First time I've seen the show.

I thought it presented the story well. Its hard not to trivialize the issues and dramatize it for entertainment - the 'FAQ' approach was the only way they could talk about things. Every other entertainment outlet is bending over backwards to avoid 9/11. I think it was very brave of the show to try to get you to think of things you haven't considered.

Like I said, never seen the show before, but I'll give the next episode a try. Anything I need to know, story wise so I'm not completely lost?

For the newbies to the WW, it's understandable to feel that way. This show was obviously way out of the pace of the usual episodes. No long takes where the actors are saying these long-ass dialogues while the camera follows them for over a minute sometimes. This one had them mostly sitting around. Try to tune in on the regular season episodes and you'll see what the fuss is all about. This one barely scratched the surface of how entertaining this show can be at its best.

Oh, btw, great episode.

This episode was good considering the time constraints on the writing and production. I would agree the static dialogue in the cafeteria gave this a rather subdued feel. Also, none of the characters strongly disagreed with each other (except Josh and Donna and they used humor to defuse any dramatic tension and didn't even go back and forth besides). So while educational and informative, this episode was near the bottom of the series' run when it came to the entertainment value.

It think some people may have missed the point of this episode. It was not intended to be part of the normal "West Wing" continuity. It was not intended to be entertaining on the same level as other episodes. It was specifically intended as an educational tool, and it succeeded very well. My wife and my high schooler had MANY of the same questions that were asked and answered by this particular episode.

Kudos to Sorkin for keeping his bias in check on this one, and presenting a well-balanced, thoughtful, informative program...

Especially like C.J.'s rant about why we don't see or know about the terrorism that is deflected.

Keep in mind that they put this entire episode together, from start to finish, in like a week. It wasn't supposed to be overly profound or wonderfully entertaining. It was what it was. In schools all over America, kids were asking the exact same things these kids were asking, and parents and teachers were struggling with the same emotions the staffers were struggling with. Was everything perfectly presented? Not a chance. Because it was raw unpolished discussion between people in a difficult situation. It simply "was". You see how much we argue over in the Otter Farm about all this stuff ... there aren't simple answers to these questions.

To those who don't watch the West Wing (which this episode btw was nothing like), it's about as good as television gets right now. But like all television of any merit, you have to give it a chance. You can't just pick one or two episodes out of sequence and judge the show from that (well, you can, but it's a hollow judgment). Great shows are built on strong characters, and you can't develop a bunch of strong characters in 42 minutes of screen time. I hear people say things like, "I saw an episode of SportsNight/Buffy/Babylon 5/Sex & the City/Whatever, and it wasn't that good" all the time. It's true that you might not like one of these shows, but you're not going to know that by simply watching a random episode. The best shows require some effort, but it's more than worth it, because they're the best shows, and they expose how mediocre much of the programming really is. I'd suggest giving The West Wing some time to grow on you. If not, no worries for me. They have more than enough viewers to keep it on the air, so at least I'll be able to enjoy its greatness for years to come.

das

Well I was not judging the show based on this one episode. I am sure that it is a great series, but that is beside the point.

I'm well aware of the fact that kids across America have all these questions. My problem was with the way it was presented. Bland, boring, and about as dramatic as reading a FAQ.

Yes they put this episode together in a week. But really, whose fault is that? They could have worked a little longer to develop something of more substance. They did not have to put this episode on this week. They just wanted to be the first to deal with terrorism as a subject on TV. Look, I have no problem with the issues that they brought up, I have a problem with how they did it. The only reason I kept watching this episode was for the suspected terrorist in the White House storyline. That was dramatic and well written. It got me thinking because it showed what seems to be a justified fear can easily turn into racism and a violation of human rights.

I was rolling my eyes during "America's lecture from Aaron Sorkin."

It's too bad because the answers that they gave were sometimes totally the opposite of what they actually are. So now because of this one show you have an even more skewed conception of those people.

Any specific examples of this?

Understand, I'm not a big fan of the show or anything, but I didn't think they were totally off with the answers. In case they were, I'd like to know.

That was Samir. I kept waiting for Leo to threaten to put him in a federal pound me in the ass prison.

A powerful episode. It wasn't meant to provide the "right" answers, but to raise questions, which it apparently succeeded in doing.

Did anyone else think Leo's "way to be back at your desk, kid" comment at the end was hollow and condescending?

Almost, except I understand what he was trying to do. I took it to mean, "I admire that after I was such a jackass, after I nearly violated your civil rights, you've risen above me and have returned to work serving your country. Thanks for reminding me what I forgot for this past hour." Leo's not a man of many words and has plenty of his own problems, so it didn't really come out very eloquent, but the sentiment was there.

das

Anyone else catch 'Samir' in the ad for 'K-PAX' they showed during the west wing? I thought it was funny - I've seen him in Office Space and Hannibal and suddenly he's everywhere.

One thing I didn't buy though - so, he's protesting troops in saudi and seems to be against women driving, but then he takes a job working for the white house? And on top of that he's got an MIT degree?

this was not a good episode for getting people hooked on the show. for you newbies, give it a chance once the regular episodes start next week