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!

North Carolina Hate Bill #2

North Carolina recently signed a bill into law that prevents cities from passing LGBT non-discrimination ordinances. That's a problem because North Carolina doesn't have any specific statewide protections in place to prevent discrimination towards gay and transgender people. Seeing a gap in protection, the city of Charlotte passed a bill outlawing discrimination towards gay and transgender people. 

Not willing to let city laws be out of step with the state, the North Carolina state government passed a bill that overturned the Charlotte non-discrimination law. The bill also mandated that students use bathrooms that correspond to the gender on their birth certificate, and prevented cities from raising their minimum wage, which had nothing to do with anything except that the state house does not appreciate when localities try to enact progressive provisions that are counter to state law.

What transgender women really do in the bathroom.

A lack of non-discrimination protections in state, city and federal law is a huge problem for transgender people. In 30 states, people can be denied housing solely because they are transgender. This has real-life consequences, with at least 11% of transgender people reporting that they had been evicted due to their identity. And in those same 30 states, transgender people can be fired just because of their gender identity, and 26% of transgender people have had that happen to them.

In the absence of statewide protections for transgender people, many cities have stepped up to fill in the gaps. The most prominent has been New York City, which recently clarified their 2002 gender non-discrimination provisions to include gender identity. Basically, this means that just as it's illegal to discriminate against women for their gender, it's illegal to discriminate against transgender people because they are transgender. This March, Mayor DeBlasio took an extra step, signing an executive order affirming transgender people's right to use the bathroom for the gender they identify as.

And while New York state does has protections for transgender people, due to an executive order signed by Governor Cuomo, but there is no statewide law explicitly protecting transgender New Yorkers. Even in progressive states, transgender people still lack strong legal protections, which is why many cities, Charlotte included, stepped up to fill in the gaps.

After all, does the Right really want this transgender man using a women's bathroom? Because that's what the North Carolina bill forces him to do.

This is what makes the North Carolina bill much worse that previous anti-LGBTQ bills. The bill signed into law by the governor actively prevents cities and localities from passing certain types of laws, while simultaneously creating transphobic policies.

The fight for equality and non-discrimination has been reduced to baseless fears about transgender people in bathrooms. A completely unfounded fear, since it's far more likely that transgender people will be harassed or assaulted in bathrooms, with over 70% of trans people experiencing some form of harassment when they tried to use a public restroom. 

The hashtag says it all.

I thought I would never have a good defense for the bathroom worries, until my wonderful brother Cosi gave me a great argument against comments like, "I don't want men in the bathroom with women!" His point was that people are worried about men being the bathroom with women because men are attracted to women, and thus could pose a threat. But then, he pointed out, why aren't those same people worried about people who are attracted to women being in the bathroom with women? After all, I'm a pretty strong woman, who is attracted to women, and therefore, by that logic, could pose a danger to them. 

But that's not an issue, as no one is suggesting that we segregate bathrooms by orientation, in addition to gender. To paraphrase a Cesar Chavez quote, the fight is never about bathrooms or dressing rooms. The fight is always about people. And in this case, the fight is about transgender people having their civil rights taken away by transphobic people.

I know my blog readership, and I know I'm preaching to the choir with this post, but I hope that this little collection of links and opinions helps you when you talk to people in your life, or representatives in your state, who may not agree with you about this. Including your representatives in New York, which does still lack some basic protections, crazy as that may seem.

Follow @AlexSBillings on Twitter!

Short List, Long Confirmation Process

Our West Wing, Best Wing episode this week was a topical one, with the recent appointment of Judge Merrick Garland. This episode also marked the first week that we used a new app to record, and as Molly stated "it sounds like we're hiking" so set your techpectations low. 

See? Low techpectations.

This episode, we discussed what happens when a president nominates a candidate to the Supreme Court, and why the Bartlet nomination looks different than the Obama nomination. And boy, are there some big differences.

The similarity is, obviously, that both are nominating a new justice to the court. The president has the power to nominate judges under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. But the President can't do it alone. Judges are subject to the "advice and consent of the Senate, which today means that a majority of Senators have to vote in favor of the judge's confirmation.

