Three alternate endings have been shot for next week's post-election Jack & Bobby: One in which the Lahti character is thrilled (natch) when Kerry wins; one in which there's a clear Bush victory and she grimly begins counting the days until Hillary Clinton runs in 2008; and one in which she waits for a recount.

I find this hillarious, I may watch that one episode now.

[ edited by eddy on 2004-10-28 22:51 ]

eddy | October 29, 00:50 CET

Well, a nice piece on one person's delight in a show. For that, I can almost excuse the 90% of political drivel that goes with it. For example, "Lahti . . . like others of her ilk, is also reflexively anti-Bush." Good job backing that statement up, Cathy. How about this: Lahti has thought about the issues that are important to her, and concluded that Bush will not be her candidate this year. Possibility, no? Not to mention the casually-dismissive use of the word "ilk" . . .

I've read other pieces by Seipp, and have never failed to be utterly underwhelmed by her reasoning abilities. I seem to recall her guest-blogging on law prof Eugene Volokh's site where she wrote something along the lines of: Californians shouldn't bother to learn Spanish unless they want to chat with illegal immigrants or their nannies. Much better to learn French (presumably to be part of the "educated" world). That's a rough paraphrase, but it was certainly the gist of her opinion. Nice.

SoddingNancyTribe | October 29, 01:09 CET

I'm with you SNT. This might not mean much outside Southern California/L.A., but Siepp is little more than a wannabe Jill Stewart (as to why anybody would "wanna" be Ms. Stewart, that's another story!)

What drives me crazy about this type of writing is that it goes out of its way to depict liberals as idiots, without coming out and just admitting she's a conservative -- though now that Siepp's writing for NRO, I suppose that's going to be harder.

As to "Jack and Bobby", it lost me half way through the third (?)episode when the young, goodhearted Bobby participated in the destruction of a nice man's shrine to his dead daughter so he'd fit in with some new "friends." This is what you might call "drama for drama's sake" -- and is the same kind of lazy writing that has ruined "The West Wing" and many decent shows before it.

[ edited by bobster on 2004-10-28 23:49 ]

bobster | October 29, 01:46 CET

Oof. Nice that she likes Buffy and Angel, but I'm with you SNT: this is the kind of political writing that drives me nuts. It's not just that it's conservative – I can take (and often seek out) conservative writers who make good, thoughtful arguments. I don't think it does any of us any good to only read viewpoints we agree with. But she seems to have the condescending view toward liberals that a number of conservative columnists do: that we're all a bunch of idealistic, impractical, leftover hippies who are sort of fun to humor now and then but certainly couldn't be trusted to make real decisions or to function in the real world (which conservatives like her, by implication, understand so well). All of this is said in shorthand, and there's no reasoning to back it up. Just the accepted assumption that of course conservatives face the facts that liberals either can't or don't want to see.
I tried watching Jack & Bobby for a couple episodes, but it felt a bit too contrived. Maybe i should give it another chance, but I feel like I've got enough on my plate now with Lost, GIlmore Girls, and Veronica Mars. As for West Wing, which she rips into – I haven't seen the Aaron Sorkin-less version, but I adored the first couple seasons. Some of the smartest writing I've seen on TV (I'd even put it up there with Buffy, albeit totally different genres, sacrilegious as that may be).

acp | October 29, 02:03 CET

But if she's writing for the National Review doesn't it go without saying that she's a conservative?

marmoset | October 29, 02:04 CET

I'm with ya on the West Wing acp. I'm watching second season right now. My sister tried to get me to watch it for years and I absolutely refused. Then, a few months ago, I read a statement by Joss in which he said that he never misses anything written by Sorkin so I thought I'd try it. The beginning of the first season took a while to grow on me but now I love it. Really amazing writing.

marmoset | October 29, 02:09 CET

marmoset: I recognized the political affiliation; but does writing in a conservative magazine exempt a writer from supporting his or her contentions? (Edited: Wait, now I see that you were responding to bobster. Oops . . .)

As acp has already said, I don't take issue with the fact that she's conservative, just with the way in which she slapped together a bunch of insinuations that lack any foundation in fact. I suppose she's just flinging red meat to the more-partisan readers of NR, but it just comes across, to me at least, as lame journalism.

