Random Thoughts on "The Benign Prerogative"
Toniann
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- So, the so-called "walking lawsuit" Rena is Toby's -- what, assistant,
now? If I caught what Margaret was saying correctly, that's what it sounded
like. Aside from other issues (such as, where the heck are they going with
this), where oh where are Bonnie and Ginger?
- Could you ever trust a reporter? It may very well be the start of a joke,
but I can't imagine Charlie would really need to ask CJ that question. Danny
Concannon was a man of proven morals and integrity, someone CJ knew and
admired, and she still didn't truly feel she could risk a relationship with
him. Her answer to that question was pretty much going to be a no-brainer.
- I think Meeshell Anders' perspective will probably change the longer she's
a member of the Press Corps, and the more time she spends in the West Wing.
Don't get me wrong: I don't think Charlie handled the situation very well.
She didn't try to trick him, and I think she believed what she said when she
argued that her position and Charlie's shouldn't preclude a relationship,
but I fear she's wrong about that. Charlie's first responsibility --
everyone's -- is to the president, and he's always going to be worried about
compromising that. His mistake was reacting to her with anger, but I
suppose, from his last words on the subject, it grew out of disappointment.
- In a way, this situation was similar to something I noticed between Josh
and Donna in this episode. No one can doubt how much he loves her (and I'm
not speculating on the nature of that love, but it is there in some form),
but Josh was the one who didn't want Donna to give the Kaehler's message to
the president. He knew how much it meant to her, but his first priority, no
matter what, has to be protecting the president and looking after his best
interests.
- It *is* an honor to work for the president, and I think Donna believes
that, but I'm left wondering how she feels about that young boy who was left
off the list for political reasons, and what happened as a result. I think
it would take a lot of strength and understanding to separate what her heart
feels and the harsh reality of a president's tough choices. I guess what I'm
saying is, I think Donna has that in her. I'm not sure I would. But, that's
why they pay her the big bucks.
- Coming full circle: we first addressed mandatory minimums in season 1
(even made it an episode title) and it's only now, in season 5, that we see
the Bartlet White House do something about it, which strikes me as close to
realistic. Seems like maybe that fellow in the mall that Toby talked to
("That's my guy. That's who I write for.") may have had a point.
- Why'd we get so stingy, Bartlet asked, and I wonder about that myself. If
those numbers on clemencies were accurate, what's changed? Is it the media
glare, and the fact that the president can no longer commute even one
sentence without that decision being scrutinized by the public? Is it
completely naive to think that the justice system has gotten more accurate
and fewer clemencies are needed -- and if it is naive, has the process
instead been obfuscated?
- On a lighter note, I'm beginning to be quite intrigued by Gentle Ben, Park
Ranger and suitor to Ms. Cregg. Who is this fellow with the husky voice and
the 907 area code?
- That was a nice suit Josh was wearing, even if it wasn't his Joey Lucas
suit... which is probably just as well, considering. The look on his face
was, frankly, priceless.
- I like this new direction for Abbey. I think she's struggled, over the
years, with coming to terms with the fact that she holds more influence over
the president than anyone else -- because he's her husband, and in their
marriage, that's how it should be. What I understood her to be saying
tonight is that she's no longer going to shy from that role, politically,
and whether you agree or disagree, personally, I have a tendency to admire
people who make the call and stick with it. And I love that she and Leo have
made up; that little wedding-gift banter was classic. A juicer, indeed.
--
Toniann
"I have two words for you: search engine."
Random Thoughts can be found archived at
http://www.borghalrantipole.com/thewestwing.html
The alt.tv.the-west-wing FAQ can be found at
http://www.borghalrantipole.com/WestWing/twwfaq.txt
John F
"Toniann" <hir...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:VInNb.183$Fl1...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Random Thoughts on "The Benign Prerogative"
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (even made it an episode title) and it's only now, in season 5, that we
see
> the Bartlet White House do something about it, which strikes me as close
to
> realistic. Seems like maybe that fellow in the mall that Toby talked to
> ("That's my guy. That's who I write for.") may have had a point.
>
> - Why'd we get so stingy, Bartlet asked, and I wonder about that myself.
If
> those numbers on clemencies were accurate, what's changed? Is it the media
> glare, and the fact that the president can no longer commute even one
> sentence without that decision being scrutinized by the public? Is it
> completely naive to think that the justice system has gotten more accurate
> and fewer clemencies are needed -- and if it is naive, has the process
> instead been obfuscated?
>
Can a lawyer enlighten? When did it become necessary to read a suspect their
rights when arresting them?
I am glad they had the President making a tough decision in this episode. In
the past there would be a big discussion and worrying about what the
political consequences would be, then Jed would make the right decision, and
we would never hear about the problem again, making all the worrying
irrelevant. I'm specifically thinking of the time the Surgeon General made
comments about drug use.
Caroline
snip
> - I think Meeshell Anders' perspective
Meeshell? I assume you being the researcher-type you nailed this. Knock my socks
off.
snip
> - It *is* an honor to work for the president, and I think Donna believes
> that, but I'm left wondering how she feels about that young boy who was left
> off the list for political reasons, and what happened as a result. I think
> it would take a lot of strength and understanding to separate what her heart
> feels and the harsh reality of a president's tough choices. I guess what I'm
> saying is, I think Donna has that in her. I'm not sure I would. But, that's
> why they pay her the big bucks.
Yet it seems to me that, because Donna did not separate what her heart feels
from the status quo tough choices of a President, 35 were pardoned instead of
only six or so.
snip
> - Why'd we get so stingy, Bartlet asked, and I wonder about that myself. If
> those numbers on clemencies were accurate, what's changed? Is it the media
> glare, and the fact that the president can no longer commute even one
> sentence without that decision being scrutinized by the public? Is it
> completely naive to think that the justice system has gotten more accurate
> and fewer clemencies are needed -- and if it is naive, has the process
> instead been obfuscated?
Assuming the quoted numbers in tonight's shows are correct, good question(s).
I suspect there are good answers but literary license was taken and they were
glossed over somewhat.
> - On a lighter note, I'm beginning to be quite intrigued by Gentle Ben, Park
> Ranger and suitor to Ms. Cregg. Who is this fellow with the husky voice and
> the 907 area code?
Poor Carol. ;-)
The writers oughta throw her a little bone (a subplot) sometime.
snip
> - I like this new direction for Abbey. I think she's struggled, over the
> years, with coming to terms with the fact that she holds more influence over
> the president than anyone else -- because he's her husband, and in their
> marriage, that's how it should be. What I understood her to be saying
> tonight is that she's no longer going to shy from that role, politically,
> and whether you agree or disagree, personally, I have a tendency to admire
> people who make the call and stick with it.
Sorta like Howard Dean's wife, Dr. Whosis.
> And I love that she and Leo have
> made up; that little wedding-gift banter was classic. A juicer, indeed.
Is it a classic for them?! It was delightful, but I don't recall the two of them
tag teaming it like this in well-coordinated mutual support of a cause.
Chemistry. Though like Burns and Allen, I give more credit to Gracie (that is,
Stockard).
That's quite a little message they're sending to Washington society, too, having
Leo to their place the weekend his ex-wife is remarrying, if I understood
correctly.
Wonderful episode. Excellent weaving of diverse sub-plots mixing the personal
with the Presidential, from Joey's pregnancy to Toby's disdain for testing
cornflakes(? not sure) to Donna's emotion overlaying important legal reform to
Charlie's showing again, yes, darn right he appreciates women.
Patrick Aro
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
(edit)
>
> - Coming full circle: we first addressed mandatory minimums in season 1
> (even made it an episode title) and it's only now, in season 5, that we
see
> the Bartlet White House do something about it, which strikes me as close
to
> realistic. Seems like maybe that fellow in the mall that Toby talked to
> ("That's my guy. That's who I write for.") may have had a point.
