Let’s Take 'Em Both – The Tao of Kenny Cosgrove

As the central characters in Mad Men fall down the rabbit hole that is the 1960s, let us pause and reflect on the Zen milquetoast that is Ken Cosgrove.  You know, Ken.  He’s from Vermont and writes short stories under a nom de plume.  He caught Sal Romano’s eye but was too clueless to realize he was being hit on. While Pete attends to a client’s every need, Ken makes them feel as if they have none, at least according to Lane Pryce.  He smokes “tea” and has an unwritten pact with Peggy Olson to drag her to every pitch meeting and client meal (except when he’s meeting with a book publisher).  Yeah, that guy.

To call his style effortless would be inaccurate, I think of it more as nonchalant.  Sure, he gets high, writes weird stories about robots and you could not imagine him having anything other than missionary position sex, but Ken has remained religiously (and relentlessly) bland through five difficult seasons of Mad Men.  Take the competing reactions he and Pete had when PPL promoted them to “co-heads” of Account Management.  Pete had a temper tantrum and poured himself a drink.  Ken?  His response was basically “neat-o” and away he went.  He brought a Deere riding mower into the office but shouldered no blame when poor Guy MacKendrick ended up losing a foot because dimwitted Lois ran over it.  Somehow, like those quiet types who fly under the radar while the loud mouths get voted off the Island on Survivor, Ken knows how to avoid danger.

Ken is also a realist.  Having been passed over by the big feet who alit from PPL-owned Sterling Cooper, when he was brought back underneath Pete in Season Four, he took his place without objection.  He views his job as just that, a job, not as the thing that defines him as a man. While Pete, Don and Roger all lean on Ken to leverage his soon-to-be father-in-law for contacts when Lucky Strike leaves the agency, Ken refuses, resolutely distinguishing between his work and personal lives.  Instead, he finds a comrade in Peggy and they get a new, albeit, small account, Topaz Pantyhose. His lack of competitiveness appeared to be a strike against him when the firm was suffering, but by avoiding the high pressure stakes of leadership, Ken has also carved out what is now called “work/life balance” that does not result in the bad behavior and feelings of emptiness that seem to consume his superiors.

Even as SCDP has begun to rebound from the loss of Lucky Strike, Ken is blasé.  When Pete complains about Roger’s imperiousness, Ken shoots back with a droll observation of the way advertising works –building a book of clients, eventually leading to the big fish that will allow SCDP to “go public” with Elvis playing at Tammy Campbell’s Sweet 16 in Buenos Aires.  I told you he wrote science fiction!  Ken is disinterested in making waves.  Consider his reaction to the dueling proposals of wunderkind copywriter Michael Ginsberg and Don for the Sno-Ball account.  Instead of choosing between offending his boss and going with the lesser of the two concepts, he says, “let’s pitch both.” This inoffensiveness is precisely what makes Ken so successful.  He knows how to avoid office land mines and politics.  He may have made an internal calculation that either pitch would win the account, so there was no reason to choose sides, or, he may have suspected that there was no value in choosing one or the other, but he certainly avoided getting a dress down from Don like Michael did in the elevator the next day. 

The more mendacious version of Ken is the corporate suck up, the sycophant who rides mediocre talent and the lack of a gag reflex to the corporate corner office, but Ken is not that deceitful.  He’s very aware of where his lines are drawn.  That probably means that he will never ascend to the top of the corporate ladder, but it also ensures he won’t have a heart attack while riding a 20 year old around like a pony after hours, becoming a miserable, alcoholic divorcee or an unhappily married suburbanite who lusts after his commuter friend’s wife. Not a bad trade off, if you ask me.

Mad Men Season Five - The Green-Eyed Monster

The episode might have been called Dark Shadows, but the plot reminded me of an old joke:

Two bulls, an older bull and a younger bull, are grazing at the top of a hill, when they spot a cluster of cows down in the meadow.  The younger bull says "Let's run down there and fuck us a cow." The older bull chuckles, and says, "Let's walk down and fuck 'em all." 

The storyline was less "dark shadows" and more spite and envy, of people unable to let go of their virility, their vanity, or their pride, of one generation telling the next, "not so fast," and of people who feel their grasp on control slipping away and clinging to it at all costs.  The episode laid bare a lot of emotional ugliness, most prominently with Betty, whose struggle with weight and jealousy toward Don and Megan's new life led her to reveal to Sally that she (Betty) was Don's second wife, and that another woman, Anna, had been his first spouse.  When Sally lashes out at Megan for failing to mention Anna, Betty seems to have scored a petty point, but Megan is more sophisticated than Betty, and quickly turns the tables on her, resulting in Sally sending several veiled barbs at her mother in return.  

As Henry, Betty and the kids sit down for a traditional Thanksgiving, Betty repeats her mantra that she "has everything."  It's a line I first remember hearing during last season's episode The Summer Man, when Betty's old neighbor Francine was helping her prepare for baby Gene's first birthday party.  In a Pleasantville world that is now brimming with psychedelic color, Betty is zealously black and white.  Superficially, she is bland and anodyne, but her impotence in a world that no longer solely values the "stay at home" mother causes her to act out - either through binge eating, demeaning her children, or stirring shit with her ex-husband and his new wife.  She defined herself in earlier seasons by her looks and figure, her ability to attract men and to be seen (to the outside world at least) as a dutiful wife and mother, but those ships have sailed, and, absent anything to define herself through (or with), she is left with an aerosol can of Reddi-wip and chewing her food 21 times before swallowing.  

Even the new, mellower Don Draper is not immune to having his manhood threatened.  As he reviews recent work to update his "book," he realizes he has contributed little, relying instead on new kid on the block Ginsberg to do most of the heavy lifting.  Perhaps it is Don seeing a younger version of himself in the eager Mr. Ginsberg, but he struggles to come up with an alternative pitch for Sno-Ball, eventually settling on one that his creative team tepidly endorses and Ken suggests they offer to the client along with one of Ginsberg's ideas.  When it comes time to pitch, however, Don leaves Ginzo's idea in the cab and wins the client over with his idea.  When Ginsberg confronts Don about the snub, Don quickly puts Ginsberg in his place, first reminding Michael that he works for Don and then, when Ginsberg says he pities Don, Don retorts that he doesn't even think about Ginsberg.  An invigorated Don then strides purposefully to his office.

Of course, the ultimate adult as adolescent is Roger, who, along with Bert, hatches a plan to nab wine maker Manischewitz without notifying Don or Pete of the scheme.  Roger's problems though are two-fold: first, he cannot write copy, and thus, engages Ginsberg in "side work" (think Peggy and Mohawk Airlines) and second, he needs the assistance of his soon-to-be ex-wife Jane, who is Jewish, to help seal the deal.  Ginsberg costs Roger $200, but Jane extracts a new apartment to attend the dinner. While the meal goes well, and Ginsberg's pitch (largely uncredited) is accepted, Roger is put off by the overt flirting the owner's son does with Jane.  When Roger invites himself up to Jane's new apartment after the dinner, he has sex with her, thereby tainting, in her mind, her new home.  If he were a dog, Roger could have lifted his leg and peed on the doorstep. He wants what he wants, and he rarely assesses the consequences.  Perhaps he needs to take another tab of LSD.  

