The Trash of the Thing

The sixth episode of West Wing, Best Wing is out, and we talk hate crimes legislation, sex ed, and why we could never do CJ's job. Listen to the episode here, follow us on Twitter here, and don't be afraid to show us some love! They don't call us the Second Most Popular West Wing Podcast for nothing!

Pens are a big thing in this episode. Don't worry, we get to that.

One of the main issues in Episode 13, Take Out the Trash Day, is the release of a report on sex education, that shows that (shocker) comprehensive sex education is more effective in reducing pregnancies and STDs than abstinence-only education. Instead of highlighting this report, and creating a fight on the House floor about sex education, the Barlet administration buries the report until after the midterm elections. In return, a Congressman agrees not to hold a hearing on Leo McGarry and his past drug use.

This turns out to be a lie, but we'll get to that in future episodes.

Ah Tumblr, never fails me with the proper meme.

I was researching American sex education this week, and I'm shocked at what I found. Apparently, only 24 states (and DC) require that sex education be taught in schools, and only 20 of those states require that the information in the program be medically accurate.

On the flip side, 37 states require that abstinence education be taught, and 26 states require that it be stressed. Interestingly, both New York and New Hampshire do not mandate sex education, and when doing HIV education, New York is expected to "stress" abstinence (though they are allowed to mention condoms).

The state of American sex education, or a happy trash can? You decide.

New Mexico does mandate that sex ed be taught in schools, but doesn't mandate that it be medically accurate, and as someone who took New Mexico sex ed in a public school, I can vouch that there were times when it wasn't medically accurate (my 7th grade teacher told some big lies about the IUD).

Most shocking to me was that in four states in this great nation, the only negative information about differing sexual orientations can be discussed. So if you're an LGBTQ kid in Alabama, Texas, Utah or South Carolina, it is state mandated that your orientation not be presented in a positive light. It is my sincere hope that all those LGBTQ kids in those states getting lied to now will one day become badass politicians and overturn those laws. We're all rooting for you!

Molly's favorite line in the episode, and my opinion on those four states.

The episode also covers hate crime legislation, a bit anachronistic, as this aired in 1999, and we didn't get hate crime legislation that protected LGBTQ people until 2008 (thanks, Obama!). We also cover why the President needed 15 pens, what an advance man is, the new reality of journalism, and our differing opinions on forgiveness in a job with such high security (in this, as in everything, I am Sam, Molly is Toby). And we wanted to clarify that, when we say "everyone who won a Pulitzer was a man" we meant Arts Pulitzers, not all Pulitzers overall.

I don't know why you're still reading this, when you could be listening to the episode! We get funnier with each passing week, so get in on the ground floor of this rocket ship while you still can.

Obama tested, Obama approved.

Swear to God

For the most part, when a politician takes their oath of office, they raise their right hand, place their left hand on the holy book of their choice, and swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Curiously, there's no constitutional requirement that an elected official take their oath of office on a holy book. In fact, John Quincy Adams allegedly took his oath of office on a book of laws, and Representative Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) the only member of Congress who lists her religion as "unaffiliated" took her oath on the Constitution.

But swearing on the Bible is still ubiquitous, especially among presidents, all of whom have been some form of Christian (plus JFK the Catholic). And lots of them, when they take the oath of office open the Bible to a passage that holds meeting to them. The practice has historical precedent, with George Washington taking his oath on an open page. Apparently, due to a bit of a rush, the book was opened to a random page, which means George Washington took the oath of office over Genesis 49:13 which reads:

"Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea; and he shall be for an haven of ships; and his border shall be unto Zidon."

Sassy George Washington

Inspiring stuff. The next time an inauguration had a confirmed open Bible was Abraham Lincoln's Second Inauguration, which appears to be confusingly opened to Matthew 7:1 (The famous "Judge not, that ye be not judged"), Matthew 18:7 and Revelations 16:7, verses that aren't gripping enough to bear repeating.

How did Lincoln have a bible open to three different passages? Probably using the same rhetorical and political skills that kept the Union together during and after a violent civil war. The world may never know.

