We shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that politics in real life is like politics in the West Wing world, but there's nothing wrong with having an idealized vision of government. I also don't think the show is an example of naive faith; it was more about acknowledging that the actual government we have is far from ideal, and showing a nice alternative. You could see this in the episodes dealing with Bartlet's reelection--they were denouncing (in a rather thinly veiled manner) the sorts of narrow-minded, unreflective politicians and their appeals to simple-mindedness, etc. And the Republicans on the show were not infrequently shown to be vindictive and sinister.
You can say that their version of what is ideal was flawed, which is a perfectly valid position, but they weren't naive.
2: Disagree, I think. To the extent that the show positioned itself as criticism of the real world political process, it was naive. Just as someone who used the last line of every fairy tale ("they lived happily ever after") as a criticism of real world relationships would be naive. It was a fairy tale. But it was (originally) well-written, and it brought fun and interest to policy (I loved the episode with the cartographers). Which is no small thing.
The end of The West Wing, yes. Fifth season with Republicans taking over the White House because of Zoey's kidnapping and they don't exploit it for political advantage at all. Happy easy solutions. (I really liked Alan Alda and I wish they'd still let him win because Vinick was the only character worth watching last season and it would have been better to see how all of our staffers dealt with losing.)
But the first four seasons, not so much. Most of it was 20/20 hindsight here's what we wish our government would be doing if they weren't arguing or weren't bound by convention. Bartlet, the crazy liberal, ordered the asassination of a terrorist member of the royal family of the Saudi-stand-in ally. A liberal tough guy! And it all blew up in his face; the first few seasons were better about things sometimes not working out.
Anyhow, it's a nice tie-in, and I know the West Wing is supposed to be liberal porn, but my conservative friends were just as nuts about it because it was like candy: the big Promise could really work.
Oh, I loved the show, it was clever and fun and reassuring and happy. But that feeling that it's unseemly to talk publicly about the possibility that one's opponents have bad motives -- that wishing for a high-minded political discourse can make it so -- Ezra's right. That needs to stay gone.
I have watched both the West Wing and 24. 24's fourth season sucked, but it was better this season.
LB, I don't know. We all recognized that WW was fantasy. That's part of what made it fun -- it was this alternate world where not only are lambs lying down with lions but Republicans and Democrats are doing exactly what we want them to do in the sort of 'if I were running this place we'd solve this damn problem cuz I'd knock some heads'. Republicans are telling the ideologues to fuck off. Democrats aren't lead by a guy likely to get into a sex scandal (season 1 works well as a criticism of some Clinton-era stuff), which for my Republican friends was the reason they liked Bartlet -- he was Clinton, but not a sleaze.
But I don't think that works as fantasy if we don't recognize it as fantasy. If the Democrats need an excuse for their lack of balls these past few years, I'm pretty sure that a TV show with a Nobel laureate Latin speaking President is among the weakest.
I always thought that the problem the article discusses was why The West Wing often didn't make, despite its many virtues, a very good show. It had great actors, great visuals, a lot of sharp dialogue, and a novel setting for an ensemble drama instead of the usual hospital or police station. What it rarely had was real drama or conflict. It got a little of the former by exploiting the fast pace of contemporary politics, as well as the formal occasions (SotU, White House events) it offers. But rarely any real or believable conflict. Admittedly I stopped watching much in the final two seasons, but I can only think of one episode where one White House staffer plotted against another (Toby undermining an effort of Sam's, I forget what exactly.) Where was the episode in which a character leaked documents about a colleague and bad-mouthed the same to the President, all to steal coveted, high-status office space near the Oval Office? That would have been worth watching. As bad as a show like ER is, its makers at least understand that the audience needs characters it can dislike, at least at times. Conflict: it makes for better tv.
The first season of 24 was awesome, and I've watched the remaining ones sort of out of loyalty and also because it's fun to see how many things Jack Bauer can pull out of his man-handbag. Need to disable a security system? Oh, I have this here little device. Need to spy? Oh, here's another one.
I liked Toby, especially how he could go from quietly simmering to YELLING IN THAT VERY TOBY WAY in about half a second. But it's not too surprising, maybe, that everyone was on the same side. We were dealing with about seven people, and three of them were second-in-command assistants to the other three. C.J. used to get pissed off about three times a season for being kept out of the loop.
I'm with SB, on this. Toby's enjoyable in small doses, but his schtick became irritating very quickly. Of course, that was true for most of them. But it was particularly true for Toby.
10: Toby was a curmudgeon, not a villian (aside from the one instance I mentioned.) He mostly served the role of wish fulfillment for the egghead slice of the liberal demographic. Oh, and Toby also featured in one of the shows most spectacular attempts among many to undermine the audience's suspension of disbelief: the episode when his father visited the White House--and turned out to be a member of the mob. Somehow, despite the White House job, no one else knew. That's truly worthy of a show with a Nobel prize winner as President.
I think that what we're talking about here is the wish that politics be less adversarial. This is a wish felt only by nice, hapless Democrats and centrists. The actual Republicans are trying to destroy the Democratic Party, though of course there areways nice virtual Republicans floated around as distracting chaff.
Non-adversarial periods in politics are dominated by fixers, old-boy networks, and insider deals. The public never really knows what's happening.
There's a down side to partisanship, but there's a down side to everything. Our system really needs it to work, and a partisan politician doesn't have to be either completely ruthless or completely unprincipled. He just has to fight hard (though yes, he will have to compromise his principles and play dirty now and then).
Toby was always my favorite. So fucking self-righteous! And I always had a sneaking suspicion that he was based on Joe Trippi, since Pat Caddell was one of the creators, and he's one of Trippi's best friends.
Incidentally, what I said in 2 only applies to the first 4 seasons. I haven't seen much of anything after that.
And I don't think they just said "and they lived happily ever after". They showed the process of getting there, which wasn't always particularly smooth, and they didn't always succeed. It was the way they went about things that was the ideal, not the particular outcomes (at least for me).
25: How much work are you willing to do to justify your strange Toby-love? At least admit that if you knew him in real life, you have to fight yourself every day to keep from strangling him.
I'd like to take this opportunity to post my favorite snippet of West Wing dialogue (they're talking about the butter sculptures at the Iowa state fair, which are totally real):
C.J.
I don’t get it. How can you not want to see the butter cow?
TOBY
I’m that way.
C.J.
There’s also a butter Elvis and a butter Last Supper, which has, I swear to God, Toby...
TOBY
Butter on the table?
C.J.
It’s got butter on the table right there between butter James and butter Peter. An almost mind-blowing vortex of art and material that dares the viewers to recall Marcel Duchamp.
TOBY
How do they keep it from melting?
C.J.
How, indeed.
NANCY
Toby, you have a phone call in the staff cabin.
Toby is pretty great. Reading Television Without Pity, it seems the people there love> Toby.
I've read Ezra's piece, and I'm not sure about this: Is the problem that the main characters didn't sufficiently dislike all three of: Republicans in principle, many Republican policies, and many individual Republicans? Because I think if one were to watch the shows specifically looking for those things, they'd be very much present. On the other hand, if it's just that the characters didn't go around saying that the other side was arguing in bad faith, I think it would be hard to come up with many instances of that.
I think that what we're talking about here is the wish that politics be less adversarial.
You're right. That's a sucker's game. I want some DC Democrats who will automatically swing for the nuts every time a Republican is standing in front of them, since that is clearly the name of the game now. Bipartisanship is just a transparent ploy used to further McCain's political ambitions.
I think the problem is that in the universe of the show, the other side never was arguing in bad faith. When it came down to it, everyone was genuinely concerned with what was best for America; all conflicts were policy conflicts, not just political conflicts. In real life, that's nonsense. Some politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are working toward the best policy outcomes they can get to. More (again on both sides of the aisle) are interested in getting and keeping power for it's own sake. That's just how things work, and there's nothing wrong or unseemly in admitting it -- refusing to acknowledge that an awful lot of political conflict is purely about power isn't going to do a thing toward making better policies happen.
CJ was my favorite character, followed by Leo, and then probably Josh. But they were all relatively likeable, even Toby. Sam was likeable, and he was probably the worst of the lot.
41: To pull the rug of bipartisan comity out from under you, while I said 'both sides of the aisle', I don't think the situation is totally parallel. For one thing, the "If we just treat our political opponents with respect, then it'll all be true! All disagreements will really be good faith arguments about policy," is much more a liberal/Democratic fantasy than a Republican one; liberals need to walk away from it, Republicans were never there.
Second, there's a difference between motivated by power but pursuing policies you believe in nonetheless, as a path to power, and motivated by power and entirely indifferent to the quality of the policy you're bringing about. Here, I don't expect you to agree at all, but there's a lot more absolute indifference to policy among Republicans in power these days. (Clinton's idiotic advocacy of the flag-burning nonsense is remarkable; the apparently non-personally-anti-gay Bush's position on preventing gay marriage is much less so.)