>
I wonder what kind of sentencing guidelines and/or mandatory minimums are
included in the hate crimes legislation in the WW universe. Was it ever
mentioned what happened to the 13 year old murderers involved in this crime
(ep. 1-10, 1-13)?
--
Patrick
Caroline
> "Toniann" <hir...@verizon.net> wrote
> > Is it
> > completely naive to think that the justice system has gotten more accurate
> > and fewer clemencies are needed -- and if it is naive, has the process
> > instead been obfuscated?
>
> Can a lawyer enlighten? When did it become necessary to read a suspect their
> rights when arresting them?
Are you talking about Miranda rights? Established in the 1960s IIRC? An internet
search or online encyclopedia will turn up the exact details.
And did tonight's episode say one of the clemency applicants had not been read
his/hers? If so, I missed this.
Not a lawyer got it out of high school civics class (like the lawyers ;-) ) and
reading over the years. Also, the courts have revised from time to time over the
years the specifics of giving an accused person his/her Miranda rights.
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> Random Thoughts on "The Benign Prerogative"
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> - So, the so-called "walking lawsuit" Rena is Toby's -- what, assistant,
> now? If I caught what Margaret was saying correctly, that's what it sounded
> like.
Yes, very strange. I mean, I like the character, but I'm not sure what
Toby sees in her from his perspective (and I'm now even more confused
about what "walking lawsuit" meant), and I'm not even sure where the
writers are going.
> - I think Meeshell Anders' perspective will probably change the longer she's
> a member of the Press Corps, and the more time she spends in the West Wing.
> Don't get me wrong: I don't think Charlie handled the situation very well.
> She didn't try to trick him,
I strongly disagree here. She didn't lie to him, but she definately
deceived him. He made a big deal about giving her the chance to attend
the MLK day event, and she never told him that it wouldn't really be
important to her, for the sole reason that to do so, she would have to
let him know about the potential conflict. In his shoes, I would have
been much less worried about the potential conflict if she'd been
forthright about it.
> - On a lighter note, I'm beginning to be quite intrigued by Gentle Ben, Park
> Ranger and suitor to Ms. Cregg. Who is this fellow with the husky voice and
> the 907 area code?
That was weird. She didn't want to take his calls, but she didn't want
to stop him from calling, either. I don't get it. But maybe that's just
because I'm a guy, and one who's pretty clueless about flirting and such
at that. Where is the 907 area code, anyway?
Jon
> - I think Meeshell Anders' perspective will probably change the longer she's
> a member of the Press Corps, and the more time she spends in the West Wing.
> Don't get me wrong: I don't think Charlie handled the situation very well.
> She didn't try to trick him, and I think she believed what she said when she
> argued that her position and Charlie's shouldn't preclude a relationship,
> but I fear she's wrong about that. Charlie's first responsibility --
> everyone's -- is to the president, and he's always going to be worried about
> compromising that. His mistake was reacting to her with anger, but I
> suppose, from his last words on the subject, it grew out of disappointment.
He didn't make a mistake. He realized that he was BEING PLAYED.
She was psycho anyway. If somebody hit me like that, he or she would
draw back a nub...
Jeremy Billones
jim
My problems with the story were - bad attempt and being sorkin with the
opening and the dialog. Well's can;t copy Sorkin, he should build his
own style.
The annoying new assistant to Toby, the ever annoying "will" and the new
very annoying woman who took some of Josh's workload (don't remember her
name but could she possibly be more bland and one dimensional?).
The story made a BAD case for Presidential Pardon's. Why should someone
who fed ex'd LSD be let out of jail? What they did was illegal, stupid
and punishable by jail. Give me an argument as to why they should be
let? The same with the other pardon requests? Why should they be
released as they are obviously convicted criminals. Sorkin would have
made this one interesting.
Charlie's girlfriend - totally boring and unbelievable. Someone, who is
new to the white house as a reporter can simply walk to within feet of
the Oval Office and smack the Presidential Assistant - when they are a
reporter-to-be????? That's ridiculous.
The only interesting thing in this entire episode was Abby's new
attitude.
It may be time to pull the plug on this show.
Bill
> Toniann wrote:
> >
> > Random Thoughts on "The Benign Prerogative"
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where is the 907 area code, anyway?
That's Alaska...
bill f.
Userb3
news:VInNb.183$Fl1...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net:
> - Could you ever trust a reporter?
No, and it doesn't matter if they write for The Afro, The Westside Jr.
High Newsletter, or the New York Times. You're in politics, and you don't
let your guard down, ESPECIALLY if you're the President's right hand man
and are privy to both policy and private issues.
> It may very well be the start of a
> joke, but I can't imagine Charlie would really need to ask CJ that
> question.
I can't believe that CJ didn't blast him, or that (what's her name, the
new woman on the staff) would encourage the relationship.
> - I think Meeshell Anders' perspective will probably change the longer
> she's a member of the Press Corps, and the more time she spends in the
> West Wing.
If not, she shouldn't be there.
> Seems like maybe that fellow in the mall that
> Toby talked to ("That's my guy. That's who I write for.") may have had
> a point.
That scene bothered me. Are we supposed to believe that:
a) The guy who walked out is going to keep close enough tabs on the news
to know whether the pres is actualy doing anything or not? or
b) That Toby doesn;t already know guys like him are out there? or
c) That this is the first time Toby's seen focus groups or polling
methods in action?
BTW - you missed two of my favorite comment worthy moments.
1) The scene of Toby and "the walking lawsuit" returning to the
whitehouse with Toby looking like he's been rode hard and put up wet
while she's tooling along looking spry in her short skirt, heels, and
leopard print suitcase. The lovely and talented Mrs Userb3 practically
jumped out of her seat to exclaim "you can certainly tell which suitcase
is hers!"
2) That said, why are they taking their luggage back to the White House?
Don't they have homes?
3) The slap. I can't believe Miss Afro is bound for the White House press
corps, but has so little self control that she goes around slapping men
who don't call her back. If I were Charlie, I would have turned to her
and said:
"As you may have just seen, I asked the President of the United States to
leave the room and he did, after apologizing for the intrusion. Now, I'm
going to give you 30 seconds to apologize and leave before I call the
Secret Service, tell them you're making threatening statements in Arabic,
have you removed from the building, and have CJ permanently revoke your
press pass."
Userb3
news:EzoNb.55022$sv6.134955@attbi_s52:
> Can a lawyer enlighten? When did it become necessary to read a suspect
> their rights when arresting them?
1966 - see: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa012300a.htm
Andre Lieven
> Toniann wrote:
>> - I think Meeshell Anders' perspective will probably change the longer
>> she's a member of the Press Corps, and the more time she spends in the
>> West Wing.
One would hope, as as shown last night, she had NO clue as to how
loyalties in the building work, or what they mean, for people who are
there for very different reasons...
If you *can't* understand those you're reporting on, your reports will
be waste paper...
>> Don't get me wrong: I don't think Charlie handled the situation very
>> well.
Less poorly then did she...
>> She didn't try to trick him, and I think she believed what she said
>> when she argued that her position and Charlie's shouldn't preclude a
>> relationship, but I fear she's wrong about that.
Indeed. As she was, in not explaining her status there to him...
>> Charlie's first responsibility -- everyone's -- is to the president,
>> and he's always going to be worried about compromising that.
Of course. It would be one thing, if Charlie was to be dating someone
not otherwise connected to the building, *as he thought that he was*...
>> His mistake was reacting to her with anger, but I suppose,
>> from his last words on the subject, it grew out of disappointment.
>
> He didn't make a mistake. He realized that he was BEING PLAYED.
Indeed.
> She was psycho anyway. If somebody hit me like that, he or she would
> draw back a nub...
And, this makes the further point that, when a man merely *says*
something that a woman doesn't like, it's socially considered OK
for her to *commit an act of violence against him*.
