The American Media Sucks

As a rule, the American media generally does not allow the inconveniences of reality to get in the way of a good story. Nor is it reluctant to make or report, with the most serious of faces, claims so ridiculous that they would incite side-splitting laughter in those individuals inclined toward rationality and logic. But in the United States the number of people who can muster a good chuckle at the reporting of the American media is scant. The rest have allowed themselves to be taken in by the constant farrago of political treacheries, religious duperies, cultural ribaldries, and idiotic punditries which bombard their unsuspecting minds under the guise of news and information.

The extent to which the media allows public debate to be manipulated by those in the government would strain the credulity of any person unacquainted with the American press. No claim, no matter how ludicrous, absurd, or downright stupid, is beyond receiving a legitimate portrayal if it is made by a high enough ranking American official. Thus, when former President Bush would say that the rather weak philosophical argument of “intelligent design” should be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in the nation’s science classes, the American media dutifully reported his imbecilic idea as if it were a perfectly valid suggestion. I am thankful he never asserted that the Earth is at the center of the solar system. Surely the next day’s headlines would have read: “Opinion Divided on Heliocentricity of Solar System.” In the media’s defense, a large segment of the population agrees with him on “intelligent design,” and so it stoops to the level of many of its consumers, which of course, makes good business practice.

There is a common belief held by many conservatives and even some sheepish liberals, that the American media exudes a left-wing bias, and has for some time. But if this is correct, the bias has not rubbed off on the American people. A Republican has won five of the last eight presidential elections. With the 1994 midterm elections, Republicans took control of the House for the next twelve years. The Senate followed in 2002. In addition, the Supreme Court presently has a conservative majority. If the media is in fact and in general a left-wing institution, it has been so incompetent in attempting to advance its agenda, it is a wonder why conservatives feel compelled to complain about it at all. As for the Democratic victories in the 2006 and 2008 elections, those happened because of the sheer ineptitude and craziness exhibited by the Republicans, who thought they could keep fucking most Americans in the ass without eventually getting shit on.

-Max

Science and Christianity Compatible? Nay

In the forum of American public discussion there is no shortage of diplomats seeking to reconcile, or at least bridge the gap between, disparate views. Their aim is to tone down what is often a heated and nasty national dialogue on a particular matter and bring it to a more civil level of discussion. Often this involves claiming that in regards to issue “x,” opinions “y” and “z,” though seemingly contrary, are on some level compatible or complementary. The recent flap over Darwinian evolution and the proposed teaching of “intelligent design” in some public schools provides us with a good example. Debate has been fierce, and so inevitably there has come forth a slew of would-be mediators who have taken this issue and expanded its context. Not content with merely trying to reconcile evolution with intelligent design, these self-appointed arbitrators have sought to show that Christianity and science are actually “compatible.” Pardon me while I allow myself a sardonic chuckle.

As I understand it, most Christian sects base themselves entirely on how they interpret the Bible. The Bible, as anyone knows, is a tome of received “truths” which is, at bottom, a collection of incredible claims and unspeakable brutalities. Despite Christianity’s alleged compatibility with science, in the Bible you will not find any formulae, any repeatable experiments per the scientific method, not one algorithm, and no dialogue which could remotely be said to contain a chain of reasoning about the natural world which amounts to a testable hypothesis. Yahweh’s existence is merely taken for granted from the outset in Genesis; it is not explained how He came to be or on what basis we ought to believe He exists other than that we are simply to take the book’s word for it. Jesus Christ, the Holy Savior, is to be understood as the religion’s Messiah, that “He died for our sins,” whatever that could possibly mean. The New Testament is full of the wonders performed by this “Son of God,” seemingly in defiance of natural laws. Turning water into wine. Healing a beggar’s blindness. Raising Lazarus from the dead. How are we expected to believe that Jesus actually did these things? Blind faith. Simply, because the Bible says so.

Belief in God and Christ as Savior are two very necessary prerequisites for entry into the club of Christianity. Yet there is no scientific basis for believing of either of these as they are described by the Bible. Christian theologians of yore—most notably Aquinas, Anselm and later Paley—attempted to prove the existence of God through purely philosophical means. Though these men certainly believed in the validity of their arguments, I doubt they would grant that God could be proved scientifically along the lines of the scientific method.

