Author: ssw15

I’m still on-line? I must find something decently productive to do soon.

I’ve found out about these while checking websites – looked odd/amusing:
– “Which Star Trek captain are you?”

– “Which Lord of the Rings character… are you?”

More Mars stuff, on the NASA official website. The Martian terrain is eerie.

This week’s Entertainment Weekly – silly Jessica Simpson and no-less-silly Nick Lachey on the cover. At what point do we stop referring to them as mere newlyweds? They’ve been married to each other for awhile now (most certainly a lifetime long in comparison to Britney Spears’ quickie marriage). Inside the magazine – great article on Sean Astin, the actor who played Sam on “Lord of the Rings” – a balance of humor and information (I forgot that he played “Rudy”). Astin should really get nominated for an Oscar for his work as Sam.

In NYC: The newsradio awakens me on a Saturday morning to say that it’s 3 degrees Farhenheit, with a windchill (or, as 1010 WINS news says, “Real Feel”) of minus 30 degrees (!!!). What the heck kind of winter is this? It has also been distressing reading in the newspaper about people in the city with apartment buildings with no heat or hot water – one building’s indoor temperature was 46 degrees. That is unquestionably inhumane, under these conditions.

Tonight is football or figure skating on tv. Take your pick (or poison). Not like the teams I like are on, so I’d go with figure skating myself. But, the weather here is perfect for those Green Bay folks – go Green Bay! (Brett Favre has been downright inspirational lately, even if he personally may not feel very inspired due to his dad’s passing away) (and, yeah, well, leave me alone about the Giants and Jets; my siblings and I have been snickering about Coughlin’s inaugural speech as the Giants’ new head coach – is it a requirement to be an amusing talking head to lead NY teams? At any rate, the real team to be moaning about in NY right now is the Knicks…)

Speaking of the Knicks, MSG folks have given broadcasting rights to NYC’s local Cantonese radio station (home games only). Interesting to hear a baseketball game in Cantonese. Yao Ming may or may not have been a big draw for MSG; seeing Jeff Van Gundy and Patrick Ewing on the Dallas side _with Yao Ming_ – now that was stunning. The Knicks falling down like that against them – even with the returning Brooklyn ex-high school star Stephon Marbury – well, one is going to have to run out of words about that.

A new episode of “Joan of Arcadia”!

Some people get way too personal with their blogs, according to “My So-Called Blog” in the NY Times Magazine this weekend. Teenagers blogging treat their blogs like diaries, airing out everything (their angst, their secret crushes, etc. – as if anyone cares? Or, maybe that’s the point – they get some “privacy”). So, they know their thoughts get out into the public, but still essentially believe that their thoughts are “private.” Is that appropriate? Are the 21st century’s teenagers assuming too much about their privacy when they blog, because they somehow can draw the line between the virtual world and the real world? Good for them, but is it good for the rest of us? I guess that’s the blog culture for you, but this is what makes me glad that Triscribe isn’t really like that.

Some people also take the candidates’ wardrobe way too seriously. Apparently, the media has been noticing that Wesley Clark has taken to wearing sweaters instead of his suits. Tonight, even the Lehrer Newshour commentators (Mark Shields and David Brooks) referred to Clark’s sweater as his “Mr. Rogers” look. Brooks’ take on it is that Clark’s going to get the “King Friday” endorsement. I’m, like, “huh?” I know it was PBS and all, but it was a bit much on the wit on Brooks’ part. Personally, I think Clark looked better in his suits, since he would look sharper and more presidential. Or, really, why don’t we just stick with looking at the candidates’ policies and positions rather than their clothes?

Plus, today’s NY Times also has this analysis that Clark is trying to portray himself in a “softer” way with his sweaters, to win over women voters. As a woman, I find that borderline offensive – are we women perceived as so lacking in thinking capability such that we need commercials to explain to us that the General supports women? Is it just because women are allegedly “put off by the military persona” – that arena dominated by men? (an aside: umm, well, you know, women serve(d) in Clark’s army; surely I’m not the only woman who knows that!).