Now, reverse the sexes in that scene. Say it's Meeshell who says
something that mightily pisses off Charlie, and Charlie slaps
her face, hard. Is he not, in four minutes, wearing metal cuffs,
on the way to jail ?
Uh huh.
Heres an article on just this point:
24/12/03
http://www.angryharry.com/tgabusivewomen.htm
Public Heaps Scorn on Male Victims of Abusive Women
Linda Mills
USA Today [
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-11-30-opcom_x.htm ]
There has been much public snickering about David Gest's
$10-million lawsuit against his estranged wife, Liza Minnelli, in
which he claims she beat him. Whether the suit is rooted in truth
or in greed, its existence opens the door for a public discussion
about our society's disquieting and pervasive problem of abusive
women. Most people's first reaction to the term "abusive women"
is disbelief. Who would believe the so-called weaker sex can be
as guilty of abuse as men can be? But consider these facts: In a
1975 national survey, researchers Richard Gelles and Murray
Straus found that nearly equal numbers of husbands and wives
committed violent acts against each other. These findings were
confirmed 10 years later and in more than 100 additional studies.
( Lets re-read that last part: These findsing are proven right,
from 29 *years ago*, and have only been further proven right,
since. Yet, its still OK to routinely show women hitting men,
while it's terrible to ever show a man hitting a woman. Who's
sexist, again ? )
So, women have a long-established record as abusers.
What clearly emerges from these studies is that abusive women get
away with their sins. Abused husbands either refuse to admit they
are abused - and why should they, considering the scorn heaped
upon Gest? - or, in a chronic state of fear or denial, refuse to
recognize or even understand that they are being abused.
A striking feature of women's violence is that it can be both
physical and emotional. Suzanne Steinmetz, now a sociology
professor at Indiana University, called "husband beating" the
most unreported crime in the United States. According to a 1997
study of New Zealand young adults, women admitted committing
severe physical aggression at three times the rate of men.
Kicking and hitting with an object were typical examples of
severe physical violence inflicted by women.
Emotional antagonism
Violence researcher Victoria Burbank found that women also are
guilty of emotional abuse, such as locking a partner out of the
house or belittling him. Those who are quick to minimize
emotional abuse should know that these tactics have been found to
predict physical aggression in marriage. In other words, a
woman's emotional abuse can be a catalyst for a physical reaction
from her partner.
The fact is that taking Gest's accusations seriously challenges
our core assumption that women always are victims. In another
recent high profile case, actor Christian Slater received several
stitches to the back of his head after being struck with a
drinking glass. According to news reports, Slater initially told
the police that his wife threw the glass at him. Later, after
learning about Nevada's strict domestic violence laws, he changed
his story and said the glass accidentally slipped out of her hand
while they were joking around.
Not as simple as it may look
The picture of a violent couple is always complicated. Although
it is important to note that men tend to harm women at greater
rates, what's most often occurring is a nuanced, even
imperceptible dynamic between a man and woman in which they
provoke each other. Minnelli's divorce papers, which were filed
one day after Gest's lawsuit, claimed "cruel and unusual
treatment." Five years ago, Christian Slater served 90 days in
jail for slugging a girlfriend.
Sorting out exactly who is doing what to whom is a matter for a
Solomon to decide. But until the American public recognizes and
begins to grapple with this interwoven dynamic, the true causes
of intimate abuse never will be understood nor its sad
consequences adequately addressed.
Beliefs about men's and women's violence are so sacred and arouse
such strong feelings that the thought of questioning them can
sometimes evoke violence. After Steinmetz published her
groundbreaking book, The Battered Husband Syndrome, in 1978, she
was not only derided and denounced, but her children's lives also
were threatened.
We must begin to revise our views on men's and women's violence,
especially as it relates to the insights that a great body of
research already reveals. Failing to do so will compromise all
victims, men and women alike, in their efforts to gain the peace
and justice that they deserve.
And lastly, perhaps it is time to stop snickering over David
Gest's dilemma and begin to appreciate the sadness and
complexities of his situation.
Linda G. Mills is a New York University professor of social work,
an affiliated professor of law and author of Insult to Injury:
Rethinking Our Responses to Intimate Abuse.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
wps
FCD537.085...@news1.news.adelphia.net:
>
> The story made a BAD case for Presidential Pardon's. Why should someone
> who fed ex'd LSD be let out of jail? What they did was illegal, stupid
> and punishable by jail. Give me an argument as to why they should be
> let? The same with the other pardon requests? Why should they be
> released as they are obviously convicted criminals. Sorkin would have
> made this one interesting.
>
I believe they made the point quite well. Their position is that these
"mandatory minimum" penalties for non-violent offenses, such as drug
possession, and low level dealing, serve no purpose. They also deprive
the judiciary of their power to judge.
I tend to agree with their position. There are a limited number of prison
beds available. When someone has to be set free, these non violent
offenders have to remain locked up so the prison has no choice but to
release a murderer or rapist. Who would you rather have roaming the
streets?
Mandatory minimums are a way for idiotic legislators to show the voters
how "tough" they are on crime without spending any money. They believe
that offenders are rational and will realize that the threat of sever
punishment will deter illegal behavior. I believe we have shown that
this is not the case. Some people are going to commit crimes regardless
of the penalty because they either don't care or assume they won't get
caught.
I'm not saying the offenders on that list shouldn't have been punished,
but a mandatory minimum sentencing removes any chance of rewarding
someone who has truly turned his life around after making a mistake.
Caroline
> jim <toomu...@nope.org> wrote
As I watched this episode I realized this was a great issue they were treating
and would lead to some good discussions.
I certainly thought of Jim's point as I watched. For example, I thought TWW
staff were a little too sympathetic to people who knew the law but recklessly,
purposely, broke it anyway. Like Donovan K., who seemed to be from a well-to-do
family and I'm afraid may have been the typical preppie drug dealer. (Could be
wrong in this presumption.) Prison was very hard on him for many reasons. Of
course it was a "frozen hell." We the audience were led to feel free to presume
the young man perhaps was even being raped. (I heard "Leavenworth" and I dunno,
I thought the worst sorts of prison treatment. Again, could be mistaken.) I
guess TWW's writers were also pointing out that juveniles in juvie detention but
who turn 18 (or the age of majority in the particular state or for federal
purposes) will then get transferred to adult prisons which arguably are
inappropriate in many cases.
I don't buy the argument that mandatory minimums are any different judiciary
deprivation than the many other restrictions on judges. MMs may be bad law,
period, but telling Congress to shove it because the President doesn't like this
particular restriction starts pushing the envelope of overriding checks and
balances, etc.
I don't have a solution but enjoyed the posts above and am interested in others'
thoughts.
AuntieLib
<snip>
> - It *is* an honor to work for the president, and I think Donna believes
> that, but I'm left wondering how she feels about that young boy who was left
> off the list for political reasons, and what happened as a result. I think
> it would take a lot of strength and understanding to separate what her heart
> feels and the harsh reality of a president's tough choices. I guess what I'm
> saying is, I think Donna has that in her. I'm not sure I would. But, that's
> why they pay her the big bucks.
Can someone please translate Jed Bartlet's WW-ese into English for me?
Donna seemed to feel a little better about the situation, and her
job, after he got through talking to the recent-parollee. What was it
he said, in plain terms even a thick-headed dolt like me can
understand?
> - Why'd we get so stingy, Bartlet asked, and I wonder about that myself. If
> those numbers on clemencies were accurate, what's changed? Is it the media
> glare, and the fact that the president can no longer commute even one
> sentence without that decision being scrutinized by the public? Is it
> completely naive to think that the justice system has gotten more accurate
> and fewer clemencies are needed -- and if it is naive, has the process
> instead been obfuscated?
I was thinking, while watching the ep, that it's probably a little bit
of All Of The Above. Clemency is a political hot-button, the media
know *everything* and, except for the assinine mandatory minimums
which all too often create ridiculous punishment-doesn't-fit-the-crime
situations, the justice system *has* gotten more sophisticated at
catching the right bad guys.
