Michael Nutter Tells Us How to Stop Urban Violence

I'm not a registered Republican and I am not a registered Democrat. So I want to get that out of the way since any sort of commentary on, about, or not about Trayvon Martin turns into a political discourse where a person's position depends on his/her political party. It's obviously a tragedy that Trayvon Martin was killed, but I'm not surprised George Zimmerman was acquitted. The prosecution went for Murder 2 and that's pretty hard to prove in a case like this. They would have been better off going for Involuntary Manslaughter or another charge easier to prove, but politically they had to go for Murder 2. It's somewhat ironic the media and political focus on this case could have played a part in Zimmerman's acquittal. If the prosecution felt pressure to go for Murder 2 because of the politics and attention surrounding the case then they took the hard route. I hear some saying and writing they thought Zimmerman would be guilty of something and I think he would have been found guilty of something if there wasn't pressure to charge him with murder. That's just my opinion.

On a related note Michael Nutter, who is the current mayor of Philadelphia, writes an op-ed for "Time" where he tells us how the United States can stop urban violence. I appreciate his effort, even if it comes off as naive. Unfortunately much like solving hunger, urban violence can't be "stopped," so I think more realistic terms need to be used in the headline to this op-ed. I feel like Nutter's heart is in the right place, but he's also a little bit off in his execution to "solve" urban violence. He seems to want to talk about solutions, but ignores (what I see as) the best solution to the urban violence problem.

Why is it that African-American males are so disproportionately both the victims and the perpetrators of violence, more often than not against one another?

If you have to ask this question then you aren't paying attention. Crime is a sociological issue that can't easily be attributed to one or two factors. Crime can be attributed to income level, household life (one/two parent household) and various other factors. Obviously all African-American males who were the victim or perpetrator of violence can't be explained away by sociological factors, but it is usually a good start to explain the perpetrators of violence no matter what race that person is.

In Philadelphia, where I am mayor, 75% of our homicide victims are black men. About 80% of the people we arrest for homicide are black men.

I'm sure some racism plays a part in these black men being locked up, no doubt. A question I might have would be how many of those 80% arrested for homicide that are black men end up acquitted of the homicide charge versus the percentage of other races that are arrested and acquitted of homicide. To me, that tells me more than the percentage of black men arrested would tell me. If the result found is that more black men are arrested and then acquitted for homicide (as compared to other races) then I could probably feel good about discussing the race issue contained therein, but if the percentage of black men arrested for homicide and then acquitted is close or equal to the percentage of other races arrested and acquitted of homicide then it just shows the unfortunate possible truth that black men are arrested and found guilty of homicide by a wide percentage more than any other race/gender. I tend to like it when people are arrested for homicide and found guilty if that person is truly guilty.

Of course there is also the whole "the justice system goes against black men" and that would take me too far down the rabbit hole for what I am trying to write. It's possible the system is against black men, but simply given the statistic that 80% of people arrested for homicide are black men is a meaningless statistic without some further investigation into what percentage of these men are found to be guilty or are acquitted as compared to other races. Violent crime among black men is a social issue obviously. That is what Nutter is discussing without going into too much depth as to the legal results from these arrests, so I will skip over the legal results of these arrests for the sake of discussion. What solutions does Michael Nutter have for this issue?

Black men across the country are killing one another, yet that epidemic is rarely part of any national conversation.

Not entirely true, though I wish there was as much protesting and anger about a murder when it comes to black-on-black crime, as opposed to the over-focus on this specific Zimmerman-Martin situation. Chicago could certainly use some protesting and national recognition of the crime problem they have, but most people are too busy protesting to get justice for Trayvon Martin. The citizens of Chicago need justice too. 

With each death, the networks aren't interrupting game shows or soap operas to give you that information. We get lulled back into complacency and somehow live with the fact that we have a Newtown every day in America. And a disproportionate number of those dying are black men.

By the way, if the issue is black-on-black crime (as Michael Nutter seems focused on) then this has nothing to do with Trayvon Martin (which Nutter is writing this column as a result of the Martin trial) and George Zimmerman since that crime didn't fit into this category.

Our priorities are askew. Our leaders talk a lot about international terrorism. I often talk about domestic terrorists, by which I mean not foreign nationals plotting violence on these shores but the day-to-day crime that is even more devastating to our cities than the episodic threats from overseas.