A rung lower on the totem pole, Peggy expresses anger toward Roger for cutting her out of the Manischewitz side project and Harry Crane complains about promises that have been unkept.  All Pete can do is have a saucy dream about Beth and lash out at her philandering husband when he crows about spending time with his mistress before settling in with his family for Thanksgiving.  Each is at a pivot point in their lives, where they will either ascend the professional ladder or become ever moving lateral employees, never quite getting the corner office.  In their personal lives too, families beckon, and decisions about life insurance, home mortgages and children now dominate their thinking. They are each, in their way, necessary for the proper functioning of the agency, but exist in the background and must squelch their feelings of envy and desire. 

This push and pull is a constant theme in Mad Men, of yearning unrequited, of dreams dashed or roads not taken. A season ago, Peggy lashed out at Don for not properly giving her credit for Glo-Coat, his response was that her salary was her reward and he interpreted her ambitiousness as impolitic, questioning whether she had paid her dues. But in a world that is rapidly changing, of, as Roger says, "every man for himself," the idea of a hierarchy is fading.  Pete brazenly challenges Roger's position with the firm and Ginsberg flouts custom by openly questioning his boss's decision making.  In seasons past, this type of intemperance would not happen and if it did, direction to gather one's things would be the end result.  But workplace insolence is nothing compared to the rebellion that what will grow into the "Baby Boomer" generation is starting to express at home. Sally's attitude toward her parents (and Megan) is confrontational, sarcastic, and without deference to authority. What Dark Shadows most clearly expressed is the cleaving of a society that, in 1966, is beginning to split apart along gender and generational lines, with everyone struggling to adapt to the shifting landscape. 

The State of the Race For President

In just under six months, about half of all voting age eligible adults will select our next President.  While the election has been running full blast on the cable news networks and the "blogosphere," most Americans know little more than who the two competitors are and that one is Democrat and the other a Republican.  So where do we stand?

The National Media Is In Wall-To-Wall Campaign Mode.  I'm a political junkie, but the granularity of national media obsession with this race is dizzying.  Turn on MSNBC, FOX or CNN, not to mention the lead stories (most nights) on CBS, NBC and ABC, and you are certain to hear about stories involving either President Obama or Governor Romney. The ubiquity of Twitter, online blogging and the 24/7 news cycle demands a never ending stream of "news" to report, comment and opine on.  To that end, the media have lost all perspective on what "news" is, and instead, has elevated the serious and the stupid to equal levels of discourse.  Important topics like the War in Afghanistan share the stage with jokes at the White House Correspondents Dinner and how Mitt Romney snubbed someone's cookies at a campaign event in Pennsylvania. A war on women is declared, and then the right-wing declares a "war" on people using the term "war." When in doubt, just TiVo/DVR The Daily Show, no other program does as good a job eviscerating the idiocy that passes for mainstream news coverage in 2012. 

National Polling Means Nothing (Right Now).  The breathless reporting (see above) often centers on the poll de jour. Ignore all of them.  First, we don't elect our President based on the popular vote, just ask Al Gore (or Sam Tilden - but he's dead), so national polling is essentially meaningless.  Even if you do credit national polls, consider that two of the last three elections were near 50/50 splits between the two parties and even in 2008, as the economy was cratering and the outgoing President had the lowest approval ratings since Herbert Hoover, Obama "only" won 53-46 (1% "other"). So any national poll that shows a big lead for Obama or Romney, take with a huge grain of salt.

The Election Will Be Won or Lost in Less Than 10 States.  When you hear some Republican operative claiming Romney is going to compete in New Jersey, Pennsylvania or Michigan, immediately change the channel.  Ditto when a Democratic talking head claims the President has a shot in Georgia or Texas.  Campaigns do a lot of head fakes, especially when they, or their surrogates, have money to spend.  So Romney might just spend an afternoon in Mendham come September, and he may get some press coverage along the lines of "Romney competing in New Jersey?" but ignore it.  The race will be won or lost in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico, Arizona, Virginia and North Carolina. These states will experience a minor economic stimulus as campaigns, the press and tens of millions in advertising flow into these "purple" states.  If you want to follow polls, follow these states. 

The Ground War, Not Independents, Will Win The Race.  TV will be saturated with commercials, by both campaigns, outside groups and party committees trying to sway mythical independent voters; however, the race will be won on the ground by the party that does a better job getting its voters to the polls.  But what of those mythic independent voters, you ask?  You know the ones - Tom Friedman fetishizes them as craving some magical "third way" candidate who will bring the proper balance of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism to the White House (ignoring the present tenant, naturally).  They have the Simpson/Bowles Executive Summary hanging on their refrigerators, have kids studying Mandarin in charter schools and know at least one gay couple.  Yeah, them.  Only problem, they don't exist.  I don't mean literally, but figuratively.  Most pollsters will tell you that while a fair percentage of the electorate "self-identifies" as independent, when quizzed a little further, most show strong party identification (based on prior voting patterns) for one party or the other.  These voters interpret "independent" as "free thinking," not "party switching."  Truth be told, the number of true "independent" voters is probably between 5% and 10%, and while not insignificant, not the be all/end all of political science either.  If you don't think get out the vote matters, consider off years like 2010, where the electorate that turned out was whiter, older and wealthier, and thus, more sympathetic to Republicans, resulting in massive gains for the GOP. 

The October Jobs Report Will Be Meaningless.  A favorite bigfoot reporter trope is that the vaunted October jobs report, which will come out the Friday before the election, will be meaningful.  This is nonsense.  What will matter are the next 3-4 months of jobs reports, whether they show a slow but continuing drop in the unemployment rate through modest, yet steady job growth, or begin to tick up because job growth slows and/or retracts. These reports will provide a far more accurate picture of our economic situation than ONE report that happens to come out four days before the election.  The chances that the October report will be gangbusters big or depth of the Great Recession bad are small.  If the report is either one, the likelihood is that prior months would have teased that trend, making October reinforcing, not altering, and in that way, more predictive of where the election is heading.

The Power of Republican Super PACs Will Be Both Enormous & Marginal.  Any true lawyer can parse ideas or hold two inconsistent ones in their head simultaneously.  Behold! The miracle of the Super PAC.  On the one hand, the RNC and Romney campaign will outsource the sliming of Obama to Restore Our Future, Crossroads GPS, and whatever fringe, unnamed, donors not revealed, hit job Super PACs pop up to carry Romney's mud.  This strategy was used to powerful effect in the Republican primaries, where Restore Our Future carpet bombed any and every opponent that popped up to challenge Romney and buried them under an avalanche of negative ads.  The theory goes that by allowing outside groups to do the dirty work, Romney will be able to run mostly positive ads, while Obama, without the benefit of hundreds of millions in outside dollars flowing to his Super PAC, will have to go negative directly through his campaign, thereby sullying his "hope and change" image.  

