Have you ever seen (or been) a woman planning a dinner party? Or a birthday celebration? Maybe your wife? Now assign those same duties to a man or a husband. Chances are, and this is anecdotal experience based on what I’ve seen in both personal and professional life, that the women will do a far superior job. Far superior.

If that’s a sexist observation from me, so be it.

Women, by and large, are better planners than men are. They have to be. They’re biologically attuned to it. Women must plan from a visit by an unwelcome friend every month. Men literally must unzip and can stand behind a tree or bush (as I often do when out on a run). That’s as much planning as it takes.

As I listen to (male) governors and (male) hospital CEOs or officials plead for supplies (ventilators, gloves, masks) from our male White House administration, I begin to see a pattern of patriarchy. Men simply were not up to the job of planning for this pandemic (save the science editor at The New York Times, who was warning all of us about this weeks ago). I have no doubt in my mind that women would have done a better job.

Asking for ventilators now is like throwing a backyard barbecue, the guests are at the door, and you’ve forgotten the charcoal briquets. A few years ago I volunteered to cook the Thanksgiving turkey. One problem: I didn’t begin defrosting it until late Wednesday evening. Bad planning. That’s what men are good at: being bad planners (and not all of them are as bad as me, I understand).

Females are better planners. This was a job for them. But, of course, you know, her emails…

*The judges will also accept, “Gotta Keep ‘Em Ventilated”

Last night on CNN they had a waaaaaayyyy-too-good-lookin’ Hollywood E.R. doctor on (I doubt he’s the foremost E.R. physician in L.A., much less America, but he’s certainly one of the more telegenic) and host Chris Cuomo asked him a pertinent question: What exactly is it like to be deep in the throes of COVID-19, in terms of respiration?

The study doc, I think his name was Evan McMurray, told the viewer to imagine putting a treadmill on the steepest angle. Then turning it up to its fastest setting. Now get on that treadmill and see what your breathing feels like after two to three minutes. And see how long you can last.

The Hollywood doc was describing a very non-Hollywood death. Not only are most patients dying in isolation (See? All those years I never got married and being warned that I’d die alone? Turns out it won’t matter in the age of the coronavirus), but it’s not the black-and-white movie put the back of your hand to your forehead and cry, “I do declare!” and then passing out. Forever.

No, it’s literally gasping for breath. And no matter what you do you cannot get enough oxygen into your lungs. It’s frantic. It’s exhausting. If you’ve ever “killed” yourself in a track workout and remember those first few seconds after you’ve crossed the finish line, you know that feeling. Now extend it onward for minutes… hours… until you go into cardiac arrest.

And that’s what happens when patients don’t have ventilators. And patients don’t have ventilators. One reason, because our federal government wasn’t prepared. Another reason, because Donald Trump doesn’t want us “to become Venezuela.” If only every politician who thinks this way, from the President on down, could die the kind of ventilator-deprived death that thousands of people all over the world have died. They might then, and only then, begin to have an appreciation of what people are going through.

Of course, Republicans never have empathy. Not until they’re actually going through the pain themselves. That’s what makes them Republicans.

If the past two weeks have reaffirmed anything for me, it’s that the United States has a stupid means of nominating people for the most important job in the world. A few very ambitious people put themselves on a national tour where they eat food they’d never normally touch, shake thousands of hands and occasionally stand on a stage and verbally joust with one another. We learn who finished atop their class in mock trial but we don’t necessarily learn who’s a good leader. It’s as if the American public is an NFL GM and is being told to base your pick solely on the combine and not the three or four years of game film.

In the past two weeks, and particularly in the last couple of days, New York governor Andrew Cuomo (Dem) has shown himself to be a better leader than anyone in the White House and, to my eyes, better than anyone still in the Democratic race (I’d put Liz Warren up there with him). If you heard him explain his state’s plight yesterday, and heard him discuss how ventilators should be mobilized and how New York is the “canary in the coalmine” for other states, you heard someone whom New Yorkers can appreciate: he’s candid, he cares, but he’s not here to bullsh*t anyone or as MAGA folks on Twitter used to tell me, “offer positivity.” Who needs that right now?

I don’t expect the Democratic party to get smart all of a sudden, but this pandemic is a better crucible for leadership than 100 debates or town halls ever could be. And the people who are emerging as true leaders are Andrew Cuomo and Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington. I don’t know if either man would even want the job of President right now (I think Inslee ran and dropped out early), but as opposed to a pair of dudes in their late 70s, one who was flummoxed yesterday when his teleprompter went on the fritz, well, Cuomo and Inslee are superior.