[ edited by SoddingNancyTribe on 2004-10-29 00:35 ]

SoddingNancyTribe | October 29, 02:27 CET

I'm with you on the West Wing as well acp. Yes, it's a totally different genre, but not sacrilegious at all (to me at least) to compare it to Buffy. When. Sorkin. Was. There.

Because I'm kinda floundering around Wednesdays at 9 now (damn the WB), I'm watching it again. I stuck around for a while after Sorkin left, but there just became no point in taking the time to tape it while Angel was on. When this show was great, it was great, and it was *funny* too. It's become drama for drama's sake at this point, and I feel for the amazing cast because they must know the show is just a shadow of what it was. I still care about the characters, but miss that extra something that Sorkin brought to it.

And I do agree this writer is another good example of why intelligent and reasoned dialogue regarding this nation's politics is an endangered species. I mean, being insulting is always effective. This kind of derision for "the other side" that some on both sides of the aisle perpetuate is just "huurrting Ammerrrica". (Okay, just watched the tape of Jon Stewart on Crossfire last night - twice. I couldn't help it.)

The cited comment was condescending and unnecessary. And she should really get a new crack habit. There's a far better supply out there elsewhere.

Angela | October 29, 02:27 CET

SNT--Oh no, I agree it's a really poorly written piece. I was just reacting to this comment from bobster: "without coming out and just admitting she's a conservative." acp posted in between so which made my response sort of disjointed.

And she should really get a new crack habit. There's a far better supply out there elsewhere.

Heh heh.

marmoset | October 29, 02:34 CET

I'm not done. I think that when pundits or writers slip these little slams against "the other side" into their otherwise innocuous stories written in magazines that target their "base", it is worse than when saying it in the course of debate because it just gets soaked up and never challenged.

It's a little, almost subliminal derision that gets spread like a disease. She could have mentioned Lahti's political leanings in so many other straightforward ways. She's talking about a television show, she could have done so without getting in a jab.

I don't feel good today and am clearly not in a good mood. Sorry.

Angela | October 29, 02:41 CET

Um, too much crack, Angela?

To cheer you up: Yay! on your posts, which are both right and good. Subliminal and lame. Sublaminal.

SoddingNancyTribe | October 29, 02:44 CET

"Sublaminal". Bahhaaaa!
I love it.

(I plead the 5th on the crack.) :)

Angela | October 29, 02:50 CET

For some reason I watched my first episode of Jack & Bobby last night (had to kill time between Lost & South Park)...and my goodness, what an insufferable show that was. I felt too much like I was sitting in the writer's room, watching helplessly as they danced around with their English degrees and shoved them in my face. I really like Christine Lahti as an actress, but I found her character to be unbearably annoying. That was one painful hour of my life wasted.

MindPieces | October 29, 03:09 CET

Wow someone likes Jack & Bobby and suddenly this is front page news on Whedonesque?

Simon | October 29, 03:19 CET

Actually Simon from what i've heard of how terrible that show is somebody actually liking it would probably be front page news on Bricklayers Weekly.

Y'know, if such a publication actually existed!

The Watcher | October 29, 03:30 CET

Simon, I posted it because of the Buffy and Angel references, and that there is a seeming disconnect for the writer, in that she sings the praises of The WB while ignoring the shabby treatment it gave Joss and Angel.

Chris inVirginia | October 29, 05:16 CET

"Lahti . . . like others of her ilk, is also reflexively anti-Bush."

Hehe I can back that up -- Joss Whedon, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Helen Hunt, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Alec Baldwin, 90% of the crew of Angel/Buffy, Cameron Diaz (who claimed on Oprah earlier this week that Bush if elected again would make RAPE legal???)... should I go on? Have you noticed that you don't see the right wingers in Hollywood trumpeting their beliefs? Some of them actually fear that their beliefs will lose them work. Its generally accepted that 75% of Hollywood leans left. Its not an insult, it just is.

Much better to learn French (presumably to be part of the "educated" world).

Ha! This would disqualify her as a Conservative, you see we all hate the French :) Your paraphrasing and your insinuation of her motive for saying what she did was 1) doubful in the extreme and 2) insulting to those of us who do lean right. Its the same kind of thoughtless emotional assumption made about the other side you were railing against. It was beneath you, mate. I'd love to see the original, never saw her post on Volokh's.

