Author: ssw15

Interesting stuff in today’s NY Times:

What does it take to be The Man – in the NBA, that is. Shaquille O’Neal, Kevin Garnett, and Tim Duncan – can they be The Man? Duncan has the championship rings, so does O’Neal – and yet… Or, do they lack the “killer instinct” that it takes to be The Man?

What does it take to be The Woman? The NY Times’ Maureen Dowd comments on the revitalized Laura Bush and, once again, I wonder what we expect from the First Lady in the turn of the 21st century – fighting for her man, being her own woman, or what?

Continuing a running thread on the blog, I’ll note Tom Friedman’s column today about the outsourcing issue. Friedman highlights a question posed by Robert Reich (ex-secretary of the Dept. of Labor under Clinton): “‘The fundamental question we have to ask as a society is, what do we do about it?’” Friedman closes with his response: “Either way, managing this phenomenon will require a public policy response — something more serious than the Bush mantra of let the market sort it out, or the demagoguery of the Democratic candidates, who seem to want to make outsourcing equal to treason and punishable by hanging. Time to get real.”

The Arts section of the Times profiles actor Christopher Plummer – hmm. I know that he’s an amazing actor, but I’m one of those nuts who still sees him as Capt. von Trapp. Well, time to sing the “Sound of Music” farewell song and bid adieu…

Yesterday, I finished reading the medieval England book that I had mentioned previously in the blog. I enjoyed it, and had read the other book in the series back in January. Both books were good subway reading: “The Queen’s Man” and “Cruel as the Grave,” by Sharon Kay Penman (the books’ Amazon links refer to the paperback versions; the author’s official website looked nice, I think).

The series follows the adventures of 20-year old Justin de Quincey, the illegitimate son of the Bishop of Chester in England, in the years 1192 to 1193. In “The Queen’s Man,” Justin becomes (what else?) “The Queen’s Man,” serving the dowager queen of England, Eleanor of Aquitaine: Justin accidentally came across the murder of a loyalist of the queen. The loyalist had information on the capture of the queen’s son, the King Richard the Lionheart; Eleanor asks Justin to investigate the murder – was it to prevent the information from getting to the queen? Was it because the victim had a nutty family who contracted the murderer to do it; or because of something else entirely? Meanwhile, Justin becomes entangled in the craziness that is medieval England, with spies and other double agents. Who shall he trust? Prince John, Richard’s brother, also makes an appearance and hovers in the background; he is apparently the bane of his family, and has his issues about his family (probably a parallel to Justin’s issues with his father; neither man seems to get it that maybe their respective parent isn’t as horrible as they believe).

“Cruel as the Grave” takes place a month later; Justin’s settling nicely in London, and the Queen’s assigning him to get a message to John, who’s trying to keep himself inside Windsor Castle to make a point. Meanwhile, Justin is trying to solve who murdered a 15-year old girl, whose only crime was that she fell in love with someone outside her class – and would this be the reason for her murder?

As mysteries go, “Cruel as the Grave” was a stronger one than “The Queen’s Man” – although the case there was easy to solve (I thought), at least one gets to watch Justin be the detective. “The Queen’s Man” seemed more like an unfolding coincidence, even though there were plenty of suspects; Justin seems to have incidentally figured out the situation. But, both are good yarns, as one follows along Justin’s journeys. The characters come alive, and don’t feel anachronistic at all. And, the context feels right – Penman notes how the Saxons spoke English and the Normans spoke French (and thus the upper crust spoke French), and yet she doesn’t bog down on “thou” or “thee” or whatnot. Justin is also a sweet protagonist, even when he acts tough. Not perfect, he matures in each situation he gets himself into.

Penman clearly did her research and I like her style. Yeah, so she’s an ex-tax attorney, but she has an imagination that works nicely.

Other reading? Note the following:

NY Times article on the Chinatown vans was educational , so to speak.

NY Times on the impending odd NYS election; getting ready for Super Tuesday?

NY1 (the all-news tv cable station) has an interesting series on academia, 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education.

Some articles or news of note:

ABA E-Journal’s latest humorous anecdotes about the legal profession.

While the post-mortem on the Dean campaign has been going on, writer Paul Gastris in his NY Times op-ed illustrates an obituary for the Wesley Clark campaign. I thought Clark had brought a certain edge to the 2004 campaign (“ooh, a general! Cool!”), but his inexperience proved to have been his undoing.