The Democratic Party has the chance to do something bold and courageous at their convention, or virtual-convention, this summer. Throw out the delegate counts. Forget all the backroom promises and glad-handing. Produce a candidate who rose above during this crisis and demonstrated true leadership. And at the same time, younger than 75 years old.

Andrew Cuomo would make a terrific president.*

*As a disclaimer, we should all remember that about 18 years ago America was in love with a different Italian-American politician from New York and we all know how that worked out. So… you never know.

If you’re a fan of Better Call Saul—our favorite show on non-premium cable or non-streaming TV—then this post may interest you. If not, you may be bored by it. You may be a fan of the show and still be bored by this post. Writing is hard!

Anyway, some thoughts on Monday’s episode, “Goodman vs. Wexler:”

— First, as much fun as the montage of Jimmy directing the actors for the TV commercial must’ve been to put together (“And…ACTING!”), it wasn’t really necessary. As long as Jimmy/Saul had proof that Mesa Verde had used that photo as its logo without every paying for the rights, Saul had Kevin and Mesa Verde dead to rights. I’m a fan of the 3-person teenage aqua force film crew, and the show’s producers, Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould, must be as well, as if you notice they were given more lines in this episode than ever before. Still, this latest trip down local TV commercial-filmmaking was unnecessary. A fun goof, but unnecessary.

–Jimmy was right, and yet also wrong. His gambit versus Mesa Verde and Kim’s legal team was brilliant because it not only knocked the bank off its feet, but it also knocked Kim off hers. And if part of the problem here was that he needed to demonstrate that he and his girlfriend were not in cahoots, the only plausible way to do this was to legitimately surprise her. And, yes, piss her off.

Jimmy’s feeling here, I surmise, is that Kim is just not that good of an actor (Rhea Seehorn certainly is). She’s fine as Giselle but as Kim Wexler Jimmy didn’t think she could pull it off. So he struts into the office being a legitimate jerk and huckster and it works. Kevin and Paige are furious because they thought they only had to sign a $45,000 check (plus legal fees). Kim is irate because she feels betrayed. And Rich is confounded by the balls on this guy, but certainly he no longer feels as if his partner and Saul are working together.

And what happens? The $4 million ask was never serious; Kevin gets his call center, the photographer gets her royalties, Mr. Acker gets a pretty settlement, and Kim’s professional reputation remains intact. Moreover, and this is never really discussed enough, Jimmy is a fantastic lawyer. He really is, as Howard often says, “Charlie Hustle.” Not only did he think up this scheme, but he did the research (and had someone break in Kevin’s home) to find the photograph that became the Mesa Verde logo. All without a paralegal. He goes above and beyond.

–Of course, he now has a problem with Kim.When they meet up at home at the end of the episode, she’s understandably pissed off. She’s seem him con others, she’s often even helped. In fact, she’s enthusiastically thought up a few cons herself. But she always expected that they were a team. It’s like having a spouse who’s an actor and watching them play a role at a dinner party, but then suddenly wondering if the tears they’re crying for you are genuine (the subplot of a recent Curb episode, by the way).

Kim’s ready to break up with Jimmy because, as she says, “I don’t trust you.” Nor should she. My only quibble with this scene is that I would have had Jimmy be the one to suggest marriage. He’s the one who always is figuring ways to wriggle out of a tight squeeze. I don’t know why she’d suggest it, pissed off as she is. But I could’ve seen him suggesting it as a Hail Mary pass.

–Let’s talk about Howard Hamlin, the good-looking, good-natured cliche of a high six-figure attorney. In previous seasons it has been revealed that all of our worst thoughts (certainly mine) about Howard were off-base. He wasn’t the sinister one; Chuck was. He was simply doing Chuck’s dirty work for him.

He’s now come full-circle on Jimmy and wants him to join the firm. And Jimmy just keeps playing nasty pranks on him, pranks that are flavored with real hostility and malevolence. It doesn’t make sense, which tells me that we’re headed for a greater reveal at some point.

Is Jimmy doing this to work off guilt and anger about Chuck’s death? Is he picking on Howard as the schmuck who’s too simple to realize who his assailant is? And is there anything that jibes with the way Jimmy normally works and what he’s doing here? Jimmy’s not above just about any con, but usually there’s a method to his madness. In fact, one of the things that make him a likeable character is that his cons and stunts have a Robin Hood quality to them. He’ll fight dirty to protect someone who is on the lower rung or innocent (he’ll particularly do that if that someone is himself).

