Author: ssw15

Compare and contrast: Alessandra Stanley (critiquing the cable movie about the American pollsters/political campaigners working for Boris Yeltsin’s re-election campaign) and Virginia Heffernan (critiquing the mid-season series “Wonderfalls” – about a young woman who listens to inanimate objects telling her to do good deeds – a “Joan of Arcardia” without God). Two tv critics – now part of the same newspaper (Heffernan was the ex-Slate.com tv critic) – I’ve been more partial to Heffernan, because Heffernan feels like someone who likes tv even if the show she’s watching sucks. But, Heffernan’s comments about the US version of “Touching Evil” (on the bottom of the article on “Wonderfalls”) seems a little too caustic for me (then again, as I said in a prior blog entry, I didn’t think too badly of the original British “Touching Evil”).

I’m almost finished with reading Peter David’s “Stone and Anvil” (the latest Star Trek: New Frontier book); I’ll be making my comments on that in a future blog entry.

(Yeah, I really ought to make better titles for my blog entries).

Slate.com’s Supreme Court watcher Dahlia Lithwick makes some interesting points about the whole Justice Scalia ethics debate (i.e., is it ethical for Scalia to make speeches about certain issues; is it ethical for him to go duck hunting with a certain vice president; etc.). Maybe we are being too hard on Scalia – Blackmun has spoken out on issues, so it’s not like it’s a new thing to hear a judge say something; and do we really want to muzzle the justices from just talking? Don’t we want to know what they think, rather than relying on some weird divining technique? (Imagine: “Ohmigosh, Rehnquist is snapping at the petitioner during oral arguments; that’s a bad sign!” “O’Connor’s twitching her lips; is she smiling? She’s pushing for the appellee; no, wait, I can’t tell!”). And, if what the justices say doesn’t necessarily mean they’re really that closed-minded (i.e., that they can still judge impartially), why not let them do their talking? At the very least, we know that they can’t talk about a pending case. But, the counter-argument is very simply that a justice’s actions or words can still smack of impropriety, even if it doesn’t violate some ethical code on its face. Oh, well; I’ll just have to reserve my final judgment on this issue about the Supreme Court justices for now.

NY Times’ Tom Friedman had a nice take on outsourcing today – that it should be less about America closing itself and more about Americans reviving the American Dream – be innovative, creative, and well, American.

Tonight’s “Survivor” was quite good – I didn’t expect the ending that came about at all. The ending of “The Apprentice” wasn’t surprising – someone had to go, and when the smaller team lost, it seemed all too predictable about who’d go – and I think it says something about how women do in the business world (considering how Trump’s female executive seemed to make quite an assessment of Heidi – and maybe it means that a woman has to beat men to succeed, not just be merely “good”; and consider how Heidi had to deal with the dilemma of balancing her participation in the game and her very real worries about her mother’s illness — I mean really, would a male businessman find himself in a similar dilemma about family versus work? I just don’t know – maybe, maybe not).

Spring training: Mets’ players Karim Garcia and Shane Spencer (those ex-Yankees) are in extenuating circumstances, since the pizza deliveryman – who accused them of beating him up – gave such conflicting versions of the incident to the Florida police. No criminal charges, and there’s a likelihood of no civil action, since the pizza guy allegedly made it too obvious that he wanted to sue (he blew his credibility) and he didn’t seem that injured despite the seriousness of his charges. On the other hand, Garcia and Spencer are embarassed about this – it wasn’t as if they were completely sober during the incident – so, no one comes out of this completely unscathed.

The recent incident of the Vancouver NHL overzealous hockey player, Todd Bertuzzi, whose play broke the neck of Colorado Avalanche’s Steve Moore, reminded me of the McSorley thing (McSorley was the Boston Bruin who used his stick too hard on a Vancouver player in 2000). Apparently, no criminal charges were on McSorley, but the NHL suspended him for a year and thus there is precedence on what to do with Bertuzzi. I remembered the McSorley thing only because it occurred during the same semester I took Torts and the professor raised a McSorley type hypo wherein we wondered – was this a prima facie tort? Probably – assault, battery, etc… I swear, law school changes the way I look at anything, especially when I start issue spotting possible civil cause of actions in sports (putting aside the whole policy questions involving the steroids/human growth hormone problem and criminal law problems in sports).