Recall that the scientific method has four main steps: 1) Observation of a phenomenon; 2) Formulation of a hypothesis about that phenomenon, i.e., a causal or mathematical relation; 3) Use of the hypothesis to make a prediction; 4) Testing of the hypothesis by appropriate experimentation. It should also be added that steps 3 and 4 ought to be repeated until there exist no discrepancies between hypothesis and conclusions derived from experimentation. In addition, all experiment-related details should be recorded so that the work may be replicated.

Now when it comes to the matters of the Bible, the good book has taken the liberty in many cases to complete steps 1 and 2 for the reader. The phenomenon? The creation of the universe as described by the Bible's omniscient narrator. The hypothesis? Yahweh created it. We will skip 3 since it doesn't clearly have an application here. Step 4? How would one even propose to go about this? The existence of the God of the Christian Bible cannot be verified scientifically. And when a scientific explanation for God Himself cannot even be got, how are the claims that He created the universe, that He sent Jesus Christ to Earth, that He is all-powerful, etc., to be verified? The task is impossible because of the sheer fantastic nature of these claims.

On occasion, a dimwitted Christian who has been told that it is impossible to prove the existence of God will retort, “Well, you can't disprove His existence either,” as a big smile grows across his face after having played his pathetic and end-all “gotcha” card. Yes, it is true. I, nor anybody else could disprove the existence of what the Christian generally means by “God.” Nor could anybody disprove that there exists—over in the next galaxy—a small asteroid shaped exactly like the Taj Mahal. The truth is, I don't know if there is such an asteroid over in the next galaxy; but if I were in fact to claim this is the case, then the burden of proof surely and squarely rests on my shoulders to prove it, and it is not up to you to disprove it. Generally speaking, when an allegation is made—the verification of which is not readily apparent—it is the responsibility of the alleger to prove his claim correct, or at the very least, plausible.

Given the nature of both Christianity and of scientific inquiry, it is clear that the alleged compatibility of the two is something which remains to be seen. However, this is one burden proof that won’t be met any time soon.

-Max

The Matrix may Have a Website

Stereotypical conspiracy nut and hentai enthusiast

If you have ever chatted with someone you thought was bat-shit crazy, then you have likely heard some interesting 'conspiracy theories’ from such individuals. Many people that are often deemed insane often hold beliefs and engage in behaviors that serve as the butt of others jokes, perhaps the most common of which is a preoccupation with falling victim to government and/or alien mind-control. The good people at Educate-yourself.org, however, take this mind-control shit quite seriously. They also promote their beliefs regarding many other equally bizarre conspiracy theories. The most interesting feature of this site is the abundance of ‘evidence’ the authors cite in support of their often wild claims. This site may be nothing more than the premier hub for psychotic individuals to congregate and collude in maintaining their delusional beliefs. The information contained therein, however, could also represent legitimate knowledge that most of us 'normals' have no clue about. You be the judge.

In order to promote my new-found enjoyment of this website, I figured I would put together a short list of five of my favorite particularly bizarre theories found on the site. Please comment on anything related to this material, or the material found at educate-yourself.org. I am hoping to get an interesting conversation going with this one.

Top 5 Wildly Amusing Conspiracy Theories

1. Life threatening diseases (e.g., cancer, heart disease, etc.) can be cured by Urine Therapy, a procedure where the patient is put on a diet which consists solely of consuming his/her own urine. That means no food or water is ingested during this time (with the exception of urine of course), a process that can last from a few days up to about a month. The prescribed urine dosage suggests drinking it all down to the last drop each time you go. If you do not deviate from this strict regiment you can expect your illness to be cured in a short time. Just make sure to catch every last drop!

2. All over the country the government is continuously erecting ELF, or microwave transmission towers that serve the purpose of exerting mind-control on the unsuspecting populace. We are led to believe that these mind-control devices are really cell phone towers, when instead, they are really emitting a special wave frequency that essentially turns us all into automatons, forcing us to do the bidding of the powers that be. I suspect OJ was under mind-control when he killed Nicole. Nordberg never would have done something so heinous.

3. NASA is currently planning the most intense light show performance humanity has ever seen, which is shaping up to be nothing short of apocalyptic! In short, their project, “Blue Stream," is an elaborate plan to convert the world into believers in a particular brand of ‘new age’ religion. Fabricated advances in scientific discoveries and strategically executed natural disasters will both help achieve this goal in due time. The light show will be the culmination of this project, a time when all of humanity drops to their knees and looks up to the heavens in awe as holographic images depicting various religious prophecies flash across the sky. Next, the new messiah, who will be named Matraia, will appear and speak to everyone on Earth in a booming God-like voice, instantly collecting an entire human population of bewildered converts. This is of course the final goal that the New World Order or Illuminati peeps have been planning for years.