All disagreements will really be good faith arguments about policy," is much more a liberal/Democratic fantasy than a Republican one
This has not been a Democratic fantasy since I identified as a Democrat. Obviously we disagree, but I would describe the assumption of their opponents' bad faith as a hallmark of the post-Watergate Democratic party.
54: Maybe at ground level (me and my ilk), but in terms of public discourse cominf from serious journalists and elected officials, I think you're wrong. Reagan got insane amounts of deference and respect for his decency and good intentions, even when the facts would suggest otherwise, and it goes on from there.
Reagan got insane amounts of deference and respect for his decency and good intentions, even when the facts would suggest otherwise, and it goes on from there.
Part of the problem is that Reagan probably was decent, and did have good intentions. He was just pretty clueless, and he was run by some pretty bad people. Same goes for GWB. I wish Dems would focus on tarring GWB as the natural outgrowth of today's Republican Party, rather than on GWB as a uniquely bad person. (Do I contradict myself? Yadda, yadda.)
I wish Dems would focus on tarring GWB as the natural outgrowth of today's Republican Party, rather than on GWB as a uniquely bad person.
I got into an irritating little spat with Farber about this a while back -- I was talking about what 'the Administration' knew and did, and he pointed out that an abstraction can't know or do anything. What having an explicitly clueless figurehead does for them is makes it very hard to attribute intentionality to anything that happens; you can't blame it on the cossacks, because they don't make the ultimate decisions, but you can't blame it on the czar, because he'd be doing the right thing if he only knew. Feh. I say blame them all.
68, 72: I think we're in agreement. My real complaint is that when, prior to the '04 election, Dems went after Bush as a loathsome person, it wasn't very effective, because most people think he means well or doesn't mean at all. Better to say that he's a useful idiot for fairly dark forces. Same with Reagan.
Maybe that's wrong. I still can't really believe we lost.
And I want to shift ground or something on what I've been saying about the liberal fantasy of good faith. It's not that people didn't say bad things about the motivations of the participants in Iran Contra, or of Bush this time around -- it's that saying those bad things makes you unserious. Serious Republicans could stand up and call Clinton a drug-dealing rapist selling us out to the Chinese, and not lose credibility among other Republicans. Serious Democrats have much more had to pay lip service to respecting their political opponents, or risk being marginalized by Democrats as well as Republicans.
"The Shady Brunch" is good--we could have a mixed Dem/Rep family, and Mom and Dad could be a politician and a journalist, and all the kids could then become professional operatives. Sort of like the Sopranos: evil people you can identify with.
And the West Wing was a fantasy about serious government -- that if we liberals were serious enough, then bad faith would go away as a problem. This is wrong, and pernicious.
It's not that people didn't say bad things about the motivations of the participants in Iran Contra, or of Bush this time around -- it's that saying those bad things makes you unserious.
Again, I think this is a function of the useful idiot quality of Reagan and GWB. You could, even at the time (I think), accuse Tricky Dick Nixon of just about anything and still be a serious person. Or at least I think that's true if we adjust backward for public charge inflation.
After the 2000 election I read Newsweek "inside story" of the campaigns, and I remember being struck that Bush's main quality seemed to be the ability to make the press corps like him personally.
I cant' take WW seriously as a fantasy substitute for a government, even an ideal one. It just functioned so much like a soap opera. I couldn't stomach the constant expressions of sincerity and goodness. So much like a religious service. My husband loved the show. But he also watched JAG. Go figure. From the little I saw of each show, they were very similar.
My wife and I, who had just started seeing each other at the time of the Reagan/Carter debate, almost fell out over Reagan, after I said that while I differed strongly with and opposed him, I could feel/understand his appeal Not a good thing to have said.
I think I saw JAG once. I would list the similarities as: Both are hour (44 min.) long television dramas featuring characters who work for some facet of the U.S. government. The show's stories involve the interpersonal relationships between the main characters.
Reagan had a powerful charisma, in person. I voted for Gus Hall in 1980 (so what? I was young) and most of my crowd at that time liked John Anderson. Our (shared) living room had a poster of Reagan as a fighter jet, with fighter planes in the sky around him. Anyone remember that one?
Those fears were real at the time; WWIII, nuclear anihilation, massive colonialism. I don't know where they all originated. They certainly didn't materialize. Strange that Bush II didn't generate those same fears. At least not on the same scale. And here we are.
101: Transformer, my ass. Reagan was a Go-Bot at best.
What pissed me off about the West Wing was its sheer, unbridled enthusiasm for the power and ceremony of the office of the presidency. At least once a season it seemed there would be some big melodramatic moment where some non-regular would refer to Bartlet as "Bartlet" and one of the staffers would suddenly get all flustered with righteous indignation and say, "You call him Mr. President here!" And I'd think, what the fuck? I don't call Ted Kennedy "Mr. Senator." I don't call my mailman "Mr. Mailman." I realize that the idea that the president actually works for us instead of vice versa is rather quaint at this point, but that's precisely why I don't like a nominally liberal show reveling in the pomp and glory of the executive branch.
What pissed me off about the West Wing was its sheer, unbridled enthusiasm for the power and ceremony of the office of the presidency.
Have I given my speech here about how the problem with America is that the head of government and the head of state are the same person? If I haven't, maybe I'll turn it into a post.
108: I have, and (utterly unsurprisingly) Gary has. But I'd be interested in your version of it. NB: At that link, when I said "constitutional monarchy" I meant either "constitutional democracy" or "democratic republic." Seriously.
On TWW, there was an episode -- I think the one where there's a potential stay-of-execution -- where Bartlet explains to his childhood priest (?) that he prefers to be called 'Mr. President' not out of ego, but because sometimes the office demands that he do things which he'd prefer not to think of himself doing.
115: Yeah, see, that's kind of worse. If Bartlet was just a pompous ass who wanted to fully enjoy the perks of the office by having everyone address him by his title, then that would be an implicit criticism of the massive ceremonial significance we attach to the presidency. But Sorkin portrays him as a man who simply realizes that The Presidency is just so Vast and Grand that it demands the kind of pomp that comes with a head of state, no matter how much he finds it distateful - a thoroughly paternalistic view of the executive.
But Sorkin portrays him as a man who simply realizes that The Presidency is just so Vast and Grand that it demands the kind of pomp that comes with a head of state
I think Bartlet's point is this: Sometimes a president is forced (by politics, other voices, etc) to do things he, personally, finds morally reprehensible, and in those times he would prefer not to think of himself personally.
119: It's not just Sam, I don't think. Toby does it at least once, and there's a scene during the whole MS/reelection arc where everyone becomes simultaneously heartbroken when they realize they've been calling him "Bartlet." And they all get off on the pomp because Sorkin gets off on the pomp. How many episodes end with a buildup to some obscure yet grandiose presidential ceremony?
I should note that I did actually like the show, at least up until Sam left. Sam was awesome - Josh was always the tool. The whole thing with him and Donna was creepy with a capital CREE.
Josh at least had the decency to be rumply and plain whilst being a tool. One of the only redeeming things about season 5 is when C.J. tells Donna that Josh is holding her back and she needs to get over it.
I have a fairly complex legal question which I probably should just keep researching rather than aksing about in comments, but I'm not going to let that stop me. Let's say you have litigation x, which is currently at an early stage, and litigation y, currently at an even earlier stage. There's good reason to think that a very key issue in y will be issue precluded by the outcome of x. Can we get a stay of y and where would I find authority for that?
I don't know offhand, but it sounds like a good shot. Mess around on Westlaw with terms like "stay" "issue preclusion" "collateral estoppel" and "related litigation". This kind of thing I'd be particularly careful that you're researching in the applicable jurisdiction -- it's not going to be a broadly applicable rule of law, it's going to be the procedure of your jurisdiction.
Seriously? Not so much asking on the blog, but a highly underrated research technique is rambling on about what you're researching with co-workers; they're very likely to have seen a similar problem sometime. Going straight to hammering away on Westlaw may involve losing a fair amount of time figuring out how to frame the issue that you could have figured out faster with some help.
I so need a job that doesn't bore me to tears, or at least to be staffed on some cases where it has some consequences if the work doesn't get done. I swear every goddam assignment I've had this year has been some sort of think-piece research for stuff which co-counsel is writing the briefs on. I get it done, eh, no one reads it; I don't get it done, eh, no one notices. The partner I'm working for is driving me bats.
but a highly underrated research technique is rambling on about what you're researching with co-workers; they're very likely to have seen a similar problem sometime
Very true and worthwhile and I second the recommendation. However, this is hard to do when you are a junior associate in a big law firm. Find someone slightly more senior who likes to talk and who does not give you that irritated "hey, asshole, I already was going to be here until 11 PM, and now I won't get out of here until midnight because you are gabbing" look.
'Cause it always sounded like he was trying to be a hick. I'm folksy. I'm Jed. But from New Hampshire.
I figured they put him in New Hampshire because putting him in Massachusettes might make Bartlet a caricature, but really. Since when is New Hampshire a liberal Catholic stronghold?