Actor Paul Winfield recently passed away; he’s an actor whose face would be incredibly familiar to the avid television viewer and to someone whose memory is more expansive than mine and my time (e.g., he played Martin Luther King, Jr., in a 1978 “King” miniseries that WWOR (Channel 9) in the NYC area recently showed it as part of Black History month; as well as starred in the movie “Sounder”). For the Trekkies out there, Winfield played the doomed captain in “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” (Chekov’s superior officer, whose ear and brain were mangled by Khan’s parasite) and the classic episode “Darmok” in “Star Trek: the Next Generation” (the episode where Patrick Stewart’s Picard meets Winfield’s alien captain who spoke in metaphor – a fascinating episode about language which always confused me but I enjoyed because it was so well acted). Winfield had also been incredibly memorable as a judge who was frustrated with the school integration/busing issues in “Picket Fences.” He has quite a legacy.

And, on a final note for the night, sadly, the news in Spain – March 11, 2004: no matter who is responsible for the tragedy, it is still a tragedy. This is our world today and it is too reminiscent of what we have seen almost three years ago in this country.

Some matters:

My undergraduate school’s alumni e-mail listserv sent out the word that the Asian American Writers’ Workshop is having a book sale until March 12, 2004 (free shipping for purchases over $25.00); the group has had to cut back its programs due to funding problems and independent bookstores are having problems generally, AAWW being no exception. According to the message I got:

“‘The Workshop is not moving, we’re not closed… we are struggling under the same pressure of competition and increased costs. If you want to hear the whole story straight from our Executive Director Quang Bao on WBAI radio, you can visit http://www.asiapacificforum.org/ (click on archive section.)

“‘So many of you offered to help the Workshop, and here’s your chance:

“‘PLEASE BUY A BOOK!

“‘We’re running a 5-10-15-20 dollar sale online, with free shipping on orders over $25. Scroll through a wonderful selection of 50 contemporary Asian American books, including children’s literature.’”

Check out the website at http://www.aaww.org/ – the selection looks good and decently priced. Now all I have to do is decide what to buy and read (I was in a good mood at work, until I got irritated by the public my workplace serves; it happens frequently when you’re in the public interest/public service sector; so I need some interesting reading material to make me feel better). (Anyone else interested should do so too!)

Apparently, AAWW will also have an event on April 15 for “Charlie Chan Is Dead 2,” edited by Jessica Hagedorn. (The Asian American Writers’ Workshop, 16 West 32nd Street, Suite 10A, New York NY 10001-3814). Show your support, if you can do it and are in the neighborhood of NYC. (Pardon my using this blog entry as a soapbox; I just thought supporting AAWW seemed like a good cause; back to the usually scheduled odd thought or such).

I was sort of watching “Nightline,” and the topic was about how whether Kerry can show he’s a real patriot/military leader since being a veteran doesn’t mean too much these days (or, maybe it does in the circumstances; it’s still debatable). Ted Koppel’s invited political analysts mentioned the line (which I’ve heard before) that the Democratic party is seen as the “Mommy” party, because it takes care of people — while the Republican party is the “Daddy” party, because it protects people (particularly since George W. Bush is the incumbent leader in a middle of the war against terrorism).