4. Noam Chomsky is not simply a sharp critic of American foreign policy, but is also well versed in defending predominantly ‘liberal issues.’ Unfortunately, his whole enterprise is part of an elaborate scheme to keep certain important issues classified. By exposing ‘just bad enough’ problems with our governmental policies, Chomsky effectively keeps a lid on the larger conspiracies, effectively preventing them from entering the public discourse. In this way, he is considered by some to be the Illuminati’s greatest asset, and he willingly plays this role.

5. A special device called the “Succor Punch” is an effective tool that can prevent one from exposure to government mind-control microwaves, and apparently, it only consists of a small quartz crystal and 9-volt battery. I suggest you all fire one of these up soon or prepare to face the consequences!

Feel free to let me know what your favorite topic is.

~Wolf

Maine topless coffee shop is arson victim, Justice must be swift and merciless

From the Boston Globe:

A topless coffee shop that opened in [Vassalboro] Maine four months ago amid national notoriety was destroyed by arson early yesterday, the state fire marshal's office ruled.

Evidence found among the rubble at the Grand View Coffee Shop, a former motel just north of Augusta, indicated that the 1 a.m. blaze had been set shortly after its owner appeared before the Vassalboro Planning Board to discuss extending the shop's hours and allowing topless waitresses to dance around the restaurant.

A New England mainstay for nearly four months, the Grand View Topless Coffee Shop has become the latest high-profile victim of America's morality Gestapo. While the details are still fuzzy, we pretty much know the owner didn’t set the fire to collect the insurance money because unfortunately he had no insurance. We also pretty much know that this wasn’t the act of some bored-to-shit Maine teenagers because while vandalism may be an effective remedy for ennui, in this case the cure would be worse than the disease. What All-American mischievous kids are going to burn down a topless coffee shop? No, this heinous act was almost certainly perpetrated by a sexually repressed “adult” who is uncomfortable with his or her own body. Indeed, the subject of sexuality frequently brings out the irrational in many, and if you look deep enough you will see that an unabated jealousy often feeds the neurosis.

As such, this was not just a violent act against a lone business. It was an attack on an idea—the idea that there is nothing about topless women that should prevent them from serving quality coffee and donuts. It is frightening to know that there are people who are so disturbed by the thought of the human body that they would seek to destroy those who do not share their culturally retarded viewpoint. In yesterday’s post I alluded to the puritanical nature of the American attitude toward sex, and even in liberal New England that nature has manifested itself all too clearly.

Although officials are still gathering evidence, I think it’s safe to assume that the arsonist is most likely a practitioner of Christianity, although the other major religions are just as capable of producing such nuts. Some may think it premature to blame a member of the faithful for this arson, but I say it’s as close to a mortal lock as you can get. Only the perverse attitude of a Christian (or an adherent of some other major faith) toward human sexuality can explain what happened in Vassalboro yesterday. It does not matter if the troglodyte who set the fire was specifically trying to score one for God and Decency or not; for in any case, he or she is a product of a backward culture shaped by the twisted tenets of the Christian religion.

I am not saying that America should become a giant nudist colony. Indeed, this country’s population is far too obese and in many cases too ugly to attempt such a brave enterprise. But to view the human body as something that is inherently pornographic, as this country does, is to surrender to the Biblical dogma that one must be ashamed of the body. The allegory of the Fall of Man is instructive on this point. Only after Adam and Even eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil do they realize they are nude. And what do they do then? They fashion some fig leaves into crotch guards and hide from the malevolent Yahweh when he calls out to them:

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

(Gen. 3: 9-12)

Because they have ingested the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve now “know” that nudity is an evil. And why is it an evil? Genesis doesn’t say. The delusional author of this text probably just assumed we would know because he figured that we’d share his dementia and regard nudity as bad. I'm sorry, but this stinks to high heaven with the stench of man’s prejudices and irrationalities, and so does the rest of the Good Book.