<snip>
While I have liked the last few episodes, I cringe at the soap-opera
aspect that has taken hold. (That whole Charlie sub-plot was just
awful. I'd like to see Charlie get a life as much as the next person
but that slap was just ludicrous. And the president's walking in and
then bowing out was just the cherry on top. blecch.) The show looks
more and more like "ER" with its myriad sub-plots all dealing with
emotional issues directly related to some cast member or other. I
still like the characters so this is not yet a bad thing but I'm
wondering how long I'll be able to stand it.
elizabeth
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>And, this makes the further point that, when a man merely *says*
>something that a woman doesn't like, it's socially considered OK
>for her to *commit an act of violence against him*.
>
>Now, reverse the sexes in that scene. Say it's Meeshell who says
>something that mightily pisses off Charlie, and Charlie slaps
>her face, hard. Is he not, in four minutes, wearing metal cuffs,
>on the way to jail ?
The number of movies where a woman kicking a man in the balls is
considered high comedy is large.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>"As you may have just seen, I asked the President of the United States to
>leave the room and he did, after apologizing for the intrusion.
That one tiny portion of that one scene did more to dimensionalize Jeb
B. than almost any other in the series.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Patty Winter
Toniann <hir...@STOPSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
>
>- I think Meeshell Anders' perspective will probably change the longer she's
>a member of the Press Corps, and the more time she spends in the West Wing.
I thought that reporters were restricted to the area around the press
room. What was Meeshell doing wandering into the office adjacent to the
Oval Office?
>Don't get me wrong: I don't think Charlie handled the situation very well.
>She didn't try to trick him, and I think she believed what she said when she
>argued that her position and Charlie's shouldn't preclude a relationship,
>but I fear she's wrong about that.
And I fear that we're going to see more of this character. I don't
think we need a character whose purpose is to be a thorn in Charlie's
side.
Patty
Patty Winter
Brett A. Pasternack <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
>Toniann wrote:
>>
>> - So, the so-called "walking lawsuit" Rena is Toby's -- what, assistant,
>> now? If I caught what Margaret was saying correctly, that's what it sounded
>> like.
>
>Yes, very strange. I mean, I like the character, but I'm not sure what
>Toby sees in her from his perspective (and I'm now even more confused
>about what "walking lawsuit" meant), and I'm not even sure where the
>writers are going.
I think they mean that because she dresses in a manner that borders
on the provacative, and has a manner that's on the edge of flirtatious,
she could either provoke one of the male staffers to act inappropriately
or might at least claim that one did.
Patty
Patty Winter
jim <toomu...@nope.org> wrote:
>
>The story made a BAD case for Presidential Pardon's. Why should someone
>who fed ex'd LSD be let out of jail? What they did was illegal, stupid
>and punishable by jail. Give me an argument as to why they should be
>let? The same with the other pardon requests? Why should they be
>released as they are obviously convicted criminals.
Yes, but when people who've committed nonviolent, victimless crimes
get put away for much longer than people who've committed much more
reprehensible crimes, something is wrong with the sentencing system.
The judge in the Kaehler case even said that he didn't want to levy
such a heavy prison term given Donovan's remorse and proven life
changes since the LSD incident, but that he had no choice.
Patty
Patty Winter
AuntieLib <walle...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>Can someone please translate Jed Bartlet's WW-ese into English for me?
> Donna seemed to feel a little better about the situation, and her
>job, after he got through talking to the recent-parollee.
I think she was proud that she had helped 35 people get the opportunity
to rebuild their lives, despite the sad outcome of the 36th case.
Patty
Userb3
@bolt.sonic.net:
>>Yes, very strange. I mean, I like the character, but I'm not sure what
>>Toby sees in her from his perspective (and I'm now even more confused
>>about what "walking lawsuit" meant), and I'm not even sure where the
>>writers are going.
>
> I think they mean that because she dresses in a manner that borders
> on the provacative, and has a manner that's on the edge of flirtatious,
> she could either provoke one of the male staffers to act inappropriately
> or might at least claim that one did.
No, its because she was still working in the White House when the fed gov't
was shut down. During that episode they explained that they couldn't alow
staff to "volunteer" when the gov't was shut down and that there were
similar restrictions on some interns.
David Johnston
>I didn't care about tonights episode, it was very uninteresting.
>
>My problems with the story were - bad attempt and being sorkin with the
>opening and the dialog. Well's can;t copy Sorkin, he should build his
>own style.
>
>The annoying new assistant to Toby, the ever annoying "will" and the new
>very annoying woman who took some of Josh's workload (don't remember her
>name but could she possibly be more bland and one dimensional?).
>
>The story made a BAD case for Presidential Pardon's. Why should someone
>who fed ex'd LSD be let out of jail?
Ah. So doing something like that should automatically mean a life
sentence?
What they did was illegal, stupid
>and punishable by jail. Give me an argument as to why they should be
>let? The same with the other pardon requests? Why should they be
>released as they are obviously convicted criminals.
So doing ANY crime should be an automatic life sentence?
Sorkin would have
>made this one interesting.
>
>Charlie's girlfriend - totally boring and unbelievable. Someone, who is
>new to the white house as a reporter can simply walk to within feet of
>the Oval Office and smack the Presidential Assistant - when they are a
>reporter-to-be????? That's ridiculous.
Also true.
Badger South
wrote:
Yeah, I was mortified, hoping that she wasn't going to compromise
Charlie by getting him to do something inappropriate in the press
room, or undoing her shirt or something. Whew; it didn't happen.
-B
Pesterfield
> >who fed ex'd LSD be let out of jail?
Because it was private mail, which somehow got opened by the wrong
person.
> What they did was illegal, stupid
> >and punishable by jail. Give me an argument as to why they should be
> >let? The same with the other pardon requests? Why should they be
> >released as they are obviously convicted criminals.
Because it's an overreactive punishment to something that shouldn't be
a crime in the first place. For something to be a crime they should
point to a victim, someone who got hurt without wanting to be hurt.
Pesterfield
Isn't Leavenworth a military prison?
As to the war on drugs the best thing for the President to say: "We
surrender. Use drugs or not, but we just don't care anymore." It's
time to get out of the money sink, if you can't beat them join them.
Toniann
> "Toniann" <hir...@verizon.net> wrote
> snip
> > - I think Meeshell Anders' perspective
>
> Meeshell? I assume you being the researcher-type you nailed this. Knock my
socks
> off.
Got it from the closed captioning.
> snip
> > - It *is* an honor to work for the president, and I think Donna believes
> > that, but I'm left wondering how she feels about that young boy who was
left
> > off the list for political reasons, and what happened as a result. I
think
> > it would take a lot of strength and understanding to separate what her
heart
> > feels and the harsh reality of a president's tough choices. I guess what
I'm
> > saying is, I think Donna has that in her. I'm not sure I would. But,
that's
> > why they pay her the big bucks.
>
> Yet it seems to me that, because Donna did not separate what her heart
feels
> from the status quo tough choices of a President, 35 were pardoned instead
of
> only six or so.
Hmmm, I see what you're saying. I was more under the impression, though,
that Toby was the one who pulled that off, after his run in with the "do
something guy". Donna's the one who objected and Josh may have brought it
up, but I thought they went for it because Toby went for it, more than
anything else. But who knows.
> Poor Carol. ;-)
>
> The writers oughta throw her a little bone (a subplot) sometime.
Especially since Donna & Charlie got plenty of face time in this one. Why
not Carol?!?!?!
And where are Bonnie & Ginger?!?!?!
> snip
> > - I like this new direction for Abbey. I think she's struggled, over the
> > years, with coming to terms with the fact that she holds more influence
over
> > the president than anyone else -- because he's her husband, and in their
> > marriage, that's how it should be. What I understood her to be saying
> > tonight is that she's no longer going to shy from that role,
politically,
> > and whether you agree or disagree, personally, I have a tendency to
admire
> > people who make the call and stick with it.