I disagree with this theory because I do not think most voters think there is a distinction between Super PACs and the candidates they support.  Moreover, my guess is that the media will more closely scrutinize the shadowy way Super PACs operate and the idea that they are largely funded by a small group of obscenely wealthy people (at least on the Republican side) will mitigate their impact.  Further, and as noted above, the number of "persuadable" voters is not that big.  At a point, saturation occurs and all these ads will result in diminishing returns.  The "free" advertising of the Presidential debates will drive discussion and campaign narrative for more than attack ads.

Speaking Of Debates …  Wow.  Not that the debates have not been important in prior cycles, but the rise of social media would suggest this year's debates will be particularly impactful. If you go back and watch The War Room, there's a great scene where, after a debate, George Stephanopoulos is seen running behind the scenes barking out "messaging" in the immediate aftermath of a debate (something about Bush being on the defensive).  Now, messaging is in real time, as it is happening, online and open to anyone with a computer and Internet connection.  How much, and to what extent, the campaigns are able to leverage that fact will shape perception after each debate.  That's a huge deal, because those (presumed) three debates will be political Super Bowl moments where tens of millions of Americans tune in and read about the day after.  

The Election Will Be Close. John McCain scraped the bottom of the electoral barrel for modern-day Republicans, collecting 173 electoral votes (EVs) by winning most of the old Confederacy, Texas and some states in the Plains and Rocky Mountains.  The 2008 map turned blue in North Carolina, Virginia and Indiana, which had not gone Democratic since 1976 (NC) and 1964 (VA & IN) respectively.  In addition, because Nebraska apportions some of its electoral college delegates by Congressional district, Obama collected one EV in the Cornhusker State. Even if the election in November was the same as it was in 2008, Romney would pick up a net 6 EVs based on population growth from the 2010 census.  Of course, while it is true that the Republicans have only won the popular vote in one of the last five Presidential elections, deep seated animus toward the President, combined with the difficulty he will have in again winning at least two of those "once in a generation" three red-to-blue (IN and NC), and assuming Romney holds all the states McCain won in 2008, would bump his electoral total to 205. 

Obama, meanwhile, will be defending himself from all out assaults in Florida and Ohio, which, if he lost, would move Governor Romney close to the "magic" 270 EV needed to claim the Presidency.  Further, Obama does not have a lot of room for growth. Perhaps Arizona based on Romney's strident anti-immigration rhetoric during the campaign and maybe Montana, but otherwise, absent an enormous economic recovery where 300,000 to 400,000 jobs are created each month and the unemployment rate plummets below 6%, that 2008 map squeezed every last EV out of the country a Democrat could hope to get. If nothing else, a 6 point national win for Obama, even if he wins 300-325 EVs (which is my guess), is highly unlikely. 

Follow me on Twitter: @scarylawyerguy

Peter Dyckman Campbell, 32

Peter Dyckman Campbell of Cos Cob, was killed in a one car accident on January 1, 1967.  Campbell was a partner with the advertising firm Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce where he served as Head of Account Management. Born in New York City's Presbyterian Hospital in 1934, Campbell attended The Buckley School and Deerfield Academy before matriculating at Dartmouth College, from which he was graduated with an A.B. in Business Administration and was a member of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity and known affectionately as "Humps." 

Following college, Mr. Campbell began his career as an account manager at Sterling Cooper and, in 1963, became a founding partner of Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce.  Among the companies Mr. Campbell served include North American Aviation, Sea-Cor Laxatives, Sugar Berry Ham, Mohawk Airlines and, most recently, Head Ski Company.  Pete, as he was known by family, friends and co-workers alike, enjoyed summering on Fisher's Island and had recently taken up hunting as a hobby. 

Mr. Campbell is survived by his loving wife Trudy Campbell (né Vogel) and daughter Tammy  as well as his mother, Dorothy Dyckman-Campbell, and brother Bud.  A memorial service will be held at The Presbyterian Church of Old Greenwich on Tuesday, January 3rd.  Mr. Campbell will be laid to rest in Trinity Church Cemetery, Upper Manhattan, where his great-grandfather, Silas Dyckman, first settled and the family resided for several generations.

*Note:  This is a speculative post based on the heavy death theme from this season's Mad Men, and in particular, as it relates to Pete.   

Grumpy Old People

A movement does not have its moment until it becomes the subject of scholarly work.  Bookshelves now sag with dated works on Baby Boomers, the "Me" generation, Generation X, and of course, any and every political movement that has cropped up from the agrarian revolution of the 1890s to Occupy Wall Street.  Onto this list two new books, The FOX Effect, by David Brock, Ari Raven-Havt and their colleagues at Media Matters and The Tea Party & The Remaking of Republican Conservatism, by Harvard Professor Theda Skocpol and Ph.D. candidate Vanessa Williamson have arrived to examine right wing political activism in the United States and how FOX News in particular acts as a "house organ" for the modern Republican party. 

Of course, the existence of a "vast right wing conspiracy" is not a new idea, but what both books argue persuasively is that the media, and most particularly, FOX News, has erased the line between journalism and political activism and, under the imprimatur of "news," created a propaganda machine that serves as a message machine for the GOP.  The FOX Effect focuses primarily on Roger Ailes, who heads the FOX News channel and has deep roots in the Republican Party.  Ailes's name will be familiar to political junkies dating to the 1960s, when, as a young man, he helped mold Richard Nixon's 1968 Presidential campaign, spearheading ideas like the "town hall" event, but with the twist of packing the audience with sympathetic voters not necessarily representative of the electorate that supported his candidate.  Ailes went on to serve subsequent Republican Presidents and refined his techniques for media manipulation as the medium changed, seemingly staying one step ahead of his competition while being circumspect in his profile. 

As Brock and Rabin-Havt show, Ailes was able to fully realize his vision when Rupert Murdoch handed him the reins to FOX News. The rest, for anyone who has followed politics and the media for the last 15 years, is history.  The authors tread ground that will look familiar to those who follow this sort of thing - the Orwellian use of the "fair and balanced" tag line, the hiring and promotion of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and others, and the steady conservative influence of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, all marching in tight solidarity toward the objective of demeaning anything and everything vaguely smelling of big "D" Democratic policy and little "d" democracy.  Along the way, Brock and Rabin-Havt also illustrate the two-step FOX utilizes to pump up controversy that originates in the bowel of the "vast right wing conspiracy," elevating it into the national discourse, and, if others do not pick up on it, claiming "liberal" bias.  Of course, in many cases, like that of the "new" Black Panthers or USDA employee Shirley Sherrod, the facts end up being far less nefarious than FOX reports them to be, but that is of no consequence to Ailes and company.  Their objective is a steady stream of distortion to a viewership that studies have shown is the most misinformed of any that watches news programming. 