While many Americans admit that the Bible is not to be taken literally, far too many still regard this horrific tome as being ethically valuable in a metaphoric sense. I could not disagree more. Front to back, the Bible is one of the craziest, most irrational, genocidal, and dangerous books ever written—so much so that it took many writers over hundreds of years to cook up this nightmarish volume which has been responsible for more deaths than we could possibly count.

And so, it does not surprise me in the least that in a culture where the Bible is blindly revered, a coffee shop whose waitresses (and waiters) are nude only from the waist up gets burned to the ground. Usually it is prepubescent children who cannot maturely handle matters concerning sexuality, but unfortunately sexuality is also a difficult subject for those who get their morals from 2,000 year-old fairy tales written by total ignoramuses.

-Max

Bill O'Reilly Is An Asshole

Asshole

Bill O’Reilly is an asshole. I’m sure you already knew that because it would be hard not to know. For the last thirteen years he has hosted the O’Reilly Factor on Faux News, where he likes to masquerade as a hard-hitting politically independent “journalist” with no agenda. But in reality, O’Reilly is a douchey, blowhard, partisan hack whose shallow and deceptive “reporting” gives a one-dimensional picture of how he sees things. In this twisted world as envisioned by O’Reilly’s warped mind, he is the righteous defender of “traditional American values” against the evil machinations of college professors, Hollywood actors, and George Soros.

If you don’t believe that Bill-O thinks of himself in this way, peruse his latest piece of shit book, Culture Warrior—that is if you can tolerate reading it for more than eight consecutive seconds. (Don’t buy it, though. You’ll only encourage him.) I barely could myself. From cover to cover, O’Reilly has stuffed Culture Warrior with self-promotion and self-pity, making himself out to be some sort of living martyr for the “traditional values” cause. He even refers to himself and those who share his views as—you guessed it—culture warriors, or traditional warriors. Now, I don’t get queasy very easily, but the book’s sheer lameness combined with its overall holier-than-thou attitude had my stomach doing cartwheels. Needless to say, when I browsed Culture Warrior in Barnes & Noble, I nearly vomited all over the “New Fiction” section, which is exactly where this steaming turd should have been.

One of O’Reilly’s favorite hobbies is railing against “far left” figures, which for him means anyone who regularly advances liberal positions. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—a very mainstream Democrat—is far left according to O’Reilly. So is venture capitalist extraordinaire George Soros. Objectively speaking, anything to the left of moderate is “far left” as far as O’Reilly is concerned, and so he ends up using this phrase as much as he uses the word “the.” As a result the words “far left” mean virtually nothing when they come from the bullshitting mouth of this professional prick.

A favorite tactic of O’Reilly’s is to demonize liberalism by repeating some offbeat lefty quote or argument advanced by a totally marginal public figure, and present it as proof positive that the country is in a liberal-guided moral decline. Take O’Reilly’s latest syndicated column written in his usual pedestrian prose. Right away he has a warning for us: “With America moving left politically and socially, it might be wise to take a moment and consider what might happen to kids if the drift continues.” Sounds serious, Bill. What, pray tell, would come of this continued leftward drift?

“The result is grim. Children in a dozen states have been charged with child pornography for ‘sexting’— sending nude pictures of themselves or others using cyberspace. A published study last December claims that 20 percent of American children had participated in some form of ‘sexting,’ including the extreme act of kids actually photographing themselves having sex.”

First off, can we all just admit that it is absurd to charge kids under child porn statutes because they sent racy photos of themselves or even others on cell phones? I’m not going to say there’s nothing wrong with some of what O’Reilly is describing, but it’s ridiculous that a kid could be convicted on child porn charges and have to register as a sex offender for the next thirty years. But O’Reilly isn’t interested in this angle of the story; for he has bigger and more liberal dragons to slay.

According to Bill-O, there has been insufficient negative reaction to the sexting phenomenon. In fact, he is appalled to find that somebody is actually saying that sexting is relatively innocuous. Who is it? Is it our Democratic president? The liberal Speaker of the House? Maybe it’s lefty Janeane Garofalo? Nope. It’s Peter Cumming.

