MovieChat Forums > Breaking Bad (2008) Discussion > Mike's complaint about Walt in "Say My N...

Mike's complaint about Walt in "Say My Name" doesn't make sense


Here's what Mike said to Walt:

We had a good thing, you stupid son of a bitch! We had Fring. We had a lab. We had everything we needed, and it all ran like clockwork. You could've shut your mouth, cooked and made as much money as you ever needed. It was perfect. But, no, you just had to blow it up. You and your pride and your ego! You just had to be the man. If you'd done your job, known your place, we'd all be fine right now.


But this is not what "blew it up", and Mike knows that, or should know it. Walt was perfectly happy to stay in his lane, keep cooking, keep rolling in the money, and not make waves. But Jesse was out for revenge against those drug dealers that used Tomas to kill Combo. He tried to enlist Walt's help, but as I say, Walt did not want to rock the boat. Instead, Walt went to Gus to set up a meeting to try to de-escalate the situation.

But then they killed Tomas, and Jesse's desire for vengeance burned even hotter. Walt knew this, and so when Jesse was about to get himself killed trying to take them on, Walt came barrelling in and ran them over, and shot them. This selfless act of saving Jesse is what set in motion all the events that destroyed Gus's operation. (I'm not arguing for Walt being a good guy--he did lots of terrible things--but this was not among them.) Gus decided because of this to kill Walt as soon as Gale mastered the cook, which then meant Walt had to start going into self-preservation mode, and that all led ultimately to Gus's downfall ("I won").

So, okay: maybe at the time this happened, Mike felt Walt should have just let Jesse get what was coming to him and stay out of it. But between that time and the time Mike gave Walt this speech, Mike and Jesse had become very close, almost like father and son. So Mike is saying Walt shouldn't have saved his dear surrogate son Jesse? Or he should have saved him, and then meekly let Mike kill Walt (when he came to get him under the ruse of "a chemical leak" at the lab)?

Whatever the case, what was the scenario in which "we'd all be fine right now"? I've got to assume that "we" included Mike, Walt, and Jesse at least. And I don't see it. If anything, Mike should be delivering this lecture to Jesse, as Jesse backing down from taking on the drug dealers would have been the only way they all could have ended up being "fine".

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

[deleted]

I wish he would acknowledge that! He otherwise always comes across as the most logical, no-BS guy in any room.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

I totally agree with original poster and have said the same myself. Throughout the series Jesse has been the main fly in the ointment that Walt had to clean up after, from the OP's example to Jane's final episode to many other episodes.
It's amazing to me that Jesse gets a pass as the gullible innocent but Walt is cast as the evil-doer. The argument can be made (and I believe that it was made by Vince Gilligan) that Walt is the more empathetic character of the entire lot.

reply

You may totally agree with me, but I don't totally agree with you, sorry. I was not at all okay with what Walter did to Jane: in fact, that was where he lost me, permanently, in terms of me ever being willing to root for him again other than as the lesser of two evils.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

Janes death is on Jesse's hands, not Walt's. Jesse and Jane put themselves and Walt in danger by demanding that Walt turn over all the money or else Jane was going to turn Walt in. So, as you so poignantly stated in your original post, 'was Walt suppose to meekly roll over and let Jane turn him in and put his entire family's safety at risk from the cartel'? Walt, rightfully so, has stated several times that given the option of protecting himself & Jesse or the other guy that the other guy loses. Thus, Janes loss. Just another example of Jesse repeatedly putting himself and Walt in jeopardy.

reply

There should be an apostrophe in Janes, i.e. Jane's death, Jane's loss. You know this: you managed it with

family's
.

Your sloppy grammar reflects your sloppy thinking. Jane had nothing to gain by turning Walt in; the Feds would have taken all the drug money - Walt's and Jesse's. The threat was an empty one.

Vote Syriza and Podemos!

reply

Uh, thank you grammar police. You may differ but that doesn't make my POV any more 'sloppy thinking' than yours. Please stick to the topic and save your snide comments. Jane(apostrophe)s threat was not an empty threat. Jane was an addict not prone to thinking beyond her next fix so she very well may have called the police out of spite as she said she would. She made the threat therefore it was a real threat. If Jane would have turned in Walt and by association, Jesse then she would have given the police a direct connection to the Cartel who would have killed Walt and Jesse if necessary to keep them quiet. Walt was not going to save an addict who directly threatened his safety. Therefore, Jane with Jesse (apostrophe)s support brought on her own demise. Walt said that they would be dead in a matter of days if they took that money and Jane did die and Jesse was well on his way save for Walt's intervention.

reply

By Jesse complaining to Jane that he couldn't get money that was rightfully his from Walt, it was basically an ask for help and basically gave Jane licence to get the money from Walt - her way.