But here? There’s no upside that I can see to agitating Howard. Is he that angry that Howard wants him to join the firm? Is Howard too stupid to realize that Jimmy is behind his car being vandalized, behind his reputation being smeared at lunch? There’s something more going on here, I think. Waiting for the reveal.

–It’s been said, and I agree, that at the very least Better Call Saul is as good as Breaking Bad. The reason, for me, is because there are more characters we can visit and enjoy. You’ve got Jimmy and Kim (and Howard). But then there’s Mike and his family. And Gus. And Nacho. And the Salamancas. I don’t know the name of the actor who plays Nacho (I guess I could look it up…. hold on… the things I do for you people… Michael Mando) but he’s fantastic. He plays Nacho as a drug dealer with a conscience and a sweetness to him.

There’s a scene, I think it was last season, when they were collecting at the Mexican restaurant and Nacho knows that Lalo is watching him, so he gets rough with one of the dealers who was short with his collections. You can tell he takes no joy in it, but he realizes it’s part of the job. When he breaks into the house to retrieve the drugs, risking his freedom, he does so because he understands in the moment that it’s the best way to save his father. His father means everything to him, and his padre is an unimpeachably decent man. His moral bellwether.

Nacho is a fantastic, layered character. Street-smart, but vulnerable. Wry and likable. They could spin off an entirely new show from him. He’s sort of the Jesse Pinkman of BCS except that he’s got his sh*t way more together. And he’s smarter. Much smarter.

As Alan Sepinwall would say, “What did you think?”

It’s no one person’s fault, other than my own. The Twitter exile, self-imposed, that is.

Certainly I’ve been combative, cranky, contentious, combative (yes, that one gets two mentions), supercilious and impatient. And that’s just at home with my mom. So as for the blame, it falls squarely on me.

Also, in more than a few fits of pique, I’ve tweeted stuff that I’m just plain embarrassed about. And I’m sure it’s not very smart in terms of looking for work or keeping it. Maybe it’s best to keep feisty me out of the public arena. I’m sure a lot of people who know me think so.

The Trump presidency, mixed with a 4-ounce pour of coronavirus updates, has proven to be a toxic cocktail. From my perspective, I could no longer deal with the delusion, the cult-think, the selfishness, the willful ignorance, the cruelty, the avarice of it all. I got tired of dealing with those who still defend him or play the “biased against the President” card, or the “all politicians are alike” card. No.

Even when everything that the President said as recently as three weeks ago (or yesterday) has proven him to be a buffoon, a blowhard, and an ignorant jackass, there are still many on Twitter who come to his defense. Or look to point blame at others. Let’s put it bluntly: the things that he is saying, the actions he is taking and has taken, are going to be responsible for thousands of deaths (he doesn’t care, by the way, no matter what Mike Pence says, as long as the stock market climbs).

He’s the President. The Buck Stops Here. He even tweeted as much himself back when he was just a drive-by critic of the executive office. But now that he’s President, it’s “I don’t take responsibility at all” and “Try to get it yourselves.”

I don’t care if you’re Democrat or Republican. If you voted for Trump or did not. At this stage of the game, if you cannot see that his behavior is childish, irresponsible and deadly, I’ll probably have a difficult time taking your arguments seriously. And that’s when I become impatient and, yes, kind of a jerk.

Let’s begin with the scientists, the epidemiologists, the Dr. Fauci types. Let’s just collectively refer to them as Dr. Fauci, only because his traits embody them as a whole. They are sober. They are responsible. They are fact-driven people. And here’s what we need to remember: EVERYTHING they have predicted and warned us thus far has come true.

Two weeks ago The New York Times was supplying a bar graph of cases where the horizontal lines were in increments of 10. Last week, in increments of 100. Today, each horizontal line is an increment of 2,000. And those are just for NEW cases that day.

In New York, which as of today has about half the total of America’s reported coronavirus cases, more than 25,000, the number of cases are doubling at the rate of every three days. Every three days.

On March 19th, just last Thursday, the U.S. had 4,000 new cases of the coronavirus diagnosed. Today? 8,000.

And here’s what Dr. Fauci is saying: We need to social distance, self-quarantine, isolate, what have you for the foreseeable future. And here’s what Donald Trump is saying. We need to get the country up and running by Easter.

Dr. Fauci is Chief Brody. Donald Trump is the mayor of Amity Island.