Bill Moyers is apparently leaving “Now” on PBS, after the election, to write a book on his experiences working for President Lyndon B. Johnson. Darn sad; Moyers made me appreciate a lot of stories that I wouldn’t have thought heard or thought about and he made me re-appreciate old fashioned liberalism with his respectful yet charged tone of voice. Hopefully PBS won’t turn away from “Now” (which won’t be the same without Moyers, although David Brancaccio as co-host has been nice watch, at least to help ease the burden on Moyers), but we’ll see how this goes.

NY Times’ report on the impending subway changes, effective 12:01 am, Sunday, Feb. 22, 2004. Pro: N-line will be on the Manhattan Bridge, ending an almost 20-year detour in the tunnels between Court St. Whitehall stations, and the B and D lines will be back in Brooklyn. Con: B will be on the old D-line and D will be on the old B-line. According to the article, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) recognizes that the old-time Brooklynites will be confused that the B will be on the old D-line and the D will be on the B-line, but claims that the short-term confusion will be fine (and, yeah, I’ve mentioned in a previous blog entry that I grew up back when the B was the B and the D was the D – and that was just less than five years ago). In fact, MTA allegedly has an explanation for why the planners couldn’t put the lines back together again in Brooklyn, the article notes:

“One of the most controversial aspects is the swapping of the old B and D lines, with their return to Brooklyn. Many residents remember growing up near the lines and will have to remember the switch.

“In the end, this was a decision based mostly on trying to simplify things, planners said. The B train in the Bronx currently runs only during the weekdays because of station rehabilitation work along the route and less demand. Planners decided that they wanted to connect this to the weekday-only line in Brooklyn. Planners conceded that they could have simply switched the designation in the Bronx, but they decided that would only confuse riders there.”

So, why is it that it is not worthwhile to confuse the riders of south Bronx, but okay to confuse the 4 million Brooklynites? Huh? (yeah, I don’t know how many people in the south Bronx take the B and D, so anyone may feel free to correct any of my misconceptions; but I still feel that the switch in Brooklyn is still an outrage). And, what about the immigrant populations of the Midwood/Brighton Beach lines (the old D line) and Bensonhurst (the old B line), forget the English-speaking population? I’d sit on the W subway (which substituted the B in Brooklyn the past three years or so), and I’d still hear Cantonese-Chinese speakers refer it as the (gasp!) B. Where’s the simplification in this?

I mean no offense to the MTA, really and my views are entirely my own and not representative of anyone else’s; I’ll quietly adjust to the N changes from where I am to get to work, but I’m just still baffled about why the switch on the B and D. End of rant.

In a previous blog, I discussed the virtues of the Travelocity commercial and the Gnome. Much to my amusement, it turned out that I one-upped the Slate.com “Ad Report,” as it too has recently commented on the Travelocity ad campaign. (well, I was wondering when Slate.com was going to get to the subject of the Gnome anyway). Slate.com “Ad Report” writer Seth Stevenson gave it a B-minus, because he figured that the Gnome can only go so far (umm, creatively, that is). Stevenson has a point, but in the meantime, I still think it’s a cute ad campaign. Oh, and he notes an explanation for why Travelocity gave Bill the Gnome a British accent (although I still prefer my “Full Monty” theory).

Ok, ok. Time to go…

I’ve been quite busy; you’d think that with the President’s day holiday on Monday that a short week wouldn’t be so busy.

NY Times’ Quotation of the Day:

“We are not going away. We are staying together, unified, all of us.” – Howard Dean, M.D.

Nice words, Governor; easier said than done, of course. I’ll give Dr. Dean credit for giving us a real strange ride in the 21st century’s first presidential campaign (putting aside the question of whether the year 2000 counts as “21st century” and considering how the Internet had such an influence on the Deaniacs). Otherwise, let’s see how a political veteran like Kerry (and how a smooth litigator like Edwards) will pull it off…

NBC’s Tom Brokaw had an interesting op-ed piece in the Times today – raising the question of whether the American homefront should sacrifice more in the war effort. Our interesting times are not like the wartime experiences of the “Greatest Generation” that Brokaw has long profiled – wherein the Victory gardens and the huge recycling efforts made WWII a unified struggle (and the one and only “good” war, putting aside whether we view the War Against Terrorism as a “good” war, one usually defined as clear Good v. clear Evil).