Let me be honest here. The United States could greatly curb crime on the local level, but this would turn parts of the United States into a police state. I'm not sure anyone wants that. Americans are known for craving freedom and liberty, while doing more to curb crime in American cities would require more of the invasive police techniques and suspicions of normal people going about their day in order to curb crime. This isn't the kind of thing people like Michael Nutter want to hear though. He wants more of a focus on preventing crime, but he also wants less harassing and racial profiling of individuals. Frankly, I want less harassing, invasive monitoring and racial profiling of individuals too. But to try extreme methods to curb violence when 80% of murders are committed by black men would require some police racially profiling of black men (and other races) in order to prevent this crime. It's only logical it would work this way for three reasons:

1. The intent is to do more to curb violent crime at the city level.

2. To curb this violent crime the city would need to find out who is committing the violent crime and statistically it says black men are committing 80% of the homicides.

3. In order to best curb the crime of homicide, cities should pay more attention to black men who are acting suspiciously in and around society. 

Obviously black men would not be the only members of society racially profiled, but unless American cities get exponentially at crime prevention the best solution to curb crime at the police level is to make sure the authorities catch a crime before it occurs. And remember, if America really wants to prioritize curbing domestic terrorism (as Nutter calls it) stronger and more invasive tactics would need to be used. Of course Michael Nutter and myself don't want stronger and more invasive tactics to be used, so prioritized efforts to curb crime would really have to start before the individual is about to commit the crime. I will get to what where I believe these efforts should start in a minute, but this early effort is what Michael Nutter conveniently skips over when discussing how to curb (or "stop" as the headline says) urban violence. So the United States could prioritize the occurrence of violent crime on the local police level, but it will take a larger police presence and some sense of profiling. I don't want this, but a stronger police state could significantly curb violent crime.

(Also if anyone reads this and thinks I'm saying the best way to curb crime is to profile African American men then you are an idiot and stop reading now please. I'm saying if the United States wanted to treat domestic terrorism the way they treat international terrorism there would be need to be an increased focus on stopping crime before it starts, which much like is required in preventing international terrorism requires a certain amount of profiling of individuals. If 80% of those arrested for homicide for black men then the city police would be wise to keep a larger eye on these certain individuals. Obviously this is an extreme way to prevent crime, and though I don't doubt it would be somewhat successful, it is also a violation of civil liberties and racist too. I don't recommend this method, but am merely saying how the United States treats international terrorism isn't a transferable to domestic terrorism because of the whole "civil liberties" issue. It's always beaten around the bush on how local police need to do more to prevent violent crime, but then no one rightfully wants their civil liberties disrupted, so the police end up in a more reactionary position in regard to preventing crime. No certain race should be profiled ever.)

The United States could be turned into a police state and cities could start to get more aggressive in trying to prevent crime, but along with this aggressive prevention will come the violation of civil rights and profiling that so many people absolutely hate and had become an issue in the Trayvon Martin situation. Airports are good at preventing terrorists from getting on the plane because they treat every person as a terrorist suspect and (secretly of course) keep an eye on certain individuals. I'm not advocating racial profiling, but simply stating the truth as I see it, that if America really, really wants to curb violent crime in cities then there will have to be a little bend to the civil liberties Americans are used to. It's an option that I don't like.

My focus comes from my experiences and the buildup of living all my life in West Philadelphia and Wynnefield, and as a city-council member and then later as mayor, attending numerous funerals and talking to moms and dads who have lost their children and other loved ones to senseless acts of violence.

No offense, but attending funerals and talking to the loved ones of victims doesn't make you an expert on crime. If so, funeral directors would be the police chief. 

What's missing are the fundamentals. It's about jobs. It's about education. It's about economic investment and job retraining.

Here's where Michael Nutter and I diverge. What's missing is all of those things, but he leaves out the most important one. Responsibility. I'm not going to give a high-and-mighty lecture, but Nutter leaves out the parental responsibility in not raising a little shithead child who ends up living a life of crime. That's the biggest discussion I consistently see missing from this issue. Responsibility and how parents and relatives need to take responsibility in raising their children in the best way possible and giving that child good role models to look up to. Having a job, education, and economic retraining will work well with a person who wants to make something of himself and not live a life of violence. 

It's about getting benefits to people who need them. We know that in Philadelphia, thousands of people are not even signing up for the available benefits to take care of themselves and their families.

