back against almost all authority, constantly pushing the envelope of what was allowed. Basically, he spent most of his time and energy fighting the system, rather than trying to work within the confines of the school rules.

It caused a lot of bad blood between him and the school officials over what were essentially unnecessary conflicts. He ended up graduating, but refusing to participate in the ceremony. If my friend had spent his time simply studying and working to get along with people, he would have been a top student, and he would have probably been the valedictorian, speaking at his graduation, rather than skipping it.

I see that same characteristic in our current President.

Ever since he lost his super-majority in the Senate, he's gotten absolutely nothing done. He goes on and on all the time about how the mean ol' Republicans won't work with him on anything, but the fact is, he doesn't want to work with them, either. Accordingly, our President now spends all his time trying to figure out how much he can get done without Congress. He's doing everything he can to simply avoid Congress on almost every issue. He's unilaterally changing the ACA, fighting the Halbig case so he doesn't have to ask Congress amend the law, raising the minimum wage via executive order and so on. His famous "pen and phone" line is emblematic of his mentality to simply fight/ignore the Legislative branch of our government.

This isn't how to win friends and influence Congress. (Or enact policy.) Another example is evident today, in the realm of the climate change argument.

Just today, the President has now decided that he's going to try and do some strange end run around the fact that the Senate has to ratify treaties. Apparently, the President wants to cut carbon emissions in an international treaty, but he knows the Senate won't approve it. Therefore, rather than going to the Senators and trying to cut a deal and give them something in exchange, the President is now just going to try and do what he can without the Senate.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

Our President isn't even trying to convince the Senate to go along with this. They've told him "no", but he's undeterred. He's going to try and figure out some way to enter into a treaty without actually entering into a treaty. That will be quite a trick.

If the President spent half the time actually trying to compromise and work with Congress that he spends trying to come up with ways around Congress, he might actually get something done. He needs to understand that you can't always get everything you want when there's divided government. Out of all the campaign promises he's made and broken (and there's a lot) the number one promise he's broken is that he would be a pragmatic "uniter", ending our bitter partisanship. He's absolutely done the opposite. As I referenced in my last post, steamrolling the ACA through Congress is what created the Tea Party.

For all of the soul-searching that leftists do about how our foreign aggression "creates" terrorists, they sure don't seem to realize how political aggression created the Tea Party.

But instead, this current President looks like he's going to be end up like my friend from high school. He's going to struggle against the system, and he's going to engender lots of bad blood, and ultimately, it's all going to be a big waste of time and effort, never really reaching his potential. At the rate he's going, he'll probably end up skipping graduation to go play golf.

Why Accountability is Important

Warning. This is a long post. I've put most of it below the jump.

As a private practice lawyer with a litigation practice, I have a staff. It's not large, but I have a paralegal and a legal assistant. They follow my directions and take care of things that don't necessarily need a lawyer to handle. They help with filing documents, scheduling hearings, and coming up with first drafts of documents for my review.

However, if a deadline is missed or a document isn't filed correctly, that's my fault. I'm the one who signs the pleadings, and I'm the one who is in charge. The buck stops with me. As a hypothetical: even if the mistake is that my legal assistant forgot to call the court reporter for the deposition, I would take the responsibility when I talk to either the client or opposing counsel. I don't say: My assistant forgot to arrange for the court reporter. Instead, I tell the client: I didn't arrange for the court reporter; that's my fault.

No one likes a leader who blames their subordinates for mistakes. It looks weasel-y, and I think that my staff works well to know that I have their back. Now, even though I take responsibility to the client or the opposing counsel, I'm still going to have a serious conversation with my assistant. I'm going to let him/her know that they screwed up, and they should have called the court reporter. However, I handle that privately; in house.

That's how accountability works in my office. It works well for me. Clients and opposing counsel know that I am ultimately responsible for what goes on. It ensures that when I delegate, I make sure that things are getting done. My staff knows that I'll go to bat for them outside the office, but they also know that I am there to make sure they are doing things correctly.

Now, that's contrasted with what I see going on in the government. In the parade of problems that we see with government, the one common denominator is a lack of accountability. Let's go through some specific examples:

Ken Levine's Criticism of Mad Men

Quick, which character from Mad Men are you cheering for? Is that a tough question?

I really like Mad Men, but I agree with Levine's thoughts here. The show is really becoming a collection of horrible characters. Mrs. Permanent Press and I were discussing it after the last episode. It's just a story full of people that we hate. Where are the people we're supposed to be cheering for? I dislike all of these characters.

The first few years were phenomenal television. I loved it so much I almost took up smoking...But then things started to shift. Betty, who season one was my favorite character, became such a hideous bitch I now expect her to wear a coat made of Dalmatians. Still, almost everybody else had some redeeming qualities (although I’m still looking for Pete’s). Peggy was adorable, Roger provided comic relief, Joan advanced in a man’s world using both her brains and bra, and then there was Don Draper...Why should I care anymore about this miserable soul?  Because he gets to his front door, slumps down to the ground, and feels sad?  At one time there were glimmers of humanity, moments when he would exhibit surprising kindness. But not anymore. Not this season.

Levine hits the nail on the head, if you ask me. Think about it: Every story has a character that you somehow are cheering for, or you're on their side, or you understand why they do bad things. In Mad Men, they don't have a character like that anymore. (For me, anyways.)

If you like Mad Men, you'll really want to read the whole thing.

Should we care about these people?

Mark Sanford's Contempt for the GOP

Brad has an interesting post on Mark Sanford's relationship with the SC GOP. Here's what I believe his thesis is:

Usually, people who go into politics are to some extent people people. With Sanford, that’s just not the case. He basically has no use for people other than himself, and that included Republicans.

Can you think of someone else whom you would describe in this way?

Sen. (Lt. Gov.) Glen McConnell Makes Us Proud

Too often, people see the decisions before them and take the easy way out because doing the right thing is too damn hard. They know what the right choice is, but they just can't bring themselves to make the sacrifice that it requires.

In accepting the Lt. Governor spot (which is about as useful as a crocheted condom) Senator McConnell leaves a position of true power. He's not happy about it, but it's the right thing to do. Take a good long look folks...a politician doesn't voluntarily give up power very often.

McConnell knows what the right thing decision is. He's not trying to come up with some clever scheme to dodge this bullet. He's not saying it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. He's being a stand up guy. I'm proud of him, and you should be, too.