Nonetheless, according the Times’ article, apparently the voters in New Hampshire need a commercial with an African-American female major (retired) who served under Clark to tell them that Clark supports women _and_ minorities – the double bind thing that particularly affects women of color: shameless pandering, I daresay! I’m not sure if the media (or the Clark/Democratic campaign) really thinks or portrays the public is that unsophisticated, or if the public really is that dim about Clark, women, and voting generally. However, maybe this should be an opportunity to educate the public that has a disconnection from what the military is: women and minorities are very much a part of today’s military – something that isn’t just a white male bastion – which Clark probably already knew. Food for thought, I guess.

On Jan. 4, 2003, Sunday, Channel 13 (PBS, WNET) showed Episode One of “DNA” , what looks like a fascinating 5-part documentary on not just DNA but the scientists behind DNA. Episode One, “The Secret of Life” is an appropriate beginning – the discovery of DNA as the genetic structure.

Actor Jeff Goldblum as the narrator was good (he has an appropriate voice for science documentaries, although there was a documentary on dinosaurs where his pronunciation of “dinosaurs” was grating on the ears). The story was well-told as it unfolded, with the cast of odd characters: James Watson, the sort-of winsome American who clearly enjoys his part in a great discovery and re-telling it so many times; Francis Crick, the Englishman currently in California as a relative recluse – such that the documentarian could not even reach him – and no longer in the gene business; plus Maurice Wilkins, the self-effacing Englishman, who clashed with Rosalind Franklin – the sole woman in the effort and of whom the men were scared (was it her own sharp personality that caused the tensions, or were the men being – well – silly men for alienating her, or both?). Regrettably, Franklin died prematurely, and the Nobel Prize people couldn’t honor her because they don’t give post-humous awards. Humph.

There was a good portrayal of how Watson and Crick made the unlikeliest pair to discover DNA, since they spent much of their theorizing time in a pub and because they easily could be seen as picking off the hard work of Wilkins and Franklin. Plus, there were the memories of Linus Pauling, the Nobel Prize American scientist who fell short of figuring out the double helix of DNA (his son’s reflection of the times was amusing – a scientist himself, Peter Pauling, hung out with Watson and Crick back in the day and talked about how his “Pa” got the wrong structure without the right research, a development that relieved Watson. It was really heart-warming how a Nobel laureate is still “Pa” to a man in his 70’s).

These aren’t just geeky scientists – they were ultimately human with human failings and attitudes. Episode 1 also had incredibly stunning computer graphics portraying DNA in operation (i.e., how DNA is the software for the proteins that become hair, claws, etc). We don’t need the old chemistry set tinker toys anymore to imagine DNA; the description of DNA as a component of the “factory” of life becomes amazingly real with these graphics.

If Episode 1 is any indication, I think I’ll try to catch Episode 2, which will look into genetic engineering, next Sunday. I like a nicely done science documentary that’s not boring.

Coincidentally, I’m in the middle of reading “Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters,” by Matt Ridley (Hardcover 2000; Paperback 1999). I like the (short) chapters and writing style so far (witty and informative). Good science writing is good reading when it’s short, descriptive and animated (like the good articles in the Science Times section of the NY Times). Slight quibble – Ridley’s book was originally published in the UK, and Ridley’s British and had worked as science editor in the U.S., so there’s a very British tone with lots of U.S. references and a mostly American context. I sort of wonder who’s the target audience – the Americans who don’t quite understand the British or the British who don’t quite understand Americans? – but it’s such a minor quibble compared to the strong read so far (the headline on the top of the book: “National Bestseller/Editor’s Choice, New York Times Book Review,” just to remind you that it’s a good book).

It’s 8:35pm and here it is: “I’m Donald Trump and I’m looking for… ‘The Apprentice’!” Oh, why am I watching this? Apparently, I have given in to the reviews about this show. Trump’s turning out to be more scarier (in a camp way) than I thought. Maybe I should channel-change right now, while the remote control is in my reach.

Slate.com’s latest television commentary regarding FOX’s “Arrested Development” more or less captures what I’ve liked about the series so far.

Slate.com also has the latest Bushism: this week, George W. Bush said, “So thank you for reminding me about the importance of being a good mom and a great volunteer as well.” A good Bushism is one where the president makes a good point, but still leaves you wondering, “What?”