But FOX has gone a step further from merely cherry picking information to provide it a Republican slant.  In recent years, their advocacy has become more affirmative, erasing the line that traditionally stood between journalism and political activism.  FOX personalities have appeared at "Tea Party" rallies, assisted in fundraising (and contributed) to Republican candidates for political office and provided a friendly platform for the endless promotion of Tea Party events, particularly in 2009 and 2010.   In response, FOX falls back on the idea of a separation between its "news" personalities and "opinion" personalities, arguing that the latter do not present themselves as neutral arbiters, but the reality, as Brock and Rabin-Havt show, is a distinction without a difference.  "News" programs on FOX recite, almost word for word, the talking points generated by Republican operatives as gospel, so to suggest they are not part of the overall machinery that amplifies the conservative point of view is a chimera. 

Skocpol and Williamson look at the opposite end of the telescope by logging endless hours researching, interviewing and spending time with "the Tea Party," a phenomenon they rightly point out is not a monolith, but rather, a complex political organism not always in harmony with itself, but sharing a simple demographic - older, white people who generally have a dim view of immigrants, minorities and young people.  While the mainstream media mocks Tea Partiers as being ignorant (a sign reading "Keep Your Government Hands off My Medicare" is often cited to show Tea Partiers don't even know Medicare IS a government program), the authors point out that the Tea Party argument is a bit more nuanced (if idiotic).  That is, yes, they KNOW Medicare is a government "entitlement," but Tea Party supporters see it as THEIR entitlement - that is, they have worked, paid into, and "earned" the right to have Medicare and Social Security while the groups they disfavor (see above) are seen as being unworthy, either because they have not worked for it, or are crossing the border in hordes to access government services illegally.  

Along the way, the authors dovetail nicely with the impact FOX News has on political discourse discussed by Brock/Rabin-Havt.  For example, they cite reporting that was done suggesting the Tea Party was a movement of "moderates" and not conservative Republicans.  The "moderate" meme was launched off a poll that, when disaggregated based on its questions and other polls done at the time, shown to be unsupported, but that did not matter at the critical time that the reporting was done.  While the authors attribute fault across the media (as it should be), the cheerleaders on FOX and others within the right wing media were more than happy to fan the flames with the idea that "ordinary" Americans from across the political spectrum supported the Tea Party when in fact they did not. 

The book also discusses the fissure between grass roots Tea Party folks (yes, some do exist) and the corporate funders at the national level - the Koch Brothers, Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity and others - who cleverly leveraged what legitimate local anger there might have been over the election of President Obama, the passage of health care reform and national debt and repackaged it into a "brand" called the Tea Party.  The authors point out that while some local groups accepted funds from national organizations and in return give the imprimatur of their support to those national groups, not every local Tea Party has fallen into the orbit of larger, nationally run groups.  

Indeed, what is interesting about The Tea Party & The Remaking of Republican Conservatism is the fact that the Tea Party is not so much a new phenomenon as a mutation of a small group of ultra-conservative Republicans whose philosophy found its moment, in, of all places, the rant of a CNBC journalist on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, not against the greed of bankers, but the purportedly "lazy" Americans looking to be bailed out of their underwater mortgages.  The general diffidence these folks feel toward the federal government became subsumed within larger societal forces that the financial crisis unleashed.  That this all took place when an urban, articulate, African-American with a "foreign" sounding name took office was the accelerant that fueled the fire.  

To me at least, the Tea Party is really just a 2.0 version of the right wing anger directed at Bill Clinton when he was President.  Ironically, it was David Brock, who, in the 1990s was an agitator for conservative causes, kept the Paula Jones story alive, which, through a daisy chain of events, resulted in Bill Clinton's impeachment.  Today, Brock has recanted his past and now trains his fire on his former masters, so it is a little surprising that there is not much in his book that makes a more affirmative link between generic "outrage" and a Democrat being in the White House.  Of course, some of the militant edge was taken off the Clinton rage as the economy boomed in the 1990s, and my guess is that were we to experience stronger job and economic growth if Obama is re-elected, some of the reflexive dislike Republicans have for him would also dissipate. 

As for the Tea Party, Skocpol and Williamson make a strong case that it will be a force in politics, though more likely at the local level, for some time to come because the demographics of this country will, in some way, reinforce it.  We, as a nation, are growing more ethnically diverse, but also have limited financial resources, which will only flow more substantially to the elderly as the country ages and Social Security and Medicare consume more of our budget.  It's not a coincidence that the "Ryan Budget" does not end Medicare as we know it until 2022.  The retired and near retirement are a powerful bloc who think they are entitled to the social safety net - if the rest of us are left to fend for ourselves, it is of no moment to them. At the national level, Republicans are pruning moderates from the Senate and their House caucus, thanks to gerrymandering, excuse me, redistricting, has never been more conservative.  Whether they are merely paying lip service to Tea Party causes in the drive for power and control or will actually implement radical change if ever given the ability to do it will have significant ramifications for our country.

Mad Men Season Five - Same As It Ever Was

What if I told you there was a show about an unhappily married man living in the suburbs who is desperate for something more than his humdrum life.  And what if I told you that same show featured a happily married man seeking nothing more than maintaining that marital accord.  Pretty standard sitcom fare, right? Maybe a pay cable series with an occasional glimpse of a bare breast? Right. Except Mad Men has always been more than a connect the dots show, but now, more than halfway through its fifth season, the narrative direction of the show seems less certain than ever. After spending early episodes framing a foreboding dawn of Aquarius, all dark shadows, mass murders and riots, plot pacing has downshifted into a time warp of suburban ennui and pedestrian infidelity. 

While the title of the season's eighth episode, Lady Lazarus suggests resurrection, the storyline suggested anything but being born again.  If anything, the episode was an inversion of the early 1960s.  Pete Campbell, now ensconced in Cos Cob, Connecticut, has spent much of 1966 trolling for love and affection or rebelling against the quiet desperation of anomie (and a rifle for those gophers), or maybe both.  His preferred sexual role playing involves female submission, he attempts to power play Roger, but covers his unhappiness with a laser focus on work.  Sounds a little like a Season 1 Don Draper, but the difference is that Pete is impotent. A chance encounter with his commuter friend Howard's wife Beth, who confides in Pete that she is aware of her husband's indiscretions, results in a furtive, groping lovemaking session that leaves Pete unrequited when he attempts to extend that evening's lust into something more meaningful. He calls and is rejected, he shows up at their marital home under the pretext of buying life insurance and is denied, and is stood up in the City when he rents a hotel room complete with chilled champagne. 

At work, Roger deftly clinches work with the sporting goods manufacturer Head and, as a bonus, gets to watch Pete fumble with the ski equipment the client has provided.  LSD may have offered Roger clarity, or perhaps he better understands his role in SCDP, but either way, his anger at being bigfooted by Pete has dissolved into comfort with his own talent and skill with the added benefit of being able to pawn the "hard work" off to a guy who wants to make his bones. Indeed, watching Pete patiently waiting for Beth in that hotel room flashed me back to scenes from earlier seasons where Roger successfully utilized hotel rooms for his liaisons with Joan and how Roger's casual alpha maleness contrasts with Pete's forced attempts at the same. 

