Besides the stuff I post here, I also guest blog from time to time on my wife’s site.  She writes about anything & everything that I don’t write about and when I’m not discussing TED spreads, credit spreads, financial ratios, info visualizations I create in SAS and the like, I write about things that are way cooler over there (although the 3D visuals in SAS are quite awesome, imo).

I felt like doing a Don Draper-inspired Christmas list, so read about it over at her site.

Like that title? Yeah, I totally Don Drapered that one. I spent a lot of time thinking about it, then let myself think about something else then – BAM! – it just came to me.

Anyway, the Manchester Road Race is tomorrow. To get in some last-minute preparation, Emme and I ventured to Cheshire, The Bedding Plant Capital of Connecticut.  Aside from being the hometown of the soon-to-be-single Dawson’s Creek star James Van Der Beek (I hear he’s good at pullups and has radical hair), Cheshire is also home to part of the Farmington Canal Heritage Greenway.

Do Something

The Farmington Canal Heritage Greenway website tells me me that the entire Greenway covers approximately 84 miles from Northampton, MA to New Haven. The original canal was completed in 1835, but just 12 years later some old timey inventor guys came up with the idea of using railways for conveyance of goods instead of waterways. Well, out with the old, in with the new! Rail tracks were laid over the canal. Flooding in the 1980s damaged the rail line so badly that it could no longer be used and it was later paved over to make a recreational trail line. Running 84 miles is a little bit more than the OneSixeNine girls can handle (although Emme is beginning Ryan Hall’s half marathon training plan, so talk to her in a couple weeks) so we decided to focus on the Cheshire portion of the trail.

Emme is ready to go...

The trail really is a great place to go if you’re a runner, walker, cyclist or rollerblader who wants to enjoy your non-motorized recreational activity absent the threat of people engaging in motorized recreational activities. The trail is well-maintained, relatively quiet and quite pretty.

Non-motorized recreational activity

They're comin' right for us!

See Something

After we were done being superstar runners, we stopped off at the Lock 12 park which is on the National Register of Historic Places. Now, if you’re like me you’re probably thinking “What the hell is a lock?” Well, okay, if you’re really like me you’re probably not reading this and are just looking at the pictures. But, for your information (or “FYI” as the kids say), a lock is “an enclosed chamber in a canal, dam, etc., with gates at each end, for raising or lowering vessels from one level to another by admitting or releasing water.”

The Irish immigrants dug it by hand? The Man couldn't even give the Irish a few shovels?

The Lock 12 Monster

The park includes a museum (which was closed, because we visited on a Sunday), a helicoidal bridge (score!) and a picnic area, complete with awesome climbing tree.

No 'Cheshire Cat' Jokes Allowed

Drink Something

After running and locking, we headed to The Funky Monkey Cafe & Gallery where I got a frozen low-fat caramel latte and made up for the low fat part by also getting a frosted sugar cookie. Emme got chai and bread pudding, as she is apparently on a bread pudding tour of Connecticut. The beverages were good, but the decor was better. The Funky Monkey is, as its name suggests, pretty funky.

Eat Something

After the Funky Monkey we set off for Blackie’s, the locally famous hot dog stand. The service, prices, and relish were great and the interior is cozy in that old-school hot dog stand way. Emme found her dog too greasy. While I did prefer Guida’s footlong delight, I am less discriminating about my hot dogs and found Blackie’s offerings to be just fine. Also note that it’s cash only (I owe Emme the price of a hot dog) and it’s closed on Fridays, except for private parties. (Maybe one day I’ll have my wedding shower at Blackie’s…)

Talk to Someone

Total failure here this time. Maybe we should change this requirement to “stare at someone awkwardly” which is what we did to the guy who lives in the house right next to the Lock 12 park. Sorry so many people come into your yard, dude.

Lessons in Connecticuting

1. Never let Elle use the camera.  No true friend would allow legs that pale to be photographed AND published on the internet.
2. Pretty much every small town in the state has a hot dog stand, which I consider to be a real bonus (169 town hot dog stand tour?)
3. Sometimes antique things are easy to push over.  Like the actual locks at Lock 12.
4. Swans are not dangerously aggressive when not nesting (those of you who have visited the canal trail in the warm seasons may recall the hilarious signs that, alas, were not up when we had the camera on hand)
5. Elle SERIOUSLY needs to learn to talk to people, cause I (Emme) sure as heck don’t intend to become outgoing anytime soon.

See you at Manchester!

Paper, Wall Street Journal; key chain, Prada; gloves, Sermoneta; helmut, Davida Moto. Photo James Perkins

Yes, let me start by saying, my paper is an accessory, I will take that over the wsj.com any day. Written ideas in the margins etc.  Second, I continue to tell clients that social media has to be reinforced with traditional media interactions. You can’t just throw up a web page, blog, and facebook page and expect to get something for free. To get the Don Draper treatment, contact  the James Perkins at jp@thrasherfunds.com.

It's not Thanksgiving without a big plate of Wonder Bread!

Ah, yes…tomorrow is the really big day….the family gathers together at a beautifully decorated table (oh my, where did you get those big pine cones?) with the house smelling deliciously like roasted turkey and dressing. The children are well-behaved(and well-dressed…no tee shirts) and appreciative of your efforts(“This is delicious Mom“), no one is tipsy…or mouthy…or late…no one say, “I usually put marshmallows on top of my sweet potatoes.” I’ve never actually attended the above feast, mind you, and maybe it exists only in movies or in my mind.

Truth is, tomorrow is a work day for many people…police officers, firemen(or women), doctors and nurses, and yes…news people have to work. So that already puts a little kink in the quest for perfection. In the perfect Thanksgiving no one ever says, “Will you shake a leg on the pie  honey, I’ve got to get to the hospital/police station/BGE/newsroom!”…whatever.

