My guess is that if the Netflix political drama “House of Cards” had improbably gotten the backing of a network, it would have swiftly drowned at the hand of Nielsen ratings, and that hiatus or cancellation might have set in before Frank Underwood got to offer his sermon on the nature of forgiveness in a South Carolina church. There is no pop heroine like Kerry Washington’s Olivia Pope (“Scandal”) for a particular audience demographic to root for. And there is no precedent for ratings behind a plotline that doesn’t just include but hinges on the minutiae of governmental details. There may be the requisite sex and adultery and prostitution but they are for major stretches overshadowed with much grayer material: a would-be secretary of state whose nomination unravels over his reference as a college newspaper editor to “illegal occupied Israeli territories” and an impasse over performance metrics in an education bill.
So, this is a show that is destined to be read about more than it is actually watched (the number of viewing souls who know the toxic nature of testing standards for teachers unions and who get that the combination of illegal and occupied are fighting words is, thankfully, small). And then there is the inconvenience for a subscribed series depending on buzz that much of its fan base will not shout their allegiance from the rooftops, or the cultural equivalent that is Facebook: the show’s core of politically engaged people is culturally disposed to deny that it has time to watch television, much less engage in the binge viewing that a simultaneous download of the whole season invites.
But for the politically obsessed collective of Hill staffers, journalists, campaign operatives and ex politicians who have already watched, a decisive verdict: for all of the clichés it spouts about politicians, for all of the little implausible plot engines it relies on (of course, nothing so fanciful as the idea of a first lady enduring a presidential sex scandal and making her own run for president or a black state senator riding a speech to the White House in four years time) this is uncommonly good stuff, for the risks it executes and the vivid story it tells about things that are not inherently vivid.
The central figure, an oily Southern congressman named Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey), is nothing new, nor are his penchants for lowball tactics and outwitting his peers by playing to their vanity or weaknesses. But the novelty is that for all 13 episodes, Underwood stays an unredeemed rogue–not the morally ambiguous striver who starts noble and turns bad, not the hero who has a dark side that he is trying to suppress, but an unmitigated, blissful damager of people. There is a deliberateness to the fact that for all of the specific policy detail that embroiders the narrative, there is never a moment when Underwood shows a flicker of interest in any of it for its own sake. And if David Fincher trusts his audience to wrestle with an array of shifting events and relationships (that would blur had these episodes been laid out over three months) he ventures even more faith in its capacity to stay absorbed in a villain whose only source of suspense is how low he will descend.
Underwood is not the only character whom the audience has to engage while being turned off by their sins. All of his intimates are caught in their own level of moral vacancy: Underwood’s wife Claire (Robin Wright), who cashes in on her husband’s status to run a not-for-profit whose agenda she will sell out without much compunction, just for the thrill of a score; the loyal chief of staff (Michael Kelley) who is Underwood’s henchman and whose only prize is a place in the orbit of a boss who keeps him at arm’s length and calls him by his last name; a young congressman, Peter Russo (Corey Stoll, brilliantly erasing the memory of a weak stint on a failed “Law and Order” remake), whose past is ridiculously compromised and whose only real interest in his career is that it seems to provide an organizing principle for his day; the young reporter (Kate Mara) who entangles herself professionally and sexually with Underwood to fuel her own career, and whose snideness and ethical carelessness make her almost as unsympathetic as Underwood. The relative paragons of decency: a young aide to Russo who tries to save him from his spiral, is still framed as a staffer covertly sleeping with her boss to climb the office ladder; another, a high level aide to Claire Underwood who acknowledges lying about the terms of her dismissal to exact revenge for her boss’s horse-trading with a lobbyist.
What producer David Fincher assumes is that a group of people wallowing in dirt and dysfunction are still watchable. Of course, he is right about that, as television routinely establishes, but Fincher’s gamble is that for most of this series, his characters’ routines are their own contained universe with no one to root for, no mystery to solve, and none of the contrived simplicity of a single narrative conflict.
In that way, “House of Cards” takes a chance that even the notably risk-taking “Homeland” doesn’t: for example, for 11 episodes of the show, there is not an obvious end in sight that Underwood’s machinations are meant to achieve (and when it materializes, it seems accidental); and for about the same stretch, most of the other characters have no endgame of their own. (Unless you fell for the unlikely scenario of Peter Russo’s continued sobriety, and Fincher squashes that rooting interest in some of the series’ few heart-wrenching moments). Imagine if “Homeland” were just a story about the torpor of a deceitful, embittered, returning POW instead of a spy saga about a sleeper terrorist. It is doubtful it would have lasted. Fincher, with great audacity, assumes a show about unappealing people climbing career ladders can work as a dramatic force and it is a large feat that he pulls it off—and doubly impressive that his material is the stereotypical vista of Washington vice, not the relatively exotic venue of mobsters in the “Sopranos” or the creative twist of everymen turned drug dealers in “Breaking Bad”.