WASPs rule dopey nicknames. It comes from having too many men in the family with the same name: John Sr. is John, John Jr. is Jack, but by the time you get down to little Johnny Three-Sticks he gets called Myrtle or something.
teo: He's a liberal Catholic WASP but I thought his name was hickish and out of character. LB corrects me with her superior knowledge of East Coast WASPs.
Right, but the nicknames last forever. There are ancient evil WASPs in Connecticut who are now Ezekiel Sr. because their ancestors are all dead, but who nonetheless are still known to all as Bunny, because back in the 1930's Ezekiel was Grandpa and Zeke was Dad.
(WASP here means Yankee old-money, not just any white guy, of course. And Bartlet is written as a WASP even though he's Catholic.)
... is the equal representation of states in the Senate, the only unamendable part of the Constitution. Seriously, that's a hands-down win over any silly "imperial presidency" theory you're contemplating.
167: Oh, probably because the very aspects that make it a ridiculous cruelty to inflict upon a child sort of endear it to me. Hickish, timeless, and yet not one of those Old Testament that's become normalized, like Noah or Jacob.
I also like Jeremiah and Isaiah. Really, though, I've sworn up and down for a couple of years that my son was just going to have to learn to deal with being named Immanuel.
A bunch of my friends were sitting together recently brainstorming ideas for baby names--one woman was planning to get pregnant soonish, so we were kicking around male and female names.
One of the things that struck me as very bizarre was this presumption I thought I perceived that the obvious nicknames would be inevitable.
I just don't think that's true: if your family always calls you by your full name, and you are okay with your full name, then whatever nicknames your classmates come up with won't really stick unless you like them better.
So, if my extremely hypothetical son likes "Manny" better, that's fine, but I doubt it's the inevitable result of being named "Immanuel."
The only way your kid gets called "Immanuel" by the broader public is if he's gigantic, and can force his will upon his other classmates. Otherwise, he'll have a nickname. And "Manny" is not a good nickname, no matter what LB says.
Is that more true for boys than for girls? I have something of a longish name, not very common for my area, and the various attempts to foist a nickname on me failed, quickly, and I don't think I ever had to threaten violence.
180: I think nicknames are a pretty common part of a boy's (or even a man's) life, especially if your name is long or strange. You just pray that you don't get one that sucks and sticks. And come to think of it, I think I do the same thing to female friends, too.
That's just my experience, and I'm not sure you should generalize from that.
It's kind of humbling when you're pregnant, and you start discussing baby names with other people, and you find out that the names you thought were unique and clever are, in fact, just the expression of your generational zeitgeist. Seriously. It's uncanny.
That said, PK's name is one that most people say "wow, I love it" (generational zeitgeist) "but I/my husband/my sister/my friends talked me out of it" (apparent mockability to our generation, but the cultural motif is not really going to resonate with PK's).
you find out that the names you thought were unique and clever are, in fact, just the expression of your generational zeitgeist. Seriously. It's uncanny.
Isn't it weird? I went, both times, for names that were pleasantly standard but, I thought, out of date enough to be reasonably unusual. Both were in the middle of a hard comeback -- maybe not top 10, but top 20.
182: That happened with my sister's name. My mom had always loved the name and thought of it as very distinctive and unusual, but apparently a lot of other parents thought the same thing at the same time and there were multiple people of the same name in several of her elementary school classes. She goes by her middle name now.
185: In fact, I have to say that Mr. B. and I have seriously talked about naming a kid "Salamander." We have dibs, therefore, and if any of you use it, I'm suing.
My theory: what everyone thinks of as popular names is set by around age 18. So Kristens, Jessica, Caitlins, etc, for people in my area around my age. Once we're out of school we stop paying attention.
So, then we hear a name on TV. Oh, Lily, that's different. Oh, Emma, that's charming. You don't see a lot of Noahs these days. And every other woman your age is thinking the same damn thing.
I think 191 is part of it, for sure. But it doesn't quite explain the specific combination of "pleasantly standard but, I thought, out of date enough to be reasonably unusual," which is precisely what our generation wants--old fashioned, but just slightly unconventional. We're veering away from totally unique or bizarre names (Salamander is safe!), and yet we're not embracing certain kinds of old-fashioned names that were either truly common (George, John) or that for some reason sound "old" in a bad way (Edith, Martha) rather than cool and retro (Sophia, Chloe).
194: No, you should totally give you kids cool names. I'm partial to adrogenous names, myself. If it gets bad for the kids, I figure you can always shoot them full of steroids until they're large enough to make it all better.
I'm not much for androgynous names because they seem like they'll age badly.
B, I just put that down to the current taste of the age, like all the Laurens and Jennifers. The evangelical thingy probably has to do with the rise of little Josiahs and Ezras. I'm not sure why there are a million Ellie/Ellas running around, though. Emma took off after Friends.
(Ignoring use/mention.)
I'm not sure if I have strong tastes except that I don't want a name that says 'born in year X.' I have no really good family names, though we do have a Santo on one side and a Cornelius on the other.
My mom had decided on my name 10 or 15 years in advance, before the glut of Matts that popped up in the early 80's. She thought it was pretty unusual (it was in her generation), but 18 years later, there were three Matts in my 8-man crew shell.
OMG, Cornelius! Awesome. I floated that and it got shot down, I think.
I don't think the evangelicals are the ones who use old-testament names; ime it's mostly pretty secular folks who like the old fashioned + kinda weird combination, isn't it?
202: Of the observant or secular variety? B/c most of my more secular Jewish friends have given their kids the same kinds of names as the rest of our generation. Maybe it's that "Jewish" old-testamenty names now appeal to non-Jews?
208: I always assumed that they were maybe family nicknames? I considered using PK's family nickname ("Mr. Grunty") but it would be way too identifiable to the in-laws.
That thing is a lot of fun, and it can help you avoid names (like, say, Ellen, Ella, Gabrielle, Gabriella, Eleanor, Elinor) which are suddenly taking off in popularity.
Olivia and Sophia have been very popular around here, too.
208: I always assumed that they were maybe family nicknames?
Nope, they're Internet only. (One of these days I should tell the kids about the blog. I have to say that I find the prospect of explaining it somewhat intimidating. "Yes, Mommy spends hours and hours every day making cock-jokes on the Internet with people she mostly hasn't met. Why? When you grow up and have an alienating job, you'll understand.")
212 is, I think, the argument that was used against the name. In a confession that I realize will haunt me forever, I have to explain that I had a crush on that character as a child.
211: Alas, Eleanor was my late beloved grandmother's name (although, ironically, she hated it) so I may end up using it despite its trendiness, should I have a second kid and should it be a girl.
If I have kids, I should take care not to give them overly nerdy names. Genetically, the kid is going to end up nearsighted with impossible hair and probably a precociously geeky child like his mother, so it's not like I can name him Percy 'cause he'll be big and a football star and it won't matter.
221: I think that's probably the same thing as the retro kids' names. "Mom" ("maaaahm") just sounds ugly to me (plus it reminds me of my own mother), and "mommy" demeaning. Basically, the culture has dubbed moms asexual nags. "Mama" sounds kinda cool and retains a sort of hipness (hence hipmama) and independence.
Mr. B. wanted to be called "father," as his father was, but I talked him out of it because it's so off-puttingly formal.
221 - it does seem like alot of people use papa instead of dad or daddy lately; but in our family, papa is reserved for grandfathers. That is, our kids always say "papa firstname" instead of "grandpa lastname". Yet, ironically, mama is used for mom or mommy by our kids, although, not as often (and I'm just dad or daddy)
I should say, Arch has nothing to do with any name I have, which should be obvious since it drops off the charts in the 1920s. Many other things about me can be found out online, no reason to include my middle name in an easily findable way. Arch is from a ***spoiler*** in a western film everyone should have seen, and I think it's a good name.
205--"Caleb" invokes instantly for me "Caleb Williams," the protagonist of William Godwin's republican gothic novel. That's what I rather like about the old names: no single ideological strand.
232--Yeah, an awesome thing about "mama" is that when he's pissed off at me, PK calls me "bad mama," which has totally different connotations than "bad mom" or "bad mother."
In this country, "Jewish" names are not old-testamenty but stereotypically "American" names like "Norman" and "Harry." Extremely observant Jews, of course, have always used Hebrew/Yiddish names, but more secular/moderately observant Jews were eager to assimilate. These days, a lot of secular Jews are going back to (Anglicized) Old Testament names, perhaps because they're trendy, but also as a way of reconnecting with Jewish traditions.
Now you've got me thinking. My dad's father's name was Levin. Maybe I should pay some attention to the geneological stuff my dad keeps nattering on about.
Wait - re-reading it, it describes Shem as the father of all the children of Eber. Was Eber a woman? Wow. Cross-gender naming in my family? I can't wait to bring this up at Thanksgiving. Mwuhaha.
"Hit 'em again?"
Which makes me think that this is relevant, just in the opposite political direction.