I know what you’re thinking. Who the fuck is Peter Cumming? It’s a good question, and not one we’d easily be able to answer, but thankfully Bill-O saves us from this research project by telling us. Somehow, he got his ogre paws on some comments made by Cumming, who as it turns out is an obscure Canadian academic who delivered a paper at an equally obscure symposium. What did Professor Cumming say that got O’Reilly’s sagging Irish face all rosy red? Well, first the professor stated that sexting is no worse than old-fashioned spin the bottle, which actually makes sense because spin the bottle requires physical contact and can easily escalate to sexual activity. Anyway, Cumming also said,

“In Bush’s America, [sic] is there no middle ground between child pornography, sexual assault, abuse and exploitation on the one hand and children’s ‘abstinence’ on the other? When, in Western culture, did nudity become pornography, did children’s sexuality become perverse, and when and how and why have we forgotten children’s participatory rights as sexual beings?”

Now this is O’Reilly quoting Cumming, and if you watch Bill-O’s segment on the Non-factor about this, he repeats Cumming’s words, but they are slightly different. This suggests that O’Reilly has either intentionally tweaked Cumming’s words, or was too lazy to make sure he quoted him accurately. Either way, O’Reilly is aghast that other academics haven't come out against this professor, ostensibly demonstrating that academia lacks moral sense. But this would be to assume that people actually know who Cumming is, which they don't, professors included. In any case, O’Reilly proceeds to accuse him of espousing the philosophy of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), failing to recognize that the very sexting he’s been talking about is teen-to-teen interaction, and not teen-to-adult. But if you're O'Reilly, why stop to make this distinction when you can imply that some liberal academic is a pro child-fucking creep of the first order?

Unfortunately I was unable to find a copy of Cumming’s paper, so I don’t really know what his exact point was. I think it would be fair to say, however, that the professor was saying that Americans have a very puritanical attitude towards sex, and that nudity in and of itself ought not to be considered pornography. Consequently, the professor seems to be courageous enough to extend this principle to teenagers amongst one another. For O’Reilly to suggest that he’s in a league with NAMBLA based on these remarks is unbelievably dishonest. Because O’Reilly wants to convince people he’s right, he sets up a false dichotomy where people must choose between his position and NAMBLA’s. Given this choice, how could he not be right?

So that’s a neat trick from O’Reilly, but too bad his little anecdote about Cumming, which is the crux of his argument, is totally irrelevant as far as Bill-O’s thesis is concerned. Recall his opening statement: “With America moving left politically and socially, it might be wise to take a moment and consider what might happen to kids if the drift continues.” And how did he “consider” what might happen? By citing the remarks of, and lack of outcry to, Peter Cumming, an unknown, constituent-less, Canadian professor who teaches at a Canadian university, and who delivered those remarks at a symposium held in Canada. And so apparently this is somehow indicative of a moral decline in America, according to O’Reilly. Wow Bill, you really knocked it out of the park on this one. Shithead.

-Max

Mortuary’s license revoked for cutting corpse

From MSNBC.com:

COLUMBIA, S.C. - The South Carolina funeral board has revoked the licenses of a funeral home and its director for cutting the legs off a 6-foot-7 man so his corpse would fit in a casket.

State licensing spokesman Jim Knight says the Board of Funeral Service voted Monday to revoke the funeral director license of Michael Cave and the license of Cave Funeral Services of Allendale.

Knight says the board also fined Cave the maximum $500 and ordered him to pay $1,500 for the investigation.

The body of James Hines was exhumed earlier this year because of rumors that circulated after he died in 2004. His widow said investigators told her his legs had been cut off between the ankle and calf to fit the coffin.

Look folks, morticians are busy people. Corpses in. Corpses out. They can't accommodate the body measurements of every dead Tom, Dick, and Harry that gets dumped at their feet. Six-foot seven inch caskets don't just grow on trees. So sometimes the body has to accommodate them. Apparently these dolts in South Carolina just don't get it. I mean, who's the last dead person you knew of who needed his legs anyway?

-Max

Another Primeval Driver Crashes Into Something

From WCVB and thebostonchannel.com:

BOSTON -- A car being driven by a 93-year-old Peabody man crashed into a Wal-Mart in Danvers on Tuesday, injuring six people, including a 1-year-old girl, police said.

The driver was apparently looking for a parking spot at about 10 a.m. when he hit the gas pedal instead of the brake, crashing through the store's glass doors.

What is it with old people thinking that the accelerator is actually the brake pedal? You’d think after 150 years behind the wheel that hitting the gas or the brake would be a matter of muscle memory for these driving Yodas. I guess not. It seems like we can’t go a week without somebody reporting that some Mr. Magoo made himself into a two-ton bowling ball by rolling through a sidewalk bazaar, leaving nothing but a 7-10 split.