But even though yours truly will put in some hours at work, I’m all good with it. Tomorrow morning I will enjoy the Macy’s Thanksgiving parade, and begin what for me, is the arduous process of transforming butter, flour salt and ice water into pastry dough…where are you Optimus Prime? The one think I’ve been asked to make for the dinner I’m attending, is apple pie. And against my better judgement, I’m doing it from scratch this year. No Pillsbury-already-flatttened pie dough(how do they get it so round? that’s one of my big problems..asymmetrical pie dough), no canned apples-yech-it will be done by my very own hands, though I’m pretty certain….no, make that 100%… Stone Mill Bakery can make a better one.

I did buy an extra dessert, a banana cream pie from Atwater’s…I know, I know, nothing about banana cream pie screams Thanksgiving, but I think it’s nice option for those who might like something different from pumpkin or apple. At least I know that pie will be delicious.

After I make my apple creation, I may try to catch up on Mad Men episodes…as someone was describing the finale this morning, I realized I never saw it! Oh, Don Draper…you never disappoint. There’s a guy who truly does “live in the bubble”.(Ever see that 30 Rock? Hilarious…)

We’ll head over for dinner about 5…eat some fabulous food, talk, relax a little, and then I’ll head on to TV Hill to do the 11 PM news. And be thankful for a good job…and for someone who graciously feeds me Thanksgiving dinner…and for a warm home…all that stuff. While Thanksgiving won’t be perfect, it never is really, and that’s ok too. It’s Thanksgiving! Try to have a lovely day, no matter what it’s like…do something nice for yourself…let a couple of irritating things a family member says to you just  ROOOOOLL off. And smile. And if you have some leftover good karma…send it the way of my pastry dough.

Warning: season 3 Mad Men spoilers ahead

I find my reaction to the relationship between Don and Betty Draper challenging. He lies to her, spends little time with her, is a serial philanderer and is barely engaged with her life, feelings or problems. She, on the other hand, looks after their children, is bored and trapped at home, and has a chaste romance, which leads her to find a way out of her suffocating marriage and life. And yet, and yet, it is Don with whom I sympathise and Betty who frustrates me. It is a point of identification that confuses me a little, so I thought I might try and think it through.

There is something about Betty which is so distancing, so lacking in empathy. It makes me wonder whether what Henry Francis (perhaps like Don before him) sees some sort of ideal notion of womanhood, rather than an actual person. With her amazing, Grace Kelly beauty and her perfect poise, she seems to fit that late Fifties/early Sixties notion of womanhood – the beautiful homemaker.  Henry, we must remember, hardly knows Betty at all, and yet he has determined that he wants to marry her. However, she seems to be without any really love or affection or even interest or care for anyone else. The way she treats her children, the general annoyance with the world around her, makes us feels that she lives in a state of perpetual disdain. As Don drunkenly implies in the final episode, she does see herself as too good for everyone. While realising that some of this froideur is defensive, is a reaction to the lack of emotional intimacy that she receives from Don, I think for me, that it presents a barrier to the kind of identification needed to empathise with a character.

And then there is Don. I’m not on Don’s side in every situation. When he tells Peggy she doesn’t deserve a raise and demands that she comes to the new agency, I can side firmly with Peggy. But when it comes to his relationship with Betty, I seem to find myself on his side. The manner in which he treats her really demands that my sympathy should be with Betty. He is completely emotionally remote in the way he relates to her, yet clearly he is full of emotions. The emotional remoteness is most likely a defence as well, a result of the emotional battering of his childhood-as Betty’s is from the disappointment of her life-or a product of the conception of masculinity that was prevalent at the time. the notion that two people could marry, when they can barely communicate is such a weird idea for me, and yet I imagine that it does characterise a lot of relationships. His attempts to feel, to connect occur through his infidelities, and perhaps this is what make them more understandable or forgivable.

Maybe it is the fact that we see Don’s backstory and understand where he has come from and what has shaped him in a way we don’t with Betty which assists in this identification. But it doesn’t change the fact that I find myself on Don’s side, especially in season three, when I know that I should be more sympathetic and understanding of Betty. I find myself regretting that she wants to divorce him, even though I know that if she was my friend, I would have been advising her for ages to get out.

These reactions demonstrate the power of the acting and writing in Mad Men and why, having watched 3 seasons this year, I cannot believe I have to wait for months and months before seeing what happens next.

Mad Men marathon calls. Blog suffers. Sorry!

Here’s Bat Man to make up for things…

There must be something horribly wrong with me because Johnny Depp has always left me cold.  Sure, if he snuck into my bedroom begging for some lovin’, I wouldn’t tell him to take a hike.  But here he is, People’s Sexiest Man Alive again and I’m like, “whatev.”

I never agree with People’s choices around beauty and sexiness.  Boring Pierce Brosnan?  Frat Boy Affleck?  Two-time Sexiest winner Brad Pitt’s another hunk about whom I’ve always been lukewarm.  I was down with former Sexiest Men Denzel and Clooney, and still consider JFK, Jr. one of the sexiest men to have ever walked the planet.  But the rest of People’s choices…yawn.

So what better thing to do on a cold Sunday afternoon than sit around deciding who the sexiest men in the world are.  Here’s my list. 

Edward Norton – He’s scrawny and has a receding chin, but Edward deserves the clichéd “best actor of his generation” title.  Ol’ Ed must have something in the sexiness department considering he scored babes Rosario Dawson in 25^th Hour and Salma Hayek in real life.  Anyone who can make a neo-Nazi hot definitely deserves to be on some list.

Barack Obama – Nobel Prize winner.  Devoted family man.  Coolest American president who ever lived.  Obama is the epitome of sexiness.  Now, if he can just pass health care.

David Letterman – Yep.  Dave.  In high school, I had a major crush on him.  He doesn’t offer much in the looks department but the dry, quirky, somewhat mean-spirited wit adds more to his appeal than a pretty face ever could.  Plus, you can see in the way he flirts with female guests and fawns over Julia Roberts’ mouth that there’s a love monster within the geek’s body.  This latest scandal only proves my point.