Anyhow on the actual subject (hey, we should try posting about that more often, those were fun times), I adore Sorkin and the West Wing and Sports Night which first introduced me to him. Aaron is more fair than most in his treatment of the Right and the Left. Anyone who believes either side truly is truly going to maliciously try to destroy this country when/if elected this year is quite frankly unfit to open their mouth on the subject. To paraphrase Parker/Stone its amazing how many people seem to think its their job to parrot the NYT or CBS and pass it off as their own opinion. Same can of course be said for O'Reilley and Limbaugh drones (not directed at anyone here).

Read sites that present things from the Left, read things that present them from Right, then make up your own mind. That being said I've never been overwhelmed by her mental prowess either -- I prefer people like Michael Totten and Bill Whittle.

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2004-10-29 03:59 ]

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2004-10-29 04:03 ]

zeitgeist | October 29, 05:50 CET

Nice post, zeitgeist...and it is a truism that Hollywood leans left...that's why when a guy like Mel Gibson says he's a conservative Catholic it's news...for a Hollywood producer or actor or director to announce boldly that he or she is a doctrinaire liberal would provoke yawns.

Don't watch West Wing. Or anything else anymore, for that matter, thank you very much, Jordan Levin!

Chris inVirginia | October 29, 06:00 CET

With all due respect, zeitgeist, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Mate. Reciting a list of names and a made-up statistic may tend to show that that vague entity known as "Hollywood" leans liberal, a proposition I wouldn't dream of quibbling with, but says absolutely nothing about "reflexively." Seipp didn't begin to explain why Lahti's (or anyone else's for that matter) anti-Bush position is not thought out. Which is what I understand by the word "reflexive". As in knee-jerk.

And while playing "gotcha" may be a neat rhetorical device, it doesn't really hold up here. I wasn't making any general "thoughtless emotional assumption" about any "side". I first stated that I have read a number of Seipp's articles, and I never been impressed with them. Specific: Seipp, her articles. Second, I paraphrased (as I conceded, but I believe it was pretty close to her exact words) from one such article. Did I insinuate her motives? Not at all. It's almost exactly what she said: do not bother to learn Spanish because the only place you can use it is with these types of people. I added nothing to that thought. If you chose to extend my specific comment about Seipp to all "those of us who do lean right", that's your affair. I can't comment on Seipp's use of French, but that is what she said. Now resorting to cliches, I have friends who vote Republican who read her words and were appalled by them. Make of that what you will.

Sorry to come off so belligerent, but frankly, mate, I found your post to be more than a touch condescending.

SoddingNancyTribe | October 29, 07:06 CET

And now I've located the original piece on volokh.com, originally posted on July 17, 2004:

"SPEAK TO ME:My 15-year-old daughter is off studying Russian at a language camp in Minnesota for a month. To which people generally ask incredulously: "Why Russian?" Last year, when she took French at Pasadena Community College, we got the same reaction: "Why French? Why not Spanish? Isn't that more useful around here?"

Well, no. What's useful in Los Angeles, just like everywhere else in the country, is English. I suppose if I were a contractor rounding up day laborers every morning, and wanted my daughter to learn the family business, Spanish would be invaluable. But this is not the case.

I do speak enough Spanish to communicate with the cleaning lady, just from living in the Hispanic barrio of Echo Park for six years. This is sort of useful, but not vital.

Since 1066, educated English speakers have studied French. Even if we don't speak it (I certainly don't, although I took French for three years in high school), it gives us a deeper understanding of our own language, and prevents embarrassing gaffes like "I just love that Why-vees Saint Laurent!" Which some trophy wife actually said to me at a fashion show once.

Of course, studying any foreign language broadens the mind, which is why I've never understood people who keep demanding "Why Russian?" (The answer is that my daughter likes Russian literature and culture, and also has a Russian friend here in L.A. she can practice speaking Russian with.)

In Southern California, though, it's assumed that naturally most students should study Spanish as a foreign language, so that's all that many schools offer. The fact that in many schools the majority of students already speak Spanish at home, and therefore would find it far more useful to learn French (or another foreign language), never seems to have occurred to public school officials.