Posted by arthegall | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 9:35 AM
We shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that politics in real life is like politics in the West Wing world, but there's nothing wrong with having an idealized vision of government. I also don't think the show is an example of naive faith; it was more about acknowledging that the actual government we have is far from ideal, and showing a nice alternative. You could see this in the episodes dealing with Bartlet's reelection--they were denouncing (in a rather thinly veiled manner) the sorts of narrow-minded, unreflective politicians and their appeals to simple-mindedness, etc. And the Republicans on the show were not infrequently shown to be vindictive and sinister.
You can say that their version of what is ideal was flawed, which is a perfectly valid position, but they weren't naive.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 9:38 AM
2: Disagree, I think. To the extent that the show positioned itself as criticism of the real world political process, it was naive. Just as someone who used the last line of every fairy tale ("they lived happily ever after") as a criticism of real world relationships would be naive. It was a fairy tale. But it was (originally) well-written, and it brought fun and interest to policy (I loved the episode with the cartographers). Which is no small thing.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 9:45 AM
The end of The West Wing, yes. Fifth season with Republicans taking over the White House because of Zoey's kidnapping and they don't exploit it for political advantage at all. Happy easy solutions. (I really liked Alan Alda and I wish they'd still let him win because Vinick was the only character worth watching last season and it would have been better to see how all of our staffers dealt with losing.)
But the first four seasons, not so much. Most of it was 20/20 hindsight here's what we wish our government would be doing if they weren't arguing or weren't bound by convention. Bartlet, the crazy liberal, ordered the asassination of a terrorist member of the royal family of the Saudi-stand-in ally. A liberal tough guy! And it all blew up in his face; the first few seasons were better about things sometimes not working out.
Anyhow, it's a nice tie-in, and I know the West Wing is supposed to be liberal porn, but my conservative friends were just as nuts about it because it was like candy: the big Promise could really work.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 9:47 AM
Oh, I loved the show, it was clever and fun and reassuring and happy. But that feeling that it's unseemly to talk publicly about the possibility that one's opponents have bad motives -- that wishing for a high-minded political discourse can make it so -- Ezra's right. That needs to stay gone.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 9:49 AM
West Wing is to politics as 24 is to terrorism. C'mon, porn politics fans, it's ok to fess up here.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 9:49 AM
Deliberately avoided watching it, ever. I have enough problems with reality and just-so.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 9:51 AM
I have watched both the West Wing and 24. 24's fourth season sucked, but it was better this season.
LB, I don't know. We all recognized that WW was fantasy. That's part of what made it fun -- it was this alternate world where not only are lambs lying down with lions but Republicans and Democrats are doing exactly what we want them to do in the sort of 'if I were running this place we'd solve this damn problem cuz I'd knock some heads'. Republicans are telling the ideologues to fuck off. Democrats aren't lead by a guy likely to get into a sex scandal (season 1 works well as a criticism of some Clinton-era stuff), which for my Republican friends was the reason they liked Bartlet -- he was Clinton, but not a sleaze.
But I don't think that works as fantasy if we don't recognize it as fantasy. If the Democrats need an excuse for their lack of balls these past few years, I'm pretty sure that a TV show with a Nobel laureate Latin speaking President is among the weakest.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 9:57 AM
I always thought that the problem the article discusses was why The West Wing often didn't make, despite its many virtues, a very good show. It had great actors, great visuals, a lot of sharp dialogue, and a novel setting for an ensemble drama instead of the usual hospital or police station. What it rarely had was real drama or conflict. It got a little of the former by exploiting the fast pace of contemporary politics, as well as the formal occasions (SotU, White House events) it offers. But rarely any real or believable conflict. Admittedly I stopped watching much in the final two seasons, but I can only think of one episode where one White House staffer plotted against another (Toby undermining an effort of Sam's, I forget what exactly.) Where was the episode in which a character leaked documents about a colleague and bad-mouthed the same to the President, all to steal coveted, high-status office space near the Oval Office? That would have been worth watching. As bad as a show like ER is, its makers at least understand that the audience needs characters it can dislike, at least at times. Conflict: it makes for better tv.
Posted by JL | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 9:59 AM
the audience needs characters it can dislike, at least at times.
I thought this was Toby's gig. Did anyone like Toby?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:05 AM
The very few episodes of 24 I've seen made me cranky.
("The Russian terrorist dudes released nerve gas into LA because they were mad they got burnt? That's a ridiculous reason for mass terrorism!")
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:05 AM
Did anyone like Toby
Me. Lots.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:07 AM
The first season of 24 was awesome, and I've watched the remaining ones sort of out of loyalty and also because it's fun to see how many things Jack Bauer can pull out of his man-handbag. Need to disable a security system? Oh, I have this here little device. Need to spy? Oh, here's another one.
I liked Toby, especially how he could go from quietly simmering to YELLING IN THAT VERY TOBY WAY in about half a second. But it's not too surprising, maybe, that everyone was on the same side. We were dealing with about seven people, and three of them were second-in-command assistants to the other three. C.J. used to get pissed off about three times a season for being kept out of the loop.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:11 AM
Bridgeplate, you (speculatively) self-hating Jew, everyone likes Toby.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:14 AM
I'm with SB, on this. Toby's enjoyable in small doses, but his schtick became irritating very quickly. Of course, that was true for most of them. But it was particularly true for Toby.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:17 AM
10: Toby was a curmudgeon, not a villian (aside from the one instance I mentioned.) He mostly served the role of wish fulfillment for the egghead slice of the liberal demographic. Oh, and Toby also featured in one of the shows most spectacular attempts among many to undermine the audience's suspension of disbelief: the episode when his father visited the White House--and turned out to be a member of the mob. Somehow, despite the White House job, no one else knew. That's truly worthy of a show with a Nobel prize winner as President.
Posted by JL | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:17 AM
everyone likes Toby
I'm with everyone.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:17 AM
I think that what we're talking about here is the wish that politics be less adversarial. This is a wish felt only by nice, hapless Democrats and centrists. The actual Republicans are trying to destroy the Democratic Party, though of course there areways nice virtual Republicans floated around as distracting chaff.
Non-adversarial periods in politics are dominated by fixers, old-boy networks, and insider deals. The public never really knows what's happening.
There's a down side to partisanship, but there's a down side to everything. Our system really needs it to work, and a partisan politician doesn't have to be either completely ruthless or completely unprincipled. He just has to fight hard (though yes, he will have to compromise his principles and play dirty now and then).
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:17 AM
Me. Lots.
I liked Toby, …
OK, but please tell me you liked him despite the Richard Schiff lip quiver, not because of.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:18 AM
Bridgeplate, you (speculatively) self-hating Jew, everyone likes Toby.
So, ogged, I see you're starting to understand the appeal of your blog thingy here.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:19 AM
despite the Richard Schiff lip quiver
Yes, okay. But the shouting was awesome.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:21 AM
I just liked Toby because he was cranky and it meant that we had a break from Josh & Donna's schtick.
When they introduced Will I didn't like him but he grew on me just because he never quite gelled with the rest of the snappy dialogue.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:22 AM
Toby was always my favorite. So fucking self-righteous! And I always had a sneaking suspicion that he was based on Joe Trippi, since Pat Caddell was one of the creators, and he's one of Trippi's best friends.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:25 AM
Incidentally, what I said in 2 only applies to the first 4 seasons. I haven't seen much of anything after that.
And I don't think they just said "and they lived happily ever after". They showed the process of getting there, which wasn't always particularly smooth, and they didn't always succeed. It was the way they went about things that was the ideal, not the particular outcomes (at least for me).
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:30 AM
So fucking self-righteous!
But plagued by guilt, probably both free-floating and specific.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:30 AM
Self-righteous is a compliment, in my universe.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:31 AM
I wasn't making a value judgment, just fleshing out the character description.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:32 AM
25: How much work are you willing to do to justify your strange Toby-love? At least admit that if you knew him in real life, you have to fight yourself every day to keep from strangling him.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:35 AM
I'd like to take this opportunity to post my favorite snippet of West Wing dialogue (they're talking about the butter sculptures at the Iowa state fair, which are totally real):
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:35 AM
At least admit that if you knew him in real life, you have to fight yourself every day to keep from strangling him.
I occasionally worry that this is how my loved ones feel about me.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:37 AM
30: In cyber life, you don't come off that way at all; almost exactly the opposite.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:39 AM
Did anyone like Toby?
Toby was my favorite character, incidentally.
Posted by sam k | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:40 AM
29: fuck, that's good.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:44 AM
Of course, I totally identify with CJ there.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:44 AM
Toby is pretty great. Reading Television Without Pity, it seems the people there love> Toby.
I've read Ezra's piece, and I'm not sure about this: Is the problem that the main characters didn't sufficiently dislike all three of: Republicans in principle, many Republican policies, and many individual Republicans? Because I think if one were to watch the shows specifically looking for those things, they'd be very much present. On the other hand, if it's just that the characters didn't go around saying that the other side was arguing in bad faith, I think it would be hard to come up with many instances of that.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:44 AM
I think that what we're talking about here is the wish that politics be less adversarial.