Law.com has an interesting article on lawyers who blog (usually on substantive stuff, of course), in “It’s a Blog World After All.”

Last night’s “Angel” was good and hilarious – due to a mystical mishap, Angel is turned into a… muppet? (puppet would have to be the correct term, since “Muppet” is a trademark, I suppose). It’s strangely funny to see a sword wielding vampire in fuzzy felt fabric form. Meanwhile, the sidekick Charles Gunn’s mystically-empowered brain is losing his mystically-gained (and arguably endowed by the powers of evil) legal skills and education. He (probably wrongfully) recharges himself with more (evil-influenced) mysticism to regain his competency as a (probably shouldn’t be practicing) lawyer. Hehehe. And, WB is cancelling this series? Ugh!

Perhaps “Star Trek: Enterprise” should wither away, so to let the Powers that Be behind the Star Trek universe recharge their creative juices? (considering that I’m of the few of my acquaintances who has managed to last this long – since most lost their interest due to the inconsistencies of “Star Trek: Voyager” – I’m amazed that I have finally weaned myself (sort of) off my Trekkiness. “Enterprise” is sort of like 12-step program for old Trekkies/Trekkers – not that I want to insult the current Powers behind Star Trek, but the current show just lacks a certain panache). So it goes. Can’t wait for Friday.

Today’s NY Times’ Quotation of the Day:

“If anybody tells you they wouldn’t be interested in being vice president, they’re not telling you the truth.”
– SENATOR JOHN BREAUX, Democrat of Louisiana.

Nice thought, Senator Breaux. Be sure to check out the fascinating corresponding article too.

See, there are reasons why I try to avoid on-line spoilers about tv shows. “Angel” may or may not have its last season (which WB almost sprang on people last season), with more emphasis on the more-likely-than-not. WB, like so many other networks, finds ways to frustrate me. Heck, just to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I ask, “Are they all trying to make me go to cable??”

CBS, as much as I’ve long wanted to avoid it (because I never did forgive it for cancelling a show I liked, and for being serious hypocrites with the whole Reagan movie and Super Bowl halftime nonsense), has done nicely with “Joan of Arcadia.” I enjoyed this article about this nice show.

Enjoy the rest of this V-Day night.

The day before V-Day…

Some ABA E-Journal referred articles that I thought were interesting:

– should the so-called professionals be exempt from consumer protection laws, because they’re self-regulated? NJ says yes, and sent the issue back to the legislature to say otherwise?

– “ABA Says States Should Decide Who Can Marry” – seems like the ABA is aware that the reality of federalism, as the Founding Fathers knew, is about balancing the states’ rights and the federal government’s roles: while the ABA has postponed deciding its actual position on gay marriage (not an easy issue), it clearly holds that states have jurisdiction over marriage. Plus, ABA is sure that states shouldn’t rough up immigrants, because that’s the feds’ job.

I thought the political scene currently is eerie; besides the whole What Did George W. Do During the 1970’s?/What’s John Kerry Doing in That Photo Behind Jane Fonda During his Anti-Vietname Phase? (and why can’t we leave both guys alone with what they did or didn’t do during the 1970’s?), the Wesley Clark quip to John Kerry was amusing. According to the NY Times today, Clark headed to Wisconsin to endorse Kerry and the remark:

“‘Request permission to come aboard, the Army’s here,’ a smiling General Clark said as he and Mr. Kerry appeared at a rally here, four days before the Wisconsin primary.

“Mr. Kerry, a Navy lieutenant during the Vietnam War, said, ‘This is the first time in my life I’ve ever had the privilege of saying ‘Welcome aboard’ to a four-star general.’”

Plus, the NY Times article closes with an amusing moment for other remaining Democratic party candidate John Edwards: “Mr. Edwards took questions from the crowd in Racine [WI], which included dozens of high school students, but his drive to reach voters was apparent. Before he began answering, he whispered to an aide, ‘Are they old enough to vote?’”

