Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘west wing’

Barack Obama called for longer school years and getting rid of poorly performing teachers, in a speech about education that had me wondering where I’d heard that before.

Oh yeah. Here.

Let’s compare the two. Here’s Obama:

“That month makes a difference,” the president said. “It means that kids are losing a lot of what they learn during the school year during the summer. It’s especially severe for poorer kids who may not see as many books in the house during the summers, aren’t getting as many educational opportunities.”

[ . . . ]

“We have got to identify teachers who are doing well. Teachers who are not doing well, we have got to give them the support and the training to do well. And if some teachers aren’t doing a good job, they’ve got to go,” Obama said.

And here’s his fictional model, Congressman Matthew Santos, played by Jimmy Smits on the West Wing, circa 2005:

“America is 49th in the world in literacy. That’s down 18 spots in the last four years. Why? Well, for starters, the 180-day school year, that’s based on the agrarian calendar. But we’re in a global economy now. Japan’s at 243 days; Germany’s at 240. ”

[ . . . ]

“… which is why we need to end teacher tenure and get rid of failing teachers.”

Life imitating art? In the case of Santos/Obama, it’s certainly not the first time.

Statisticians as a group have always kind of flown under the radar, perceived as boring number-crunchers even geekier than accountants who are constantly going on about confidence intervals and accuracy within plus or minus three percentage points.

That is, until the Tory government dropped its inexplicable bombshell decision this month to abolish the mandatory long-form census in favour of a voluntary version.

The public outcry over this move, fuelled in large part by the angry resignation of the head of StatsCan, has all of a sudden made the statistician into a folk hero, a lone crusader for level-headed facts in the face of a government that seems to think that listening to the people is, well, voluntary.

Kevin Liban in the National Post hits the nail on the head on the Harper government’s failures:

But after four and half years of governing Canada, the Prime Minister still doesn’t know how, or maybe, care to, go through the tactful political efforts it takes to win friends and influence people. This is, and appears destined to remain, his weakness, believes Tom Flanagan, the University of Calgary political scientist and Mr. Harper’s former chief of staff and organizer. There was the sudden, surprise announcement to cancel taxpayer funding to parties — which almost brought down the government; the sudden, surprise announcement to cancel subsidies to Quebec artists, that may have cost him a majority government; the sudden, surprise announcement to prorogue Parliament. All without warning; all without consultation; all without properly preparing the ground in advance with notice, persuasion and rationale.

In this case, the government doesn’t seem to have any rationale – at least not any rationale that makes sense or that stands up to the smallest amount of scrutiny. And this decision, which comes out of nowhere and will have ramifications for years to come, has made us a laughingstock in the world and has sparked angry protests from all sides of the political spectrum.

It’s not even a budgetary move. The government wants to send out an additional 10,000 forms to compensate for less people filling them out. In addition to clearly never having taken a statistics class, Tony Clement must have failed basic arithmetic, because sending out all those extra forms will cost more money, not less.

Here are links to an online petition and a Facebook page that have set up to protest the Harper government’s decision.

And, for the West Wing fans, see Sam explain the (U.S.) census to CJ in a classic episode here:

Update 8/4: The new census policy is being challenged in court:

A French-Canadian group has launched a legal attack on multiple fronts against the federal government’s move to scrap the mandatory long-form census.The group has not only asked Federal Court to void the Harper government’s new policy, but also wants an injunction that would keep the new type of census from being distributed this year.

It is also asking the court to fast-track its case so that it can be heard by mid-October, before the government distributes the 2011 census.

Peter Funt makes the case in the Washington Post that the current US Presidential Campaign has a plot straight out of Season 7 of The West Wing.

Pieter at Peaktalk links to the latest news from the UK, where Tony Blair is fending off the leadership challenge from Gordon Brown as long as he can manage it.