WB had a preview of next week’s “Angel” – yea for new episodes! Angel and Spike will vie to see who is the vampire with a soul with a destiny. And, maybe, is it the return of the missing Cordelia?

Last night’s “The Guardian” on CBS was an example of “when a (morally) bad lawyer continues his path of insanity…,” wherein Nick, played by the ever handsome Aussie Simon Baker, is confronted/and confessed about his recent infidelity and return to drinking. Are we supposed to think that this time, he seems to take responsibility for his actions? (While he claims he could not explain his bad conduct, we know why he’s fallen off track – he’s devastated about his wedding proposal being rejected but won’t admit to feeling hurt except through drinking and carousing. He’s admitted this angst to his girlfriend, but was she listening? Hmm.) Dabney Coleman as Burt, Nick’s senior partner dad, finally yells at Nick for his idiocy (glad someone did). Next week will be interesting – will Nick finally take his path of redemption seriously? (likely not; the writers of this series keeps knocking him down again and again; at least he keeps trying). As a lawyer, he still finds ways that makes a disciplinary committee want to shake him (his bribing a guy to be a foster parent to an orphaned child, while something with good intentions, can’t be that great an idea).

Anderson Cooper’s end-of-the-news commentary (if linking, just scroll all the way down) – very humorous. Apparently, some guy in Wisconsin is planning to sue his cable company for making him and his family addicted to tv (cable tv in particular). Cooper says:

“That’s right. Hooked on the box. Wired on tube. Hopped up on sweet lady tea.

“How can this happen, you ask? It’s simple. He says he tried to kick the habit but his supplier kept it coming for free. That’s how it works. First it’s free. Before you know it you’re popping NBCs and ABCs until you pass out… in a pile of Cheetos crumbs.

“I know. Believe me, I’ve been there. After a while, broadcast channels, they just don’t cut it. Now you need the hard stuff. You start paying for it. Through the nose. You want that spike, your daily FX, E, TNT, whatever you want to call it. Soon, you’d sell your own mama, your whole Nielsen family just for a single hit of pay-per-view. Then you crash. If you’re lucky, it kills you outright. You got to go cold turkey. And I don’t mean the Food Channel, baby.

“Sure, you’ll get the DTVs. You’ll get them bad. Feels like bugs all over you. And even when you’re clean, still be a junkie for the rest of your life. How do I know? I’m Anderson Cooper. And I’m not just a cable new pusher, I’m also a TVaholic. That wraps up our program tonight….”

Hilarious. This almost makes me want to get cable just to watch Cooper. Almost. “The Mole” isn’t any fun without him, but he must be glad to have left that show a long time ago.

That’s it for now.

NY Mets star, Tug McGraw, passed away; his “You Gotta Believe” lives on.

Congratulations to Dennis Eckersley and Paul Molitor for entering the Baseball Hall of Fame. Of course, what this really means is that one is getting old(er) when the baseball players one saw as a kid are now in the Hall of Fame. At least, that was how I felt when Gary Carter got admitted in the Hall of Fame last year.

What is Pete Rose doing by confessing? Is it sincere? Is it enough? Is it a way to get back in baseball, shamelessly? Or is there more to it to be redeemed? Hmm.

NASA’s Mars venture is exciting stuff; funny how the pictures of Mars so far makes it look a lot like… Earth?

I was actually watching a little bit of “Seventh Heaven” on WB (Channel 11) – the show with the parents with seven plus kids. Don’t know why I was watching – the show has its moments, I guess; I’ve followed the plotlines via the commercials over the years. For some reason, I was channel changing and lacked energy to channel-change some more and at least followed the interesting storyline concerning the eldest child, medical student son Matt Camden (played by Barry Watson). Matt’s really stressed out, ready to drop out of medical school and petrified of losing his young bride, a fellow medical student. Instead of turning to his parents for help, he confides in his father-in-law, the Rabbi played by Richard Lewis, who eventually persuades him to (what else?) talk to his parents. Gotta give these two actors credit – they’re very convincing in their respective roles.