At least one critic, Atlantic’s Ari Melber, has made the observation that the other unique perspective of this show is its intuition that it is the culture of politics that attracts flawed people, and that the familiar scapegoats, money and special interests, are only symptoms of the wasteland rather than the causes of it. It’s a cynically appealing perspective, but a short-sighted one. The more substantial reality is that the conniving side of politics is identical to the back-stabbing that goes on in academia and law firms, that the sordid compromises are not so different than doctors peddling medicines they have side deals on, or architects shortchanging some clients to favor others, or traders short-selling their investors’ stocks. The difference is that moral obliviousness in politics resonates while its professional analogues seem mundane (unless there is a lot of sex crammed in).
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
Saying “no” when it is necessary is important. How you say no can be even more important.
As Mark Twain once quipped the difference between the right word and the almost right word is like the difference between lightening and a lightening bug.
His point was well taken as a maxim for literary precision.
But a similar emphasis should be placed on the manner or tone or context with which one delivers messages to others, especially messages with a negative impact. Like conveying that the answer to a request or proposal or simple question is “no.”
Simply saying the word no, may seem to be adequate for message purposes but is hardly ever sufficient for full communication purposes. It is only a partial response that ignores acknowledging the time, resources, preparation and hopefulness invested in the endeavor awaiting a final reply. And deserves more work on the responding end than a mere thumbs down.
Think of Mary Poppins; advice that a “Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.” Good life advice with multiple applications.
The next time you say “no” to someone think of your role as being more akin to giving a eulogy to the deceased than serving as the executioner.
Unless, of course, you are in to that sort of thing. Some people secretly relish delivering harsh rejections– with an almost mild sadistic delight, But be ready to be haunted by the ghosts of bad news being explained badly (or sensitive news being explained insensitively).
The consequences of good and bad bedside manner is seen in every type of office everywhere….not just the ones inhabited by doctors and the medical profession.
So think of it this way. If good bedside manner is what distinguishes to a large degree great doctors from merely good technical doctors, couldn’t that be true in other professions too.
Good bedside manner is not something that requires a knowledge of medicine or other technical expertise. It merely requires a basic level of respect for the person or client or patron you are talking to. And the extra time to craft a sentence or two that uses both the word no and conveys the message thank you.
By Jonathan Miller, on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 9:00 AM ET
CLICK HERE to sign up for The Recovering Politician’s KY Political Brief, a FREE daily email with links to all of the latest McConnell/Judd news.
This morning, Newsweek/The Daily Beast published the RP’s column: “Ashley Judd Really Can Win a Senate Run Against Mitch McConnell.” Here’s an excerpt:
All politics isn’t local. It’s far more intimate. Politics is rip-off-the-bandage emotion. It’s high school melodrama on HGH.
Especially here in the South, all politics is personal.
Simple human nature may best explain why the prospect of actress Ashley Judd disrupting the otherwise inevitable reelection of U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has provoked the ire of so much of Kentucky’s political chattering class. Consultants whom Judd hasn’t consulted call her potential bid a “catastrophe” and a “fantasy.” Political wags who haven’t been granted an audience term her record exploitable as “too liberal for Kentucky.” Big donors whom she hasn’t called complain about not being wooed.
Of course, a Judd campaign would ultimately require the ego-stroking and back-scratching that bind the fabric of our personal brand of politics.
But it’s a different character of human connection that provides the actress with a legitimate chance to topple the state’s most disciplined and effective political strategist of our era. And it’s why the famously sober and calculating McConnell machine is acting so concerned.
Guys, I have to tell you something that will either upset or (hopefully) liberate you:
You are TOO COOL to still be carrying a backpack.
If you’re no longer a student and are not on a euro tour, there’s no excuse. For some reason, Manhattan’s streets are overrun by knapsacked men, and it always makes me scratch my head because it is such an awkward and unattractive look. It’s especially troubling when the guy in question is wearing what would otherwise be a nice work outfit. Instead, his look is overwhelmed by a clunky nylon box strapped to his back, which only makes one wonder what grade he’s in. It’s also downright dangerous on an NYC subway when the backpack-wearer turns around in tight quarters. I’ve seen this happen to more than one woman, and the guy had no clue he nearly took her out! There are many better options out there to comfortably carry your things while looking great and not injuring lovely ladies who might otherwise be into you.
$50 and under
I like both the style and the price of this messenger bag from Urban Outfitters. It’s got a vintage feel while still work appropriate. The bag comes in two color combinations: khaki with brown and brown with brown. I prefer the contrast of the khaki and brown option (above) — classic and classy ($48).
Read the rest of… Julie Rath: Too Cool for School (The Case Against Backpacks)
By John Y. Brown III, on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
The economic way of thinking. (The Slinky Test)
There’s a sucker born every minute, PT Barnum famously said. Including the evening of June 2, 1963 (my birth date)
I saw a later version of this TV ad when I was a child of about 5. And I had to have a slinky. Had to. Watch the way it curiously flops hypnotically down a flight of stairs. Or flops itself along the declining platform.
It was the “sizzle” not the “steak” (so to speak) that mesmerized me and made me feel I had to have this shiny toy.
So I insisted and wheedled and cajoled (even though I didn’t know what those words meant at the time) until my grandmother broke down and got me one.