Pieter’s not impressed and, as he rightly points out, the situation mirrors that of the Canadian Liberals a little too closely:

Many have pointed to the analogy with Canada where a defiant and successful ten-year stint in office was not sufficient for Jean Chrétien to ward off the coup by his former finance minister, Paul Martin. What is telling is that Martin’s successful attempt to dislodge Chrétien – who like Blair had long outlived his popularity – was not based on any justifiable policy difference or other quantifiable ideological rift, but on the simple logic that it was Martin’s turn. Not the greatest rationale for seeking the highest office in the land, and we have all witnessed the incredible mess that ensued as it became painfully clear that the absence of any sound content turned Martin’s tenure at Sussex Drive into an utterly forgettable one. It was a power grab for power’s sake, nothing more and nothing less.

It is too early to tell whether Brown’s move into Downing Street will yield the same sorry spectacle, but given the relatively late stage of Labour’s tenure and the strength of a resurgent conservative opposition, it may not be a very pretty one.

What is it with these finance ministers and their sense of entitlement, anyway?

Since I’ve never missed an opportunity to quote the West Wing, why start now? Here’s a quote from season four, shortly after Bartlet is re-elected for his second term, when Josh finds out that Vice-President Hoynes is already lining up precinct captains for the next election:

Josh: We got [Hoynes] on the ticket by convincing him it’s not his turn. We kept him out of the center ring ’cause it wasn’t his turn, and now…

Toby: There aren’t any turns.

When did Canada, the US or the UK turn into Cuba or North Korea? We’ve got politicians getting elected because of who their fathers were (*ahem* Dubya), politicians assuming it’s their “turn”, and power being handed over as though it was someone’s to hand.

Memo to the British Labour Party: Pieter’s right. The Canadian Liberals haven’t recovered from the Chrétien-Martin fiasco, and surely there’s a warning in there somewhere for you as well.

This piece by Jerusalem-based writer Naomi Ragen has been making the rounds online. I expect it will show up in my e-mail inbox about a dozen times over the next few days:

Please remember this when you hear about the “atrocity” of the Israeli bomb that killed many civilians in Kafr Qana, a place from which Hezbollah has fired hundreds of rockets at Israel. Unlike previous administrations, Mr. Olmert has my respect when he says: “They were warned to leave. It is the responsibility of Hezbollah for firing rockets amid civilians.”

Terrorists and their supporters have lost the right to complain about civilian casualties, since all they have is one goal: this entire war is to target civilians. Every single one of the more than 2,500 rockets launched into Israel, is launched into populated towns filled with women and children. Just today, another explosive belt meant to kill civilians in Israel was detonated harmlessly by our forces in Nablus.

So don’t cry to me about civilian casualties. Cry to those using babies and wives and mothers; cry to those who store weapons in mosques, ambulances, hospitals and private homes. Cry to those launching deadly rockets from the backyards of kindergartens and schools. Cry to the heartless men who love death, and however many of their troops or civilians die, consider themselves victorious as long as they can keep on firing rockets at our women and children.

Everything Ms. Ragen says is right. But I think she’s wrong.

There are too many people in the world who can’t tell the difference between a legitimate democracy fighting for survival, and a terrorist organization trying to wipe a nation off the map. They draw false moral equivalences. They put on blinders. They say ridiculous things.

I refuse to be one of them.

Yes, it’s true that Israel is better than Hezbollah. Anyone with half a brain can see that. And it should be obvious. It should be a given. There are too many people in the world who don’t get that, but by arguing the point again and again, we’re giving them credence. It shouldn’t even be up for debate.

But here’s the thing: that’s not good enough.

Israel shouldn’t be content to simply be held to a higher standard than Hezbollah. Frankly, that’s not saying much, is it?

When Israel fights a war, I don’t need anyone to convince me that civilian casualties are anything other than a tragic an accident. I take that for granted, because I know Israel and I know the truth about this and any war that she fights. These are wars of survival, fought by people with faults but with the best of intentions: to protect the security of Israel.

I’ve decided there aren’t nearly enough West Wing references on this blog. So here’s a quote from Amy Gardner:

“Jed Bartlet: Not quite as mean-spirited as the other guy.” Doesn’t really send me running to my polling place.

Israel isn’t quite as mean-spirited as Hezbollah. Hezbollah wants to kill Israeli civilians. Israel doesn’t want to kill Lebanese civilians. I get it. But I’m not content to simply make that point. It doesn’t send me running to the polling place either, so to speak.