Javier Bardem – I saw him a couple times in Madrid and he came off as one of those “serious” actors who think smelling bad is a sign of artistic depth.  Seems he doesn’t bathe.  Still, Javier’s intensity is the stuff of dirty dreams.  His fights with Penelope Cruz in Vicky Cristina Barcelona made you believe co-dependent, mind-fucking romances are the way to go.  Even with that weird Coen brothers haircut in No Country for Old Men, Javier’s the bee’s knees.

This Guy Who Rides My Bus – I really need to get over my attraction to tattooed, messily gorgeous meatheads who chain smoke and work in sandwich shops.  The one who rides my bus every morning was recently reading a Dummies guide on raising ferrets.  Upgrade, Laura, upgrade.    

Ewan McGregor – He wears makeup and skirts, sings in musicals and shows his butt all the time in films.  Ewan is the cute, wacky class clown who just happens to be easy on the peepers.  While his sexier peers have fallen off the cultural radar (Jude Law anyone?) Ewan keeps showing up and giving his all in decent flicks.  He ought to instruct his friend Jude on the finer points of career longevity and how not to shag nannies. 

Djimon Hounsou – Remember how great Janet Jackson looked in her black-and-white music video, “Love Will Never Do Without You?”  I don’t because I was too busy staring at Djimon Hounsou.  He’s one of those lucky bastards who gets to look incredible and have talent.  Only a god like Djimon could distract anyone from the sexy powder keg also known as Leo DiCaprio, but he did it in Blood Diamond.  Then he had to ruin it and marry that Kimora Simmons witch.  What a loss…

Lenny Kravitz – When I lived in New York, a friend of a friend was subletting an apartment in Soho.  Lenny Kravitz supposedly lived across the street.  For a time, five of my girlfriends and I were seriously considering taking on several jobs and living in the cramped place together just to see Lenny walk by the window in his Calvins.  Though he hasn’t made an interesting album in a decade and his lyrics are kinda dumb (“my mama said that your life is a gift/my mama said there’s much weight you will lift”), not much more comes to mind when looking at that face than sex. 

Don Draper – A handsome as hell, emotionally remote, psychologically tortured cad who can’t keep it in his pants?  What a dreamboat!  I refuse to read articles about or watch interviews of Jon Hamm, the actor who plays him, because I have a feeling he’s actually a likeable and even shy person.  I prefer scumbags like Draper.

Freddie Ljungberg – He’s a Swedish football player.  He did ads for Calvin Klein underwear.  If there’s any confusion as to why he’s the sexiest man alive, please refer to the southern portion of the aforementioned ad.

What we read while trying to get into Justin Bieber’s Twitter account….

• Here’s an interview with Jonathan Safran Foer, normally a great fiction writer, whose new book Eating Animals tries to get people to stop eating meat. Hasn’t he read Josh? In 100 years, this whole discussion will be moot.

• Last week, we linked to Steven Pinker’s negative review of Malcolm Gladwell’s What the Dog Saw, a collection of essays. This week, in the interest of equal time, here’s Gladwell’s three-part response–with all parts brief and in large print. Part I on Pinker, Part II on Quarterbacks, and Part III on Eigenvalues.

• It hasn’t even been a week since John S pointed out the double standard applied to Miley Cyrus. Well, in that time she’s been criticized for the death of her bus driver and for not liking Twilight. What a bitch!

• For all our Buffalo readers, why Perry Fewell isn’t the answer–and it has more to do with the sport than the team.

• This post, as are all others from NPI and the rest of worldwide blogs, is brought to you from our collective mothers’ basements.

• For the man who has everything this holiday season… DON DRAPER THE DOLL!

• The BCS has a Twitter; run amok.

• The BCS Twitter is citing some of the dumbest propaganda I’ve ever read; run amok.

Man am I glad that sales pitches are totally ineffective. By no means is this breaking news but I think that most people under-think what’s behind this.  Many an old school salesman will lament about how relationships used to matter and now it’s all about the convenience and the bottom line.

That seems like a BS excuse to me. Relationships matter more than ever- it’s just how you build them that has changed.  It used to be that business was conducted face to face and over the phone when necessary. Before, Don Draper-like looks and charisma was necessary to be heard, no more.

Information is virtually instant, thus the ability to fact-check and comparison shop means that thinly veiled sales pitches can be easily blown apart.  Now relationships are built on: ideas, integrity and transparency.

• Familiarize yourself with your customer’s industry, organization, role and their needs. The best way to do this is to ask them.
• Sell yourself, not your product: describe your products exactly as you would to a family member you’ve known for a long time.
• Be straightforward about your expectations of them and acknowledge what your product doesn’t do

Inform your customer and let them make an informed decision. Push information and you push the customer away.

DRAPER. En un capítulo de la primera temporada de “Mad Men”, Don Draper detiene su coche ante las vías de un tren. Horas antes, su mujer le ha pedido que vaya a la pastelería a recoger la tarta de cumpleaños de su hija. Abrumado ante el puzzle de perfección que es su vida y frente al rugido del tren, su mirada delata un profundo deseo de ser arrollado. Secuencias más tarde, el publicista vuelve al hogar, apaciguando a una alterada esposa y comprando el cariño de la hija con un enorme perro San Bernardo. Todo vuelve a la normalidad.

SEDUCTOR.  “Mad men” me tiene enganchada. Los escotes cónicos de las secretarias, los omnipresentes cigarrillos, su colorido estridente: todo destila un regusto vintage, que lo aleja de nuestra higiénica y esbelta corrección política. Seguramente en esta rebeldía estética radica uno de sus éxitos, pero lo que más me seduce de esta serie es precisamente que Don Draper es un hombre de hoy en día.

TRIUNFADOR. Este publicista triunfador, que oscila de la ternura hacia su familia al desprecio más devastador, que siente remordimientos por vender aire aunque no deje que nadie le arrebate el puesto de directivo estrella, que busca en la infidelidad la adrenalina para seguir adelante: en este señor, estamos tú y yo. Y es que la sociedad del bienestar nos ha enseñado que aunque podamos tenerlo todo, nunca será suficiente. ¿Quién dijo que el gran consumo nos haría felices? Sí, fueron ellos: los anuncios de los 50.