How silly of me. I didn't know the key to stopping urban violence was to make sure families were relying on welfare opportunities or getting involved with government programs that may not fix the core of what is the cause of violent crime. Again, we are missing the responsibility portion of the discussion. I understand how signing up for available benefits and non-violent programs can help a family, but I'm missing how this is going to help a child not head towards a life of violence. A kid has a hand full of food stamps or spends 10% of his week at a community outreach so he won't join a gang? What about the 90% of the time he spends at home or at school? Won't that affect the child's current and future behavior?

We know clearly that there are a few things that work: investing more in Head Start programs, summer jobs and programs for teens and community-development block grants for cities to put people to work.

Great idea. Got money? 

Also, where are the parents at in this discussion? Not once does Michael Nutter mention parental involvement and that shows me his priorities are askew. America is so afraid to criticize a person's parents for how a child was raised or the life of violence the child may have led. I'm not saying a parent is at fault every time a murder is committed, but there needs to be dedication to ensuring kids growing up get a great opportunity to look up to successful people and have a support system to help them achieve their goals in life. Curbing violence is about giving people a chance to choose a life outside of violence and an example that this type of life is fulfilling. That's just my opinion.

Those three areas have been cut significantly over the past few years. The U.S. seems to be more invested in nation building in other countries around the world, Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, than in nation building--or rebuilding--here at home.

Not a terrible point by Michael Nutter. I can see where domestic concerns take precedence over nation building.

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu and I co-lead an effort called Cities United. We now have close to 50 mayors signed up. It's specifically focused on reducing the violence affecting African-American men and boys across the country.

It's fine if Latino kids kill each other of course. Who cares about them?

The first step is getting municipal leaders to acknowledge these challenges and then deciding on the best practices for addressing them. What are some programs and services we can provide?

Ah yes, throw money at the problem. Provide the kids with programs and services and other taxpayer subsidized solutions. I'm all for spending money when it works, but as we have learned in regard to the war on drugs, parts of the education system, and various other pet projects Congress has had through the years, throwing money at the issue isn't always the best option. 

It disturbs me that programs and services are recommended rather than a focus be on the home life and what the parents can do to raise their children to where the child has the option of choosing a non-violent lifestyle. It doesn't always take a village to care for a child, sometimes it takes family members that give a shit. If as a parent you are relying on programs and services or a mentor to help instill the proper values and direction in life then you are doing parenting incorrectly. 

I've done stupid shit in my life and I managed to make these stupid things I have done into a short detour from where I want to be as opposed to a new direction I want my life to go. I was fortunate to have parents who could show me an example of where I want to go in life and the kind of person I want to be. I've been accused of stealing twice in my life because a convenience store clerk and a bookstore clerk didn't like the way I looked (or for some reason they thought I was stealing, I'm not sure). I've had a knife pulled on me once at a McDonald's because I had the wrong color shirt on. These aren't obviously situations I intentionally chose to put myself into and good people can get into bad situations, but it's easy to go down the wrong path without having role models or mentors. What better people than your parent(s)? I don't like this part of the discussion on how to stop urban violence is missing from the discussion entirely. 

If we get this right, everyone would be involved. We need a partnership among cities, states and federal agencies; the corporate community; the philanthropic community; the religious community; the social-advocacy community--all working toward helping African-American men and boys.

Sounds great and yet it means very little if African-American boys and men go home to a shitty household that doesn't support and encourage him. All of this hard work will go down the drain if buy-in from parents isn't obtained. There can be a great partnership of every community thought of, but if an African-American boy is surrounded by a bad group of people I venture to say these programs won't be successful. 

I know that President Obama cares about these issues, but as powerful as the President of the United States is, he will need a lot of folks to rally with him to work toward solutions

The most powerful man in the free world can't do anything. Got it. It's a team effort, but any sports fan knows one team effort can be undermined by one bad apple who doesn't buy into the team concept.

It will require folks to have open minds and open hearts and, more than anything, to be dedicated to change.

I don't even know what this means. I don't see why anyone wouldn't be dedicated to changing violence and death. Quite frankly, this all sounds like a lot of talk and talk about future action with no action.

The question is, are we ready to do it? Are we willing to set ego aside, be vulnerable and hear things that none of us necessarily want to hear?

Like what? You are the author, so tell me what don't we necessarily want to hear?

Spoiler alert: Michael Nutter never tells us. I would venture to say he can't give examples of what we don't want to hear and is just writing in generalities. 