I can't access the horribly annoying L.A. Times archives via Google, but the paper ran an excellent July 2 story about all this titled Students Ask For More Foreign Language Choices, and you guys all have Lexis, right?

P.S. French can actually be handy, even here in Southern California. During the L.A. bus strike, I often gave one of my daughter's classmates from her community college French class, a 19-year-old girl from Guadalajara named Veronica, a lift home. Veronica works in the corner grocery on weekends, and told us she often gets into language trouble with customers.

"I was born here!" they'd say angrily, if she spoke to them in Spanish. "Speak English!"

So then she'd try English with the next customer, who'd snap, "Who are you trying to pretend to be? Speak Spanish!"

I suggested she start speaking to everyone in French. Then they can all feel equally offended."

OK, upon review, I certainly put a harsher spin on her words. But I believe her position is pretty much exactly what I said it was. Spanish is good for speaking with "day laborers" (euphemism for illegal immigrants) and her "cleaning lady" (not nanny, sorry). And French is more worthwhile. So, was I making a thoughtless emotional assumption about all those who lean right?

SoddingNancyTribe | October 29, 07:15 CET

You beat me to it, SNT. I just looked it up, out of curiosity, and was about to post the link to it. And yes, I was pretty horrified. I actually agree with her basic premise that all languages can be worthy of study, regardless of their utilitarian potential, but implying the Spanish is only used to speak to day laborers and cleaning ladies, that "educated speakers have studied French since 1066," and that Spanish is somehow less worthy than French or Russian? Oof. I wouldn't even know where to begin.
Ok, i realize this thread has gotten FAR off topic, and i won't post on the subject again. I just got interested in the debate. (Incidentally, my irritation with unreasoned political writing that makes reflexive assumptions about the other side isn't limited to conservative writers like Seipp - Democrats are just as guilty at putting out preaching-to-the-choir pieces that assume all sorts of evils about the right. And even when i agree with the conlusions, the writing/thinking itself frustrates me. We need good, thoughtful dialogue in the US now. Not didactic points of view from the right and left firing past each other. I agreed with Jon Stewart's views on Crossfire 100 %.)
Can I find a way to bring this post back to the original thread topic? Um.... I like the fact that Seipp likes Buffy and Angel! She must have some good in her....

acp | October 29, 07:32 CET

SNT -- I came off as more harsh than intended and sorry about it as well. I was responding to your post which seemed frankly just as belligerent and condescending to me upon reading it. Thanks for digging up the original article by the way :)

I have to say that I saw yours and acp's assumption that she is saying Spanish is less worthy than French or Russian as way off base. Her words in the article say only that French and Russian are no less worthy than Spanish. You both kinda filled in the rest with what you expected her to mean. This feeds into your other emotional response to her mention of day laborers which is in fact a euphemism for illegal immigrants (which is what many of them are). As for (do not bother to learn Spanish because the only place you can use it is with these types of people) I didn't read that in what was said at all.

In my experience (throw whatever number on it you like that means most of) Hollywood types lean left. I wasn't saying that literally x% were. Regardless I thought that it was the assumption that most of Hollywood was left that you were quibbling with and not the word reflexive, which, while having connotations towards kneejerkery, simply means automatic. It seems to me that that is simply an opinion and I'm not sure what backup it needs. Your objection to the word 'ilk' is also strange to me as it is merely a simile for 'kind' or 'type'.

As for gotcha being a neat rhetorical device, I am somewhat nonplussed at that... Not sure where the gotcha plays into it.

"We need good, thoughtful dialogue in the US now. Not didactic points of view from the right and left firing past each other. I agreed with Jon Stewart's views on Crossfire 100 %."

Though I adore Jon, his Crossfire piece didn't exactly inspire me. At first I was amused and got the point - lets actually talk to each other instead of over each other but 'People shouldn't argue' doesn't strike me as a deep revelation. His response to his failure to ask anything vaguely difficult or interesting of Kerry was sad. John has had some good interviews with political figures before and I am very disappointed that his Kerry shtick consisted of 'Can I roll over for you, Master? Maybe some juice? Rub your feet?'

So it is my opinion that you filled in what you expected thus my previous statements, which could have been more clear and used less inflammatory language. Should've written it out and let it sit a bit. I honestly meant no offense and since it seems you took offense I offer my apologies for that.