>
> Sorta like Howard Dean's wife, Dr. Whosis.
I was thinking of Dr. Steinberg (I believe that's her name) as the flip side
of the coin, but, imho, an equally valid choice. My thing is, pick one and
go with it, that's all.
> > And I love that she and Leo have
> > made up; that little wedding-gift banter was classic. A juicer, indeed.
>
> Is it a classic for them?! It was delightful, but I don't recall the two
of them
> tag teaming it like this in well-coordinated mutual support of a cause.
> Chemistry. Though like Burns and Allen, I give more credit to Gracie (that
is,
> Stockard).
LOL. Me too. I meant classic in the vernacular sense, or, come to think of
it, the way the Brits use it -- as in, great, wonderful, excellent. Except I
didn't have an accent when I was thinking it or anything.
--
Toniann
"Do not eat the fruit." (Toby Ziegler)
Random Thoughts can be found archived at
http://www.borghalrantipole.com/thewestwing.html
The alt.tv.the-west-wing FAQ can be found at
http://www.borghalrantipole.com/WestWing/twwfaq.txt
Caroline
> "Caroline" <caroline1...@earthlink.net> wrote
snip
> > Yet it seems to me that, because Donna did not separate what her heart
> feels
> > from the status quo tough choices of a President, 35 were pardoned instead
> of
> > only six or so.
>
> Hmmm, I see what you're saying. I was more under the impression, though,
> that Toby was the one who pulled that off, after his run in with the "do
> something guy". Donna's the one who objected and Josh may have brought it
> up, but I thought they went for it because Toby went for it, more than
> anything else. But who knows.
I forgot about Toby's involvement. On the mandatory minimum convicts, I only
remember one of those brief but heavy Toby moments where he was doing the RFK
thing: Some people ask, "Why?" I ask, "why not?"
I'm taking your word for it that Toby led the final charge on this. I'll have to
re-watch.
> > Poor Carol. ;-)
> >
> > The writers oughta throw her a little bone (a subplot) sometime.
>
> Especially since Donna & Charlie got plenty of face time in this one. Why
> not Carol?!?!?!
>
> And where are Bonnie & Ginger?!?!?!
I hope they're on your FAQ... I don't remember these two and meant to dig when I
saw your first mention of them. :-)
snip but all comments noted
> > Is it a classic for them?! It was delightful, but I don't recall the two
> of them
> > tag teaming it like this in well-coordinated mutual support of a cause.
> > Chemistry. Though like Burns and Allen, I give more credit to Gracie (that
> is,
> > Stockard).
>
> LOL. Me too. I meant classic in the vernacular sense, or, come to think of
> it, the way the Brits use it -- as in, great, wonderful, excellent. Except I
> didn't have an accent when I was thinking it or anything.
Got it. It was classic. Makes all those smaller squabbles worth it.
Toniann
> In article <VInNb.183$Fl1...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>,
> Toniann <hir...@STOPSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >- I think Meeshell Anders' perspective will probably change the longer
she's
> >a member of the Press Corps, and the more time she spends in the West
Wing.
>
> I thought that reporters were restricted to the area around the press
> room. What was Meeshell doing wandering into the office adjacent to the
> Oval Office?
I don't know the ins and outs of where reporters are supposed to go, but I
got the impression from her conversation with Angela Blake that Meeshell was
sort of going to "slip" into that area -- she said something about "not
officially, just to say hi".
John F
"Userb3" <userb3re...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns947160A5196...@207.14.113.17...
So, is there a correlation between this and the drop in Presidential
pardons?
Patty Winter
Userb3 <userb3re...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>pat...@wintertime.com (Patty Winter) wrote in news:bu6o44$bgm$1
>@bolt.sonic.net:
>
>> on the provacative, and has a manner that's on the edge of flirtatious,
>> she could either provoke one of the male staffers to act inappropriately
>> or might at least claim that one did.
>
>No, its because she was still working in the White House when the fed gov't
>was shut down. During that episode they explained that they couldn't alow
>staff to "volunteer" when the gov't was shut down and that there were
>similar restrictions on some interns.
That's why she might have caused trouble during the shutdown, but
that's long past, and they're still referring to her as a walking
lawsuit. Any possible repercussions from the shutdown must surely
have been overcome by now.
Patty
Patty Winter
Badger South <Bad...@South.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:02:28 GMT, pat...@wintertime.com (Patty Winter)
>wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> - So, the so-called "walking lawsuit" Rena is Toby's -- what, assistant,
>>>> now? If I caught what Margaret was saying correctly, that's what it sounded
>>>> like.
>>
>>on the provacative, and has a manner that's on the edge of flirtatious,
>
>Charlie by getting him to do something inappropriate in the press
>room, or undoing her shirt or something. Whew; it didn't happen.
Huh?? Was Rena even in any scenes with Charlie? I only remember
her with Toby.
Patty
wps
news:c4099978.04011...@posting.google.com:
-- U.S. Maximum Security Penitentiary -- Federal civilian prisoners
-- U.S. Military Disciplinary Barracks -- Federal military prisoners
-- Lansing Correctional Facility -- Kansas State prison
-- Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) -- primary used by the U.S.
Marshals
In TWW episode the kid in question was housed in the first one.
For more info: http://www.lvarea.com/data/prison.htm
Userb3
>>No, its because she was still working in the White House when the fed
>>gov't was shut down. During that episode they explained that they
>>couldn't alow staff to "volunteer" when the gov't was shut down and
>>that there were similar restrictions on some interns.
>
> That's why she might have caused trouble during the shutdown, but
> that's long past, and they're still referring to her as a walking
> lawsuit.
Once you get a name, its hard to shake it.
Annie Keitz
wrote:
I have a different take on here -- it was her lack of decorum and
conservative dress that got her that moniker. Remember that
Washington is a very conservative town fashion-wise....
Toniann
> > - I think Meeshell Anders' perspective will probably change the longer
she's
> > a member of the Press Corps, and the more time she spends in the West
Wing.
well.
> > She didn't try to trick him,
>
> deceived him. He made a big deal about giving her the chance to attend
> the MLK day event, and she never told him that it wouldn't really be
> important to her, for the sole reason that to do so, she would have to
> let him know about the potential conflict. In his shoes, I would have
> been much less worried about the potential conflict if she'd been
> forthright about it.
From that point of view, I get what you're saying. But I still don't really
think she intentionally deceived him; my impression is that she's a *very*
naive young woman who's going to learn very quickly just how impossible a
relationship between them would have been, but who at this moment in time
won't look past what she wants, i.e., Charlie. And he's pretty wantable, so
she's not thinking straight there, either. As for Charlie, all I'm saying is
that he probably should have tried to sit her down and explain why they had
to call it off, rather than just dodging her phone calls.
But it depends on perspective. If you think she was being intentionally
deceitful, then yes, she was much more in the wrong. But if you think she
was just being momumentally naive and a little too infatuated to see
straight, it's more unfortunate than anything else. I'm not saying one way
is right and one's wrong, but I am saying it changes one's perspective. <g>
Having said all of that, I did forget to mention that the slap was, imho,
just a terrible piece of writing. I just honestly can't believe her
character even would have done that in that moment, in that place. I mean,
geesh. This ain't "As the West Wing Turns". Yet.
Userb3
news:4SUNb.23$UB...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net:
> As for Charlie, all I'm saying is that he probably
> should have tried to sit her down and explain why they had to call it
> off, rather than just dodging her phone calls.
I imagine Charlie's logic was that someone who grew up in a newspaper
family in DC would obviously know that romances between the press and White
House staff were tricky at best, impossible at worst. Given that, he had to
at least consider the possibility that she was either in the process of
doing an expose, or that she was taking advantage of his access for her own
personal gain. If either of those were the case, he'd obviously want to get
as far from her as possible.