It sounds to me like Michael Nutter doesn't want to hear that real change starts at home. He knows if he starts blaming the parents who can vote for him then he won't get re-elected. If he thrills us all by creating a plan of future action and talking in general about the community getting involved then no one person gets offended and it feels like it is on all of us to curb the epidemic of violence. It is on all of us to curb the violence, but on a micro-level as well as a macro-level. By not calling out shitty and uncaring parents no one feels responsible and no one gets offended. Michael Nutter gets votes. 

We have to try right now, because our children are dying in the streets every day.

You write "our kids" but not much can happen if the people who really can claim these children as "our kids" don't take action and do what they can to ensure their children head away from violence. No mention of the responsibility of the parents means Michael Nutter's plan is doomed to fail.

One last thing. On my local FOX news Sunday night they showed a "Justice for Trayvon Martin" rally that had taken place in Raleigh. The very next news story was about the police searching for a suspect who robbed and killed a convenience store clerk near Greensboro, North Carolina. The police were asking for the public's help to identify the man who killed the convenience store clerk and then the local FOX news showed the suspect's picture from the store video tape. The suspect who killed the clerk had done so while wearing what looked like either a white or gray hoodie, but you couldn't see his race or any of his features due to the hoodie being over his head. I don't think it was intentional and it certainly doesn't prove George Zimmerman was right to "stand his ground," but I thought it was interesting. The stories went from a kid who was suspected of being up to no good because he was wearing a hoodie to a person who really was up to no good and happened to be wearing a hoodie.

As someone who has worked at a store that was robbed at gunpoint I have to admit that if I am in a convenience store over the next week and see a guy walk up to the counter in a white or gray hoodie I am going to remember a guy wearing a white or gray hoodie robbed and killed a convenience store clerk recently. Obviously I won't immediately shoot this guy because he happens to be wearing a hoodie, but my enjoyment of living would at least remind me in that moment there was a murder committed by a guy wearing a white and gray hoodie and I have no idea what the guy who committed the murder looked like. There is a clear difference in the hypothetical situation as I just presented and the events surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin. I found it interesting the news transitioned from the Trayvon Martin protests to this story of a murder committed in a convenience store.

"Chasing It": Where Good Writers and Directors Go Bad

"The Sopranos" is probably one of my favorite television shows of all-time. The worst episode during the "The Sopranos" run was undoubtedly "Chasing It." That's my opinion of course, but if this were the first episode of the show I watched then I probably would not have watched the rest of the series. It's not that it is bad, plot-wise, but it is bad in that the writing is just so terribly inconsistent, lazy, and completely different from anything other episodes in the series. I remember watching this episode and wondering how I happened to watch a "Sopranos" episode that was so disconnected from the rest of the series. I didn't recognize some of the characters and their motives didn't make sense. Mostly, I am talking about the detour of Tony Soprano into a hardcore gambler, which I feel was contrary to the Tony Soprano we had come to know over the previous/following 80+ episodes. Major spoilers ahead, naturally.

What's even more interesting to me is this episode was directed by Tim Van Patten who has directed every really, really good HBO show at some point (Game of Thrones, Deadwood, Sex and the City---I know...women liked it and the show was well-made, The Wire, The Pacific, Boardwalk Empire) and he helped write the script for my favorite "Sopranos" episode ever, "Pine Barrens." The guy knows how to direct. Then to make matters worse Matthew Weiner wrote this episode. He executive produced, and is the head-writer and show-runner for "Mad Men," a show that is known for being very well-written. He wrote for "The Sopranos" and he's always seemed like an excellent writer to me. Yet, he is responsible for the worst sack-of-shit script in the history of "The Sopranos." How can that be? I can't answer that. What I can do is point out the inconsistencies and why this is the worst episode in the history of the "Sopranos" series.