Deal with it

With the hundreds and thousands of passages in the Bible, it's interesting to see which were repeated by multiple different people. Both Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Regan used II Chronicles 7:14. Regan used the verse for both his inaugural elections, which states:

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Franklin Roosevelt used the same passage for all four inagurations, I Corinthians 13, a passage most commonly used at weddings, and in the excellent 30 Rock episode:

"Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

I couldn't find screencaps from the episode where Liz Lemon is in three weddings in the same day, so have this picture of Liz Lemon's wedding instead.

Nixon twice opened his Bible to Isaiah 2:4, which states, among other things, "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." An ironic verse, given that Nixon presided over the bombing of Cambodia, but we can't all live up to the Bible verse we take the oath of office on.

I spent a lot of time Googling Bible quotes, and I think my favorite one is the Micah 6:8 chosen by both Jimmy Carter and Warren G. Harding which says:

"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

If our nation's leaders are going to take advice from a 2,000 year old book, that may be the best. One wonders why our presidents don't swear on the laws they're promising to uphold, but I think it's because everyone just wants to touch a famous Bible. And quite frankly, if that's the only chance I have to put my hand on Abraham Lincoln's Bible, I would take it.

Your yearly reminder of Chuck Schumer at Obama's Inauguration

Sexism in Politics

"Medicare-for-all will never happen if we continue to elect corporate Democratic whores who are beholden to big pharma and the private insurance industry instead of us."

I understand what Paul Song was trying to say here, that money in politics prevents politicians from passing progressive policies. I see what he means so clearly, that I was almost ready to write off his use of a word that his almost exclusively directed at women, and used to demean women. At a rally for Bernie Sanders, Paul Song casually and tangentially called Hillary Clinton a whore, and to be very honest, it didn't really shock me all that much.

You know why Lisa.

Maybe it's because I've seen people calling Clinton worse names online. Maybe it's because so much of the recent rhetoric has been so sexist that the use of a sexist word really didn't seem out of place. Or maybe it's because this is just what happens to women in politics.

While people prepare their counter-arguments (believe me, I've heard all of them) I'll tell you what the science says. When female politicians are perceived as "power seeking" or ambitious, people are more likely to express feelings or moral outrage, anger and disgust. Power seeking women are seen as uncaring, and voters are less likely to vote for ambitious female politicians. If you're wondering if this is also true for ambitious, power seeking male politicians, it's not. In fact, power seeking men are seen as more competent and believed to have greater agency and assertiveness.

Amen, sister

But don't let that one study convince you! Another study found that high-ranking female Senators talk less than high-ranking male Senators. In fact, as female Senators become more powerful, they try to talk the same amount as less important female Senators, because they're worried about potential backlash if they talk too much. A worry that is not unfounded. Female CEOs who talk "more than others in power" are perceived by men and women as "less competent" and "less suitable for leadership."

A third study found that when women succeed in male-dominated careers, they are seen as "unlikeable" and "unpleasant." And since 100% of US Presidents have been men, and 80.6% of current Congressional Representatives and Senators are men, it's hard to find a career more male dominated than the highest levels of political office. So it's no surprise that certain female Senators, Congresswomen, female Governors, and Hillary Clinton, are often described as "unlikeable."

Most of my feminist consciousness came from my mom, the rest came from Lisa Simpson.

To quote my friend Jenny (who has an amazing blog that you should check out)

I can’t prove that sexism plays into your dislike of Hillary Clinton. It’s just that if when you say that she is “sneaky, bitchy, tricky, bossy, self-obsessed, power-hungry, abrasive, and unfriendly” I can’t tell if we’re a) doing a cool modern retelling of the Salem witch trials, b) using every negative descriptor and stereotype that has ever been applied to women, or c) talking about reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton.

And to quote myself from two days ago, I can't prove that Hillary Clinton, and other women in politics have it harder because they are women, but I am a woman and I do work in politics, and I know in my soul that there is sexism at play in how we view and talk about powerful women who want to succeed in a male-dominated field.