Jane was savvy, so approached the problem with a method she was pretty sure would work - She told Walt to get Jesse's money to him without any further delay or 'she would burn him to the ground'. I think that is roughly what she said.....

You are assuming that is a solid threat that she would turn him in to the police. But from a woman's perspective I see it differently.
For starters Jane wouldn't bring the police into their setup - why would she? Jesse is doing drugs and she loves Jesse, or at least is planning some future with him. Jesse has been manufacturing drugs! Jane herself has been a heavy drug user - she isn't going to bring the law anywhere near them! Sensibility tells Walt she isn't going to act to hurt Jesse, and hence herself.

No, my take is that she has his phone number and knows where he lives - and a well placed call to a member of his family could 'burn' Walt's operation if she hints about what he is doing, at least make it difficult for Walt - at home. She might even ring Walt's wife and spin a story that she has been having an affair with Walt ..... Whatever!

Jane has obviously been around some savvy heavy people during her drug days - and has learnt to push back ...... hard! The fact is that it worked, however Walt chose to interpret the threat .. he acted without hesitation and delivered Jesse's loot promptly.
Walt understood that Jane knew the game - that he could no longer ignore the discomfort he was causing Jesse by withholding his rightful money - because Jane had clearly spelt out that she could turn the tables to make Walt equally be made to feel discomfort should he continue to behave in that manner.

Jane's later threat at the front door after the money was handed over - was basically to tell Walt to leave Jesse (and her) alone or else (same threat as above). The last thing Jesse said to Walt was to assure him 'You will never see or hear from either of us again.'

Walt knew the score - his gig with Jesse was up. For Jane to behave the way she did towards Walt with such conviction, Jesse had obviously told Jane that Walt was a user and abuser of him - and he wanted out.

All the rest of what happened past that point that night was Walt behaving exactly the way towards Jesse which had brought Jesse to the point of wanting to get far far away from Walt's abuse - as he had communicated to Jane, and on which gutsy Jane had acted, in hers and Jesse's interests.

Walt's not leaving them alone that night was Walt pushing back at Jesse and Jane - "It's over when I say it's over!"


Matrixflower :)

reply

I can see and agree with the most of your statement however, still for all those reasons it comes back to Jane (and Jesse) causing Jane's death. Her pushing back, her 'savvy', her calculating. In the end how she played her hand cost her her life. Walt wasn't obligated to save her and her cunning against him ensured that he didn't.
The other issue is that she was a strung out addict that her own Dad could not reign in so an addict throwing around weight and threats is basically digging her own grave. Not to mention that whatever street level junkies that Jane may have culled her skills with throughout the years is nowhere near the high stakes Cartel drug game that she unwittingly got tangentially involved with through Walt and Jesse.
And I liked Jane a lot! Much more than the other girl Jesse got involved with. One of the things that makes Breaking Bad great is the layers and completions of each character that generates debates and varying viewpoints. Different characters resonate with different viewers for any number of reasons. Great show and good post.

reply

Jane's gambit succeeded, in that Walt folded to her bluff. It was her father who then unknowingly changed her fate by impressing on Walt the importance of family and thus causing him to return to mend fences with his "nephew". Jane was alive when Walt entered the room and dead when he left. She might have died within a week or lived for years, as many addicts do, though you wouldn't know it from those who spout the War on Drugs propaganda.

Half the people I know are functioning addicts (alcoholics).

I somewhat disagree with you about Walt and Jesse's exchange. Yes he did say that but his body language - the hesitant speech, the hangdog look - screamed regret. Hence Walt thinking Jesse might be amenable to a reconciliation. So it seemed to me, anyway.

Vote Syriza and Podemos!

reply

Janes death is on Jesse's hands, not Walt's.

Nah, Jane's death is on Jane's hands and Jane's alone. She's the one that injected poison into her veins and caused her OD. She killed herself.