Now, part of me feels that is such a ridiculous characterization of the political parties; have we forgotten that Democrats were the ones who led this country in two world wars, and two Democrats in particular were the ones who led us to victory in the last so-called good war (Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman). During that same time period, the Republicans were much more insular and less on global interaction (and sometimes still are; and sometimes some Democrats are the ones against globalism, particularly when free trade means exporting jobs out of America and bothers the Democratic union base). And, apparently, because Democrats were also the ones who led us into the quagmire that was the Vietnam War (and the Korean War, the forgotten one) and a number of Democrats have been primarily the ones against wars generally since then, the Democratic party is often seen as the anti-war party (if not the unpatriotic/weak party; kind of like the nerdy kid who willingly lets himself get beaten up in the schoolyard because he doesn’t want to fight back because he’s a coward or is non-violent in principle).

Now, considering the contradiction of how to characterize the Democratic party and the historical track of both parties, I so disagree with the idea of simply calling the parties “Mommy” and “Daddy” – that just trivializes both parties.

Another thought – there are many times I think that I should have taken mediation or negotiations or other skills course in law school; then there are times I realize the real teacher of such things is experience. I’m grateful for having been in a clinic in law school; but then again, I still don’t feel that I came out of it with enough preparation in dealing with the difficult complainants/clients (or maybe there is no way to prepare for that). Eh. So it goes in the life of a so-called public sector/public interest attorney. Feel free to make comments, as usual.

TGIF. It has been a long enough week at work. On to blogging…

Some law-related thoughts:

So very much looking forward to reading the articles by Linda Greenhouse, the NY Times’ Supreme Court reporter, revealing her exclusively early analysis on Justice Harry Blackmun and his documents. There’s so much rich material and so fascinating to see such an inside look on the Supreme Court. All of this is almost inspiring me to grab my copy of “The Brethren” (the Woodward/Bernstein look into the Warren Court) to re-read it and re-capture the sense of insider look feeling of the Supreme Court.

And what about the celebrity trials in the news? Dare we pity Martha Stewart? I just don’t know what to make of this…

Meanwhile, the Jayson Williams case is making for really gripping, tabloidy sensational television news, in a sad, yet fascinating way. Benoit Benjamin, witness; Billy Martin, defense attorney; and the line of cross-examination – this is the kind of stuff that makes some people want to go into criminal law…

George J. Mitchell, lawyer/ex-Senator-majority leader/roving diplomat who negotiates peace settlements around the world – and now Chairman of the Board of Disney? Talk about interesting career trajectory.

Some non-law-related thoughts:

What’s with the ex-Yankees on the Mets? Karim Garcia and Shane Spencer in the news, and appear to be in trouble due to an altercation during spring training in Port St. Lucie. Geez Louise, can we just avoid trouble? The Mets are trying to play nice here, I thought.

Still can’t believe that Brian Leetch is no longer a NY Ranger, having been traded to Toronto Maple Leafs. The Rangers are just messed up. Leetch will be missed and he’s so classy to avoid criticizing the Rangers (and a whole heap of criticism would have been richly deserved on that team). If “1940” was the big chant of the Stanley Cup season of 1994 (since it was 54 years of Cup drought for the Rangers), “1994” will the chant for the next 50 years, if the Rangers keeps going like this. Disclaimer – I’m not even a big hockey fan and I can sense this aura of sadness. Time to root for Toronto Maple Leafs (who, unlike the Rangers, are playoffs-bound).

According to the news in Entertainment Weekly and TV Guide, starting next week, USA Cable channel (the one that makes “Monk”) is broadcasting an American version of the British detective series, “Touching Evil” (previously broadcasted in this country on PBS’ “Mystery”). I had seen the British original series, wherein British actor Robson Green played the intense and really-stressed-out Detective Inspector Dave Creegan, who solves nasty serial murder type crimes. It was my understanding that “Touching Evil” was the Brits’ take on violent American cop shows – Inspector Creegan’s unit was armed and ready to go after murder suspects; good cops die in the line of duty; bad cops get bribed; and even Creegan never quite got over having almost died due to a bullet to the head and messed up his love life several times – all stuff that probably did not happen too often in England in reality anyway but made for exciting, engrossing television. It was a series that I thought was very different from other British police shows that I had seen (it wasn’t “Prime Suspect” with the whole Helen Mirren as Superintendent Jane Tennison; if I remembered “Prime Suspect” right, Mirren never exactly carried a gun, even if she did find ways around the traditional stiff-upper lip; of course, her Tennison was still in an era where the British cops tried resisting getting armed; it’s all changed now, I heard and anyone else on the website can correct me if I’m wrong). Anyway, “Touching Evil” got pretty gory by its four-part season III, so cable can try to either enhance or expand the violence in its American version.