Transition Zone
How many direct instances of physical violence have even happened on
TWW before the Meeshell/Charlie incident ??
Transition Zone
> Toniann wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > - It *is* an honor to work for the president, and I think Donna believes
> > that, but I'm left wondering how she feels about that young boy who was left
> > off the list for political reasons, and what happened as a result. I think
> > it would take a lot of strength and understanding to separate what her heart
> > feels and the harsh reality of a president's tough choices. I guess what I'm
> > saying is, I think Donna has that in her. I'm not sure I would. But, that's
> > why they pay her the big bucks.
>
> Can someone please translate Jed Bartlet's WW-ese into English for me?
> Donna seemed to feel a little better about the situation, and her
> job, after he got through talking to the recent-parollee. What was it
> he said, in plain terms even a thick-headed dolt like me can
> understand?
Replay it enough and it should all fall in place for you.
> > - Why'd we get so stingy, Bartlet asked, and I wonder about that myself. If
> > those numbers on clemencies were accurate, what's changed? Is it the media
> > glare, and the fact that the president can no longer commute even one
> > sentence without that decision being scrutinized by the public? Is it
> > completely naive to think that the justice system has gotten more accurate
> > and fewer clemencies are needed -- and if it is naive, has the process
> > instead been obfuscated?
>
> I was thinking, while watching the ep, that it's probably a little bit
> of All Of The Above. Clemency is a political hot-button, the media
> knows *everything*
Ahhh, nice to see you know, too.
> and, except for the assinine mandatory minimums which all too often create
> ridiculous punishment-doesn't-fit-the-crime situations,
Which are frequently justified with prior rap-sheets
> the justice system *has* gotten more sophisticated at catching the right bad > guys.
>
> <snip>
>
> While I have liked the last few episodes, I cringe at the soap-opera
> aspect that has taken hold. (That whole Charlie sub-plot was just
> awful. I'd like to see Charlie get a life as much as the next person
> but that slap was just ludicrous. And the president's walking in and
> then bowing out was just the cherry on top. blecch.)
Makes you wonder what would have happened if the late Mrs Landingham had barged in.
AuntieLib
> >Can someone please translate Jed Bartlet's WW-ese into English for me?
> > Donna seemed to feel a little better about the situation, and her
> >job, after he got through talking to the recent-parollee.
>
> I think she was proud that she had helped 35 people get the opportunity
> to rebuild their lives, despite the sad outcome of the 36th case.
Thanks. That makes about as much sense as anything else, I guess.
(While watching it a second time, I was also struck by the president's
hammering home of the idea that one is responsible for one's actions.
Candy could screw up - or not - it was her choice. So maybe the idea
was that Donovan Morrisey *chose* to screw up and, while the
punishment was harsher than the crime deserved, he also *chose* not to
stick it out and try get the error righted.)
elizabeth
Transition Zone
A more insightful view of perhaps Leo or JEB having Rena around at key
times might be to quell muffled curiosity as to what male might give
in to being provoked (and precisely during what times), providing more
of a window into what personal staff foibles might exist.
Transition Zone
Trials many times indicate victims who witness their familiy members
doing these "victimless crimes". A victim can most always be
identified.
Steve Bartman
wrote:
>How many direct instances of physical violence have even happened on
>TWW before the Meeshell/Charlie incident ??
There were some shootings . . .
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Toniann
Why
> > not Carol?!?!?!
> >
> > And where are Bonnie & Ginger?!?!?!
>
> I hope they're on your FAQ... I don't remember these two and meant to dig
when I
> saw your first mention of them. :-)
They're there. Communications assistants. Haven't been seen in awhile. Sam
had an assistant named Cathy who disappeared this way, after S1. This is
getting suspicious...
Toniann
> "Toniann" <hir...@verizon.net> wrote in
>
> > As for Charlie, all I'm saying is that he probably
> > should have tried to sit her down and explain why they had to call it
> > off, rather than just dodging her phone calls.
>
> I imagine Charlie's logic was that someone who grew up in a newspaper
> family in DC would obviously know that romances between the press and
White
> House staff were tricky at best, impossible at worst. Given that, he had
to
> at least consider the possibility that she was either in the process of
> doing an expose, or that she was taking advantage of his access for her
own
> personal gain. If either of those were the case, he'd obviously want to
get
> as far from her as possible.
Even so, if I were Charlie and really that worried, I think I'd want to do
something more definitive than dodging phone calls -- like explain very
simply to Ms. Anders that he just couldn't risk even the appearance of
impropriety, say nice polite things about her, but tend by saying hat he
unfortunately wouldn't be calling her again. Do it in a note, have Counsel's
office vet it, or ask Angela Blake to step in, whatever it took. I mean, the
phone-call dodging thing didn't really work all that well, as it turned out.
<g> But you're undoubtedly completely right about what his logic was -- that
and, I can't believe there wasn't a part of him that wasn't doing the
avoidance thing, just wishing it all had never happened in the first place.
It's a human gut reaction.
jcoulter
news:Xns94724E4CEAE4Em...@207.69.154.203:
you have to wonder how a kid up for a pardon gets into a max facility. Drug
people usually get minimum, especially when they are minor, non violent
offenders characters caught in mandatory minimums. Checkout the program in
a super max if you want to know just how draconian our penal system can get
and still be "humane".
Transition Zone
> On 16 Jan 2004 09:50:02 -0800, mog...@hotmail.com (Transition Zone)
> wrote:
>
> >How many direct instances of physical violence have even happened on
> >TWW before the Meeshell/Charlie incident ??
>
> There were some shootings . . .
Yeah, but I meant face to face. You know. Where you actually come up
to the person and knock 'em silly.
Brett A. Pasternack
There was the fight Toby got into in California, after someone insulted
Andy.
Bill
And the one where Josh (or was it Sam?) started strangling Klayman,
oops, Klaypool, after they cut off the deposition about drug use by
White House staff.
Josh
>just a terrible piece of writing. I just honestly can't believe her
>character even would have done that in that moment, in that place. I mean,
>geesh. This ain't "As the West Wing Turns". Yet.
Exactly.
First off, I still don't know if I buy her being able to walk into the office
right outside the Oval Office without anyone there having any notice she was
coming. But putting that aside, I would think that there would be a certain
level of professionalism that would exist in that building, particularly among
newcomers to the building. And at the point that Charlie said he couldn't talk
about it, that should have been the very, very, very end of it. At least for
that moment. Let her slap him as much as she wants to, but not outside the
Oval Office on the night of the state of the union!
Josh
Me (cool stuff) http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/me
CDR Trading:
http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/me/bootlist.html
Josh
>B. than almost any other in the series.
It was a horrible little scene.
How often is the President the first person to walk into a room? When does the
President ever leave the Oval Office like that? In every other episode of the
show, if he wants Charlie for something he screams "CHARLIEEEEE!"
Hunter Rose
wrote:
>Random Thoughts on "The Benign Prerogative"
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> - So, the so-called "walking lawsuit" Rena is Toby's -- what,
> assistant, now? If I caught what Margaret was saying correctly,
> that's what it sounded like. Aside from other issues (such as, where
> the heck are they going with this), where oh where are Bonnie and
> Ginger?
And why would *Toby*, who was most concerned and made the
"walking lawsuit" comment in the first place, expose himself to
whatever perils she presented by making her *his* assistant.
Makes. No. Sense.
(But I shouldn't be surprised, things on "ER" M.N.S. on a
regular basis.)
>- I think Meeshell Anders' perspective will probably change the longer she's
>a member of the Press Corps, and the more time she spends in the West Wing.
>Don't get me wrong: I don't think Charlie handled the situation very well.
Neither did she. Being disappointed in love doesn't give a
woman the right to hit a man any more than it does the other way
around. Perhaps that proves she doesn't have the maturity to have
made it work anyway.