Unrelated to the court, this is the first introduction of Gail the Fish, because Danny is a loveable dork.

That's where Fake President Bartlet diverges from Real President Obama. Fake President Bartlet is counting on an easy confirmation for his judge, and it's looking more and more unlikely that Real President Obama's nominee will receive hearings at all. This is all discussed more in depth in a previous post.

Laying current politics aside, the most surprising thing we learned while researching for this episode was that there are no actual constitutional requirements for the Supreme Court justice. Technically, you don't have to be a citizen or even a lawyer to sit on the Supreme Court. However, every Supreme Court justice in history has been trained in the law. In fact, every judge that sits on the current court went to either Harvard or Yale law school, all are either Catholic or Jewish, and all but one are from "coastal states."

This is your reminder that there is an opera about Scalia and Ginsburg. This is a still from said opera. We live in the best of all possible worlds.

Merrick Garland is no different. He went to Harvard and is Jewish, though he was raised in the middle of the country. And much like the fictional judge, Peyton Harrison III (by the way, the WASPiest name ever. That name for sure owns a yacht) Merrick Garland has never written an opinion on abortion.

But that's where the similarities between these situations end, and to hear more about our thoughts on that, as well as who I think the nominee should have been, listen to this week's episode. Or catch up on past episodes here, and follow us on Twitter for up to the minute information (and by information, I mean "links we find interesting").

And finally, on a somber note. Ken Howard has a guest appearance in this episode as Judge Peyton Harrison III (human boat shoe). Ken Howard is best known in our generation for playing the CEO of Kabletown on 30 Rock, and also known for playing Jefferson in the movie version of 1776. He passed away last week, and will be missed.

Thomas Jefferson, or Peyton Harrison III? You decide.

Contested Contest

No one, not even me, thought Trump would last this long. I was sure that he would have dropped out of the race by now due to boredom, or lost a fair amount of states. But that has yet to happen, and I, like most of the country, am freaking out about the possibility of Trump actually winning the Republican nomination, which is why I, along with the rest of America, am hoping and praying for a contested convention.

Sort of wish I could ignore party politics and have a Geena Davis vs. Hillary Clinton election

A contested convention occurs when no candidates have the 1,237 delegates needed to win. This number only applies to the Republicans (the Democrats have a much higher number of delegates needed) but the rules of a contested convention are similar for both parties. 

In the first round of convention voting, delegates are "bound" to follow their states results. So for the first round of voting, all Ohio delegates have to vote for John Kasich, and all Florida delegates would have to vote for Donald Trump. But if no candidate has the 1,237 delegates, a second round of voting starts.

In that second round of voting, more than half the delegates become "unbound" and can vote for whoever they want. If no one reaches the 1,237 delegates in the second round of voting, even more delegates become unbound. This continues until one candidate receives the majority of delegates.

I'm also using this blog post to raise awareness of the fact that Commander in Chief is like THE ONLY media featuring a female president, because even Fake Politics is sexist.

According to the number crunchers at 538, none of the candidates are currently "on track" for the nomination, though Donald Trump is close. It is also becoming more and more clear that, rather than focusing on getting enough delegates to win the nomination, the Cruz and Kasich campaigns are focusing on wooing Trump's delegates in case of a contested convention.
 

The craziest things about these nominating conventions is that the rules can kind of change at any time. If a majority of the RNC Rules Committee agrees on a rule change, they can drastically change the proceedings of a convention, even allowing delegates in the first round to become "unbound" and not vote how the states voted. While this is highly unlikely, is is an allowed and understood power of the Rules Committee, but that surely won't stop people from complaining about it if it does happen.

Not even Geena Davis saw Trump's candidacy coming.

Regardless of what eventually happens in Cleveland in July, all you faithful blog readers get to see something special and rare right now: me admitting I was wrong. I never thought Trump would make it this far, and apparently my prediction skills are not what I thought they were. But, I could still be right about the Democratic nomination, so stay tuned!