The point is, all of the above isn’t enough. Being “not quite as mean-spirited as Hezbollah” isn’t enough for Israel. Nobody who loves Israel should say otherwise. We can’t simply be satisfied with the knowledge that we’re on the side of the angels here. When a tragedy happens, like dead children in Qana, the only way to truly show love for Israel is to ask the tough questions and demand the tough answers and the soul-searching that comes along with it. That’s how a country grows: with openness and freedom and a lively exchange of debate. And with a constant striving to do better, to do what’s right, to face up to blunders and wrongdoings and claim not only the relative moral high ground, but the absolute moral high ground too.

And so, I maintain that Naomi Ragen is right about the facts but wrong in her sentiment. I demand more from Israel, because I love and respect it so much and I know we need to judge it by the standard that it deserves.

Number of references to The West Wing on this blog: 18.

Number of references to this blog on The West Wing: 0.

Just in case anyone was wondering.

L. Ian MacDonald thinks that Harper’s position on the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon is one born out of conviction, not out of politics:

As Harper said: “There is a crisis because of the actions of Hamas and the actions of Hezbollah.” Exactly. Who kidnapped Israeli soldiers? Who fired rockets into Israeli neighbourhoods?

This is an interesting point of departure – the prime minister dares to speak truth, not to power, but to terror.

You can be certain that Harper’s unambiguous language was not written at Foreign Affairs. They don’t do plain speaking over there. They also like to be on both sides of this issue.

But the prime minister is making foreign policy himself, and he is realigning it significantly in the Middle East, as well as with the United States, to reflect first principles.

He can’t be doing it for the votes. The Jewish community in Canada votes overwhelmingly Liberal. Israel never had a better friend in Canada, until now, than Brian Mulroney, and it never got him anywhere with Jewish voters. There are also twice as many Muslim as Jewish voters in this country, and they’re not happy with Harper choosing sides. This is not even to mention the anguish in Canada’s Lebanese community, largely based in Montreal and Ottawa. As many as 50,000 Canadians, holidayers and dual citizens alike, found themselves stranded in the middle of a war zone last week.

If there’s no political gain in it for Harper, the only reason for him to be taking such a clear stand in favour of Israel is that he’s acting out of conviction.

MacDonald, who, it must be said, is a very intelligent man even on issues on which I disagree with him, is not giving Israel carte blanche. Far from it. He believes that Israel’s response to Hezbollah’s provocation is “disproportionate”. Okay, he’s entitled; a fair number of Israelis believe the exact same thing. But he’s applauding Harper for taking the stance that, proportionate or not, Israel’s reaction is one of defence against a terrorist organization, and that no moral equivalence can be drawn between the two.

Politicians who speak their minds are a bit of an anomaly in this country. Canadians aren’t used to them, and many aren’t quite sure what to make of Harper. I’ve never been a fan of Harper, but I do have to give him credit on this one. Trouble is, his “moral stance” is unleashing such a backlash that it threatens to cancel out the original intent. Would a waffling Liberal government have made itself such an easy target for criticism? Sure, that’s a backwards analysis. But think about it: If hatred of Israel gets stirred up into an even bigger frenzy because Harper is a convenient target as a right-winger who backs Israel, then who benefits in the long run?

In an early episode of The West Wing, Joey Lucas (played brilliantly by Marlee Matlin) bursts into Josh’s office demanding to know why the DNC is choking off funding for her candidate, who is trying to unseat a far-right Republican. The answer? Josh explains that “Every time he comes out with one of his declarations about brown people crossing the border, the DNC slaps it into a direct mail campaign and he’s good for two or three million dollars.” In other words, the Democrats get more mileage out of having a convenient poster boy for the far right to attack than they would get out of winning the seat.

Well, politics often work that way, unfortunately. In Quebec, for instance, support for sovereignty goes up during the years when the Liberals are in power, and down during the years when the PQ is in power. Why? Because it’s easier to attack from the opposition than to govern from the majority.

Is Harper, by signalling his clear intention to stand behind Israel in this conflict, doing more harm than good in a realistic sense, even though he’s theoretically doing the right thing? I wonder.

This season will be the West Wing’s last. NBC announced that it is pulling the plug on the show at the end of this, its seventh season.