Meanwhile, Jack Shapiro was not one of Megan's former flames, or even, as I was hoping, a first husband from Canada never divorced, but rather, a casting director for a play.  Turns out Megan's commie dad actually got through to his daughter, who does not realize that advertising is actually a form of acting and instead, decides to fold up her tent at SCDP and pursue her dream of appearing on Broadway (or off Broadway, or films, whatever works).  When Peggy and Don blow a canned presentation to Cool Whip and he blames Peggy, she lashes out at him, suggesting he is projecting his anger at Megan for quitting onto her. 

Peggy's misreading of Don is a hallmark of this season, but it's not just Peggy who seems at sea with this "new" Don, it's the viewer too.  As @winelibrarian put it, in discussing Megan, "She's turned Don into a pussy. period." While the comment was pithy, I think it missed the mark. After four years of getting inside Don's tortuted psyche, no one seems willing to accept that Don is a different man now - 40, appreciative of the second change his marriage to Megan has given him and not the swinging dick he was in years past.  Any man who has experienced one (or more) of these things in life can relate to Don's desire for peace and tranquility. His conversation with Megan when she reveals her lie to him is telling - instead of screaming or slamming doors, their conversation is mature and nurturing. Indeed, that Megan admits her lie, and Don does not rebuke her, is itself telling.  While Joan may have offered the cynic's view of Megan's career change, even the wink to Megan as Betty 2.0 is warped - yes, she is over a stove with a glass of wine in her hand, but she also reminds Don that coming home to a meal will not be an everyday experience. 

While it is entirely possible Don's marriage to Megan may still fail, indeed, I've argued that Megan must be killed to resurrect the "old" Don, it may simply be that Don is transitioning into a phase of his life where he is comfortable not being "that guy" anymore.  Tellingly, he seems to not understand current culture, whereas when the show started, he was spending afternoons in movie houses and constantly scribbling tag lines on cocktail napkins.  When Megan gives Don a copy of Revolver to show how quickly The Beatles were changing their sound, Don gives it a listen but quickly pulls the needle off the LP and goes to bed.  Tomorrow may never know, but Don is not quite ready to tune into that changing landscape. 

*Note on blogpost title:  I was going to use "Tomorrow Never Knows" but the bloggers who get paid to blog already used it.  For Grateful Dead fans, you'll know that their version of "TNK" sampled a line from The Talking Heads Once In A Lifetime "same as it ever was ... same as it ever was." 

Twitter: @scarylawyerguy

Mad Men Season Five - Sisters (and Roger) Are Doin' It For Themselves

In September 1966, just as the Lovin' Spoonful's new album is set to "drop," Mad Men spent some time updating us on gender roles.  Like Season Four's The Beautiful Girls, this season's At The Codfish Ball tells a story largely through the eyes of the women of that time.  The set piece is a dinner hosted by the American Cancer Society that honors Don for (as Ginsberg called it) "the Letter" - Don's screw you to American Tobacco, his "I broke up with him, he didn't dump me" page length advertisement in The New York Times to get people talking about something other than the fact that Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce had just lost a client of 30 years.  

Megan's parents are in town, another couple of the apparent May/December type, who fuss and fight, only stopping to berate Megan for her lavish lifestyle (her dad is a communist, or socialist, or something, according to Don) or subtly compete for men's attention (her mom). Adding to the fun is the unexpected presence of Sally and Bobby, who were supposed to be with Grandma Pauline except she tripped over the extension cord to the phone in Sally's room and broke her ankle.  Of course, Sally is feeling pretty proud, both because "Blutto" landed on the disabled list, but also because she is getting accolades for her cool headed thinking while Pauline was squirming on the ground in pain.  Her reward?  A shopping trip with the generations Clavet, an attempt at the Nancy Sinatra look (complete with boots and make up, both nixed by Don), and an impromptu assignment as Roger's wing woman at the ACS dinner.  

The three generations housed under the Draper roof result in a light bulb moment for Megan, who comes up with a pitch for Heinz, just as Raymond Geiger is ready to jump ship to another agency.  At a dinner with the Cosgroves and the Geigers, Megan deftly feeds Don the pitch so he can take credit for its creation while embellishing the idea at key points to take advantage of Mrs. Geiger's fondness for Megan. The full court press works and Raymond, who has seemingly done everything to avoid saying "yes" to SCDP's work, finally capitulates. Megan's success is a double edged sword, as all things are when you are the boss's wife.  She switches from junior copywriter to Don's wife in the flash of a cab ride, but by the time the celebration ensues at work the next day, she appears deeply ambivalent about her achievement.  

Perhaps Megan's mixed feelings are because of her skepticism about her co-workers, who she describes as cynical, always smirking and not smiling.  Having bagged a client, she is not jumping for joy as Peggy expects she would be, and Peggy's comment that the experience of winning a client is as good as it gets at work leaves Megan empty.  Later on, she is pestered by her father, himself a failed academic who grasps for youth by seeking comfort in the arms of his graduate students, for giving up on her dreams (of what, we are not told, though we do know Megan moved to New York to be an actress).

Peggy is dealing with her own mixed societal messages.  She receives a breathless invitation from Abe to a nice dinner and confides in Joan, who indicates that men only do such things when a "proposal" is imminent.  Peggy lights up, taking Joan's advice to go shopping for a new dress and gets a proposal alright, one to live together, but not in marriage. All credit to Elizabeth Moss, whose reaction to Abe's idea is a mask of inscrutability.  The following day, Joan effortlessly shifts from June Cleaver to Gloria Steinem, congratulating Peggy on her "brave" decision to live with Abe without marriage while casually mentioning that the "paper" she has with Greg is less important than his "paper" with the U.S. Army. When Peggy invites her strict Catholic mother to dinner and tells her that she and Abe are now living together, she gets a stern (and predictable) dressing down about the perils of such an arrangement.  

At the end of the spectrum is young Sally, who is keeping in touch with an in-the-full-throes of puberty Glen and has already been exposed to divorce, dislocation and drugs (Seconal) in the last year.  Even at a young age, she is brimming with the self-confidence that signifies our teen years, and the attention she receives from Roger and others at the dinner does nothing to deflate her sense of self.  All of that comes crashing down when she excuses herself to go to the ladies room and walks in on Roger and Megan's mother in flagrante delicto, the older woman's head bobbing up and down in Roger's lap.  Asked by Glen during a call later that night how Manhattan is, her one word response is simply "dirty." She may think she's a mature young woman ready to use those white boots to her advantage, but when exposed to adulthood, her reaction is that of a child having another slice of her innocence destroyed. 

Of course, the men fare no better.  Megan's father is a neutered old man whose ambition is snuffed out and warns Don that like Megan, Sally will (as he put it in a hilarious misstep of French to English) "spread her legs and fly away." He is envious of Don's wealth, bitter at the lack of support he receives from his distant wife and openly mocks Pete, who cleverly puts Mr. Clavet in his place by feigning interest in his work only to end the conversation by explaining that faux flattery is what he (Pete) "does." Don too is cut off at the knees by Ken's father-in-law, a major player at Dow Chemical who, over drinks at the bar, tells Don that he is disliked by the heavy hitters who make up the board of directors of the ACS because his letter indicated disloyalty to a client, something that none of these masters of the universe can tolerate.  