ESTRELLA. Probablemente el existencialismo burgués que respira “Mad Men” esté tan cerca de nosotros porque fueron los barros de los 50 los que trajeron estos lodos. El fordismo hizo del gran consumo el refugio frente a las penurias del pasado y así fuimos aprendiendo que el confort lo dictaminaban la cilindrada de nuestro coche, la altura de nuestro césped o las pulgadas de nuestros televisores. La ansiedad consumista es tan filosófica como cualquier otra y nos enseña que nunca tendremos bastante. Adiós Hambre, bienvenida Insatisfacción.

DON. Pero antes de Draper hubo otros y si tengo que elegir, me quedo con el bello americano Lester Burnham, abandonado a una segunda juventud de hamburguesas y marihuana en la piel de Kevin Spacey. Antes de morir violentamente en una zona residencial, Lester se reconciliará con su vida. Ya os contaré si Don Draper hace lo mismo con la suya. Mientras tanto, ya sabéis: sed felices.

It is truly a strange sensation, I’ll give you that. Falling asleep last night was both nerve-racking and comforting. I know the next chapter in my professional career is upon me, but navigating a rocky (to put it lightly) market and finding that job is a monumental task.

Zach Galifianakis in HBO's Bored to Death

Many in my position let themselves go. Maybe they stop eating healthy, maybe they give up on their morning jogs, and maybe – just maybe, they go a la Zach Galifianakis and don’t shave for quite some time. I’m taking the opposite approach to my job search. On day one of unemployment, I’m getting a haircut.

Just because I’ll be peering into a computer screen for a majority of my day with minimal human interaction, I still believe that I am at my best when I feel my best. They say to dress for the job you want, so if I want to be the next Don Draper (more about the finale later), I better start dressing like it (and maybe pick up smoking while I’m at it.)

So those on the line with me, let’s get a makeover and start this day off right. Even if you’re by yourself, make your dog proud and look nice while you pound that pavement. You never know when you’ll get that call.

Ο 3ος κύκλος του Mad Men τελείωσε και ο Don Draper μέσα στην απόλυτη πτώση του βρίσκει τη δύναμη να γεννήσει την ιδέα που θα τον αναστήσει. Εκπληκτικό φινάλε για τον καλύτερο κύκλο της αγαπημένης μου σειράς. Προσπαθώ να πείσω τους συναδέλφους της διαφήμισης να πάρουν τη σειρά στα σοβαρά, αλλά το Lost έχει κάνει μεγαλύτερη ζημιά απ’ότι του αξίζει. Ναι δηλώνω ένοχος ότι τα βράδυα ονειρεύομαι ότι είμαι ο Don Draper με τα φανταστικά κοστούμια, τις τέλεις ιδέες και το απίστευτα cool ύφος του. Και όταν ξυπνάω είμαι ο ίδιος μίζερος ανθρωπάκος που προσπαθεί να ζήσει κάτι πέρα από την άθλια πραγματικότητα. That’s so sad.

Is there any other television series on at the moment that has better fashion, style and design than Mad Men? I think not.

That is of course, if you’re not distracted by the constant allure of cigarette smoke, clinking glasses and impeccably perfect hair (thank you Brylcreem).

The show, for those who haven’t seen, is, in a word, spectacular. The writing and acting are fantastic. Season one starts out kind of slow, I think, but somewhere along the line it hooks you in like a great ad.

If you haven’t seen it, I definitely recommend it.

An interesting perspective on a very entertaining show.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

So, my dear friend Jean and I, at a lovely dinner at the Olive Garden, while slurping up yummy parmesan noodles and finishing off dinner with a super deluxe decadant chocolate mousse cake, started talking about the season finale of Mad Men. And of course, when you’re talking about Mad Men, a huge focal point of the conversation is always gonna be, who sucks worse? Don or Betty?

don likes to tap a lot of different ass

princess for life!!!!

At first I was actually defending her, and I feel that as a woman perhaps, ignoring the extreme hotness of Don and how we wish we were Betty just so we could get him in bed, we all sympathize, some of us even empathize with her situation. We think, God, I feel so sorry for her, I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes. I mean, here she is, stuck with three kids, and when she actually has the guts to confront Don about his infidelity, she finds out she is pregnant and has to stay with him. And Don isn’t just having one affair, he is sleeping with women ALL over New York. And yes, I am aware that Betty committed adultery also, but not until she found out who Don was, and in any sense, her one indiscretion does not compare to Don’s likely hundreds.

But then I suppose the question is, is Betty really trapped in an unhappy marriage? Or was it her choice? Does her denial of Don’s numerous betrayals make her less sympathetic? Or more precisely, did Betty only become “unhappy” in her relationship when Don’s infidelity became apparent to others?

I myself, usually have a bias against women in denial. Most likely because I have been the other woman. (Sorry it is kind of fun. Oooops?) Also, if there are signs of infidelity, it could even be catching my boyfriend in a lie, I’m out. People say that ignorance is bliss, but the idea of being in a relationship, knowing that my lover is cheating on me (yet demanding that I stay faithful and I remain so), and that everyone is laughing at me behind my back is something that I cannot stomach. I have weird philosophies about relationships, but I feel like, if you are gonna be in a marriage, and you wanna fuck around, at least let your partner fuck around too, otherwise it is just selfish. So yeah the fact the Betty didn’t do anything about Don’s numerous affairs made me dislike her. And a woman knows when she’s being cheated on when she’s being cheated on the way Don cheated on her. Beside the obvious signs, not coming home, weird phone calls, inaccurate stories, there is the different sex style which Betty describes to her therapist as an indication of infidelity.