〰〰〰〰〰〰
http://bit.ly/1BXT2z8

reply

Fair enough

reply

What did he do to Jane? He let her meet her self-created demise to save Jesse's life. It was either let her die and save Jesse, or they both die. He made the moral decision.

reply

Jane didn't self-create her demise. See Sokeyt's post above.

reply

What post above? She chose to do heroin, she vomited from the heroin, she choked to death on the vomit, which was the risk she took.

reply

The post just above by Sokeyt.

The cause of Jane's death wasn't her choice to take heroin, since her death only occurred due to a third-party accidentally reversing her precaution by knocking her on her back, then ensuring the lethal process continued by withholding aid. None of that crucial context of her death was created by Jane herself.

She tempted fate, but it was her fate to tempt. Everyone has the right to continue living on their own terms, even if it's just a few more hours. "The risk she took" did not include Walt imposing his own terms when he decided not to render aid after creating the lethal situation.

Regardless of how high or low Jane's chances of choking to death if left undisturbed, Walt's actions absolutely determined it. He wiped out all chance of survival. That is the relevant context.

reply

The post just above by Sokeyt.

The cause of Jane's death wasn't her choice to take heroin, since her death only occurred due to a third-party accidentally reversing her precaution by knocking her on her back, then ensuring the lethal process continued by withholding aid. None of that crucial context of her death was created by Jane herself.

She tempted fate, but it was her fate to tempt. Everyone has the right to continue living on their own terms, even if it's just a few more hours. "The risk she took" did not include Walt imposing his own terms when he decided not to render aid after creating the lethal situation.

Regardless of how high or low Jane's chances of choking to death if left undisturbed, Walt's actions absolutely determined it. He wiped out all chance of survival. That is the relevant context.


No, her death only occurred due to her taking a substance that made her vomit while she was unconscious. There is no lethal situation without Jane taking heroin. Walt did not choose to create a lethal situation by putting heroin in Jane's body.

Walt's moral dilemma was saving one life or letting them both die. Had he saved her life, it was a forgone conclusion she and Jesse would have both ended up dead. Again, the lesser of two evils.

reply

You've confused conditions of increased risk of a lethal situation with the actual lethal situation. Jane was responsible for the former, Walt for the latter.

It was not a "forgone conclusion" that they would both die if he'd saved her life. For all you know, his saving her life could have been the shock she needed to motivate her to seek help again. After all, she'd done so before. The "forgone conclusion" is only what you imagine, not what you know. Again, see Sokeyt's post.

reply

No. Rolling someone onto their back (inadvertently, I might add) is not a risk for a lethal situation unless something strange has happened, such as that person having done heroin. Walt's inadvertent contribution was not the critical element. Heroin by itself is dangerous. Rolling someone onto their back by itself is not.


It was not a "forgone conclusion" that they would both die if he'd saved her life. For all you know, his saving her life could have been the shock she needed to motivate her to seek help again. After all, she'd done so before. The "forgone conclusion" is only what you imagine, not what you know. Again, see Sokeyt's post.


How would him rolling her over while she's unconscious so that she later wakes up after having vomited shock her into seeking help again? She'd wake up and they'd be off to get more to continue feeding their addiction.

reply

No. Rolling someone onto their back (inadvertently, I might add) is not a risk for a lethal situation unless something strange has happened, such as that person having done heroin.

Nor is being on your side a guarantee you won't choke on vomit. Jane falling to her back didn't cause her to vomit. The heroin she freely injected into herself did.

〰〰〰〰〰〰
http://bit.ly/1BXT2z8

reply

Misftz has also confused the distinction between risk and certainty. The relevant issue isn't what might happen, but what did happen. In order for Walt's knocking her over to have created the lethal situation, it didn't need to reverse a situation guaranteed to be safe in the future, but only to reverse a stable situation in the present. Jane had a probability of survival, and no matter how slim it may have been, Walt made it zero.

reply

No, Walt did not make it 0. There was no guarantee she was going to vomit before she vomited. When Walt rolled her onto her back, she had a chance to survive - by not vomiting.

There was also no guarantee that after he accidentally rolled her onto her back, she wouldn't regain consciousness when she vomited.

Walt does not magically transcend time. That's like saying if you leave someone with a heart condition unattended for an hour and they have a heart attack while you're gone, you created a lethal "certainty" by not being there to either call 9-1-1 or perform CPR. As though their unknown future health crisis was guaranteed to happen because whatever is destined shall be, but you caused their death by inadvertently doing something that means they don't survive this unknown future health crisis occurring.