But, the real worry would be that an Americanized version would simply bastardize the good parts about the original series – sort of like how NBC messed up “Coupling,” when it Americanized the British original series that was a British take on the American series “Friends”; don’t we learn our lesson about these kinds of things? I mean, really, did anyone even got a chance to see “Coupling”? (which was so bad it got pulled off the air before it got anywhere). The original series had good cast interaction: an ensemble that worked, even if its head pair – Creegan and Detective Susan Taylor – frequently felt an awful lot like British Mulder and Scully. Plus, I’m a bit of a Robson Green fan, as he is a sexy sort in spite of (or taking advantage of?) his premature receding hairline melding with his boyish looks and charm. Heck, what American actor would imitate or create his version of the power of Green?

Nonetheless, it sounds intruiging that the critics so far are liking the American version of “Touching Evil” (which is apparently keeping the title and the two main characters; wonder if they’re also keeping the character of Detective Constable Mark Rivers, who was the tiresome junior officer who kept challenging Creegan and Taylor but came to be just as psychologically worn out by the job as they were, and what about their boss, the politically-astute commander – jeez, the American version’s going to have to Americanize all their ranks too…). I’m tempted to ask my cable-accessible sibling to give me access so that I can make a serious assessment of the American “Touching Evil.” By the way – Helen Mirren will return with the newest “Prime Suspect” on PBS this spring. More intruiging stuff…

Enjoy the weekend. Keep us posted about San Fran, FC.

I should crawl into bed right about now after quite a day at work (didn’t help that I kept writing 3/3/03 all day long – the sign of an addled brain) — but figured I’d blog a bit.

Post-Super Tuesday – I must say that the whole ballot thing in NYS was a bit confusing, but not that confusing (“Oh, yeah, I’m supposed to be voting for delegates too. Uh…”). Otherwise, the whole Kerry thing was no more exciting than what happened with the Oscars – no surprises. I thought that Edwards should have stayed in longer, but even he knew it just wasn’t happening. At least he tried. And, Vermont – an amusing state, to still go for its ex-governor, even if he’s not in contention. Got to hand it to loyalty, I guess.

“Star Trek: Enterprise” latest episode of 3/3/04 – was actually a good watch. Spoiler alert – but, beware that I don’t necessarily reveal much in detail anyway…. I felt touched by what was happening and paid actual attention; and the cliffhanger – I was left thinking, “And we must wait for how long before the next episode?! They can’t leave us hanging like this!!!” This is the feeling one has to have when watching decent Star Trek (like with the last season of DS9, when the last 10 episodes forced one to catch each episode or else – crazy, because each episode had an unresolved plotline, but made for a good journey of television viewing). If this is indeed the last season of “Star Trek: Enterprise,” I’m at least relieved that tonight’s episode at least made an effort to tie together the insane storylines of this season (and the past two other seasons). It’s an episode that has to be re-seen when UPN re-broadcasts it this weekend – catch the memorable moments and speculative queries (why oh why is T’Pol acting so un-Vulcan?; nice to see Mayweather have more than two sentences this week; and Archer – ah, yes, sir, you do realize how you’ve bent a lot of moral principles this season and managed to remind the crew of the original mission of Season 1, Episode 1). Plus, the return of Crewman Daniels, the time-traveling guy who really annoys the heck out of Capt. Archer (Scott Bakula did a decent job acting as driven captain in this episode; then again, they gave him a meatier script).