And I am sure a lot of you are thinking, well actually, she did confront Don about his adultery. However, let’s analyze the events surrounding that situation. Betty’s neighbor’s husband had an affair and Betty’s first reaction was to tell her friend not to say anything about it. In turn this was her philosophy about her marriage. We see her having anxiety attacks in the beginning of the first season, and we all attributed these attacks as a reaction to Don’s absence. But when I think about the instance in which she did confront him about his affair, it seems she did so for all the wrong reasons.

In “The Comedian” When Betty finally confronts Don, it is instigated by Jimmy Barrett. He tells her that Don and his wife have been having sex. And she knows that it is true. She probably knew it was true for a long time. But instead of asking him, what are you talking about, how do you know this, how long has this been going on, are you serious? She tells him to stop talking about it and to go away. And it is really interesting if we parallel this to when Sterling tells Don about Betty and Henry’s relationship/affair. Even though it is a masculine reaction, Don is at least inquisitive about the details of the affair and if it was based on fact. Betty seems more concerned with the fact that someone knows about it, and may shatter the image of her picture-perfect marriage. And the worst insult to Betty was that the gossip came from a comedian. Nobody likes to be laughed at, but Betty really doesn’t like it. Recall when she got pissed off at Don for not telling her that at the dinner party he predicted she would buy Heineken.

I feel as if she is more preoccupied with the exposure of her flawed image to others. This is ironic for two reasons. 1. She used to be a model, which is a business built on making things prettier than they seem, as it is in advertising. 2. The fear of her flawed image being visible to others is why she is unsympathetic to Don’s painful life story.

When you see an alpha-male like Don cry, you pay attention. I have only seen my father cry three times in my life, and they were at funerals. And likewise, this was Don’s time to mourn. It was the first time he could really be himself, reclaim his own name, mourn his brother who committed suicide, and really mourn the death of his former self. And Betty….well….. Betty listened to the story but she didn’t really care. I mean, she gave him the “there there” pat. As Jean pointed out during dessert — that chocolate really got us going “Betty left Don because he no longer was the picture perfect, upper class man who came from old money that she thought she married.” – Jean/Ledefile

wait, come again, you used to be...POOR???!!!! ICK!!!!!

Don-  “I gave you everything you wanted – EVERYTHING! And you loved it! And now I’m not good enough for some spoiled main line brat?!”

Betty- “That’s RIGHT!”

It is also interesting to note that when she broke into Don’s hidden box and found out he was married, she was more concerned with the deed than the divorce. Most women would be wondering are my children illegitimate, and Betty is jealous that Don bought his ex-wife a house and she didn’t have one of her own yet. She also asks her lawyer if what Don did, (taking on a different identity) is “something he could go to jail for.” Of course she doesn’t want to be associated with that. She ain’t gonna be visiting Don in prison. But I was even thinking, it really is a good thing that Don decided not to fight her, cuz I bet she would have blackmailed him with that information, the same way Pete did, if she didn’t have her “life raft,” aka Henry.

But then again Betty is the trophy wife. She is beautiful, and a nice person, but also self-centered and uninteresting. She doesn’t have very many complex thoughts. And in analyzing the women Don had affairs with, it seems he was using them to fill Betty’s non-stimulating void. The Jewess, Rachel Menkin was loyal, exotic, a feminist, and a true business woman. Midge was not very attractive but had a passion for music,culture art, and drugs and gave Don an escape from his monotonous life.  The comedian’s wife Bobbie Barrett was overtly masculine and business-savvy.  And although the scene near the restaurant bathroom could be interpreted in many ways, he may have penetrated her in the restaurant (when he put his hand up her dress) to establish himself as the more dominant male/the Phallus. Bobbie stops demanding extra money for her husband’s apology after that. The schoolteacher was very philosophical and her job itself demands the ability to be selfless, caring, and giving to children. Betty had none of the qualities these women possessed. I mean how many times, are we gonna have to hear Betty say, “GO PLAY IN YOUR ROOM” to her children? And her apathy toward her daughter mourning the grandfather? Atrocious. And clearly, Sally loves her father more.

So what else should Don expect? He married her for image alone, so why should he be so pissed when she wants to leave him when he presented a false image to her, and not just his identity, but the adultery as well. He doesn’t even stop after she catches him.

Well, I feel as if some characters can be redeemed if they have the ability to grow and change. And in their situation, I feel that they had already established love as possession because Betty was the trophy wife, and Betty by virtue of marriage possessed Don’s material assets. Clearly they have experienced love as an illusion as I have described in the aforementioned reasons. Yet, love between Don and Betty could not exist outside of illusion. When Don and Betty got into fights, usually to end the fight, instead of addressing the problem at hand Don would ask, “What do you want me to say?” This clearly shows that Don is aware that Betty doesn’t really want the truth, she wants his words to be a reflection of what she innately wants. However, I feel as if Don was ready to take the next step in exposing his true character, and Betty even commented on the fact that “he wouldn’t have left the box in the house unless he wanted her to find it.” Clearly, Betty is the one who is incapable of loving a person who is not a projected reflection of hew own desires. And in sum, this is why she runs into the arms of a politician, a man whose profession yet again revolves around misrepresentation.

So….I still think Betty sucks. I mean she has children, a newborn, and we see her leaving her two kids behind and flying off to Reno with a man she hardly knows. She would rather ditch the people she loves than be associated with a scandal. Not only is this exemplified by her leaving Don, but when one of her married friends admits to her that she slept with the engaged horseback rider, Betty dismisses her good friend from her life. She shows that she is oblivious to the plight of others when she says “it really isn’t the right time for Civil Rights” in front of her hardworking black maid. And the entire first season focuses on her being self-indulgent in the therapist’s office. And I am in no way saying therapy is self-indulgent, some people need it, but the way in which those specific scenes are shot, Betty lying on a chaise, not talking about anything important when she knows what the problem is (the affair) while wasting Don’s money on psychiatric help that she doesn’t need. The visits stopped after the first season. I mean it’s just sickening. So, yeah, Betty sucks.

Thoughts?

you know you want it...