Some background on this episode for those who don't recall "The Sopranos" episodes by heart, and really, only losers like me probably do. "Chasing It" was the fourth episode of Season 6 Part 2 (the reason this wasn't Season 7 makes sense only to only HBO and possibly some accountants, since I am assuming there was a financial reason of sorts to not call the last nine episodes of the series Season 7 instead of Season 6 Part 2). The previous episode was "Remember When" where Tony realized he hates Paulie, but keeps him around because Paulie showers him with great gifts like a new cappuccino maker. Tony was becoming more and more narcissistic and separated from his captains and the rest of his New Jersey crew. Through the entire previous episode it appears Tony wants to kill Paulie and there are flashbacks and callbacks to previous hits Tony and his crew had performed through the series as if Paulie is destined for death by Tony's hand. Tony doesn't kill Paulie, but Tony is still only out for himself. That's always clear. The turn Tony takes in "Chasing It" still doesn't make sense in the context of this previous episode. Here are my issues with this episode:

1. Tony becomes a degenerate gambler in "Chasing It." Tony has always hated degenerate gamblers and he has never shown that he could somehow have a gambling addiction or problems with money as it relates to gambling. Part of Tony's business is to take advantage of others who need money and then weasel his way into their business by becoming a "partner" in the business and eventually sucking the life out of that business. There is even a storyline in Season 2 where Tony allows a sporting goods owner with a gambling problem play a high-roller game of poker until he is severely in debt (the sporting goods owner is played by Robert Patrick). Then Tony destroys his business, ruins his professional and personal life, and the guy eventually completely moves to the other side of the country. The point is that Tony is a huge hypocrite, but he never showed the propensity for becoming addicted to gambling or chasing after gambling wins during the entire run of the show, except for this episode. Season 4 finds him getting very involved in horse racing, but only because he thinks he is good at picking horses, he wants to fuck with Ralphie's cash flow (if you haven't watched the show I won't explain this because you are probably already really lost), and because he is infatuated with animals. Tony never has a gambling problem before or after "Chasing It."

2. Nancy Sinatra makes a cameo appearance signing a song that (surprise!) just happened to be on the latest CD she was releasing. Her serenading of Phil Leotardo was disturbing in nearly every sense of the word. It felt tacked-on and a cheap way to promote her new CD. This show needs to be better than this. This was worse than David Lee Roth showing up at a poker game or Eric Mangini happening to be eating at the same restaurant as Tony Soprano.

3. Tony wants to use $300,000 of the profit from Carmela's spec house sale to fund a "sure thing" gamble because the kicker for an NFL team is injured and the backup kicker (more on this in a minute) is starting. She denies this request for Tony to use his half of the money and then they later get in a very heated exchange. Wikipedia says they eventually reconcile, but I don't remember it that way exactly. It seems like their reconciliation takes place off screen and I don't remember them actually having a reconciliation. This further speaks to the bizarre nature of this episode in that I don't recall Tony and Carmela ever making up. What's worse is that for a show that is always doing callbacks and different characters are holding anger or grudges over entire seasons, in the very next episode ("Walk Like a Man") Tony and Carmela are perfectly fine with each other. It's like the incredibly heated exchange just never happened and not in the "it never happened" way that Carmela and Tony usually treat events, but like it really never happened. The first time I watched "Chasing It" I felt like I was dreaming and this wasn't the real "Sopranos" episode for the week. I can't explain the feeling. Then in the next episode A.J. started whining more and in the episode after that Tony kills Christopher. It was a rough three weeks for me. This episode was like being drunk and trying to watch "The Sopranos" for the first time. It didn't make sense to me.

4. It's even more telling the worst part of this episode where Tony is given an addiction he has never had before is the description of the sports games Tony is gambling on. At least get the details right, which Matthew Weiner failed to do. So along with making Tony addicted to gambling, about 10 minutes of research went into detailing the type of gambling Tony was participating in. Here are the errors in this episode in regard to gambling and sports:

-An NFL team was starting its backup kicker. NFL teams don't have a backup kicker unless it is the punter. If an NFL team has an injured kicker they will replace that kicker with a free agent kicker during the week between games and most likely not replace the place kicker with the punter. Also, "a rookie kicker?" It's such a lazy bit of writing. Teams don't have backup kickers and starting a rookie kicker wouldn't change the line as much as Tony claims the line changed. Eventually, the game was a blowout, which means the kicker had nothing to do with the team winning or losing, unless he missed seven field goals in the game.

-Anyone who watched Seinfeld knows the Puerto Rican Day Parade takes place during the summer. A.J. was broken up with (very randomly I might add) at this parade, and yet, the NFL games that Tony was betting on took place during the Fall. How long does it take when writing a script to ensure that two events you are portraying in the show take place at the same time as each other? Apparently this research takes longer than Matthew Weiner had to turn this script in.

-To make matters worse, Tony bets on an NBA game (which one I don't recall), which also takes place during the Fall/Winter/Spring months, so the Puerto Rican Day Parade would not take place during these months. A little research is all I ask.