How utterly absurd.

reply

Since you didn't understand plain English, you've repeated the mistake of confusing conditions of increased risk of a lethal situation with the actual lethal situation. I didn't say that rolling someone onto their back was a risk for a lethal situation, I said that Jane's taking heroin increased her risk of a lethal situation, and that when Walt rolled her he created it. Again, see Sokeyt's post.

Your second paragraph repeats an assumption that you cannot actually know. The certainty only exists in your imagination.

reply

Since you didn't understand plain English, you've repeated the mistake of confusing conditions of increased risk of a lethal situation with the actual lethal situation. I didn't say that rolling someone onto their back was a risk for a lethal situation, I said that Jane's taking heroin increased her risk of a lethal situation, and that when Walt rolled her he created it. Again, see Sokeyt's post.


Uh, no. When Walt rolled her onto her back it only further increased the risk. It didn't create it.


Your second paragraph repeats an assumption that you cannot actually know. The certainty only exists in your imagination.


From their actions, it was clear they were not going to get clean. Jane's plan was to flee the country...."and we'll stop, just because...but, crap...there's heroin....well, let's get high one last time."

I'm sure that wasn't the first time Jane had vomited while passed out. It never stopped her before, why would it now?

reply

You're confusing risk with what definitively happened. When Walt rolled her onto her back she began to vomit. Since that is what happened, and since he caused it, the situation was beyond risk into actuality. This would be self-evident to an intelligent child.

"From their actions" refers to probability, not certainty. That is, it's guessing. You're unable to tell the difference. Again, addicts beat the odds all the time. Jane had done so before. Thus "from their actions" also means a probability of getting clean, however slim. And as I say, Walt robbed her of that probability, of any chance whatsoever.

I'm sure that wasn't the first time Jane had vomited while passed out. It never stopped her before, why would it now?

"Wasn't the first time" isn't the same as "always." The flaw in that logic is the assumption that Jane always and necessarily vomited every time she did smack. But that is more than you know. In fact, because Jane took the precaution to lie on her side this time, it is not unreasonable to assume that she had avoided vomiting other times in the past. Had Walt helped clear her airway and called the ambulance, in the aftermath the shock of nearly dying, hospitalization, the police, her father, and a frightened Jesse, might have motivated her to commit to rehab again. After all, she had done so before. That possibility existed for her, and again, Walt imposed his will and eliminated it.

reply

You're confusing risk with what definitively happened. When Walt rolled her onto her back she began to vomit. Since that is what happened, and since he caused it, the situation was beyond risk into actuality. This would be self-evident to an intelligent child.


Uh, no. Because Walt did not cause her to vomit. She was at risk for a lethal situation after doing heroin. Then Walt further increased the risk when he accidentally rolled her onto her back. And then she happened to vomit later. She was not vomiting as he was rolling her onto her back. It had not happened yet. Probability refers to things that have not happened yet, and Jane had not vomited yet.

There was a chance she could vomit and die when she was on her side. Then when Walt accidentally rolled her onto her back, there was a greater chance she could vomit and die. But it still had yet to happen, so it was only a risk he created, not a certainty.

This would be evident to someone who realizes that "self-evident" is redundant. You know, someone who isn't a pseudo-intellectual moron.


"Wasn't the first time" isn't the same as "always." The flaw in that logic is the assumption that Jane always and necessarily vomited every time she did smack.


What assumption that she always vomited? I made no such assumption. My assumption is that it's not the first time she vomited after doing heroin, hence she's not going to be shocked by it and motivated to quit. Maybe she's only vomited 3 times before after getting high 500 times. I doubt seeing she has vomited a 4th time is going to make her go, "OMG, better stop!"


But that is more than you know. In fact, because Jane took the precaution to lie on her side this time, it is not unreasonable to assume that she had avoided vomiting other times in the past. Had Walt helped clear her airway and called the ambulance, in the aftermath the shock of nearly dying, hospitalization, the police, her father, and a frightened Jesse, might have motivated her to commit to rehab again. After all, she had done so before. That possibility existed for her, and again, Walt imposed his will and eliminated it.