Anyway, Daniels once again reminded me of happier times with Star Trek franchise – and it’s funny how I have come to like Daniels – he has every potential to be the most despised character (since he’s messing with timelines every single time and it’s so annoying), and yet the minute he mentions the word “Federation” – the alliance of planets that celebrates diversity and other utopic stuff, the setting of the prior Star Trek franchises (and because Daniels is the guy from the “future” to influence Archer’s pre-Federation era)… ah, Daniels just gives me the warm fuzzy feelings that I had from the prime of “Star Trek: the Next Generation” or those thrilling moments when DS9 war episodes weren’t so depressing (i.e., Capt. Sisko gets all glowy and vows that the Federation will rise again, even in the face of defeat). Of course, Daniels has a hard time making Archer believe in the Federation and its lovely ideals – which is the point, since Archer is in a problematic (re: 9/11/01-like) context and Archer has been awfully distrustful of those against his mission to save Earth.

I have to catch up on “Angel,” since I taped last week’s episode, but caught most of last night’s – intense stuff. There is more to come with this series and hopefully they won’t end as strangely as “Buffy” did last year.

Last night’s Oscars was funny (at least, the talents of Billy Crystal were certainly still up to par), with dull moments of – dare I say it? – predictability. People avoided political statements, more or less (the biggest one was, surprisingly, not from Sean Penn (who made some incoherent WMD reference) but from the director of “Fog of War” (the documentary where Robert McNamara, ex-secretary of Defense, tries to explain how/why the USA went into the Vietnam War)), putting aside Crystal’s amusing lines. It was, stunning enough, “The Lord of the Rings” all the way through. I saw it coming, but didn’t really think it would happen, and once it did happen, it was, well, boring. Sort of. For five minutes, I muttered, “Yeah, so they’re just giving ‘LOTR’ everything but best picture?” But, it didn’t happen – it went as planned and it felt… not exciting.

On the other hand, it wasn’t as if I felt the need to change channels. It was immensely watchable tv- not one cringeworthy moment. Moving tributes to Bob Hope and Katherine Hepburn. Tribute to director Blake Edwards (why was Jim Carrey the presenter of Edwards’ lifetime achievement award, I do not know – they could’ve picked someone better). Charlize Theron was moving in accepting her award. But, it was still… lacking in a buzzy feeling. Even the feeling of “Boy, they’re just not going to end on time” wasn’t there. (they ended on good time – 12:10, as I predicted at 11:30pm and realized how much good pace they actually had). Did the five-second tape delay (to avoid any possible bad language) really affected anything?

Blame it on Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake, I guess – we can’t get no excitement like we used to anymore. Kudos to LOTR anyway; good movie all around.

Admittedly, I am someone who may have watched too much tv – but, in the grand scheme of things, I really don’t watch that much, since I’m still fairly fussy about what I watch. I don’t watch “The Bachelor” or “The Bachelorette.” I don’t have cable, so I missed the entire run of “Sex and the City” (and even if I did have cable, I doubt I’d have watched the series). I’m barely on top of “Survivor,” and I’ve bypassed “The West Wing” for quite some time now and don’t even miss it.

sidenote – I managed to watch most of last week “The West Wing”, because the commercials made the episode tempting to watch and I wanted to see how the ex-VP was doing; turned out “The West Wing” introduced this item of interaction between C.J. and ex-VP Hoynes that was _never_ discussed during the first three seasons when I had almost religiously watched “The West Wing.” I mean, if you’re going to throw a wrench into continuity, shouldn’t it be done with some better credibility? Pretty please? (I’m being sarcastic; pardon my tone). The point is, I stopped watching because it’s not the same show for me. The characters and their lives are no longer familiar.