Should old people be banned from driving? I wouldn’t go that far, but clearly some kind of annual reflex test might be in order once you hit a certain age. The funny thing is that you don’t hear politicians proposing such a thing, ever. Not where I live, anyway. They’re too busy raising the age at which one can get a license, while the police already enforce unreasonably stringent “junior operator” standards, even though these kids have far better reflexes than Miss Daisy. When it comes to being a vehicular safety hazard, teenagers and other young drivers can be reckless, but many elderly drivers can be just as dangerous behind the wheel.

So why don’t our elected officials do anything about this hazard? Five words: American Association of Retired Persons. It’s often a player in both national and local politics, not necessarily because of the $25 million or so it throws around in its annual lobbying, but because it represents a shitload of old people who really don’t need to be pissed off any more than they already are. Furthermore, old people comprise one of the fastest-growing demographics, if not the fastest. Plus they vote, so I don't expect much from my sackless representatives in the state legislature on this issue.

The AARP has said that it supports driver reassessments, so long as they are given to all and not just people of a certain age. But this is bullshit because the AARP knows that there is no way already cash-strapped states would spend the money necessary to reassess all eligible drivers. That would be ludicrous. What would be the point of retesting a thirty year-old? None. What would be the point of retesting a nonagenarian? Let’s ask the people in the Danvers Wal-Mart who were nearly killed today.

-Max

"Breaking Bad" Finale Goes out with a Bang

Poor Walter. All the guy wants to do is make and sell meth, pay for his cancer treatments, and maybe have some money left over for his family in case he croaks. That being said, his occasional aloofness from Skyler and Walter Jr. doesn’t help his situation. The illicit nature of his extracurricular activities has prevented Walter from cluing his wife in on what he has done to ensure the family isn’t in debt for the next 200 years, and she has been understandably suspicious of him. However, in the last minutes of the season two finale ("ABQ"), Skyler lost it. After ruling out the possibility of Walter having an affair with Gretchen, Skyler found out that Walter is almost all caught up on his gargantuan medical bills, and naturally connects this with Walter’s strange behavior. But rather than ask Walter where he got the money to pay off the expenses, she tells him to move out of his house while she goes to Hank and Marie’s for a few days with the baby. Walter offers to tell her everything if she stays, but she isn’t interested. Doesn’t want to know. Apparently isn’t even curious. She’d rather leave the matter unresolved so she can probably bone her boss and not feel guilty. Was Skyler being a bitch? Feel free to comment.

Remember that Skyler is the one who got Walter into this mess. He heard the words “terminal cancer” from the doctor and was ready to mail it in. No financially-crippling surgeries. No painful chemotherapy. Walter was ready to die instead of gearing up for a long battle he might not win, but one that would definitely jeopardize his family’s financial future. Convinced mainly by Skyler to fight it, Walter started making meth out of practical necessity.

As I mentioned in my review of Breaking Bad, many critics have the awful habit of engaging in haughty moralizations of works of fiction instead of examining them on more aesthetic grounds. A few of the reviews I had the displeasure of reading explicitly blame Walter for the plane crash because he let Jane die, and her death caused her father to screw up in the air traffic control room, which caused to planes to collide in midair. As such, according to one hack, “This is on Walt’s head, every last bit of it, and so it feels right for fiery judgment to be rained down on that head,” in a reference to the hitherto mysterious pink teddy bear in his pool. What a stupidly simplistic view.

It is easy for these amateur ethicists isolate and blame Walter because of the obvious connection that can be made. But why not single out Sklyer for pleading with Walter to fight his cancer? Had he ignored her entreaties, Jane would likely still be alive. Or why not blame Jesse for spilling the beans to Jane about the whole operation? That made her a potential threat to Walter, and given the chance to save her life, he declined on pragmatic grounds.

The critics blame Walter because they are lazy. They see that the show revolves around him, and therefore his entire fictional world must also. But Walter is one man, even if he is the man in the show. To single him out as the primary author of such unforeseen catastrophes is to elevate him to a level of importance that no mortal could reasonably lay claim to. From its pilot episode up until last night, Breaking Bad has been one long chain of causes and events brought on by the capriciousness of fate. The crank critics can engage in their childish game of “what if” in their anemic attempts to sound deep or profound, but their moral indignation only prevents from seeing, with total clarity, that what happened could not have happened any other way.

-Max