P.S. I am really excited for Season 2.  Jean and I were discussing the fabulousness of the possible Don-Joan-Sterling triangle. And while the love triangle might be a cliche move…it would be HOT! Tension between Don and Sterling, Joan and Don, Joan and Sterling, Joan and her fiance, Sterling and his new wife. It would be a lot more nuanced than the tired, using a woman as an outlet for male aggression. I mean you know something is gonna happen in that tiny ass hotel room! Fingers crossed.

Mad Men is one of the hottest shows on television right now. AMC has just renewed it for a fourth season, which is great news to viewers who can’t get enough. But why exactly can’t we get enough of it? Why is it one of the hottest shows on television right now?

For anyone who has actually watched it, it’s safe to say that it’s not exactly a “feel good” type of show. It’s neither uplifting or hopeful. It’s actually quite the opposite. There is not a single character that we can feel sorry for. At first, maybe we feel sorry for Don Draper’s wife, Betty, as Don cheats on her. But then, sure enough though, Betty goes along and has an affair of her own.

So why again are we watching a show full of uninspiring characters with low morals? Is it because we feel as though we can relate to these characters? Have we, as a whole, in today’s society let our morals get this low? Maybe the reason this show is such a hit, is because we can all find a character to identify with. These are real characters, who make real mistakes.

Perhaps, in some twisted way, we find hope and salvation in this show. Think about it. The show is set in the 1960’s, when women were treated poorly and had to fight for what they had. The show deals with a lot of real issues; the characters are arrogant, sexist and homophobic. Yet, living in today’s society, we know that as a whole, we’ve come a long way from then. Perhaps some viewers see this show as inspiring; perhaps they believe that since we’ve come this far from the 60’s, as time goes on, we will make even more progress. The current state of the economy, in terms of politics, and all the other horribly deep issues, is a mess. Mad Men may show, or provide some viewers with hope that in a few years, maybe a decade, things will improve, and progress, as they have since the 60’s.

When looking at today’s society, and culture, Mad Men also serves as a sense of escapism in the sense that the aesthetic of the show (very accurately portrayed) is very luxurious. We’re surrounded by an economy nose-diving down, and completely grunge. The current state of the economy is quite frankly, depressing. When we sit down for that one hour though, to watch Mad Men, we can forget all that, with their impeccably tailored suits and beautiful mahogony offices.

In terms of fashion, Mad Men serves as a great escape from the grungy dressed kids and ripped jeans that are parading around. Women dressed from head to toe, even if they’re just staying home to look after the children, is so refreshing. The show is constantly being praised for its historical accuracy and aesthetic. Anyone sick of today’s aesthetic would, without a doubt, love to tune into Mad Men for this reason alone.

Lastly, Mad Men is helping bring back the curves of Hollywood. We all seem done with, and bored of the stick figure models, and are just waiting for the curves to return. With this show being so historically accurate, they’ve casted all their females as thick heffalumps girls – a relatively minor point, but important nonetheless. With so many models dying from anorexia and what not, having fuller figured women on television is exactly what is needed today. The fashion industry took note and have slowly begun to cast fuller models, and it’s perfect timing for television to do the same.

Love it or hate it, Mad Men is a hit phenomenon that’s not going away anytime soon.

Betty Draper, wife of Don Draper and mother of three, is a forceful, flirtatious, attractive and cute woman. Even though she might not be too content with her situation as a housewife of a womanizing husband her style feminine, preppy and fun style tells otherwise.

Rarely you will catch this woman in dark somber colors, as most of what she owns is dresses or full skirts paired with blouses and cardigans in light, fun colors and often printed. Her waist is often emphasized with a skinny belt and although her hemlines stay just below the knee she has more fun with flirty necklines and roomier sleeves on the coats. Possibly her way of grabbing a little bit of attention rather than just being the trophy wife next to the husband. Her attention to details like many women of the sixties is amazing, never leaving the house without always adding a purse, gloves, a hats or jewelry to complete her outfit.

She is such a picture perfect image, no strand on her head is out of place, it is almost disturbing. Given I hav not seen the Mad Men series, however, a person as seemingly exemplary as Betty Draper many a times has something to hide behind their lovely facade. Everyone has their dark secrets.

My name is Jonathan Rockferry, but they call me “Johnny Rockstar” because I kick ass at my job and with the ladies. I’m an ad executive working my way up the Sterling Cooper ladder. Joan Holloway is my personal secretary, because I always get the best. I have tact when it comes to the ladies of the office, which is more than I can say for most of the baffoons here. The more charm and wit I use, the easier it is to get what I want. I’m a Lucky Strikes man, and I drink six glasses of whiskey before 5pm. I scare the shit out of Don Draper.

Now that Mad Men has blown up, ground down, flaked out, and generally QUIT for the season, I was so pleased that last night — Sunday, the hallowed night of Mad Men for weeks gone by — the Patriots were on. It seemed to ease the pain a bit — MadMen, pumped up on testosterone, overpaid, always game for a fight (am I talking about the show or professional football?). I could transition into a brief separation from my boyfriend, the reviled Don Draper, with the New England Boys.

October boyfriend

Not a Bill Belichick fan — maybe it’s the GD sweatshirt that really bugs me — but redemption is at hand. Bill Belichick is my Don Draper substitute. Hated by millions on Monday morning — beloved by me.

November boyfriend

I’m not loving him just because you hate him, as appealing as that is to me. I am loving him because he took an incredible gamble, fell flat on his face and became the water cooler fodder this AM. Yes, I’ve received the phonecalls, the status updates, the shaking heads — and if BB had pulled it off, he would be the hero du jour. But, he’s not, so instead of turnig to passionate discussions about health care or Afganistan or Mike Capuano, we can wax angry at BB. So give the guy a break — he’s certainly made it interesting for those of us with nothing more pressing to do this Monday morning. And now, I’m hooked for the season. . . .

There is no doubt that AMC’s drama series, Mad Men, is a hit show.  After watching it for the first time in class, I intantly became interested.  Now that I’ve got a glimps of it, I now have the urge to watch the previous seasons so that I can catch up. 