Meanwhile, Roger's acid trip has seemingly turned him on to a new life perspective.  Instead of his pending second divorce making him shrivel deeper into the ball of misery and helplessness that has defined him in Season Five, Roger is reborn, connecting with first ex-wife Mona to get intelligence on the people he will meet at the codfish ball, shmoozing the executives at the party and embodying a looseness in his interaction with women that results in getting a blowie from Megan's mom.  

Of course, we know that Don believes people do not change, and Don himself is skeptical of Roger's newfound openness to the world around him.  The "table of sad" (h/t @thenewlolila) shot of Megan's parents (who are both deeply unsatisfied with one another), Megan and Don (who blow hot and cold) and Sally (scarred from witnessing such an overt sexual act) is more in keeping with the show's general theme of alienation and anomie.  Of equal interest is the lack of a true pivot point.  As a general matter, Mad Men tends to make its move to the second half of the season right about now, as they did in Season 2 (Don and Bobbi's affair exposed), Season 3 (Don and Suzanne begin their relationship) and Season 4 (The Suitcase/Summer Man), but last night's episode did not feel as meaningful.  There were no defining moments, but rather, another story of people slowly being destroyed by the things they do not have. 

The Obama Counter Factual

As the 2012 campaign gets started, some ink will be spilled about the President's record and progressives and liberals alike will squawk about the opportunities missed by the Obama Administration, particularly in the first two years of his term in office.  This is not a new phenomenon; indeed, way back in August 2010, Obama's then-Press Secretary Robert Gibbs bemoaned the "professional left" for being unsatisfied with the President's record. The general retort to any carping about the first two years of Obama's presidency focuses on some combination of Republican intransigence and the difficult situation the President inherited in seeking to give him a free pass for taking half, and more often, quarter, loaves when the times demanded more aggressive action.  

While there is some merit to this argument, it gives the President and his team more of a free pass than they deserve.  As reporting has leaked out and the discussions around the three major issues of the early part of the Obama presidency come into sharper relief, it is clear that when it came to economic recovery, health care and financial reform, the Administration staked out weak positions from which they quickly came off of in the interest of finding political compromise instead of moving aggressively with popular positions for fear of being on the receiving end of Republican fear mongering.  Unfortunately for the President, and more so "average" Americans who have suffered because of these bad decisions, the President was going to be on the receiving end of scathing attacks  by Republicans regardless of what he did; however, instead of doing what was right and needed, he opted for watered down bills that are already being attacked in court, in administrative agencies and are at risk of being defunded by Republicans in Congress.

Health Care.  Considering that the President's signature accomplishment is 5 conservative votes in the Supreme Court away from being struck down, you would think he passed a law that creates a single payer program or at least offered people a so-called "public option,"  what with all the carrying on about "socialized medicine" and what not. Of course, you would be wrong.  Instead, a Democratic President and his Democratic allies in Congress (not one Republican in the House or Senate voted for the Affordable Care Act) enacted a law to give health insurance companies 30 million new customers - and not voluntary customers, mandatory customers.  For that, companies like United Health and Aetna should be sending bouquets of thanks to the President.  

The President made a strategic decision to not replicate what President Clinton did - hand a bill to Congress fully baked and refuse to negotiate.  Instead, Obama reasoned that allowing Congress to direct the legislative process would result in greater ownership of the final bill.  Obama failed to appreciate two things: (1) the failure of Clinton's initiative was as much in the packaging as it was in the actual plan.  Had Clinton handed Congress a simpler plan less open to nit picking, the outcome may have been much different; and (2) while extending an olive branch to Congress in allowing it to take the lead in shaping the bill, at critical points along the way, the President failed to articulate a clear vision of what the bill should look like - which resulted in exactly the kind of "sausage making" that ordinary Americans deride.  

In the meantime, he conceded two of his biggest bargaining points before serious discussion of the bill started.  Although language was adopted that would have allowed the bill to be passed in the Senate through a process called "reconciliation," which skirts the filibuster, Obama stated early on that he would not use it (even though he eventually did) and second, the framing of the bill in the Senate never seriously maintained the "public option" even though studies show that the health plans "run" by the government - Medicare, Medicaid and VA - have far lower overhead costs than the private sector.  Moreover, ideas like allowing people nearing retirement age to "buy into" Medicare could have gone a long way to (ironically) mollifying health insurers who don't like having older people on their plans anyway because they are (generally) at greater risk of filing insurance claims and would have allowed for some of the cost containment reforms Obama initially pitched (but quickly jettisoned) to be attempted. 

Instead, the Affordable Care Act got bogged down in a serious legislative morass, was overly complicated and subject to ridicule for things like the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback" - a "pay off" to Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson that would have ensured his state received greater (and longer) Medicaid reimbursement from the federal government.  Although that provision was ultimately excised, the overall impression of the bill was highly negative, aided and abetted by the lockstep opposition of Republicans, hyperactive town hall events and the right wing smear machine, that churned out bogus claims about "death panels" and other foolishness. 

While Vice President Biden rightly called passage of the ACA, a "big fucking deal," the final bill was far less than it could have been had the President exercised affirmative leadership, leveraged the bully pulpit and taken a more active role in crafting the bill.  Instead of chasing elusive Republicans, who, like Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown, would flirt with offering some tepid support of health care reform only to walk away when the rubber met the road, an early and aggressive push for a public option as a driver of coverage and lower costs would have been useful.  Had Republicans pushed back, the simple response would have been  that we already have "government run" health care for nearly 100 million Americans in the form of Medicare, Medicaid and TriCare (Veterans).  These programs have lower overhead and administrative costs and deliver basic services more cheaply than the private sector (and without much of the confusion and paperwork).  Republicans were going to call anything Obama proposed "government run" health care anyway, so why not defend the value of it and take a stand?  

Ultimately, the President was left with defending an idea initially floated by the Heritage Foundation (which, unsurprisingly, didn't impress the Supreme Court), that still fails to cover roughly 20 million Americans and is now subject to a low level guerrilla war in Congress, which is constantly looking to trim appropriations for the myriad programs created under the ACA.  Maybe not such a big fucking deal after all.

The Economy.  You remember the economy, right?  That thing that almost disappeared about 2 months before the 2008 election.  Yeah, that.  

Within a month of Obama's inauguration, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a $787 billion piece of legislation was passed as an emergency effort to right the economic ship.  ARRA was actually several bills in one. It provided a tax cut for people making less than $250,000, direct assistance to state and local government, infrastructure investment, unemployment aid and funding for things like education and renewable energy. Unfortunately, because the bill attempted to do so much, but was artificially capped at a number that Obama's own economists did not think was sufficient to meet the needs of the time, it was not as effective as it could have, or should have, been.  Further, in an effort to gain Republican support and appear bi-partisan, Obama allowed people like Susan Collins to trim parts of the bill in the Senate.  Ultimately, no House Republicans, and only 3 Senate Republicans (Collins, her Maine colleague Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter, who would switch parties later that year), voted for it.  When it turned out that the economic meltdown was more severe than initially thought, and unemployment went up, not down, Republicans eagerly pounced on the "stimulus bill" as a waste of taxpayer money even though many eagerly lobbied for funds appropriated under the law. 