>- It *is* an honor to work for the president, and I think Donna believes
>that, but I'm left wondering how she feels about that young boy who was left
>off the list for political reasons, and what happened as a result.
The president didn't make that kid kill himself. That's all
on the kid.
>- That was a nice suit Josh was wearing, even if it wasn't his Joey Lucas
>suit... which is probably just as well, considering. The look on his face
>was, frankly, priceless.
But it *was* a look of surprise (even wonder?) rather than a
look of shock or outrage.
(But given Mary-Louise Parker's recent experience I can't help
but wonder if Joey's story was inspired or influenced by it. If
Marlee Matlin is pregnant IRL, never mind, but I wasn't aware of it.)
HR
Hunter Rose
wrote:
>"Patty Winter" <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote
>> In article <VInNb.183$Fl1...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>,
>> Toniann <hir...@STOPSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >- I think Meeshell Anders' perspective will probably change the longer
>she's
>> >a member of the Press Corps, and the more time she spends in the West
>Wing.
>>
>> I thought that reporters were restricted to the area around the press
>> room. What was Meeshell doing wandering into the office adjacent to the
>> Oval Office?
>
>I don't know the ins and outs of where reporters are supposed to go, but I
>got the impression from her conversation with Angela Blake that Meeshell was
>sort of going to "slip" into that area -- she said something about "not
>officially, just to say hi".
I wonder if it's standard practice to let people with press
passes wander the WW without an escort. I'd think not.
HR
Toniann
Peachy Ashie Passion
oh no Josh.. we see him wander by
Charlie's desk all the time, when it's just
to gab. He talks about stereos and does
taxes and looks at pictures.
that part wasn't out of place to me.
Peachy Ashie Passion
I'd think not, but I thought that having
her talking to Angela covered the question of
how she got access to that area. Angela
trusted her to make her way to where she
belonged. She didn't. But she was already
past the point where she'd been okay'd,
because Angela let her in.
Toniann
> Hunter Rose wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:58:18 GMT, "Toniann" <hir...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >>I don't know the ins and outs of where reporters are supposed to go, but
I
> >>got the impression from her conversation with Angela Blake that Meeshell
was
> >>sort of going to "slip" into that area -- she said something about "not
> >>officially, just to say hi".
> >
> > I wonder if it's standard practice to let people with press
> > passes wander the WW without an escort. I'd think not.
>
> her talking to Angela covered the question of
> how she got access to that area. Angela
> trusted her to make her way to where she
> belonged. She didn't. But she was already
> past the point where she'd been okay'd,
> because Angela let her in.
That's what I'm thinking -- that Angela brought her into the West Wing and
Meeshell was supposed to go straight to the press area, but she wandered off
as Angela asked her not to do.
Stephen Fuld
"Toniann" <hir...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Fm0Pb.363$ro4...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> "Hunter Rose" <hun...@newsguy.com> wrote
> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:23:33 GMT, "Toniann" <hir...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> > >- That was a nice suit Josh was wearing, even if it wasn't his Joey
Lucas
> > >suit... which is probably just as well, considering. The look on his
face
> > >was, frankly, priceless.
> >
> > But it *was* a look of surprise (even wonder?) rather than a
> > look of shock or outrage.
> >
> > (But given Mary-Louise Parker's recent experience I can't help
> > but wonder if Joey's story was inspired or influenced by it. If
> > Marlee Matlin is pregnant IRL, never mind, but I wasn't aware of it.)
>
> I think she is.
That is the incorrect tense. She had a baby daughter in late December. But
it is possible that this was filmed while she was pregnant, as this isn't
the Sorkin, film right up to the deadline and perhaps a little beyond,
regime any more. :-)
--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam
Toniann
> > > (But given Mary-Louise Parker's recent experience I can't help
> > > but wonder if Joey's story was inspired or influenced by it. If
> > > Marlee Matlin is pregnant IRL, never mind, but I wasn't aware of it.)
> >
> > I think she is.
>
> That is the incorrect tense. She had a baby daughter in late December.
Somebody call the tense police! <vbg>
> But
> it is possible that this was filmed while she was pregnant, as this isn't
> the Sorkin, film right up to the deadline and perhaps a little beyond,
> regime any more. :-)
I would imagine this episode was filmed in December.
Hunter Rose
<res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> I wonder if it's standard practice to let people with press
>> passes wander the WW without an escort. I'd think not.
> I'd think not, but I thought that having her talking to Angela
> covered the question of how she got access to that area. Angela
> trusted her to make her way to where she belonged. She didn't. But
> she was already past the point where she'd been okay'd, because
> Angela let her in.
Yes, but she walked through the WW to just before the door to
the Oval Office, which is a whole 'nother deal from being escorted to
an office with the expectation that they'd wait there until escorted
to where they belonged.
I'd like to think the security detail would check again before
someone got to Charlie's desk, is all I'm sayin'.
HR
Stephen Fuld
> "Stephen Fuld" <s.f...@PleaseRemove.att.net> wrote
> >
> > "Toniann" <hir...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > "Hunter Rose" <hun...@newsguy.com> wrote
> > > > (But given Mary-Louise Parker's recent experience I can't help
> > > > but wonder if Joey's story was inspired or influenced by it. If
> > > > Marlee Matlin is pregnant IRL, never mind, but I wasn't aware of
it.)
> > >
> > > I think she is.
> >
> > That is the incorrect tense. She had a baby daughter in late December.
>
> Somebody call the tense police! <vbg>
If the police are tense, then shouldn't we get them like massages or
something? I'm just sayin'. :-)
David Marc Nieporent
"Caroline" <caroline1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"John F" <nn...@attention.net> wrote
>> "Toniann" <hir...@verizon.net> wrote
>> > Is it
>> > completely naive to think that the justice system has gotten more accurate
>> > and fewer clemencies are needed -- and if it is naive, has the process
>> > instead been obfuscated?
>> Can a lawyer enlighten? When did it become necessary to read a suspect their
>> rights when arresting them?
>Are you talking about Miranda rights? Established in the 1960s IIRC? An
>internet search or online encyclopedia will turn up the exact details.
I hadn't watched the episode until today, so I had been skipping the
threads specifically about it. Now I'm jumping in a little late, but I
wanted to clarify here.
I also assume the question was about Miranda. But in fact, despite what
they show on television, it *ISN'T* necessary to read a suspect his rights
when arresting him. IRL, this generally doesn't happen. Suspects need to
be read their rights before being *interrogated*, but not merely after
they've been arrested.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Toniann
FWIW, my original question all the way above didn't have anything to do with
Miranda rights -- I didn't really understand the connection. What I'm saying
is, has our criminal justice system improved to the point where our evidence
collecting, our deduction, our ability to prove a criminal is guilty, has
been finely-tuned to avoid mistakes and unfair trials, therefore there are
fewer clemencies needed? Or (more cynically, but probably more
realistically),are there still plenty of prisoners deserving of clemency,
but it simply more difficult to obtain presidential pardon now, because the
process has become clouded and confused with the glare of the media and
political pressure?
But the stuff everyone started getting into on Miranda was interesting, so
it didn't really matter.
Peachy Ashie Passion
It's an interesting question that way. I
don't think I realized that was what you were
asking, because the clemencies in the show
weren't about guilt or innocence. They were
guilty and nobody was suggesting they
weren't, just that the punishment didn't fit
the crime, and the mandatory sentencing laws
were making a mess of things.
I think this is a far greater reason for
clemency, especially in this day and age..
but mistakes do still get made, and innocent
still do get convicted, although I'd bet it's
at a far lower rate than in times past.
--
Usenet is like Tetris for people who still
remember how to read. -Joshua Heller
Caroline
> their
> > >> rights when arresting them?
> >
> > >Are you talking about Miranda rights? Established in the 1960s IIRC? An
> > >internet search or online encyclopedia will turn up the exact details.
> >
> > I hadn't watched the episode until today, so I had been skipping the
> > threads specifically about it. Now I'm jumping in a little late, but I
> > wanted to clarify here.
