As someone not from the US, I very much appreciated that there were explanations of the policies and so on in that episode. It was a bit awkward doing it with Sam and CJ, but I didn't find it troubling. Using Mr. Willis for their gain was troubling, but it is also very in-character for Josh and he did admit to it in front of Mr. Willis. The whole "strict constructionism" thing is very hard for me to get, especially as my country's version of the constitution was only written 60 years ago.
Donna: I want my money back! Josh: You shouldn't have voted for us.
I so loved that whole conversation :)
And, oh, the heartbreaking Bartlet&Leo interactions.
Zoey heads to the bar (to get C.J. a grasshopper, really) where some college boys who are almost a parody of the sexist, racist, ignorant frat boy stereotype
Only almost? ;)
Not one of my favourite episodes of the season, but I think it was a very solid one.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-23 03:21 pm (UTC)As someone not from the US, I very much appreciated that there were explanations of the policies and so on in that episode. It was a bit awkward doing it with Sam and CJ, but I didn't find it troubling. Using Mr. Willis for their gain was troubling, but it is also very in-character for Josh and he did admit to it in front of Mr. Willis. The whole "strict constructionism" thing is very hard for me to get, especially as my country's version of the constitution was only written 60 years ago.
Donna: I want my money back!
Josh: You shouldn't have voted for us.
I so loved that whole conversation :)
And, oh, the heartbreaking Bartlet&Leo interactions.
Zoey heads to the bar (to get C.J. a grasshopper, really) where some college boys who are almost a parody of the sexist, racist, ignorant frat boy stereotype
Only almost? ;)
Not one of my favourite episodes of the season, but I think it was a very solid one.