By the time the full effect of the Recovery Act was felt and unemployment fell, it was too late, between a shaky recovery and the health care debacle, Democrats were swept out of office in November 2010.  A hastily negotiated extension of the Bush tax cuts for two years in exchange for a 13 month extension of unemployment insurance and some other sweeteners (including a reduction in the payroll tax workers pay for Social Security) pumped an additional $860 billion in stimulus into the economy but the public's perception of the ARRA was fixed - it failed (even though it did not.)  

Could things have been different?  Without question. Reporting in Ron Suskind's essential Confidence Men and elsewhere confirms that Obama was provided with alternatives for greater stimulus than he ultimately settled on and that the larger proposals were ruled out entirely for political purposes.  At the apex of Obama's popularity, the President was already shrinking from a fight (that might not have happened) and bowing to what his advisors determined was not politically expedient. Ironically, when you calculate the additional "stimulus" that Obama ended up negotiating with Republicans during the lame duck session at the end of 2010, you get to around $1.6 trillion, which was where some on his economic team (including incoming Council of Economic Advisers Chair Christina Romer) recommended in the first place.  The problem is that instead of going "big" in the first place, which could have put more money into things like infrastructure (as he finally did in the American Jobs Act, which has been DOA in Congress but for a small provision for veterans), direct aid to states and localities (who ended up laying off close to 1 million public sector employees after the ARRA ran out), and unemployment insurance, the overwhelming majority of the second "stimulus" passed by Congress went to tax cuts, and much of those to the wealthiest Americans who did not need them in the first place.  

Wall Street.  As reported in Confidence Men, just two months into his term, the President called a meeting of Wall Street executives to discuss the economy, their companies and, among other things, the public mood toward the financial industry.  Obama noted that his Administration was "the only thing between you and the pitchforks."  For having given his stamp of approval for TARP, not nationalizing CitiBank and giving a pass on financial regulation until well into his second year in office, Obama has gotten very little from Wall Street in return except their enmity.  Further, not only were Wall Street banks provided hundreds of billions of dollars in support through TARP, Bloomberg has reported that the Federal Reserve floated more than $7 trillion in loans to a wide assortment of banks and other financial institutions, some of which weren't even American. 

While smarter minds than me have debated the efficacy of bailing out the banks, the bottom line is it happened, but the enormous opportunity the President missed was in demanding certain things from the banks in return for this government largesse - specifically, the Obama Administration has done little to help struggling homeowners, even three plus years into his term.  No obligations were placed on banks to, for example, lower principal amounts or mandate lower interest rates for homeowners as a condition of their government bailouts.  By the time Obama got around to settling an ancillary mortgage meltdown issue (so-called "robo signing") that purportedly includes some relief for homeowners, banks were more than happy to take a modest financial hit in exchange for blanket immunity from prosecution.  

And this is where I think the greatest frustration with Obama lies.  For whatever else one can say about our nation, at its core, there is a belief in fairness and what happened on Wall Street offended most people's basic sense of fairness.  How could the people who created the problem be let off with few repercussions while the tens of millions who were affected by those decisions left to twist in the wind?  And as to Obama, as a Democrat, whose party has, for the last 75 years, stood as the defender of the middle class, how could he be so blind to the visceral suffering of those stuck with underwater mortgages, evaporated equity and the worst employment picture since the Great Depression and more importantly, why wasn't more done?   

Gibbs had it wrong when he complained about the "professional left."  What progressives and liberals find disappointing about Obama is the sense of opportunity missed, of accepting trade offs that favored the politically expedient over what was both good public policy and publicly popular.  Unfortunately, all of this is down the rabbit hole because even if Obama wins a second term, his moment has passed.  The stars aligned in 2008 to give him an enormous mandate that, had he taken advantage of to make critical investments in infrastructure, create truly universal health coverage and provide needed relief for homeowners struggling to make ends meet, may have resulted in Obama being the transformational President many hoped he would be (not to mention stymying the nascent Tea Party and the retaking of the House by Republicans in 2010.)  While I have no doubt many disaffected Democrats will still pull the lever for the President in November, a victory will feel less like the beginning of a new era so much as the beginning of the end of one that never truly was.  

Five Reasons You Are Not Listening To Howard Stern

The Howard Stern Show is ever evolving.  Spend a random afternoon listening to the “Shuffle” program that runs on Howard 101 and you will see how different the show has sounded over the years.  Unfortunately, at least in this listener’s opinion, the show is currently in a particularly fallow period of its existence.  Here’s why:

Too Much Wack Pack. Air time whores like Mariann from Brooklyn and Bobo are guaranteed show killers at this point because they serve only one function - gratuitously sucking up to Howard.  It’s neither fun nor funny, but rather, predictable and boring.  On the other hand, a few minutes with Eric the Midget can be interesting (emphasis on *a few*) but the inevitable devolution into “ack, ack” sound clips, Eric cursing others and Johnny Fratto plugs serves to extend segments that outlast their shelf life.  And don’t even get me started on Debbie the Pet Lady.  Worst. Wack Packer. Ever.

Fake Staff Fights.  Did you hear Jon Hein and Jason Kaplan are mad at each other?  What about Scott the Engineer?  He and Shuli have beef.  Don’t believe me?  Just tune in for a 45 minute segment that conveniently ends like a scripted wrestling match.  Back in the day, staff members had dramatic fights that led to them quitting the show (Fred), calling in sick (Robin), or assaulting other employees (Artie).  Now? They find the closest microphone (not Teddy) to kvetch into in an effort to sell tickets to the next “Block Party.” No thanks and please shut Ronnie up.

Reliance On Ancillary Programming. Did you hear what happened on The Wrap Up Show yesterday?  No? Don’t worry.  Howard will waste 30 minutes talking about it.  What about that great new segment of Fine Time on Howard TV?  Don’t get Howard TV? Wow, you suck, just ask Bobo.  You won’t hear Rachel’s penetrating interview with Ronnie the Limo Driver over which male staffer he would want to blow him if he was forced to get head from a guy. 

Guests?  They Have But A Few.  One of the casualties of the “reduced” schedule appears to be the show’s guest list, which is unfortunate because Howard has nailed interviews with Rachel Maddow and John Cusack within the past month.  Instead of moving the show toward a format that feels something like: A Block – AGT (more on that below); B Block – news update/fake staff fight; C Block – H101/HTV show plugging; and D Block – News, more interviews would be a major plus.

AGT.  I know, this is Howard’s life, we all tune in because he doesn’t give a fuck about what we, the listeners think, and AGT is no different than when he was (fill in the blank) – doing his movie, the Channel 9 show, moving from terrestrial to satellite radio, talking about his divorce (oops, gotcha!), blah blah blah.  But Hollywood Howie is the least interesting aspect of his persona and the slurping up to other celebrities he once flamed, shameless plugging of AGT and appearing on shows he regularly trashes (e.g., The View) has sell-out written all over it. 