> >
> > I also assume the question was about Miranda. But in fact, despite what
> > they show on television, it *ISN'T* necessary to read a suspect his rights
> > when arresting him. IRL, this generally doesn't happen. Suspects need to
> > be read their rights before being *interrogated*, but not merely after
> > they've been arrested.
Well this isn't accurate, either.
If a person is not under arrest (and also believes he/she is in an environment
where he/she is free to leave), the police may question him or her and, under
the law, need not read him or her his Miranda rights. The person is free to
refuse to answer.
The criteria for having to read Miranda rights are often lumped into the phrase
"custodial interrogation," meaning the person must both (1) be in custody (i.e.
under arrest) and (2) be being questioned.
Sorry, riding the back of other posts so DMN and I can snip at each other. ;-)
Toniann
Good point. Which then leads me to wonder, were previous presidents, long
ago, more likely to grant clemency to those who they believed were innocent,
or to those they believed were serving an unfair sentence? I can't recall
the numbers know, but Bartlet quoted some significantly high ones for some
past presidents -- was it because in addition to abnormally long sentences,
there were also those who had been unfairly convicted which (theoretically)
doesn't happen as much as it used to?
> I think this is a far greater reason for
> clemency, especially in this day and age..
> but mistakes do still get made, and innocent
> still do get convicted, although I'd bet it's
> at a far lower rate than in times past.
That's what I'm thinking.
David Marc Nieporent
>> >"John F" <nn...@attention.net> wrote
>> >> "Toniann" <hir...@verizon.net> wrote
>> >> > Is it
>> >> > completely naive to think that the justice system has gotten more accurate
>> >> > and fewer clemencies are needed -- and if it is naive, has the process
>> >> > instead been obfuscated?
>> >> Can a lawyer enlighten? When did it become necessary to read a suspect their
>> >> rights when arresting them?
>> >Are you talking about Miranda rights? Established in the 1960s IIRC? An
>> >internet search or online encyclopedia will turn up the exact details.
>> I hadn't watched the episode until today, so I had been skipping the
>> threads specifically about it. Now I'm jumping in a little late, but I
>> wanted to clarify here.
>> I also assume the question was about Miranda. But in fact, despite what
>> they show on television, it *ISN'T* necessary to read a suspect his rights
>> when arresting him. IRL, this generally doesn't happen. Suspects need to
>> be read their rights before being *interrogated*, but not merely after
>> they've been arrested.
>FWIW, my original question all the way above didn't have anything to do with
>Miranda rights -- I didn't really understand the connection.
Right; I didn't mean your question; I meant John's question. I was just
clarifying a common misconception. (It really is common: people approach
criminal attorneys all the time saying, "But they didn't read me my rights
when they arrested me. I should be let go." It doesn't work that way.)
> What I'm saying
>is, has our criminal justice system improved to the point where our evidence
>collecting, our deduction, our ability to prove a criminal is guilty, has
>been finely-tuned to avoid mistakes and unfair trials, therefore there are
>fewer clemencies needed? Or (more cynically, but probably more
>realistically),are there still plenty of prisoners deserving of clemency,
>but it simply more difficult to obtain presidential pardon now, because the
>process has become clouded and confused with the glare of the media and
>political pressure?
Several of these factors. Also, I would add the sentencing guidelines
(note: different than mandatory minimums) as a factor. In the "old days,"
before the guidelines, sentencing was almost totally arbitrary, up to the
whim of the individual judge. Hence, you were more likely to get a
sentence disproportionate to that of others who had committed the same
offense. The guidelines make sentences less arbitrary, and so you're less
likely to have an unfair sentence.
Jonathan
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-AA6603...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <3B8Tb.8460$KV5....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>,
> "Toniann" <hir...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote
with
> >Miranda rights -- I didn't really understand the connection.
>
> Right; I didn't mean your question; I meant John's question. I was just
> clarifying a common misconception. (It really is common: people approach
> criminal attorneys all the time saying, "But they didn't read me my rights
> when they arrested me. I should be let go." It doesn't work that way.)
>
They are watching The Practice and Law and Order too much, thinking that
many many many people are getting off on technicalities... Which is why the
Supreme Court has agreed to review Miranda twice in the last decade... But,
like the Assault Weapons Ban, it flies in the face of reality...
Jonathan
Toniann
> >FWIW, my original question all the way above didn't have anything to do
with
> >Miranda rights -- I didn't really understand the connection.
>
> Right; I didn't mean your question; I meant John's question. I was just
> clarifying a common misconception. (It really is common: people approach
> criminal attorneys all the time saying, "But they didn't read me my rights
> when they arrested me. I should be let go." It doesn't work that way.)
You are absolutely correct, sir; and John did ask.
I'm still not sure what made John think of Miranda rights in regards to my
musings, but as I said, it's interesting, anyhow, so all's well, etc.
> > What I'm saying
> >is, has our criminal justice system improved to the point where our
evidence
> >collecting, our deduction, our ability to prove a criminal is guilty, has
> >been finely-tuned to avoid mistakes and unfair trials, therefore there
are
> >fewer clemencies needed? Or (more cynically, but probably more
> >realistically),are there still plenty of prisoners deserving of clemency,
> >but it simply more difficult to obtain presidential pardon now, because
the
> >process has become clouded and confused with the glare of the media and
> >political pressure?
>
> Several of these factors. Also, I would add the sentencing guidelines
> (note: different than mandatory minimums) as a factor. In the "old days,"
> before the guidelines, sentencing was almost totally arbitrary, up to the
> whim of the individual judge. Hence, you were more likely to get a
> sentence disproportionate to that of others who had committed the same
> offense. The guidelines make sentences less arbitrary, and so you're less
> likely to have an unfair sentence.
Yes, that would absolutely make a difference. I think I'll do some digging
and learn a bit more about how sentencing guidelines came into being; it'll
probably satisfy my curiosity on the subject entirely. Thanks for pointing
me in the right direction.
Toniann
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:52:19 GMT, "Toniann" <hir...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >"Caroline" <caroline1...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >> "Toniann" <hir...@verizon.net> wrote
> >> > Especially since Donna & Charlie got plenty of face time in this one.
> >Why
> >> > not Carol?!?!?!
> >> >
> >> > And where are Bonnie & Ginger?!?!?!
> >>
> >> I hope they're on your FAQ... I don't remember these two and meant to
dig
> >when I
> >> saw your first mention of them. :-)
> >
> >They're there. Communications assistants. Haven't been seen in awhile.
Sam
> >had an assistant named Cathy who disappeared this way, after S1. This is
> >getting suspicious...
>
> What about Ed and Larry?
Ed and Larry are in the FAQ. When's the last time they were on air, anyone?
blu...@asw.dot.net
> > > of it.)
> > I think she is.
> That is the incorrect tense. She had a baby daughter in late
> December. But it is possible that this was filmed while she was
> pregnant, as this isn't the Sorkin, film right up to the deadline
> and perhaps a little beyond, regime any more. :-)
Marlee Matlin Grandalski has four children. There is a cute picture on
her website of a Gap ad she did in what looks like her 7th or 8th
month. I assumed the episode where she was pregnant was filmed about
the same time, and I admit I was rather surprised, as I had heard she
would not be doing any more WW episodes till she got her figure back
and that Joey would not be depicted as having a child in the show, but
that's an easy enough change.
Joey has had several relationships in the time we've known her. I
assume she has made arrangements to have a child because she wants
one, not necessarily that she is in a steady relationship with anyone
at present.
I generally keep up with her here: http://www.marleematlinsite.com
Josh
I noticed them in "Angel Maintenance" tonight, so they were there at least for
some of season four.
Josh
>
>I noticed them in "Angel Maintenance" tonight, so they were there at least
>for
>some of season four.
And I just saw they were also in "Evidence Of Things Not Seen" - that may have
been their last appearance.