I don’t pretend to know about the nature of infectious diseases or pandemics, but much like Kramer and write-offs, I know that Dr. Fauci knows, and he’s the one writing it off.

So when I hear someone, a tweep who’s followed me for years and who lives in the South, echo Donald’s refrain about America needing to get back to work ASAP, I get a little salty. No one who wants America to get past this pandemic is cavalier about the economy or financial hardships people are going through; it’s just that we should have our priorities in order and, oh by the way, it’s actually, long-term, the more economically feasible thing to do. Unless you believe Donald Trump Magical Snake Oil Salesman, who’s only been wrong with every original thought he’s had about this pandemic thus far.

So let’s think about a few things. One, the economy. Yes, it’s grinding to a halt. But to ignore the pandemic and put everyone back to work will mean that we’ll likely get five to ten times the number of cases which, forget about the greater number of deaths, will tax hospitals and doctors and nurses, who are already toiling past their breaking points, that much more. My guess is that if you were to ask any health-care professional what we should be doing, they’d say to extend the quarantine.

Second, the stock market is not the economy. If you’re in the top 20% of American earners or wealth, you probably care about the stock market (I’m not, but I do have a lot of money in the market and I have been somewhat crushed in the past month). You want America to get back to work because you want to see your portfolio go green again but chances are you are not one to two weeks away from being broke. Maybe one to two years, but not one to two weeks. So why should America prioritize your needs here?

If you are not wealthy but you want to get back to work, I get it. We all do. And that’s where Congress should be spending its money: giving Americans of modest means a weekly stipend to help get us through this pandemic while we do the smart thing: wait it out away from others. Use the money on essentials: rent/mortgage and food. You don’t need a new pair Nike Vapor Fly trainers right now.

As for big business, hold off on collecting debt, etc. We’re all in this together.

Buuuuut, if we all go back to work soon, it’ll be not unlike that guy in the lifeboat who leans over the side of the railing and takes a swig of sea water because he’s just that thirsty. The momentary sense of refreshment will lead, soon after, to an exacerbated thirst that was amplified by introducing more salt into his system. The quick fix is the bad fix.

Will there be pain in April and May if we all can’t work? Yes, but we’ll get by. We all have family or neighbors or, hopefully, a smart government. Oh, and by the way, there are plenty of jobs out there if you’re not too proud to work at Walmart or a major chain grocery store for a couple months (I’m not and will be happy to work at one).

Life is really very easy when you base your decisions on what’s right versus what will happen to your wallet. And something else I’ve noticed: when you make a decision based on what’s what’s morally imperative there are unforeseen consequences that almost exclusively are beneficial, either to you or to the greater public. When you base your decision on what’s economically feasible in the moment, the unforeseen consequences are almost always disastrous or at least corrosive long-term (I give you the bailout of 2008 which made corporations and banks even more reckless, which is why so many of them find themselves in trouble right now).

This thought occurred to me: an antagonist from the South was telling me that, bad as the outbreak is, that our emphasis right now should not be on stemming it but on getting people back to work. And I had to think, Has there ever been a moment in the history of the South where people chose what was economically expedient over what was morally right? Hmm. I wonder. Maybe someone can help me with that (there I am being condescending again; it’s true) and tell me how it all turned out.

A final thought, to end this on a positive note: We will get through this. As a country. In all of our history, through all of our crises, what has gotten us through is not worrying about our bottom line, but rather by doing what was right. We are bending as a nation right now because we have leadership, in the White House and the Senate, that is primarily concerned with the economy. But that’s not the emergency here. There are plenty of good and decent people, doing what needs to be done in spite of those people. They are the leaders.

I always revert to Winston Churchill, the greatest leader of the 20th century. When the Nazis were stockpiling arms in the mid-1930s, he tried repeatedly to urge England and the rest of Europe to censure Hitler. To stop him. Nobody wanted to hear it. Why? Because England was just coming out of a Depression and no one wanted to be bothered with the existential threat. Churchill was laughed out of Parliament, sent home to be Chicken Little in private and roundly mocked.

And we know what happened after that. And his country came to him on its knees and begged him, at first, to become Secretary of War. And later, Prime Minister.

Churchill had four things going for him, and they are what got him, and Great Britain, through many a crisis: 1) He was intelligent and informed 2) He was steadfast and principled 3) He was courageous and 4) He had a great sense of humor. All of his traits he transferred onto the British populace and they followed his lead.

Churchill started out as a soldier and journalist, by the way. Did both careers simultaneously before he moved into politics.