What shock of nearly dying? Why would he call an ambulance? He'd roll her over and that would be the end of it. She'd wake up with puke on her pillow and plan to run away with Jesse to Australia to get high.

reply

Vince Gilligan made that argument in a cautionary, very qualified way. He acknowledged the character's powerful draw, but pointed out that a major source involved the natural magic of putting viewers in a protagonist's POV. It's a kind of spell that Gilligan likened to a Stockholm Syndrome.

Otherwise, Gilligan said "He's in fact, the monster, the cancer, if you will, that's destroying her and her family... We do not celebrate Walter White. He’s a creep, at this point."

Aaron Paul made a similar point, in his own manner: "I mean, he does so many horrible things and yet the fans are still like, 'Yeah, Walt! Effing poison that kid! You're dying of cancer. I understand!'"

reply

[deleted]

It makes perfect sense but this problem is with the writers as they make walt do stupid choices especially when hes had a few drinks.


If walt just decided to let it play out however it was going to or to stop in front of jesse and make him get into the car OR to just run jesse over. It wouldve been way different than killing those drug dealers.

If walt killed jesse and still had problems with gus then that wouldve been interesting but no the writers and vince were too idiotic about keeping jesse alive that they kinda ruined the show a bit. Hell even in the end jesse escaped, dont know how far he got but it was stupid.

reply

If walt killed jesse and still had problems with gus then that wouldve been interesting.....


No. It really wouldn't.

(Must. Resist. Commenting on....)

Vote Syriza and Podemos!

reply

Having just rewatched the series, I think we can safely assume that Mike was referring to Walt letting Gus kill Jesse as was the original plan. That's the good thing they had going that Walt screwed up, he stood up for Jesse and set in motion the arms race between himself and Gus. You can say Gus is the one at fault, and I'd agree, but that doesn't change anything. It was still in Walt's power to let it go, let it happen, and have a happy little meth empire. That's surely to what Mike is referring.

You're way overstating Mike's relationship with Jesse. He does not have one. Everything between Mike and Jesse was orchestrated by Gus to get Jesse on Gus's side against Walt. Mike never had any personal feelings for Jesse, as we can see from the way he rebuffs Jesse when Jesse tries to get closer to him with his whole "I'm out, too, Mike." Mike wasn't having any of that and just said goodbye.

---
Pride is not the opposite of shame, but its source. True humility is the antidote to shame.

reply

You're way overstating Mike's relationship with Jesse. He does not have one. Everything between Mike and Jesse was orchestrated by Gus to get Jesse on Gus's side against Walt. Mike never had any personal feelings for Jesse, as we can see from the way he rebuffs Jesse when Jesse tries to get closer to him with his whole "I'm out, too, Mike." Mike wasn't having any of that and just said goodbye.


Disagree. Mike would have shot Walt on several occasions if not for Jesse.

You have taken one exchange out of context. Mike knew that Walt wouldn't let Jesse go. His reaction to "I'm out..." is weary and sceptical, like: "Oh yeah?" He warned Jesse about Walt on several occasions. And his parting words are for Jesse to take care of himself.



Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown.

reply

Mike would have shot Walt on several occasions if not for Jesse.


I don't disagree with this at all. But he doesn't do it out of love for Jesse. He does it because Jesse convinces him with good reasoning.

When have we ever seen Mike show affection for Jesse? He buddied up with him on Gus's orders and nothing more. But even if we were to agree that Mike had some level of affection for Jesse, isn't it entirely plausible that this affection paled in comparison to Mike's frustration over the fact that his entire life is ruined, he's about to die, and he wasn't even able to get money to his granddaughter? At that point, even if he did like Jesse, he still would probably rather the guy die so that he could get everything back.

---
Pride is not the opposite of shame, but its source. True humility is the antidote to shame.

reply

[deleted]

We had a good thing, you stupid son of a bitch! We had Fring. We had a lab. We had everything we needed, and it all ran like clockwork. You could've shut your mouth, cooked and made as much money as you ever needed. It was perfect. But, no, you just had to blow it up. You and your pride and your ego! You just had to be the man. If you'd done your job, known your place, we'd all be fine right now.


But this is not what "blew it up", and Mike knows that, or should know it. Walt was perfectly happy to stay in his lane, keep cooking, keep rolling in the money, and not make waves.


I agree with you YourOneBeauty, and noticed this too. I guess Mike forgot the part where Gus told Walter that he would murder him and his whole family, which is why Walter had to kill Gus.

reply

Gus didn't actually say to Walt that he was going to kill his family. It was a threat. He said that Walt had to stay away from him and the meth business (or something to that effect), or else Gus would kill Walt's family.