One might ask, ‘Why Mad Men?’, it’s such a slow, gloomy, somber, unenthusiastic, not really entertaining show.  At first glance or view, it does come off quiet somber.  But if you look deeper and read between the lines, it’s actually much more than that.  The show depicts what it was like to live back then in the 1960’s.  It was a time that lacked equality of the opposite sex.  Women were basically treated with if not little, no respect at all.  There seen as sex objects and door mats by men.

Men, Walk with Style from Metropolis

So we already have plenty of ladies shopping for shoes at our store, but we also have an amazing collection of Men’s shoes too.  We have a variety of looks from boots, lacers, Docs, but it’s all about the dress shoe today.  The following are some haute finds that won’t last long so stop in soon!

“The Don Draper” :: Madmen season is finished but keep it going w/ “The Draper” 100% original 1960 “Florshines” with just the right amount of pointy toe and wing tip to get all the girls loving you

“The Sweetness” ::  with a little bit of suger all is possible, put on this Italian style and you look like candy to all who are important

“Newwave Killers” :: Walk with style in these great kick ass mens shoes.

A Mad Men Season Three Podcast

November 14th, 2009

What’s really interesting about Mad Men’s third season is that, because of how strong the finale was, it makes criticizing the season as a whole somewhat difficult. It requires sort of forgetting about how great the finale was, and going back to consider just how everything came together. The finale, in some ways, rewrote some of our concerns about the season: we wanted more Sterling Cooper drama and we got more Sterling Cooper drama, and we complained about Joan’s marginalization and suddenly Joan was back front and centre.

So when I joined The House Next Door’s Luke De Smet and The A.V. Club/etc.’s Todd VanDerWerff for a special TV on the Internet/House Next Door Mad Men Season Three podcast, there was a definite sense that the strength of the finale has in some way coloured our opinions on the rest of the season. I’m not suggesting that the third season was bad, but rather that in our enjoyment of the finale (and a couple of other key episodes) we may have spent more time talking about what works than we did talking about what didn’t (although we do discuss some of the story elements that were perhaps underdeveloped). It’s a great conversation, discussing a number of key subjects and focusing on different areas of the show’s success, but there were a couple of more negative things I wanted to say about the season that almost didn’t fit into the podcast’s narrative thanks to how much goodwill the finale created for all of us.

As such, after the jump I’ll go into detail on the one major issue I have with the season that didn’t make it into the podcast, but do go have a listen before reading on.

One of the things that I saw online after the finale was the assertion that Conrad Hilton was a MacGuffin, which is something I find legitimately fascinating. If Conrad Hilton had remained a random partygoer at Roger and Jane’s party, then perhaps this would be a fair point. However, Conrad Hilton was so clearly defined as an individual that to claim he is a MacGuffin is to ignore his larger than life identity. Conrad Hilton was a self-made man, rising from nothing to create a huge empire, so in Don he saw someone not entirely unlike himself. That was clear from the start of their relationship, and was also at the heart of their conversation in the finale: Connie has been manipulating Don in an effort to test his character, to see if he is capable of standing up to the kinds of pressures he faced up to and whether he’ll be ready for something more important in his future. I thought the scene captured why Don, who’s always resisted images of the future due to his focus on maintaining his identity in the present and avoiding his past identity, would feel stymied by Hilton sending him flying across the world.

However, while I don’t believe that Hilton was a MacGuffin, I will argue that the storyline was significantly mishandled towards the end of the season. There was a point where Don was constantly being pulled out of bed by Hilton, and where it was keeping him from being home, which seemed like it was creating tension in his marriage. However, once Don decided that this was actually a brilliant cover for falling into bed with Sally’s former teacher, Suzanne Farrell. And at that point the two characters literally replace one another, with Suzanne serving as Don’s distraction from home and the show pretty much ignoring Hilton until that scene in the finale.

I have two issues with this, the first about the character of Suzanne herself, who is definitely more of a MacGuffin than Hilton is. I understand that there is something about the character which makes her appealing to Weiner, being a sort of flower child before her time and offering a more laid back mistress for Don as his humble upbringing rises to the surface. However, I never felt like she really evolved beyond being this sort of ephemeral being, never becoming anything close to a real character. A lot of people were wondering online whether she was legitimately crazy, which is less the result of subtle hints and more the result of a complete lack of hints leading the audience to presume something downright bizarre. I can fully understand why Don would find her attractive both physically and emotionally during this time, I want to make that extremely clear, but I don’t understand what it accomplished in terms of his character or in terms of the season’s story arcs. Don having a mistress makes sense for the story, but the character never developed into a significant-enough element of the story to justify the time we spent with her, especially considering that we abandoned Hilton in order to accomplish it.

And that’s my second issue with the storyline, the fact that it’s Hilton who ends up being important in the finale and Suzanne is never even mentioned. If the show’s goal is to keep Suzanne around for the fourth season, I feel as if we needed to see something of her in this finale to underscore her value to Don, even if the way he broke it off with her made sense as his past has been unraveled by Betty and he needs to try to save his marriage. The show dropped Hilton like a sack of potatoes to introduce her, and then dropped her like a sack of potatoes once she was no longer useful, to the point where both characters felt like they never really mattered as much as they could have to the season’s overall arcs. Betty’s Henry Francis was no better developed, sure, but he was never a replacement for another character, nor was he at any point as dominant as Hilton was to the storyline.

It’s the one question I’d be really curious to ask Weiner right now, in terms of whether there was any sort of rushing around with these characters that influenced their impact in any way. I know that Weiner has indicated that they were unsure of how important Hilton would be until they got Chelcie Ross in for the role and discovered how strong a presence he was, and perhaps that ended up convoluting that third quarter of the season and providing some narrative hiccups.

Cultural Observation

• Just to be also clear, I thought both Abigail Spencer and Chelcie Ross gave strong performances in the respective roles, so I think this was an issue of overall season organization rather than of any individual failure.