Yes, and that’s the way the world is…

I’m in the middle of reading a fascinating historical mystery (taking place in medieval England); I’ll probably blog about it later, when I’m done – but I think it’s funny that the author is a tax attorney in her other life. This other mystery series I’ve read (coincidentally also taking place in medieval Europe) is written by a Legal Aid attorney from Queens. Apparently, I’ve read somewhere that historical mysteries are particularly popular lawyer-novelists, for not only the historical context but also because they give the lawyer-authors (or mystery writers in general) a chance to write about eras before warrants and other items, which may or may not impede investigations. Leave it to lawyers to enjoy that.

NY’s Channel 11 (WPIX) news had an interesting story for its 2/12/04 broadcast – this corporate attorney who is taking a leave of absence from his firm and six-figure-salary to be a Lego Master Builder at Legoland in San Diego. His work is amazing (ex., a several thousand pieces Lego sculpture of Han Solo in carbonite, straight out of Star Wars Episode 5 or 6). It’s like a kid’s dream – and one man is doing it, figuring he’s young enough to do it (in his 30’s or so, it seems), and his girlfriend’s letting him do it, and he loves Legos (it surely doesn’t hurt that he doesn’t have a family to raise yet). The reporter asks soon-to-be-ex-corporate-lawyer what his plans were down the line, and the story closes with the reporter reporting that Lego guy hasn’t abandoned the law; Lego guy figures that maybe down the line he can go back to his firm with Lego as a client.

Talk about a rainmaking/networking opportunity; I don’t doubt that Lego would be an amazing client to have – with its global business probably making plenty of income or possible billable hours for transactional attorneys. (I grew up loving Legos like anyone else, so nice to see a lawyer trying to keep both his interests intact – but not like I’d make Legos my life).

Some interesting bits and pieces:

Sometimes, one wonders if cell phones are too prized, and if they are, what does that say about the person prizing the cell phone? Consider the recent news, wherein a teenager allegedly jumped into the subway tunnel to fetch a cell phone she had dropped, only to be subsequently crushed to death by an oncoming train. We seem to feel sorry for the family, but the reality is that perhaps people are getting too foolhardy? As the article noted, not too long ago, a man on the Metro North trains reached into the toilet for his cell phone, which accidentally fell in; and then his arm stuck, requiring the firefighters to bring in the jaws of life to get him out; and delaying Metro North for hours (people definitely loved that guy).

Nicholas D. Kristof has an interesting op-ed about improving education of the prospective workforce, highlighting the Asian example. He points out that the cheap, but well-educated workers of India; the Chinese population’s high GRE scores; etc. Innovations and higher standards in education in America may be due, but will Americans accept it? As much as I don’t want to wonder (since Kristof is knowledgeable of Asian issues, since he and his wife were the Times’ correspondents in Asia for awhile), sometimes such discussions about the Asian advances in educational standards make me feel squeemish, because they feel like a touch on the stereotype of Asians good at math and other academics.

Speaking of stereotypes, there’s the Alessandra Stanley review of the upcoming PBS documentary on the Medicis, Renaissance Italy’s rulers and promoters. She highlights that the documentary seems accurate, but makes odd references or descriptions, as if Lorenzo the Magnificent and the rest of the Medicis were comparable to the Sopranos. Apparently, the producers were aiming for a humorous style, not intending offense, but, again, I do wonder what stereotypes mean – Italians, after all, aren’t all mobsters and so not all powerful, political Italians aren’t “mafia” (I mean, these are the Medicis, the sponsors of artists and artisans and makers of popes; they made history, not to say that the mob don’t make history, but, come on – Renaissance Italy isn’t exactly comparable to prohibition era America with Al Capone et al; they didn’t even have an Eliot Ness or FBI). Not sure if I’ll end up watching the series, but it doesn’t sound too terrible.

Been listening to WCBS-fm on the radio, listening to the Beatles (well, intermittently; the real Beatles marathon’s not until tomorrow afternoon; otherwise, today, WCBS has been playing Beatles music every other song).

Good articles on history in today’s NY Times:

Winston Churchill’s love affair with America is getting exhibited at the Library of Congress. I especially liked that the article reflected on what has been my favorite nugget about Churchill – he’s half-American anyway, since his mother was Brooklyn’s own Jenny Jerome (one of those 19th century daughters of captains of industry sent to England to marry European aristocrats). Churchill’s a bigger-than-life figure who got out of the 19th century and helped made the 20th century political scenes.