-When they show Buffalo-Tampa Bay playing on television, neither team has even close to the uniform color the teams have in real life. Again, it's small, but when the entire storyline of Tony becoming addicted to gambling revolves around these bets, shouldn't the bets come off as somewhat realistic? It's bad enough the viewer has to accept that Tony has randomly become a gambling addict.

5. Hesh, who is an advisor to Tony and was also an advisor to Tony's father, has a girlfriend apparently. We've never met her, but they appear to really love each other. Naturally, because we just met her she ends up dying at the end of the episode. Tony then pays Hesh back some money he owed Hesh (you know, because Tony is now the one who has to take out loans rather than playing the role of the loan shark that he had played during the entire series run) and isn't sensitive enough to Hesh's girlfriend dying. Tony is a mean person seems to be the lesson. In defense of Tony and the audience, this girlfriend is just thrust upon us all simply to die. She isn't a character but a plot point. So it's hard for the audience, and therefore Tony, to feel great sympathy for Hesh since we never met this girlfriend of his prior to this episode.

6. Then there is the storyline where A.J.'s girlfriend (Blanca) breaks up with him and this begins a downward spiral where he goes from a useless, annoying character in the background to a useless, annoying character in the forefront. The show always played the "surrogate son" role better with Christopher than it played Tony's relationship with his own son. A.J. went from an example of Tony Soprano having to deal with personal bullshit caused by his family to a character the writers often had no clue what to do with. The same thing went for Meadow's character. She would show up randomly and go to the pool or warn Tony and Carmela that A.J. was depressed and then exit stage-left for the rest of the episode. A.J. eventually tried to kill himself after Blanca breaks up with him, but this storyline is a great example of the show not knowing when to get rid of characters who had outlived their usefulness for plotting purposes (Dr. Melfi is another great example).

I read the AV Club for most reviews of television shows and here is a review of this episode that semi-defends it's presence in the television universe. I can't defend this episode's presence since the main premise, Tony's gambling, runs counter (in my mind) to everything we have learned about him. Here's what a generous "B+" review of the show says about "Chasing It." And yes, I am sort of reviewing a review of a television show. And another yes, I usually really like how Todd VanDerWerff reviews television shows. I just think he graded this one incorrectly.

Of the nine episodes that make up the final batch of The Sopranos, “Chasing It” is the only one that I’ve heard even mild criticism for from the show’s fan base. 

These complaints are based on the fact this episode portrays Tony Soprano in a way the series never had portrayed him until point. I'm not even including the whole "waste of our time" component where the show is six episodes from ending and we get an episode that barely moves the main plot ahead.

Indeed, it’s quite a good episode of The Sopranos.

If "good" is defined as "shoddily researched," "poorly plotted," and "takes the main character and changes his personality for one episode-only" then this is definitely a good episode.

The chief criticism of the episode is that Tony would never have gotten involved this deeply in gambling. (Indeed, at one point earlier in the show’s run, he cautions against how gambling can take over your life and make you do stupid things.)

Tony several times cautions against how gambling can take over a person's life. He was prone to hypocrisy, but he was always the loan shark not the other guy taking the loan. That was the entire character of Tony Soprano. He was a shark who ruined people's lives around him and rarely ruined his own life. He would not have gotten this deep into gambling because it goes against his character. In the words of Jason Segel, that's the only argument I need. Tony isn't a degenerate gambler. He makes his money off other degenerate gamblers.

This is a criticism I’ve never bought.

Well, pony up some cash because you gotta buy it. Tony is the one who makes money off gamblers, not the one who gets deep into gambling debt.

The show has so successfully established that at this point, the Tony who survived being shot by Uncle Junior is a rasher, more impulsive Tony that I largely buy his giving in to this particular vice.

True, except for the fact his impulse in the previous episode was to kill Paulie and he didn't act on his impulses. In the very next episode Christopher rails on his own father, Dickie, for being a drunk and drug addict and Tony just lets Christopher criticize his dead father even though Dickie was Tony's hero. Tony loved Dickie Moltisanti and he allows Christopher to call him a druggie and drunk. If Tony were impulsive he wouldn't have let these words stand. In addition, in the same episode Tony sits Christopher down and talks to him about how he needs to stay on top of his crew and stop being frequently absent because people are noticing. There were beefs erupting because Christopher wasn't around enough. Rather than knocking the shit out of Christopher, Tony sits down and talks to him. Tony also doesn't beat the shit out of his son and gives him time to bust out of the funk he is in after Blanca broke up with him. Tony even allows Carmela to convince him that therapy is a good idea for A.J. despite the fact Tony doesn't think much of his own therapy sessions with Dr. Melfi and had a bad experience when Meadow (their daughter) went to therapy during an episode. Meadow's therapist tried to convince her to drop out of college and this pissed Tony off.