You're right. That's a sucker's game. I want some DC Democrats who will automatically swing for the nuts every time a Republican is standing in front of them, since that is clearly the name of the game now. Bipartisanship is just a transparent ploy used to further McCain's political ambitions.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:46 AM
If I knew Toby in real life I would hide his little pink bouncy ball.
There's a few episodes where Josh has to work with the Republicans and the dialogue goes like this:
Probably annoying Donna: X is in the Mural room.
Josh: Oh.. he hates me.
Probably annoying Donna: Y and Z are there, too.
Josh: They hate me, too.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:48 AM
Toby was my favorite character, incidentally.
Toby is pretty great.
You're all out of your respective gourds.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:50 AM
I think the problem is that in the universe of the show, the other side never was arguing in bad faith. When it came down to it, everyone was genuinely concerned with what was best for America; all conflicts were policy conflicts, not just political conflicts. In real life, that's nonsense. Some politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are working toward the best policy outcomes they can get to. More (again on both sides of the aisle) are interested in getting and keeping power for it's own sake. That's just how things work, and there's nothing wrong or unseemly in admitting it -- refusing to acknowledge that an awful lot of political conflict is purely about power isn't going to do a thing toward making better policies happen.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:50 AM
on both sides of the isle
Wait, are we talking about West Wing or Lost?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:52 AM
39 seems exactly right.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:53 AM
Oh, but you're quick with the edit.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:53 AM
Dammit, I edited. But not fast enough. I have a Yglesias-class homophone problem.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:53 AM
Butter, butter, butter, butter, butter, butter, butter.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:55 AM
Kitty, kitty, kitty, kitty, kitty, kitty, kitty.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:56 AM
mmm, gourds. And butter.
Posted by sam k | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 10:56 AM
43 -- it is the height of arrogance to compare your homophone problem to Sausagely's, with which it is not even in the same league.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:00 AM
CJ was my favorite character, followed by Leo, and then probably Josh. But they were all relatively likeable, even Toby. Sam was likeable, and he was probably the worst of the lot.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:00 AM
Probably annoying Donna: X is in the Mural room.
Josh: Oh.. he hates me.
Probably annoying Donna: Y and Z are there, too.
Josh: They hate me, too.
Ah---but not, "I hate them." Which is the point, isn't it? Our heroes are not haters. But we want them to be, don't we?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:00 AM
41: To pull the rug of bipartisan comity out from under you, while I said 'both sides of the aisle', I don't think the situation is totally parallel. For one thing, the "If we just treat our political opponents with respect, then it'll all be true! All disagreements will really be good faith arguments about policy," is much more a liberal/Democratic fantasy than a Republican one; liberals need to walk away from it, Republicans were never there.
Second, there's a difference between motivated by power but pursuing policies you believe in nonetheless, as a path to power, and motivated by power and entirely indifferent to the quality of the policy you're bringing about. Here, I don't expect you to agree at all, but there's a lot more absolute indifference to policy among Republicans in power these days. (Clinton's idiotic advocacy of the flag-burning nonsense is remarkable; the apparently non-personally-anti-gay Bush's position on preventing gay marriage is much less so.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:01 AM
your homophone problem
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:07 AM
So, now that the West Wing is going off the air, and now that 24 is finally winding down, what'll the next big political show look like?
I'm voting for a situational comedy among the lower-level staff at the UN.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:07 AM
Republicans were never there.
I remember when they were. That breed has mostly retired from Congress now, though.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:09 AM
All disagreements will really be good faith arguments about policy," is much more a liberal/Democratic fantasy than a Republican one
This has not been a Democratic fantasy since I identified as a Democrat. Obviously we disagree, but I would describe the assumption of their opponents' bad faith as a hallmark of the post-Watergate Democratic party.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:09 AM
the next big political show
Everybody Loves Condoleezza
Who Wants to Be an Ambassador?
Filibuster Factor
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:11 AM
54: Maybe at ground level (me and my ilk), but in terms of public discourse cominf from serious journalists and elected officials, I think you're wrong. Reagan got insane amounts of deference and respect for his decency and good intentions, even when the facts would suggest otherwise, and it goes on from there.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:14 AM
coming
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:15 AM
Everybody Loves Condoleezza
Who Wants to Be an Ambassador?
Filibuster Factor
Rumsfield
Posted by sam k | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:16 AM
re: 57
Gee, you really enjoy these arguments, don't you!
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:16 AM
s/b rumsfeld
Posted by sam k | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:17 AM
Reagan got insane amounts of deference and respect for his decency and good intentions, even when the facts would suggest otherwise
He may be respected now, but this can hardly be described as the case during his presidency.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:19 AM
Dawson's Caucus
Ney's Anatomy
I Dream of Jeanne Shaheen
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:20 AM
Reagan got insane amounts of deference and respect for his decency and good intentions, even when the facts would suggest otherwise, and it goes on from there.
Part of the problem is that Reagan probably was decent, and did have good intentions. He was just pretty clueless, and he was run by some pretty bad people. Same goes for GWB. I wish Dems would focus on tarring GWB as the natural outgrowth of today's Republican Party, rather than on GWB as a uniquely bad person. (Do I contradict myself? Yadda, yadda.)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:21 AM
The Shady Bunch
Posted by sam k | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:21 AM
57 -- do we really need to know that?
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:23 AM
Aw never mind, IdeaList got there before me.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:23 AM
57, meet 58
Posted by sam k | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:23 AM
I wish Dems would focus on tarring GWB as the natural outgrowth of today's Republican Party, rather than on GWB as a uniquely bad person.
I got into an irritating little spat with Farber about this a while back -- I was talking about what 'the Administration' knew and did, and he pointed out that an abstraction can't know or do anything. What having an explicitly clueless figurehead does for them is makes it very hard to attribute intentionality to anything that happens; you can't blame it on the cossacks, because they don't make the ultimate decisions, but you can't blame it on the czar, because he'd be doing the right thing if he only knew. Feh. I say blame them all.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:24 AM
argh, I meant "67, meet 59."
Didn't even come close.
Posted by sam k | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:24 AM
Star Trek: The Next Administration
Neywatch
Mork & Mikulski
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:25 AM
Ah, what's the name for being Weiner-pwnd while pointing out a Weiner-pwning?
Posted by sam k | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:25 AM
Reagan probably was decent
Tell it to all the dead Central Americans.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:27 AM
He may be respected now, but this can hardly be described as the case during his presidency.
It seemed that the excessive deference coincided with the Alzheimer's diagnosis becoming public knowledge.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:28 AM
71: A cow made of butter?
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:29 AM
73: Yes, as if it was the rest of the country with the memory problems.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:32 AM
68, 72: I think we're in agreement. My real complaint is that when, prior to the '04 election, Dems went after Bush as a loathsome person, it wasn't very effective, because most people think he means well or doesn't mean at all. Better to say that he's a useful idiot for fairly dark forces. Same with Reagan.
Maybe that's wrong. I still can't really believe we lost.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:32 AM
72, see 68.
And I want to shift ground or something on what I've been saying about the liberal fantasy of good faith. It's not that people didn't say bad things about the motivations of the participants in Iran Contra, or of Bush this time around -- it's that saying those bad things makes you unserious. Serious Republicans could stand up and call Clinton a drug-dealing rapist selling us out to the Chinese, and not lose credibility among other Republicans. Serious Democrats have much more had to pay lip service to respecting their political opponents, or risk being marginalized by Democrats as well as Republicans.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:33 AM
"The Shady Brunch" is good--we could have a mixed Dem/Rep family, and Mom and Dad could be a politician and a journalist, and all the kids could then become professional operatives. Sort of like the Sopranos: evil people you can identify with.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:34 AM
And the West Wing was a fantasy about serious government -- that if we liberals were serious enough, then bad faith would go away as a problem. This is wrong, and pernicious.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:35 AM
I should read the ruling before I say so, but: Fuck![fixed. LB] That's mostly not just a reaction to it being DeLay, or Republicans in general.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:37 AM
He may be respected now, but this can hardly be described as the case during his presidency
I am sure that then as now this depends on where you lived and what you read.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:38 AM
It's not that people didn't say bad things about the motivations of the participants in Iran Contra, or of Bush this time around -- it's that saying those bad things makes you unserious.
Again, I think this is a function of the useful idiot quality of Reagan and GWB. You could, even at the time (I think), accuse Tricky Dick Nixon of just about anything and still be a serious person. Or at least I think that's true if we adjust backward for public charge inflation.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:40 AM
80: I've got to read the opinions --it sounds as if it's all over the place.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:41 AM
He may be respected now, but this can hardly be described as the case during his presidency
I am sure that then as now this depends on where you lived and what you read.