Timely stuff for Black History Month – article on PBS’ documentary on Nat Turner, the slave rebellion leader of the ante-bellum period. I liked how the article captures the sense of how the study of history is often more about figuring out the perspectives we bring into studying different times and among different peoples, especially when dealing with a topic which has a paucity of information – no one knew who was Nat Turner was or how he looked like, but attached their own views about him. Certain scholars of certain periods would either see him as a proponent of revolution; others question his motives; and so on. How they viewed Nat Turner said a lot about what kind of people these historians were and how they fit their own times and places (the study of history of historians – historiography – is almost head-twisting). The Times article quoted the historian Scot French saying, “Your version of history can give us some insights into how you see yourself” – which sums it up best.

I haven’t blogged about a book in awhile, but there is something out there called the “50 Book challenge” – the goal: to read 50 books in 2004 and blog about them and earn the personal sense of goodwill and achievement (it would especially make you feel like you’re more than a couch potato and let’s you pat yourself on the back for still reading anything after putting up with law school and reading like a maniac during bar review). Any genre, so long as it’s a book (i.e., anthologies appear to be ok, since they’re short stories in a book collection). Hmm. My blogging about the genome book won’t count; I had actually started reading it in 2003 (and had owned it since 2001).

I just finished reading the usual cheesey paperback romance novel, and probably shouldn’t blog about it, so whatever comment I make shouldn’t count as “blogging about it” (yeah, you can tell that I’m a lawyer when I’m making up terms and conditions) (and, anyway, about the book – it was so cheesey, I can’t even recommend it, so I’m not giving the title and author away; the male character – a nice doctor – was nicely well-rounded but the female character – a woman scarred by her prior marriage to an adulterous doctor – was ridiculously stubborn to the point of losing credibility on me – and yes, the best romance novels have shreds of credibility – and there was a tiny political/philosophical element that I didn’t agree with and I spent more time flipping pages than actually reading each page. Hmm).

I’ll give Extra Credit to someone who blogs about a book with Asian-American relevance, of whatever genre (the book to be blogged need not be one of those serious socio-political tomes about the Asian-American condition; ex., there’s this fun-looking chick-lit read about an ABC female dealing with turn of the 21st century love in San Francisco; I forgot the title right now, but I read the first chapter in Borders; half tempted to put down the cash for it, since I doubt it’d be in the libraries for awhile; and I’ve found it’d be nice to see Asian-American women write something other than the Amy Tan heavy literary weight kind. Not that I don’t like Amy Tan, since I really liked “The Joy Luck Club” in its book and movie forms – but I just like a wide range of different writings).

Enough of my rambling (and let me apologize for it today). More Fab 4, More Fab 4. Can’t get enough of the Beatles.

Wow, the Beatles on the local news tonight, since we’re all celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Beatles’ arrival to America and being on the Ed Sullivan show, 40 years this weekend. I liked Channel 11 (WPIX)’s reflection, wherein the female reporters teased how they enjoyed Paul McCartney as little girls. The veteran Channel 11 reporter Marvin Scott yakked about how he was at JFK airport (Idlewild airport back then) to greet the Beatles. Ah, those innocent times – or, rather, the times when America was in recovery from losing the president and before the world became ever more cynical. Or, when a certain generation became inspired by something really fun. Take your pick on which way to view this era.

NY Times’ review of the Beatles was a nice read. I also liked the Slate.com’s analysis. Made one feel very positive that the Beatles came along. CNN’s take is pretty good too. Oh, heck, anything on the Beatles isn’t bad (the Beatles are well before my time, but it’s a little obvious that I like them like anyone else likes them).

And, where’s my Entertainment Weekly? I need my Entertainment Weekly fix! (EW has its own reflection on the Beatles that I shall have to look at).

Slate.com’s Michael Kinsley had an interesting take on the Democratic primaries. I don’t disagree with him; I’m rather amazed myself that my enthusiasm seems waning as it seems like a runaway campaign season – where’s the debating? Are we only going to get it from NH and Iowa now that the field’s all but wedded out? Everything seems so finite. Of course, “seems” is the operative word – anything can happen between now and November.

I should really quit the insomnia. Really…