It's possible to go through all the interactions between Walt, Gus and Jesse and make excuses for Walt's behaviour and decisions.

But holistically looking at Walt's pattern of behaviour towards Gus - he was proud and arrogant, he wouldn't subordinate and toe the line. He prioritised his relationship with Jesse over loyalty to Gus.

I think Mike was refering to Walt's general pattern of conduct towards Gus. Note that the BB story is told from Walt's perspective and this makes viewers sympathetic to him and his rationalisations. Mike has another perspective entirely.

Not saying Mike is wrong or that Walt fans ( oh hi Shadowkiss lol) are wrong. They are just different points of view.

reply

Well hello there cnn lol.

Walter is the main character, so of course you get to see things from his perspective, but you also get to see other characters' perspective, especially Jesse, but also Skyler, Hank, and Marie, in certain episodes. All through the series you are expected to judge Walter's every action and decision (and his motives), and to pretty much blame everything on him, but in reality the other characters are also part of the "cause and effect", and while you are focused on "evil" Walter, you are likely missing many of the other characters' faults and shortcomings. Hank is the only one, apart from Walter, who truly acknowledges his "dark sides" (at least some of them), the others are more or less lying to themselves.

Your opinion about Walter is also, in some ways, a matter of perspective. Either way you look at it of course he is a criminal (I am not denying that), but while you might see Walter as an average guy who does bad things, I see a genius who, despite being in the meth business, is a rather nice guy compared to the other meth dealers/movers (and Jack and his gang), who for the most part are psychopaths and cold blooded killers, and can even murder children without remorse. Walter never is, and never becomes, as bad as they are. However, if you consider that all murders (or even the intention of murder) are equally evil, no matter the motives, then you would have to admit that Jesse, Skyler, and Hank, are just as "evil" as Walter. And that Jane, considering she was 27 year old and knew very well that when you take heroin you risk dying of an overdose, yet still introduced Jesse to this drug, was very close to being as "bad" as Walter (not to mention the fact that she was also greedy, and stupid enough to threaten a drug dealer). I kind of liked her character tho, at least she was more interesting than Andrea.

How can you blame Walter for his loyalty to Jesse? Jesse is a good guy despite his faults, while Gus is a cold blooded killer. And eventho it also causes a lot of trouble, their loyalty to each other is what keeps them alive through thick and thin during the whole series (or most of it).

Gus definitely does threaten Walter's family. When Gus takes Walter in the desert and threatens him, Walter points out that the only reason Gus hasn't killed him already is because Jesse won't let him. Gus threatens him once more at some point during the scene when he says that Jesse "will come around". Later during that scene Gus also mentions that he will have to deal with Hank himself (i.e. obviously kill Hank), and that if Walter intervenes he will kill him and his whole family, and he is very specific about it, even mentioning his infant daughter. So this doesn't leave Walter with many options, he could of course have killed Jesse which would have made him indispensable to Gus again, he could have just let Gus murder Hank, or warn him and then look behind his back, and his family's, for the rest of his life, not to mention that considering both Gus and Mike wanted to kill Jesse, he too would have been murdered eventually whenever they would have had the chance. Walter simply chose the best option: kill Gus. And he finally had to resort to a more elaborate plan, which unfortunately also involved Brock, only because Jesse's loyalty (to Walter) was failing (despite the fact that Gus had murdered a child, and had threatened his life more than once) and he still wouldn't give the ricin to Gus.

reply

Boooooooooooriiiiiing

Snooze.

reply

Boooooooooooriiiiiing

Snooze.


LOL! I hope I helped you get a good night sleep :)

reply

Thanks...I was referring to cnn here, though. I like yours. ;)

reply

Thanks dgl :)

reply

Well, by this time, Mike pretty knew how Walt ticks. He knew that deep down, Walt wanted to be the man even then, regardless of the circumstances. And remember, Mike was mad at Walt at this point. Mike's view of past events need not be completely accurate, it's just that he blames Walt for everything bad that's happened to him.

reply

he blames Walt for everything bad that's happened to him


Pretty much like most other characters in the show (i.e. especially those revolving around Walter), all except Hank, blissfully blind to their own dark sides and/or faults.

I did like Mike tho :)

reply