See, for example, here.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:44 AM
After the 2000 election I read Newsweek "inside story" of the campaigns, and I remember being struck that Bush's main quality seemed to be the ability to make the press corps like him personally.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:45 AM
I cant' take WW seriously as a fantasy substitute for a government, even an ideal one. It just functioned so much like a soap opera. I couldn't stomach the constant expressions of sincerity and goodness. So much like a religious service. My husband loved the show. But he also watched JAG. Go figure. From the little I saw of each show, they were very similar.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:52 AM
86: Except that the storytelling and use of language is much better on WW than JAG.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:55 AM
My wife and I, who had just started seeing each other at the time of the Reagan/Carter debate, almost fell out over Reagan, after I said that while I differed strongly with and opposed him, I could feel/understand his appeal Not a good thing to have said.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 11:56 AM
I think I saw JAG once. I would list the similarities as: Both are hour (44 min.) long television dramas featuring characters who work for some facet of the U.S. government. The show's stories involve the interpersonal relationships between the main characters.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 12:01 PM
89: Well, Y's right that they're both Mary Sue stories writ large.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 12:02 PM
Reagan had a powerful charisma, in person. I voted for Gus Hall in 1980 (so what? I was young) and most of my crowd at that time liked John Anderson. Our (shared) living room had a poster of Reagan as a fighter jet, with fighter planes in the sky around him. Anyone remember that one?
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 12:11 PM
As a fighter jet or in one?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 12:18 PM
Reagan's face was morphed into the front of a fighter jet.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 12:19 PM
Was the intent (heavy-handedly) satirical or admiring?
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 12:22 PM
Those fears were real at the time; WWIII, nuclear anihilation, massive colonialism. I don't know where they all originated. They certainly didn't materialize. Strange that Bush II didn't generate those same fears. At least not on the same scale. And here we are.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 12:22 PM
91, 92: I'm imagining Reagan-as-fighter-jet being rendered in Thomas the Tank Engine style.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 12:23 PM
massive colonialism
Depends on your definition of massive, I suppose. We did a lot of messing about with Latin America.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 12:24 PM
The intent was satirical, IDP. Reagan as a warmonger.
Posted by Yamamoto | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 12:24 PM
I only visit, not live here, so I come in and out of conversation fecklessly
but 68 by LB was just so fine.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 12:42 PM
Kobe!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 12:46 PM
The intent was satirical, IDP. Reagan as a warmonger.
No, Reagan as a transformer!
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 12:47 PM
101: Transformer, my ass. Reagan was a Go-Bot at best.
What pissed me off about the West Wing was its sheer, unbridled enthusiasm for the power and ceremony of the office of the presidency. At least once a season it seemed there would be some big melodramatic moment where some non-regular would refer to Bartlet as "Bartlet" and one of the staffers would suddenly get all flustered with righteous indignation and say, "You call him Mr. President here!" And I'd think, what the fuck? I don't call Ted Kennedy "Mr. Senator." I don't call my mailman "Mr. Mailman." I realize that the idea that the president actually works for us instead of vice versa is rather quaint at this point, but that's precisely why I don't like a nominally liberal show reveling in the pomp and glory of the executive branch.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 1:49 PM
It bothered me that Leo couldn't call Jed "Jed". It also bothered me that Jed couldn't call Abby "Rizzo", but for different reasons.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 1:55 PM
Who's to say what they did in private?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 1:58 PM
I heart Abbey.
It bothered me that Jed was a nickname for Josiah. It doesn't seem like the right long name for that nickname.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 1:58 PM
Somebody, eventually.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 1:59 PM
106 to 104.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:00 PM
What pissed me off about the West Wing was its sheer, unbridled enthusiasm for the power and ceremony of the office of the presidency.
Have I given my speech here about how the problem with America is that the head of government and the head of state are the same person? If I haven't, maybe I'll turn it into a post.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:04 PM
108: I have, and (utterly unsurprisingly) Gary has. But I'd be interested in your version of it. NB: At that link, when I said "constitutional monarchy" I meant either "constitutional democracy" or "democratic republic." Seriously.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:10 PM
Got a link to Gary's take?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:14 PM
It's in a comment a few up from the linked one.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:16 PM
Here.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:17 PM
Thanks.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:20 PM
108: I rant on this all the time, but would be delighted to hear it from you.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:23 PM
On TWW, there was an episode -- I think the one where there's a potential stay-of-execution -- where Bartlet explains to his childhood priest (?) that he prefers to be called 'Mr. President' not out of ego, but because sometimes the office demands that he do things which he'd prefer not to think of himself doing.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:42 PM
LB, I would be very interested in hearing you rant about that.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:46 PM
109, 114, 116: Ack, now it's pressure. Maybe I'll do it as a special July fourth post, with extra patriotism.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:50 PM
115: Yeah, see, that's kind of worse. If Bartlet was just a pompous ass who wanted to fully enjoy the perks of the office by having everyone address him by his title, then that would be an implicit criticism of the massive ceremonial significance we attach to the presidency. But Sorkin portrays him as a man who simply realizes that The Presidency is just so Vast and Grand that it demands the kind of pomp that comes with a head of state, no matter how much he finds it distateful - a thoroughly paternalistic view of the executive.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:04 PM
It doesn't come across that way in the episode, though. Isn't it usually Sam that goes off on the President Bartlet thing? And Sam's a tool.
The pomp is just because it's fun for C.J. and Donna to wear pretty dresses.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:12 PM
Can we just crown Oprah and let our presidents be efficient little gray men and women?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:13 PM
And Sam's a tool.
But very pretty. I'm a sucker for that black-hair blue-eyes coloring.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:14 PM
But Sorkin portrays him as a man who simply realizes that The Presidency is just so Vast and Grand that it demands the kind of pomp that comes with a head of state
I think Bartlet's point is this: Sometimes a president is forced (by politics, other voices, etc) to do things he, personally, finds morally reprehensible, and in those times he would prefer not to think of himself personally.
Posted by sam k | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:26 PM
I'm a sucker for that black-hair blue-eyes coloring.
Isn't everyone? My favorite breakfast place had a little punk waiter with that coloring. Made breakfast so much more enjoyable.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:30 PM
119: It's not just Sam, I don't think. Toby does it at least once, and there's a scene during the whole MS/reelection arc where everyone becomes simultaneously heartbroken when they realize they've been calling him "Bartlet." And they all get off on the pomp because Sorkin gets off on the pomp. How many episodes end with a buildup to some obscure yet grandiose presidential ceremony?
I should note that I did actually like the show, at least up until Sam left. Sam was awesome - Josh was always the tool. The whole thing with him and Donna was creepy with a capital CREE.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:32 PM
123: Did he think you were one of the cool adults, B?
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:32 PM
creepy with a capital CREE
and that rhymes with T, and that stands for Tool!
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:34 PM
I should note that I did actually like the show, at least up until Sam left.
Sam left at roughly the same time Sorkin and Schlamme left, so post hoc and all that, perhaps.
Posted by sam k | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:35 PM
M/tch wins.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:36 PM
Careful, next you'll be drinking beer from the bottle.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:37 PM
128: Again? Man, this is getting tiring . . .
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:41 PM
125: He thought I was a good tipper.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:42 PM
Josh at least had the decency to be rumply and plain whilst being a tool. One of the only redeeming things about season 5 is when C.J. tells Donna that Josh is holding her back and she needs to get over it.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:44 PM
131: But in reality, he was just really bad at math?
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:49 PM
No, in fact I am a good tipper.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:52 PM
I have a fairly complex legal question which I probably should just keep researching rather than aksing about in comments, but I'm not going to let that stop me. Let's say you have litigation x, which is currently at an early stage, and litigation y, currently at an even earlier stage. There's good reason to think that a very key issue in y will be issue precluded by the outcome of x. Can we get a stay of y and where would I find authority for that?
Posted by w/d | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:54 PM
134: Hurray for you, and all good tippers!
(I didn't really doubt you were a good tipper)
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:59 PM
I don't know offhand, but it sounds like a good shot. Mess around on Westlaw with terms like "stay" "issue preclusion" "collateral estoppel" and "related litigation". This kind of thing I'd be particularly careful that you're researching in the applicable jurisdiction -- it's not going to be a broadly applicable rule of law, it's going to be the procedure of your jurisdiction.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:59 PM
Thanks.
Posted by w/d | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:02 PM
All legal advice on the blog guaranteed worth what you paid for it. Unless you gave a lot on the server drive, in which case don't count on it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:04 PM
Yes, also I'm asking that question totally for fun and it has nothing to do with my trying to avoid doing the job I've been asked to.
Posted by w/d | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:05 PM
Scary partner just called me on the phone and told me I need to "close out" my time more frequently.
Nevermind the fact that he hasn't ever given so much as a hello to me.
I find it strange that the scariest and meanest of the partners we have is the gay one.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:08 PM
Seriously? Not so much asking on the blog, but a highly underrated research technique is rambling on about what you're researching with co-workers; they're very likely to have seen a similar problem sometime. Going straight to hammering away on Westlaw may involve losing a fair amount of time figuring out how to frame the issue that you could have figured out faster with some help.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:10 PM
141: What does that mean?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:13 PM
Enter her time sheets into the computer. (Which I'm terrible about; I'm always on the edge of being in trouble.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:15 PM
I am so in trouble.