Howard’s ad nauseum recitation of his AGT experience notwithstanding, it’s really of a piece to a larger whole – the elephant in the room that is his relationship with Sirius.  Obviously, we all know about his lawsuit (and recent loss) against Sirius, but what’s become much clearer in the wake of his re-signing to a “reduced” schedule is not that Howard did not want to work anymore (which he claimed was true while negotiations dragged out), but rather, that Sirius wanted him, but at a substantially reduced cost, which he agreed to while exploring other alternatives.  Howard’s contract stipulates that he provide somewhere around 110 shows a year for Sirius (the actual number was mentioned recently), which, even with 10 weeks of vacation, averages out to less than three shows a week.  In the meantime, he recouped some of the money he “lost” by signing with America’s Got Talent.  Once the show starts broadcasting next month, expect what few original radio shows Howard airs to be heavy on AGT recap.  As for those vacations he will be taking, I guess the “tapes team” will be earning their keep. Just remember kids, *this* is what the revolution looks like.

I'm Roger Sterling & I Want To Take LSD

Season 3's seventh episode, Seven Twenty-Three, told three stories of private shame and wanting through flashback.  For Betty, it was coming to terms with her desire for Henry Francis, for Peggy, it was the aftermath of having been wooed by Duck Phillips to join Gray but ended with the two having sex, and for Don, it was avoiding putting his signature on an employment contract that would formally tie him to Sterling Cooper. Ultimately, Bert Cooper cajoled Don into signing, by first reminding him that Bert knew his secret and then, appealing to his need to avoid being tied down, by subtly reminding him that "Don Draper" did not really exist, and after all, "who is signing this contract, anyway."

While not directly analogous, the aptly named Far Away Places shares many similarities in its narrative construct to that third season stunner.  Like Seven Twenty-Three, this episode tells three stories in one - Peggy, driving herself at work is again shot down by the executives from Heinz, Roger, in a half-hearted attempt to satisfy his second wife Jane, attends a pretentious dinner party hosted by professorial navel gazers, and Don alights to a literal "far away place," a long drive to Plattsburgh to visit Howard Johnson's, a potential client. In their own ways, each story takes its character to a far away place. 

Peggy's trip is both literal and metaphorical.  After getting into a fight with Abe, she must prepare for a second presentation to Heinz, a client that has already shot down her first idea for an advertising campaign.  When the same outcome occurs, Peggy attempts to "pull a Don Draper" and convince the executive of the wrongness of his decision and, after pushing too hard, gets herself kicked off the account.  She goes to a local movie theater where a stranger offers her marijuana and, after she accepts, sits next to her.  A few puffs later and Peggy shows her gratitude with a hand job.  Later, after learning that Ginsberg was born in a concentration camp (an assertion she questions (and talk about a far away place!)) she feels regret and invites Abe to her apartment. 

Drugs play a role in Roger's actual "trip," as he ingests LSD at a dinner party.  Initially, I thought that the idea of Roger Sterling taking acid might qualify for a "jump the shark" moment for Mad Men, but like other awkwardly presented scenes from this season such as Megan's Zou Bisou Bisou performance and Peggy's girl's night with Dawn, the execution minimized what on paper seemed ridiculous.  It was not overplayed, no pink elephants or overt hallucinations, but instead, a point of clarity reached with Jane, each confessing they were miserable and wanted a divorce. 

Meanwhile, Don and Megan take a road trip to upstate New York but argue bitterly in the Howard Johnson's restaurant, resulting in Don taking off in the car without her.  After calming down, he returns, but she is gone.  He is frantic and worried, circling the parking lot, loitering in the restaurant and finally, calling his mother-in-law to see if Megan has called.  When he finally gives up and goes home, she is there waiting but does not want him in the apartment.  He breaks the lock and chases her down, the two collapsing in a heap on the floor.  When she tells him that fights like this erode what they have between them, he melts, as she stands, he clings to her desperately and having been so fearful of losing her, weeps uncontrollably. The catharsis is brief.  Although they return to work the next day all smiles, Don is on the receiving end of a short, but stern lecture from Bert that Don has been neglecting his job, handing over his responsibilities to "that girl" (Peggy) who Bert suggests is not yet ready for that task while Don has been on "love leave." In other words, "get your shit together because we cannot have our copywriters mouthing off to Heinz executives and putting accounts at risk."

In this way, Far Away Places acts as a nice book end to Seven Twenty-Three.  The dinner party discussion centered on the idea of truth and this episode allowed Don, Peggy and Roger to get to their own truth, albeit at some personal cost.  For Don, it was a flashback to the Disneyland trip with Megan, when the two of them were returning Sally and Bobby to Betty and Henry at their new house in Rye, and how happy he felt. Instead of fearing stability and permanence, he desperately wants it. For Peggy, instead of using her anonymous movie theater liaison as a final straw to break up with Abe, she is remorseful and wants his love and affection. For Roger, he willingly takes ownership of his life instead of allowing it to control him. He needed his much younger wife to articulate something he felt too, but the words having been spoken, he is unburdened and, when he greets Don the next day, proclaims it is going to be a "beautiful day." 

The episode also reminds viewers that much goes on off camera.  Roger's dissatisfaction with Jane was rarely articulated over the past two seasons, but they started out happy, like Don and Megan.  Perhaps they had their own Howard Johnson's moment where their love slowly began to crumble. Peggy is following in Don's footsteps in more ways than one - she drinks his same Canadian Club, takes naps on the couch at work and ditches her job to go to the movies, only she opts for clumsy hook ups instead of more discreet encounters.  And while Don and Megan's relationship has been largely positive, she knows enough about him to know how to insult him in a way that will set him off - "why don't you call your mother." ZING.  

To watch Mad Men now is a much different experience than it was when the show premiered.  If you are like me and keep an eye on your Twitter account while watching, commentary is instantaneous, and often negative toward particular scenes or themes being explored.  Indeed, much of the tweeting I read suggests the show has lost its fastball, is falling into camp and missing the hip vibe of earlier seasons. Viewers remind me in many ways of "Picky Deadheads," fans who used to critique song choice, or the playing of band members in real time but now speak ruefully of no longer having the band intact.  

But the truth is that the show is evolving with the times and some of the people who were "cool" are now "old" and the themes explored in this season have been darker but more inchoate. The world is no longer at a distance to the characters, who were able to use the walls of the advertising agency to keep the world at an arm's length.  No longer can Don jet off to Rome to inspect Hilton properties, he now must drive to a down scale Howard Johnson's.  Drugs, which were once tut-tutted by Peggy's secretary Violet, are now casually used, and of course, it is now racial and religious barriers that are being broken (Don's comment about not hiring a Jew "on his watch" from Season 1 is obviously no longer operative and the agency has hired its first black employee, Dawn). The times they are a changing, and if that means Roger "tunes in," or Peggy jacks off a stranger in a movie theater, I say, bring it on.