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2004-10-29 06:51 ]

zeitgeist | October 29, 08:47 CET

Gotta say, I'm impressed by y'all's passion. Don't agree with everyone of course, but I have to give props. I so enjoy being privy to a discussion like this one. Bravo on the civility, guys. Even if you feel like 'fist in face' it still comes off pretty damn smooth.

Whedonesque rocks.

Willowy | October 29, 10:08 CET

Okay, I haven't read the responses yet but this quote, "I do speak enough Spanish to communicate with the cleaning lady, just from living in the Hispanic barrio of Echo Park for six years. This is sort of useful, but not vital," sums up all I ever needed to know about her character.

And what an idiot! English speakers didn't start "studying French" in 1066--there was a conquest and a three hundred year class divide between the French speaking aristocracy and the Old English speaking populace. The two eventually merged due to numerous social and political reasons to become the beginning of the language we know and, while that might be a lot for her to state in her little piece of drivel, she has no business rewriting cultural history to suit her needs.

I'm most appalled that she considers herself an AtS/BtVS fan.

marmoset | October 29, 16:57 CET

Okay, I haven't read the responses yet but this quote, "I do speak enough Spanish to communicate with the cleaning lady, just from living in the Hispanic barrio of Echo Park for six years. This is sort of useful, but not vital," sums up all I ever needed to know about her character.

That she doesn't view Spanish to be undyingly essential just because California has a high population of Spanish speakers? That to make things easier on herself she learned some Spanish while living in a heavily Spanish-speaking area? From my point of view doing anything that discourages immigrants from speaking English harms their chances of advancement and their ability to take advantage of the good things that this country has to offer. As for her 1066 comments... she is either trying to be funny or succeeding in being a tool.

I personally like to see a diversity of BtVS/Angel/Firefly fans as it reminds me that whatever our differences, there are similarities and there is common ground to be found.

zeitgeist | October 29, 17:19 CET

That the only reason to know Spanish is to order around her hired help.

marmoset | October 29, 17:31 CET

I personally like to see a diversity of BtVS/Angel/Firefly fans as it reminds me that whatever our differences, there are similarities and there is common ground to be found.
That is true, and the one positive thing i see out of this discussion, and her joss fandom.
As for the language article – I think there are many, many conservatives who would be just as dismayed by the piece. There are enough Spanish speakers in California that I would say anyone who has any interest in broadening their acquaintances and people they communicate with beyond the circle of folks just like them might have an interest in picking up spanish - not just so they can "communicate with the cleaning lady." But she implies that it's both unnecessary and fairly valueless (other than for occasional practical purposes). This article is about English speakers learning other languages, not Spanish-speakers learning English, Zeitgeist, and Seipp has strong implications in it that most of the people who speak Spanish aren't really worth speaking to, whereas French "deepens our understanding of our own language" (and Spanish doesn't?).
Just as personal experience – I studied French all through college and high school and speak it fluently. I've never had occasion to use it except when I'm in a French-speaking country. I learned Spanish on my own with a year of living abroad and use it all the time, even living in Chicago. Do I regret learning French? no. All languages have an intrinsic value. But would i encourage a child of mine to learn the language that's used by so much of the US and world population? absolutely.
Ok, i said i'd stop posting on this, and here i am. Sorry! It's just a subject i feel strongly about, as i feel strongly about the kind of damage offhand references like the ones to "day laborers" and "the cleaning lady" do in this piece – what's implied, what's used as an example, says oodles about the author.
But, I do agree with your statement about common ground, Zeitgeist. THat's what we need, now more than ever, and if it's to be found in Buffy and Angel, more the better.

acp | October 29, 17:33 CET

Except that it disturbs me that someone can watch these shows week after week and not have it broaden their views of the world. Is someone who is really imbibing the values of the BtVS/AtS world, no matter what political ideologies that person may hold, able to continue to hold such narrow-minded perspectives?

marmoset | October 29, 18:05 CET

acp and marmoset, thanks for your follow up posts. acp -- I can now see how you got what you got out of it. I didn't read it quite the same but I have a better understanding of where you all are coming from and I appreciate your taking the time to go into it one last time. I definitely agree that learning any language has intrinsic value. Not only for allowing you to communicate with people who speak it, but it has an effect on how you think thats hard to explain. I took four years of French and it amused me how much Spanish that I could understand from knowing the French that I did (as well as other languages that descended from the same common roots). I would hope that Joss' art would help broaden the horizons of anyone who views it or makes them think at least.