I really need to stop hanging out at this blog.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:16 PM
Dude, just as soon as this slow patch I've been in passes, I'm either disappearing or getting fired.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:17 PM
143 - I was just going to ask that. I'm well versed in corporate-tool-speak but haven't heard that one before.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:17 PM
Don't get Dooced!
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:18 PM
I so need a job that doesn't bore me to tears, or at least to be staffed on some cases where it has some consequences if the work doesn't get done. I swear every goddam assignment I've had this year has been some sort of think-piece research for stuff which co-counsel is writing the briefs on. I get it done, eh, no one reads it; I don't get it done, eh, no one notices. The partner I'm working for is driving me bats.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:22 PM
but a highly underrated research technique is rambling on about what you're researching with co-workers; they're very likely to have seen a similar problem sometime
Very true and worthwhile and I second the recommendation. However, this is hard to do when you are a junior associate in a big law firm. Find someone slightly more senior who likes to talk and who does not give you that irritated "hey, asshole, I already was going to be here until 11 PM, and now I won't get out of here until midnight because you are gabbing" look.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:23 PM
Was that what that look was?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:25 PM
I've never seen the show, but:
It bothered me that Jed was a nickname for Josiah. It doesn't seem like the right long name for that nickname.
WTF? His name is Josiah but they call him "Jed"? I agree with Cala.
(See, everything's back to normal now.)
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:35 PM
WTF? His name is Josiah but they call him "Jed"?
Because "Josiah", in turn, is short for "Jedediah".
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:38 PM
I googled it -- apparently the character's middle name is Edward and the nickname is from J. Ed. Which, you know, annoying but authentically WASPy.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:41 PM
'Cause it always sounded like he was trying to be a hick. I'm folksy. I'm Jed. But from New Hampshire.
I figured they put him in New Hampshire because putting him in Massachusettes might make Bartlet a caricature, but really. Since when is New Hampshire a liberal Catholic stronghold?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:45 PM
WASPs really do shit like that? Damn. I mean, I knew about J.E.B. and all, but I figured that was just a southern thing.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:47 PM
Wait, so he's a liberal Catholic politician but he acts like a hick? Makes no sense to me.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:48 PM
WASPs rule dopey nicknames. It comes from having too many men in the family with the same name: John Sr. is John, John Jr. is Jack, but by the time you get down to little Johnny Three-Sticks he gets called Myrtle or something.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:49 PM
If I ever have a son, I'm going to have to physically restrain myself from naming him Jedediah.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:53 PM
And the seniors and juniors change when a new generation arrives, right?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:54 PM
159: Um, wow. Just wow.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:55 PM
Can you be a WASP and Catholic?
teo: He's a liberal Catholic WASP but I thought his name was hickish and out of character. LB corrects me with her superior knowledge of East Coast WASPs.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:56 PM
Can you be a WASP and Catholic?
I would think the answer is no, by definition.
He's a liberal Catholic WASP but I thought his name was hickish and out of character. LB corrects me with her superior knowledge of East Coast WASPs.
Okay, that makes more sense.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:57 PM
Right, but the nicknames last forever. There are ancient evil WASPs in Connecticut who are now Ezekiel Sr. because their ancestors are all dead, but who nonetheless are still known to all as Bunny, because back in the 1930's Ezekiel was Grandpa and Zeke was Dad.
(WASP here means Yankee old-money, not just any white guy, of course. And Bartlet is written as a WASP even though he's Catholic.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:58 PM
(Yeah, but how many Catholics were on the goddamn Mayflower?)
Also, three daughters and a wife and not a Catherine among them? I question his Notre Dame cred.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 5:01 PM
Oh, wait. An episode, indeed the very one we had been discussing, makes it clear the Catholicism married in.
Hurray!
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 5:20 PM
Further to 161: Why do you like that name so much, JM? And why do you feel the need to restrain yourself from using it?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 5:31 PM
the problem with America
... is the equal representation of states in the Senate, the only unamendable part of the Constitution. Seriously, that's a hands-down win over any silly "imperial presidency" theory you're contemplating.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 5:31 PM
Middle name for Jedidiah: Obediah
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 5:35 PM
167: Oh, probably because the very aspects that make it a ridiculous cruelty to inflict upon a child sort of endear it to me. Hickish, timeless, and yet not one of those Old Testament that's become normalized, like Noah or Jacob.
I also like Jeremiah and Isaiah. Really, though, I've sworn up and down for a couple of years that my son was just going to have to learn to deal with being named Immanuel.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 5:52 PM
Immanuel wouldn't even be bad, though -- Manny is a perfectly normal name.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 5:58 PM
Who would name her son Immanuel has a twisted sense of Hume.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:00 PM
JM, could you e-mail me?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:04 PM
by the time you get down to little Johnny Three-Sticks he gets called Myrtle or something
I was recently told that "Trip" is popular.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:09 PM
174: or "Trey."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:18 PM
A bunch of my friends were sitting together recently brainstorming ideas for baby names--one woman was planning to get pregnant soonish, so we were kicking around male and female names.
One of the things that struck me as very bizarre was this presumption I thought I perceived that the obvious nicknames would be inevitable.
I just don't think that's true: if your family always calls you by your full name, and you are okay with your full name, then whatever nicknames your classmates come up with won't really stick unless you like them better.
So, if my extremely hypothetical son likes "Manny" better, that's fine, but I doubt it's the inevitable result of being named "Immanuel."
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:20 PM
The only way your kid gets called "Immanuel" by the broader public is if he's gigantic, and can force his will upon his other classmates. Otherwise, he'll have a nickname. And "Manny" is not a good nickname, no matter what LB says.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:31 PM
Oh, I wasn't thinking of 'Manny' as an inevitable result; more as an available safe harbor if 'Immanuel' was too weird.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:31 PM
177: 'Manny' isn't good? I suppose, come to think of it, the only Manny I ever knew was a horrible, horrible little dweeb.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:32 PM
Is that more true for boys than for girls? I have something of a longish name, not very common for my area, and the various attempts to foist a nickname on me failed, quickly, and I don't think I ever had to threaten violence.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:36 PM
180: I think nicknames are a pretty common part of a boy's (or even a man's) life, especially if your name is long or strange. You just pray that you don't get one that sucks and sticks. And come to think of it, I think I do the same thing to female friends, too.
That's just my experience, and I'm not sure you should generalize from that.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:42 PM
It's kind of humbling when you're pregnant, and you start discussing baby names with other people, and you find out that the names you thought were unique and clever are, in fact, just the expression of your generational zeitgeist. Seriously. It's uncanny.
That said, PK's name is one that most people say "wow, I love it" (generational zeitgeist) "but I/my husband/my sister/my friends talked me out of it" (apparent mockability to our generation, but the cultural motif is not really going to resonate with PK's).
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:42 PM
173: Teo's real name is Jedidiah.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:44 PM
183 gets it exactly wrong.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:45 PM
you find out that the names you thought were unique and clever are, in fact, just the expression of your generational zeitgeist. Seriously. It's uncanny.
Isn't it weird? I went, both times, for names that were pleasantly standard but, I thought, out of date enough to be reasonably unusual. Both were in the middle of a hard comeback -- maybe not top 10, but top 20.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:48 PM
185: Are you telling me that other people actually named their son "Mander"? That's unbelievable.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:50 PM
Newt. Not Mander.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:51 PM
182: That happened with my sister's name. My mom had always loved the name and thought of it as very distinctive and unusual, but apparently a lot of other parents thought the same thing at the same time and there were multiple people of the same name in several of her elementary school classes. She goes by her middle name now.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:51 PM
185: In fact, I have to say that Mr. B. and I have seriously talked about naming a kid "Salamander." We have dibs, therefore, and if any of you use it, I'm suing.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:52 PM
It's a good thing I don't have three kids -- I'd feel terrible about sticking the youngest with the online pseud 'Eft'.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:52 PM
My theory: what everyone thinks of as popular names is set by around age 18. So Kristens, Jessica, Caitlins, etc, for people in my area around my age. Once we're out of school we stop paying attention.
So, then we hear a name on TV. Oh, Lily, that's different. Oh, Emma, that's charming. You don't see a lot of Noahs these days. And every other woman your age is thinking the same damn thing.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:53 PM
166 gets it exactly right. It's not a non-denominational prayer.
I'm sure I explained at some point that WASP means people who care about the social register or their local version thereof non-ironically.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:54 PM
Yeah, I can't believe I forgot: "You're Catholic because your mother is Catholic."
Still, an Angela or Catherine wouldn't have killed them.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:56 PM
This sort of second-guessing is what led one of my sisters to name her son "John." She said he could make his own identity with a name like that.
(Also: it was my grandad's name, and he was touched, in his rare lucid moments before he died.)