And here’s the genius (or cunning) of good ole American marketing. The slinky did exactly as it was represented in the ad. If flopped down the stairs. And flipped down an incline.
So I did it again. And again the slinky flopped and flipped–just as it did in the ad. I didn’t want to admit it but, frankly, I was starting to get a little bored at this juncture. So
I ran the slinky down the stairs and incline one or two more times. And then I realized, “I think I’m done with this toy. Now what?” And shortly after that the economic agony of realizing you spent (or your grandmother spent) $4 in real money for about 50c in thrills sets in.
You can keep playing with the slinky until you get in about $6 worth of play, so your grandmother will remember your wise purchase the next time you want something you see advertised on TV. Or you can do as I did. Go in the basement and pretend to play with the slinky for about $7 or $8 dollars worth of fun to impress your sweet grandmother (who also warned you about the limits of a slinky).
And don’t we do that with many new purchases?
So the test for us should NOT be, “Does the product perform as represented?” But rather, “Does what the product claim to do —for personal or practical reasons—justify the cost?”
And if the answer is no, remind yourself how many hours you’ll have to spend in the basement pretending to be playing with a slinky to preserve your ability to make your next irresistible purchase.
(Note: I know the slinky is a lot more complicated than I make it sound and an ingenious toy. But mostly for ingenious kids. I just thought it looked cool going down the stairs and failed to calculate how much that was worth to me).
“I do not know anyone who has gotten to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It won’t always get you to the top but it will get you pretty far.”
Margret Thatcher
As a society we have grown into people who are looking for the quickest and most efficient way to live our lives. Cars, microwaves, computers, the internet were all invented to make our lives easier.
Health and fitness is no different. Go to any magazine stand and look at Muscle and Fitness or Shape magazine and you will see pages after pages of advertisements for the latest muscle builder or fat loss supplement.
I’ve always pondered what it would be like to survey 1000 people and ask them one question; If you could have the body of your dreams without working out or dieting by taking one pill per day. Would you do it? The only catch is it would knock off 10 years to your total life span. What do you think people would say?
I have a gut feeling it would be an overwhelming amount of people that would take the pill, taking the easy road to success, cheating their bodies, their mind, their soul and their lifespan.
The problems these days are people are not willing to get their hands dirty and not patient enough to stick with anything long enough to make it count. We have been programmed to believe quicker, efficient is better.
I disagree, efficient is not better, effective is and what trumps everything is quality and hard work. It’s not easy to go to the gym 5 days a week and work your butt off. It’s not easy to juggle kids, marriage, jobs and try to get healthier or have the body you have dreamed of. It’s not easy and it never will be.
My rant today is nothing short believing in you. Believing that the hard work you are putting in is worth it. Believing that anything and everything is possible with hard work, determination and preparation.
As humans we were meant to struggle but we were also meant to persevere under any and all circumstances. You don’t need the easy way out, you don’t need the quick fix and your life will not be complete without the effort it took to get what you want.
We will not lose….ever.
That’s my rant for today. Repeat after me; I WILL NOT LOSE. I’m out.
By Jonathan Miller, on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 1:55 PM ET
From Jon Hale, KY Forward:
UK forward Nerlens Noel will miss the remainder of his freshman season after tearing the ACL in his left knee Tuesday against Florida, UK announced in a statement Wednesday afternoon.
Noel is expected to undergo surgery on the knee within the next two to three weeks. Normal recovery time for the injury is six to eight months.
Noel’s injury occurred with 8:03 remaining in UK’s blowout loss at Florida when he appeared to collide with the base of the goal after blocking a shot on a fast-break.
Noel leads UK in rebounds per game (9.5), blocked shots (106) and steals (50). His 106 blocks lead the country and are second most by a Wildcat in a single season, trailing only Anthony Davis‘ NCAA freshman record 186 blocks from the 2011-12 season.
By John Y. Brown III, on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
My kind of rebel.
A friend was making his 8 hear old daughter attend the adult worship service which is an hour long and hard for a youngster to sit through without lots of restless squirming.
To cope the plucky little girl would stand and draw on the program. My friend got her to stop drawing where people could see what she was doing but couldn’t get her to sit without being firm.
Finally, he sternly , teeth gritted, said emphatically “Sit down now, young lady!”
And she did.
But two minutes later whispered to her dad defiantly, “I am still standing up in my mind.”
By Lisa Borders, on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 11:00 AM ET
Wow – I’ve been doing this for a long time, and I can honestly say, I’ve never seen anything like this.
Last night, Twitter was blowing up. News outlets across the country were highlighting the success of our grassroots movement. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger and Eva Longoria were talking about No Labels:
Here’s the bottom line: When the president walked into the chamber last night, he had 45 No Labels problem solvers there to greet him. This was a truly unprecedented effort and the world took notice.
We broke through the noise and got noticed across the social media sphere.
We’ve turned a corner and with your help, there is no limit to what we can do.
Please join our growing army of hundreds of thousands of Democrats, Republicans and Independents, by clicking here.