So Tony is impulsive and more rash, but he's only more impulsive and more rash when it serves the purposes of the writers. That's part of my problem with "Chasing It" and that's why I never buy Tony would give in to this particular vice of gambling. He's supposedly more impulsive, but he is only impulsive in regard to matters he has always been impulsive on...of which gambling isn't included.

Plus, look at the things he’s wagering: The horse he bets on in the race is named “Meadow’s Gold,” something he considers a lucky omen, even if said horse eventually loses. Tony is betting that he’s built up such a large lead that the universe can never come calling,

While part of this may be true, this one bet isn't what got him in gambling trouble. It was a string of bad gambles that I find outside of his character.

that his survival—and, indeed, his continuing to thrive—is a “sure thing,” as sure as that Chargers quarterback with the hairline fracture in his leg going down.

While I can buy this, Tony has never shown any interest in gambling on football prior to this, other than to find out how much Paulie/Christopher were making per week that could be kicked into his own pocket. Again, gambling was a source of income for Tony, not a vice. It always had been that way until this episode came around.

If those first 12 episodes are about a man who desperately tries to change, who tries to hold off his own worst impulses to become something “better” (whatever that means for Tony Soprano), then these last nine episodes are about how that man, having realized how much less exciting it is to be that responsible adult and to commit himself to his marriage and the prospect of change, cycles into self-destruction.

I perceive these episodes the same way, but it doesn't change the fact Tony's gambling addiction is a one episode addiction. It shows up and disappears in one episode. He isn't cycling into self-destruction, but the writers are randomly assigning him a self-destructive behavior for one episode only and then moving on. A person doesn't cycle into self-destructive gambling and then just magically stop without some major change in attitude or invention, neither of which Tony undergoes.

In that sense, a gambling problem is incredibly appropriate: Tony Soprano is gambling with his life, and he’s building up a bigger and bigger debt to the house. 

It's incredibly not appropriate because it is a temporary cycle of self-destruction motivated by what the writers want and not caused by any character development. I can buy cycles of self-destruction, but the cycles must continue to be believed and not resolved magically in a single episode.

Hesh, more than anyone, understands how deeply Tony could be burying himself with gambling and his lifestyle. (At one point, he rants to his girlfriend, Renata, about the cost of Tony’s boat, which is massive.) Yet Tony doesn’t want to hear it. He’s not interested in the ways he could be dooming himself, not when there’s a great big present to go out and live in.

So where does this Tony that is deeply burying himself in gambling go after this episode? He pays Hesh back and then this deeply indebted Tony disappears and goes back to the Tony Soprano we know from the other 85 episodes.

Throughout, he keeps coming up with new funds, then losing them on bets. What he’s doing here isn’t really addiction, per se, nor is he really desperate to find a way back to solvency. 

So Tony has a gambling problem (as acknowledged above), but not an addiction? I'm sure there is a difference but I fail to understand it. It's still a new Tony Soprano for one episode.

He promised Marie he’d help out where he could, but he bristles at giving her the substantial sum it would cost to go to Maine, both because his gambling losses would make a payout of $100,000 hurt more than usual, and because he just doesn’t care all that much, beyond the theoretical. I really do believe in an earlier season, Tony would have hemmed and hawed and eventually given Marie that money. (Then again, in an earlier season, he wouldn’t have lost so much gambling.)

Because it wasn't in his nature to develop a gambling problem. Tony never had a gambling problem before or after this episode. See the issue? The gambling is just a random character issue the writers lazily threw into one episode. VanDerWerff knows this episode has an inconsistent characterization of Tony Soprano even if he can't admit it. It's such lazy writing on the part of Matthew Weiner.

This is still an okay episode of "The Sopranos" (it's just a great show), but I can't pretend it is well-written or doesn't have major flaws simply because it is probably my favorite show. There's no defending this episode and I have always been surprised critics don't absolutely hate it. I don't hate it (because I love the show), but the characterization and writing is shit. Some would disagree with me I guess.