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:58 PM
I think 191 is part of it, for sure. But it doesn't quite explain the specific combination of "pleasantly standard but, I thought, out of date enough to be reasonably unusual," which is precisely what our generation wants--old fashioned, but just slightly unconventional. We're veering away from totally unique or bizarre names (Salamander is safe!), and yet we're not embracing certain kinds of old-fashioned names that were either truly common (George, John) or that for some reason sound "old" in a bad way (Edith, Martha) rather than cool and retro (Sophia, Chloe).
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:01 PM
194: No, you should totally give you kids cool names. I'm partial to adrogenous names, myself. If it gets bad for the kids, I figure you can always shoot them full of steroids until they're large enough to make it all better.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:02 PM
Did I mention when discussing my 6'4" boxer cousin that his name is Feargal?
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:07 PM
I'm not much for androgynous names because they seem like they'll age badly.
B, I just put that down to the current taste of the age, like all the Laurens and Jennifers. The evangelical thingy probably has to do with the rise of little Josiahs and Ezras. I'm not sure why there are a million Ellie/Ellas running around, though. Emma took off after Friends.
(Ignoring use/mention.)
I'm not sure if I have strong tastes except that I don't want a name that says 'born in year X.' I have no really good family names, though we do have a Santo on one side and a Cornelius on the other.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:09 PM
Cool.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:09 PM
My mom had decided on my name 10 or 15 years in advance, before the glut of Matts that popped up in the early 80's. She thought it was pretty unusual (it was in her generation), but 18 years later, there were three Matts in my 8-man crew shell.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:09 PM
OMG, Cornelius! Awesome. I floated that and it got shot down, I think.
I don't think the evangelicals are the ones who use old-testament names; ime it's mostly pretty secular folks who like the old fashioned + kinda weird combination, isn't it?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:11 PM
Also Jews.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:12 PM
I dunno, I'm surrounded by Ellas.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:14 PM
This guy, for instance.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:14 PM
My non-evangelical but very red-state in the cultural sense of the word in-laws were pushing 'Caleb' hard for Newt.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:15 PM
LB, how did you come up with your kids' pseuds?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:15 PM
202: Of the observant or secular variety? B/c most of my more secular Jewish friends have given their kids the same kinds of names as the rest of our generation. Maybe it's that "Jewish" old-testamenty names now appeal to non-Jews?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:15 PM
The natural history of it all is a little confused, but what looks like a Lizard? A Sallymander or a Newt.
There's no real reason for it, it's not as if using their real names would de-anonymize me, but now I'm used to it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:16 PM
Regarding names, I'm sure everybody has seen this before where you type in a name and see when it was most popular: (http://babynamewizard.com/namevoyager/lnv0105.html).
My name peaked in the 1940s.
Posted by TD | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:16 PM
208: I always assumed that they were maybe family nicknames? I considered using PK's family nickname ("Mr. Grunty") but it would be way too identifiable to the in-laws.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:19 PM
That thing is a lot of fun, and it can help you avoid names (like, say, Ellen, Ella, Gabrielle, Gabriella, Eleanor, Elinor) which are suddenly taking off in popularity.
Olivia and Sophia have been very popular around here, too.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:20 PM
198-200: You think it's cool to name a kid after that "dirty ape"?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:20 PM
My parents, before I was born, were set on naming me Ophelia. That seems like a rather strange selection.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:20 PM
Indeed not. The Cornelius in the family tree went by his middle name.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:21 PM
"Mr. Grunty" would have added a whole new level to the "Mama, come wipe my butt!" saga.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:24 PM
208: I always assumed that they were maybe family nicknames?
Nope, they're Internet only. (One of these days I should tell the kids about the blog. I have to say that I find the prospect of explaining it somewhat intimidating. "Yes, Mommy spends hours and hours every day making cock-jokes on the Internet with people she mostly hasn't met. Why? When you grow up and have an alienating job, you'll understand.")
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:24 PM
212 is, I think, the argument that was used against the name. In a confession that I realize will haunt me forever, I have to explain that I had a crush on that character as a child.
211: Alas, Eleanor was my late beloved grandmother's name (although, ironically, she hated it) so I may end up using it despite its trendiness, should I have a second kid and should it be a girl.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:26 PM
160 - The seniors and juniors do not change when the next generation arrives. At least not in my family.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:26 PM
215: There have been many times when his nickname would have improved a story. Alas.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:27 PM
Not when the next generation arrives, when the last one dies, isn't it?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:27 PM
I've noticed a lot more people using "mama" and "papa" lately instead of "mom" and "dad". Any ideas? B, you want to weigh in since you use them?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:28 PM
If I have kids, I should take care not to give them overly nerdy names. Genetically, the kid is going to end up nearsighted with impossible hair and probably a precociously geeky child like his mother, so it's not like I can name him Percy 'cause he'll be big and a football star and it won't matter.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:28 PM
Even my middle name, which would make a good first, is in the top 75. What do you guys think about Arch?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:28 PM
222: c'est à moi.
223: Short for what? Archibald?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:30 PM
I think the name "Ezra" is wizard cocksucker.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:31 PM
221: I think that's probably the same thing as the retro kids' names. "Mom" ("maaaahm") just sounds ugly to me (plus it reminds me of my own mother), and "mommy" demeaning. Basically, the culture has dubbed moms asexual nags. "Mama" sounds kinda cool and retains a sort of hipness (hence hipmama) and independence.
Mr. B. wanted to be called "father," as his father was, but I talked him out of it because it's so off-puttingly formal.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:32 PM
220 - I dunno. In my family, we have Sr. (my grandfather), Jr. (my dad), and then nothing (my little brother).
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:32 PM
221 - it does seem like alot of people use papa instead of dad or daddy lately; but in our family, papa is reserved for grandfathers. That is, our kids always say "papa firstname" instead of "grandpa lastname". Yet, ironically, mama is used for mom or mommy by our kids, although, not as often (and I'm just dad or daddy)
Posted by TD | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:33 PM
227: Your brother is not nothing!!!! Everyone has value, missy.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:34 PM
Also, the baby name wizard is cocksucker.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:37 PM
"Wizard" would be a cool name. Guaranteed popularity in the elementary crowd, at least until Harry Potter becomes old news.
Someone (else) totally has to just bite the bullet and name their kid "Cocksucker."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:39 PM
One of my sisters uses 'Mother', but only when she's annoyed.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:39 PM
I should say, Arch has nothing to do with any name I have, which should be obvious since it drops off the charts in the 1920s. Many other things about me can be found out online, no reason to include my middle name in an easily findable way. Arch is from a ***spoiler*** in a western film everyone should have seen, and I think it's a good name.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:40 PM
205--"Caleb" invokes instantly for me "Caleb Williams," the protagonist of William Godwin's republican gothic novel. That's what I rather like about the old names: no single ideological strand.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:41 PM
158, 170 -- my grandma is named Myrtle; my nephew is named Isaiah.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:41 PM
232--Yeah, an awesome thing about "mama" is that when he's pissed off at me, PK calls me "bad mama," which has totally different connotations than "bad mom" or "bad mother."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:43 PM
Isaiah! Good taste in your nephew's namers.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:44 PM
In this country, "Jewish" names are not old-testamenty but stereotypically "American" names like "Norman" and "Harry." Extremely observant Jews, of course, have always used Hebrew/Yiddish names, but more secular/moderately observant Jews were eager to assimilate. These days, a lot of secular Jews are going back to (Anglicized) Old Testament names, perhaps because they're trendy, but also as a way of reconnecting with Jewish traditions.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:44 PM
Funny, Harry is my (quite Catholic) dad's name.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:46 PM
That's the point.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:47 PM
One of my grandmothers was named Dera, which I think is a beautiful name.
On the other hand, Dera's father was named Eber (ee-bur) which by all acounts was simply manufactured by his parents.
Personally, I think Cornelius is an awesome name.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:47 PM
Both my grandfather and my great-grandfather had brothers named Harry.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:47 PM
p.s. for those looking at the baby name wizard thingy I linked, you can just type in HAR, for example, to see how Harold compares to Harry.
Posted by TD | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:48 PM
I suggest you check out Genesis 10:21, Pants.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:49 PM
Mr. B. wanted to be called "father,"
My dad used to call me "child".
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:50 PM
Cornelius appears to have made a modest return in the 1980s but has since fell out of favor again.
Posted by TD | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:50 PM
"Dera" is a great name. "Cornelius" is not.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:50 PM
I call my parents "Mama" and "Dada."
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:51 PM
Well, I'll be damned! Thank you! Now I get to correct some familial lore.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:51 PM
Now you've got me thinking. My dad's father's name was Levin. Maybe I should pay some attention to the geneological stuff my dad keeps nattering on about.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:52 PM
249 to 244, btw.
Wait - re-reading it, it describes Shem as the father of all the children of Eber. Was Eber a woman? Wow. Cross-gender naming in my family? I can't wait to bring this up at Thanksgiving. Mwuhaha.
Posted by Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 7:54 PM
Eber's a place, I think.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 8:00 PM
Well, dang.
Posted by