I'm outraged at the sexist attacks that women in politics face, but I'm not surprised by them. I'm surprised that other people don't seem to see them as sexist. I know that I could link to 100 peer-reviewed studies showing that women in politics are held to a higher standard, and seen as less qualified, I know I could pull up 1,000 tweets criticizing female politicians appearance, or their voices, or their weight, or their amorphous unlikeability, and I know I could talk about my own experiences as a woman in the world, but there would still be people who wouldn't believe me. 

So this blog post is to say, I don't need you to believe me, because I know I'm right. I know that women have it harder in politics than men do, I know that if Hillary Clinton was Hector Clinton, Paul Song wouldn't have used the word whore, and I know that this election has been rife with easy to dismiss sexism that makes me feel crazy when I point it out and no one sees it. But I know it's there, and I'll just keep pointing it out until everyone else sees it too.

Thanks Lisa!

Everybody Form a Line

Have you listened to our latest West Wing, Best Wing episode yet? If not, go listen to it. I'll wait.

Ok, you're back! Or, you never left because you're an avid West Wing, Best Wing fan and you follow us on Twitter, so you've already seen the link to this week's episode. For the latest podcast, Molly and I reviewed "He Shall, From Time to Time" which was an episode about President Bartlet's state of the union, as well as other personal dramas that we will discuss in depth in future episodes.

Keep those techpectations low everyone!

One of the interesting and little understood parts of this episode for me was when Leo instructs Josh to "pick a guy," by which he means, pick someone from the line of succession to stay behind while the President is giving the State of the Union, in case, you know, the Capitol is attacked. Which means the government's plan in the even of an attack amounts to "hope the White House isn't also attacked when Congress is."

Most people know a little bit about the line of succsion. We all know that the Vice President is first in line to take over if the President dies, thanks to Article II, Section 1 of the constitution. It wasn't always a given that the VP would take over for the rest of the term though. The first time a president died in office, some people thought that the Vice President should only step in and be the president until another election could be held. But John Tyler, William Henry Harrison's vice president, insisted that he finish out Harrison's term, setting a precedent that continues to this day.

Honestly, thank God this man is first in the line of succession.

(I learned that fact from the Washington Post podcast, Presidential, which I highly recommend. I mean, not as highly as I recommend my own podcast.)

This principal was codified into law with the 25th Amendment, which explicitly states that the VP will become president if the president dies. There's other important things in the 25th Amendment, but those will play a big role in a future episode, so stay tuned!

But who takes over if the President and the VP both can't serve? That question was raised by Harry Truman in 1945, when he requested that Congress pass a law allowing the Speaker of the House to become second in line, and President of the Senate to be the third in line. Prior to this, the President of the Senate was third in line, followed by members of the Cabinet. The 1947 law, signed by none other than Harry Truman, put the President of the Senate third in line.


The line of succession hasn't changed since 1947. If the President can't serve, duties will be transferred to the Vice President, then the President of the Senate, and then finally, to Cabinet Secretaries. Secretaries are eligible in the order that their Department was created, which means the Secretary of State (one of the oldest cabinet positions, if not the oldest) is fourth in line, and the Secretary of Homeland Security (America's newest cabinet position) is traditionally 18th in the line of succession.

The most interesting thing about the line of succession, is that if any of the cabinet members are not eligible to be president under the Constitution, they are not included in the line of succession. So if any cabinet member is under 35, or not a natural born US Citizen, they wouldn't be able to assume the presidency following a horrific national tragedy.

This is bad news for Secretary Sally Jewel, the Secretary of the Interior, who would be 8th in the line of succession, if she wasn't born in England. Sorry Sally! Thanks for serving your adopted country though.

Sally Jewel, good enough for the Cabinet, not good enough for the line.

In the episode, President Bartlet picks the Secretary of Agriculture, traditionally 9th in the line of succession, to stay behind. And if any of you West Wing, Best Wing fans out there can name the current Secretary of Agriculture without turning to the Internet, I'll give you a shout out on next week's episode. But until then, enjoy our discussion of the line of succession, the history of the State of the Union, and our opinions about the NEA!