Reading Eye Weekly I came across this article about the disappearance of manliness. It appears to have been spawned by a film based on the exploits of a loutish sort of blogger named Tucker Max who freely admits that he is an irresponsible, mocking drunk whose sexual habits are a recipe for STIs. Writer Edward Keenan  points out that Tucker Max is a hero to a cadre of young men and that is a symptom of, “the slow, steady disappearance of manliness — and with it a popularly accepted, socially worthwhile role for men — in North American culture.”

Now being written in an alt-weekly, you know that this article is not going to be a simple pining for the “good old days” of yore. Keenan recognizes (rightly, in my opinion) that the old-time patriarchy had plenty wrong with it as well. I commend to you Mad Men or the UK version of Life on Mars if you start getting nostalgic for a time when women “knew their place” and so on. What happened though is that as women broke out their old roles confined to homemaking and child-rearing, men have sort of given up. Says Keenan:

“[M]en in increasing numbers have just decided to kind of drop out of the whole battle of the sexes thing and play videogames (or beer pong, or fantasy football, or Dungeons and Dragons, or just their iPods) instead. When women decided to stop taking orders from The Man, men decided to stop being The Man and focus on being The Dude. As women have realized that with great freedom comes even greater and more frustrating responsibility, men have increasingly realized that they can chase their bliss and reach self-actualization without owning up to any responsibilities at all.”

Keenan goes on to suggest that this isn’t because men have stopped being men, they’ve just continued to be men but in a more useless way:

“It’s not as if men have dropped many of the old annoying characteristics of manhood. They are as competitive as ever, they are as lustful as ever, they still shun emotionalism and embrace codes and statistics and structures. It’s just that all the socially redeeming things that used to accompany those easy-to-spot external characteristics — things like a sense of honour and a feeling of responsibility to something greater than oneself, be it family or society at large — have been shrugged off like so much paternalistic baggage.”

This is true in virtually every expression of 21st C. North American masculinity – video games along could be a case study: There’s competition, gratuitous cleavage, dispassionate killing, and of course any good first-person shooter game will break down the numbers after each round – how many kills with each type of weapon, how many head shots, accuracy and so on. Blogs, ahem, aren’t much better, WordPress, like any good blogging platform has all manner of statistics, many of which can be published to the actual home page of one’s blog so that one might boast about them.

It might be worth noting at this juncture that Keenan is careful to point out that these are of course tendencies and not universal truths, but that tendencies, like how men tend to be taller than women are not to be overlooked. There are of course slacker women and career-climbing men out there, but increasingly it seems like both of these are exceptional cases. Keenan has numbers: Women are more likely to attend university, more likely to graduate, and more likely to go into professional schools like law or medicine.

Keenan argues that we have our definitions wrong, that when we today speak of masculinity, we think of “shallow displays of toughness and vulgarity, of an obsession with balls (of various kinds) and breasts and booze and brawn” while earlier generations would have probably associated masculinity with responsibility to their families and communities. Moreover, one should not contrast masculinity and femininity: “Men haven’t avoided manliness to become more like women — if they had, we’d have no problem, really. They’ve avoided it to become more like children.”

Some Theses About All This:

• We cannot go back – even if we would want to. Young women – even many of those who I encounter in evangelical church settings often have solid careers that I do not see them forsaking for 1950s family roles. Moreover, there’s a reason I put Don Draper up at the top of this post – there was lots to dislike about the “good old days” and certainly lots of men were reprehensible cads. No nostalgia, please.
• Traditionally masculine values such as courage or responsibility have been subject to all kinds of abuse. My great-grandfather returned from Passchendaele physically (and likely psychologically) wounded – and for what? To protect the lands of Belgium’s monarchy? To stop Germany from threatening British naval hegemony? World War I was a complete waste of blood and treasure at the behest of incompetent upper class twits like Douglas Haig. Men were often just as exploited by the old patriarchy as women. If I had to choose, I’d rather my generation of men and our sons grow up as video gamers than as imperial cannon fodder.
• The recent past is not the whole history of gender relations: for most of human history most men and women worked side-by-side in predominantly agrarian societies. That is not to say that gender didn’t serve as a means for the division of labour, but it would have been incoherent to say that one sex “stayed home” and the other “went off to work.” Even with the advent of industrialization, many women worked in factories (mainly in textiles). As the nature of work continues to change it is anachronistic to suggest that there are fixed gender roles regarding work. Who does what work is always up for negotiation.
• Men dropping out and women picking up the slack goes a long way in explaining the so-called happiness gap. I am referring to the fact that since the 1960s women have reported being less and less happy with their lives while men’s happiness has generally increased. Obviously if men are focused video games/bands/the internet while women work on their careers while still doing the bulk of the household chores/child-rearing it’s no secret who will, in the short term at least, be happier.
• The cohort of boys born in the late ’70s and onward and who had grown up in North America probably had, on average, the best material childhood and adolescence in human history. We enjoyed the best toys, games, and gadgets ever. Boys playing with the tin or wooden toys of yesteryear had mediocre simulations of real trucks or real soldiers or whatever. We had Nintendo, we had toy cars that became robots, we had, in short, playthings that were better than “real life.” It’s no wonder we don’t like the idea of growing up, it’s a downgrade from childhood. Girls meanwhile were still being exposed to the intense pressure to be physically attractive while simultaneously being expected to run for student council, play sports, and get into a good university. For girls growing up didn’t remove those pressures, but at least it afforded them a sense of autonomy.
• If men are afraid to compete with women when women are on an equal footing, well, it should be obvious which is the weaker sex. Men were not defeated or victimized by feminism, rather we appear to have unilaterally surrendered – you can have the perfect kids and the great career – but we just unlocked the bonus level on this game. Is it any wonder, given the way we behave, that women want daughters more than sons? While some cultural conservatives want to depict men and boys as victims of feminists or something, my generation – men now in their 20s and 30s – did this to ourselves.