The show plunged downhill after Aaron Sorkin left three seasons ago but has recovered a little bit this season. However, its move to Sunday nights has caused the ratings to drop enough that the network feels it’s time.

They’ve promised to give us an election winner – Santos or Vinick – but this means neither of them will actually take office on the show. In a way, it’s fitting; this was about Jed Bartlet’s presidency, and while the transition might’ve been accomplished, things will have come full circle by now. And with John Spencer’s death, the decision makes even more sense.

Still, I’ll be sad to see one of the last remaining intelligent TV shows end. On the bright side, this probably means the 7-season DVD box set will make it to my Amazon Wish List really soon.

Actor John Spencer died of a heart attack today. He was 58.

Spencer is perhaps best known for his portrayal of Leo McGarry on The West Wing. The character of Leo also suffered a sudden heart attack in Season 6, which, while not fatal, led to his replacement as White House Chief of Staff by Press Secretary C.J. Cregg (Allison Janney).

In a twist, in the current season, Leo is the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee and running-mate of Matthew Santos (Jimmy Smits) who is squaring off against Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda) for President. What Spencer’s death will mean for the election result remains to be seen.

Fictional concerns aside, though, Spencer was far too young for such a tragedy. He will surely be missed.

Sure, it was scripted – but these days, what real political debate isn’t? Sure, it was cheesy at times – but nowhere near as ridiculous as Dubya’s mixup between Saddam and Osama in the real debate. And sure, it was fiction that bordered on the completely, utterly unrealistic. But the live debate episode between West Wing fictional presidential candidates Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda) and Matthew Santos (Jimmy Smits) was so much better than the real thing, I nearly cried. After a couple of seasons of genuine suckage after Aaron Sorkin’s departure, the show is starting to regain its legs.

The candidates threw out the debate rules and went after each other on issues including gun control, healthcare, education, immigration and even the word “liberal”. Why can’t real political debates be like that?

After all, politicians have essentially been actors for years. And I’m not just talking about Reagan or Schwarzenegger. Most of them are reading off rehearsed scripts, playing a part, saying their lines. So why don’t their lines ever sound so good in real life?

Now, the show has an obvious liberal bias, with Martin Sheen having played the fictional Democratic President Josiah Bartlett for the last 6 seasons. The show’s audience is over 75% Democrat, and its cast includes some of the most outspoken liberal actors in Hollywood. An online poll on the show’s site as to who won the fake debate is running 65% for Santos. In fact, an independent poll – yes, a real pollster actually ran a poll about fictional candidates, in a bizarre twist – surveyed an equal number of Democrats and Republicans and found that 59% favour Santos. It’s virtually pre-ordained that Smits is going to emerge the winner.

But Alda’s character is fighting a serious campaign. They’ve scripted Senator Vinick as a centrist, pro-choice Republican from California, with just enough centrist appeal that he could – theoretically – win the television presidency. An anti-Bush, in other words. And I must admit, if it were a real debate, he would have nearly wiped the floor with Matthew Santos… despite the fact that there were clearly lines he – presumably a Democrat in real life – nearly choked on while having to speak. Hell, I figure I’d be a Democrat if I were American, and even I woulda voted for him.

Wouldn’t it be gutsy of the show’s producers if they wrote a Vinick victory and let the Republicans take office on the show? Of course, it would be a Democrat’s funhouse version of the Republican party… but it would sure be more interesting than the assumed outcome. I’d love to see them try.

And you know what else would be really neat? If this debate inspired some real political debates to follow a similar format, allowing candidates to actually debate issues for a change. I’m willing to bet a lot more people would watch – and consequently, a lot more people would vote.

Update: I admit, I was curious about the fact that the debate was going to air twice – once on the east coast and once on the west. So I tuned into NBC Seattle and was rather shocked to notice that, though the script was nearly identical, the actors’ tones had changed dramatically. In debate #2, Santos seemed to be the clear winner, scoring definitive points over Vinick on nearly every issue. I wonder if the actors were coached in the interim to make a pre-determined Santos victory seem more plausible? At any rate, it’s amazing how the same lines could have such a different effect when spoken with slightly different pauses, tones and facial expressions. Food for thought.