But, television at its best is like a good book or book series – the characters are compelling, they’ve a verisimilitude. Life’s stupidities get thrown at them and they either sink or swim; they learn from it or don’t. I’ve been watching Masterpiece Theatre’s “Forsyte Saga II” on PBS and it’s essentially British soapy stuff (okay, it’s based on the books written by a Nobel Prize writer, so it’s literary, not soapy), but it’s a good watch. Soames Forsyte (played by Damian Lewis) is still an emotional suppressed lawyer, who never quite got over losing his 1st wife, Irene (played by Gena McKee), to his cousin, Jolyon (played by Rupert Graves) during series I. In series II, it’s 1920, and their kids are making new trouble: Soames’ daughter, Fleur (by his second wife, Annette), and Jolyon and Irene’s son, Jon, are in love with each other, but don’t realize why their families won’t (and can’t) let them be together. Every character isn’t perfect – Jolyon, the guy who once ditched his first wife for a governess, turns into a hypocrite for forbidding his son from love; Soames is still a controlling maniac – who comes to realize that he can’t own his daughter anymore than he couldn’t own his wives – and that he probably was guilty of raping his first wife; and Irene realizes that she has to face life with courage, and not let Soames destroy her. The character of Jon felt weak, but was a kid and I felt like I couldn’t expect much from him and gave him credit for having his good intentions. Fleur was overpowering – she’s a spoiled brat, but then one feels pity for her. The sins of the Forsytes get repeated – but in a sadly, slightly different way.

Not to say the British tv is better crafted (and maybe it is, I don’t know; the accents may be classier and maybe that just makes it seem better), but “The Forsyte Saga” made me feel like tv can be engrossing stuff, a little way to get away from real life. I try not to belittle tv, since it’s something with so much potential and power – but has as much possibility to be – well – just junk.

So, I’m not too impressed by hearing people who go into the tv business saying it’s not what they care for anyway. Why go into the business then? Virginia Heffernan of the NY Times interviews David Chase, the maker of “The Sopranos,” and Chase reveals: “‘The function of an hour drama is to reassure the American people that it’s O.K. to go out and buy stuff. It’s all about flattering the audience, making them feel as if all the authority figures have our best interests at heart. Doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists: sure, they have their little foibles, some of them are grouchy, but by God, they care.’” It may not be what “The Sopranos” is about, but that’s how Chase views tv. Chase enjoyed working on “The Sopranos,” but states, “‘People like the show, and I’ve got a great group of actors, a great group of directors. But I don’t want to do any more TV. I’m tired of television. I’m tired of the form. I’ve always wanted to go into movies.’” So, really, tv was just his sideline, his way of getting his name out there? Anyway, the interview was plain bizarre; was Chase being facetious or serious?

Then there’s the article in the NY Times about Stephen King’s upcoming “Kingdom Hospital” on ABC.

Stephen King says, “‘I am not a series TV person,’ he said. ‘In series TV, it’s beginning, then middle, middle, middle. Like the kid says in “Stand by Me,” about television, “They keep on ‘Wagon Training.’” I just don’t watch series television. “E.R.” I have never watched. “Friends” I have never watched. I don’t say that with pride because that’s really my culture. “Seinfeld”? I’ve never seen an episode. It’s always the same people doing the same things.’”

I suppose there’s some relief in seeing King acknowledge how tv is a part of American culture, but, he’s also acknowledging something about tv – the boredom. And, maybe Chase is right – tv, especially network tv, is just where people hawk stuff. But, are these people – who say that they don’t watch tv – being snobs, or are they really that bored by watching the alleged “same things” and are that sick of the promotion aspect? And, if they don’t watch, how can they be so sure that it is the “same thing” over and over? And, really, isn’t the “same thing” what gives some tv viewers comfort? TV babysit kids because it is the “same thing” – no disruptive and scarring change to mar anyone, which can really be said about real life.

So it goes. Go watch the Academy awards; maybe there will be surprises. Maybe there will be “same thing.” Either way, it’s good tv.