zeitgeist | October 29, 19:42 CET

My take on Seipp, having read most of her City Beat (L.A. weekly free paper) columns, is that she's shallow. Sometimes funny and clever, but definitely not a heavyweight thinker. Like marmoset, I'm confused that she likes BtVS and Angel. But then the shows have a lot of levels of appeal, don't they? As well as deep, they're also pretty and shiny and eventful. I can understand being angered over her blithely offensive remarks, but I think people are usually blithe because they really don't notice a lot of detail and maybe can't. Think maybe the anger is wasted.

dreamlogic | October 30, 03:38 CET

Marmoset -- I know this is long forgotten, but I was referred to her above-mentioned work in City Beat, an L.A. publication which leaned was all-over-the-map politically, but had a mostly liberal readership used to the consistently left-of-center L.A. Weekly.

To get over with the mostly liberal readership, it seemed to me that some writers (Jill Stewart in particular) would call themselves "centrists" while attacking nearly all mainstream liberals and only leave all but a few of the most extreme or full on idiotic of conservatives.

And Zeitgeist a couple of things: I know you'll never buy this, but, although I'll grant you a liberal social bias on issues like abortion and gay rights, when it comes to the big issues of power and money mainstream U.S. publications and TV news organizations are NOT left leaning. They are simply not right leaning ENOUGH for today's conservatives. Certainly, they all strongly supported Gulf War II in its early phases(CBS and that radical leftist Dan Rather and were second only to Fox in their poorly concealed enthusiasm for the war).

And while it is true that most people in the film business lean liberal, it is nevertheless completely untrue that being a conservative hurts you -- even an outspoken one. If you're good for the business, no one gives a #$#@ about your politics. In fact, being a very active and outspoken lefty can occasoinally hurt you. (Many believe that Ed Asner's career was damaged in the 1980s by his activities.)

Sure, it might hurt you socially if you go around everywhere spouting off political views that rub people the wrong way -- but that would be true in any field. (For example, a liberal in the oil business might be well advised not to assume that everyone not to make harsh cracks about GWB.)

The following is a short list and very incomplete list of conservative leaning entertainment figures, major and minor, past and present, outspoken and soft spoken (I'm excluding ME conservatives here): Vincent Gallo, Ronald Reagan, David Lynch, John Ford, Howard Hawks, Ron Silver, Larry Miller, Shanon Dougherty, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Leo B. Mayer, Ray Charles, Merle Haggard, Lionel Hampton, Lionel Chetwynd, Pat Sajak, Dennis Miller, Tom Selleck, Charlton Heston, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan, Clint Eastwood, Don Seigel, Fred Grandy, Martha Raye, Andolph Menjou, George Murphy. There's even one conservative Republican senator who did a reverse Reagan and went from politics to acting (Fred Thompson).

Don't think it hurt any of them or that any of them thought it ruined their career. Well, okay, Martha Raye did kvetch a little...

[ edited by bobster on 2004-10-30 04:13 ]

bobster | October 30, 06:12 CET

Marmoset -- I know this is long forgotten, but I was referred to her above-mentioned work in City Beat, an L.A. publication which leaned was all-over-the-map politically, but had a mostly liberal readership used to the consistently left-of-center L.A. Weekly.

Ah, I see. Sorry 'bout that.

A few folks I noticed that didn't make your list: Sonny Bono, Frank Capra, and that chick from Northern Exposure. And, Matt Stone and Trey Parker? Really? I had no idea.

marmoset | October 30, 06:28 CET

Great post bobster and you are right that there are some things the media leans center or right on. Only a few of those you mentioned were very outspoken, most of them later in there careers. Its also true that loudly leaning left would get you in trouble, but that is not true right now at all. Most of those who loudly proclaim conservative politics from Cali don't need to depend on casting or indeed on other people at all for their livelihoods. Actors starting out tend to be mum about right leanings. Anyway, again great post and good points :D

zeitgeist | October 30, 09:22 CET