I liked this NY Times article that critiques the architectural design of the Port Authority’s new PATH station at the World Trade Center site. It’s beautifully written and it makes a lot of sense. For a temporary site (well, temporary to the extent that it’ll be the station for the next four or five years), it is very beautiful – concrete, steel, and some art, and no ads. I’ve been at the new PATH station four times now (due to NJ CLE), and I’m amazed by how nicely done it is – parts of the underground was so familiar – if you pass by the side connecting to the R/W subway station (formerly the R/N station), you can almost remember the Warner Brothers store that was there and can try to recall the Borders down the other way. The designs for the permanent transportation hub (to give the sense of a bird in flight) is nice, but this current site is a good transition.

–> NY Times’ Quotations of the Day – demonstrating that there’s a little odd stuff going on in the current administration:

“As one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better.” – Rod Paige, U.S. Secretary of Education

“He said he considered the N.E.A. to be a terrorist organization.” – Susan Aspey, spokeswoman for Education Secretary Rod Paige.

Hmm. Perhaps the NEA (the national union representing teachers) is a little sensitive about being viewed as terrorists. Perhaps Secretary Paige indeed made a strange choice of words – after all, one can criticize a union (even voice one’s frustration with them) without going so far as saying that the union is tantamount to a terrorist organization. I mean, the analogy isn’t even exactly accurate – union is to terrorist organization as apple is to kiwi. Last I checked, some union isn’t exactly going around making extremist political statements and threatening to bodily harm people, even if their lack of cooperation (at worst) or continued challenging (at best) an administration won’t make immediate improvements in educating kids. Plus, if one would like to have mutual efforts to improve education, does it help build consensus if one were to refer to the other as a terrorist?

So, yeah, I think that Secretary Paige should have made better choice of words – but his background of having grown up in a segregated South isn’t what would make him know better than to make an “insensitive remark”; this is supposed to be common sense – one can’t go around accusing the other of something ridiculous _and_ inflammatory.

–> I was telling a law school classmate about this so I’ll note some of my view here on the blog too: David Brooks’ column on Samuel Huntington’s latest writing; Huntington’s book is apparently arguing about how Latinos cannot be fully assimilated Americans. See, I don’t always agree with Brooks, but I agree with him that Huntington was being narrow-minded, to put it kindly. Brooks quoted Huntington’s book and he concluded that Huntington’s views are the “real threat to the American creed.” I just thought that the Huntington quotations were too reminiscent of what has been historically said (and probably continues to be said) about Asian Americans’ being unable to be truly assimilated Americans (i.e., America’s “Yellow Peril” fears of the 19th Century onwards). I suppose this is how it works for certain scholars like Huntington – one must fit the “American” scheme, he says, but what does he do with people who are neither black nor white – he’d say they’re not “American”? Maybe Huntington needs to sharpen how he defines “American.”

–> Anyway, on less serious subjects: enough on the Yankees; I liked this cute article on how the new Mets’ infielder tag team (Kaz Matsui and Jose Reyes) are getting adjusted. Let’s hope they can play well when the season starts. Mets fans need serious uplift.

Last night’s “Super Millionaire” had a Korean-American attorney as the contestant – Todd Kim (or “Kimmer” to Regis Philbin) of the U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C. An obvious attorney, he talked his way through all the questions, and used his all his lifelines to make it to $500,000 award. He even called his colleague at the DOJ as a lifeline to answer the question of “Who was Amelia Earheart’s navigator, during the flight in which she disappeared?”* Even harder – Todd had to answer the question, “The first condom commercial on TV aired in 1991 during what show?”* (his jokes were amusing: “I can’t believe $400,000 depends on a condom…” and a little “I don’t think my mother would want to know this…”) The Three Wise People lifeline seems like a cute idea – among yesterday’s troupe was Neil de Grasse Tyson, the director of the Rose Center for Earth and Space (aka the Hayden Planetarium).

Kudos to Mr. Kim for being almost a millionaire.

* check the comments for the answers.