Minor tv trivia: The patriarch of the Camdens, Rev. Camden, is played by Stephen Collins, who played Capt. Will Decker in “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”; Mrs. Camden is played by Catherine Hicks, who played Dr. Gillian Taylor (aka Capt. Kirk’s 20th Century love interest) in “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.” It’s a much too… odd a piece of trivia to know, and it may very well explain why I can’t never really get myself to watch “Seventh Heaven” even for guilty pleasure viewing. I would keep expecting Kirk to overshadow Decker and, of course, Kirk would steal the girl… oh, wait, sorry, wrong series.

Totally off-topic links to refer: consider Slate.com’s fascinating take on Mrs. Bush’s sort odd “perspective” on her husband’s “poetry”… And, then there are the Slate.com articles on “World Idol” – (I still can’t believe I actually watched both Parts 1 and 2 on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day (with the results of the votes on all these different idols)). I think there is a consensus that Kurt, the Norwegian Idol, does have a nice voice. He sang “Beautiful Day” almost better than Bono of U2. He had good enthusiasm.

Watch out for the stars in space or the spaced-out stars.

I went museum-hopping today, even though I should have stayed home and properly recovered from New Year’s (especially in light of my minor complaining of having worked on the day after New Year’s – especially when it was a Friday). Nonetheless, consider the following:

American Museum of Natural History has a fascinating exhibit on “Petra: Lost City of Stone”. Petra is most recognizable as the weird city in the stone that Indiana Jones and his dad went to get the Holy Grail in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.” Petra is real, not a George Lucas-made-up-facade, having once been a trade center in ancient Jordan. It was such a trade center of far reaches that even literature of China during the BCE era may have referred to Petra. It’s still open until July.

Meanwhile, my siblings and I managed to catch the El Greco exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, before it closes on Jan. 11, 2004. Incredible stuff – El Greco is the 16th-century painter named Domenikos Theotokopoulos – but will forever be “El Greco” because he was the Greek painter in the royal courts of Spain. His exaggerated, intensely psychological style made him seem ahead of his times, and inspired Picasso and others. I admired El Greco’s colors; the intense colors are not exactly traditionally synonymous with “Renaissance” – which made the art work even more remarkable.

The crowds were heavy – probably the one complaint I had about museum-hopping. NYC tourism is evidentally back in business, at least with popular exhibits. Popular exhibits open for a limited time are always sure to get crowds, but meanwhile, the permanent exhibits don’t attract the same numbers at all, considering how the Asian art galleries of the Met were otherwise empty. I had chills walking through the Central Asian stuff – Buddhist statues from Afghanistan were haunting reminders of the Buddha statues that the Taliban destroyed a few years ago.

NFL playoffs – stuff to make my other brother stay home and watch tv. Otherwise, bring on the new stuff on tv; I can’t take that much longer with the reruns.

Consider the New Year’s Day edition of the comic strip “Non Sequitor”. It’s such a post 9/11 type of New Year’s comic with its “theme” on the year’s “Top 10 news stories” (“I didn’t die, I didn’t lose my job, and maybe I’ve earned some money.”).

Dick Clark and the Times Square ball – umm, did that ball come down a little fast or was it just me?

NY Times’ food critic William Grimes turns in his last review on 12/31/03. There’s also a fascinating Interactive Feature “A Grimes Retrospective,” where Grimes is unmasked (literally, he is; his one-time appearance on a PBS show in NYC, his face had to be blurred so that the restaurants wouldn’t recognize him).

January 1, 2004: NY Times article about an art exhibit in Paris about the historical Confucius.

There are other interesting 1/1/04 articles, which I’ll read later, once I feel like I’ve made a better recovery of the whole New Year’s eve thing. Enjoy the bowl games in the meantime. It’s not like I know who to root for. I just don’t see the bowls as nearly as fun as NCAA basketball, for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons include: (a) I don’t really appreciate seeing all these corporate names attached to the bowls’ names (Capital One Bowl; Fed Ex Orange Bowl; Tostitos Fiesta Bowl; like I’ll use the services/products of these corporate sponsors because I watched the bowl game). (b) And, I get such a sadistic kick out of watching my March Madness brackets be completely wrong, which the bowl’s don’t provide. ( c ) Plus, it’s not like my alma mater and its league are great in football either, such that I don’t have a reason to follow college football (but at least Alma Mater had a better record than last season, at least).

But, watching the bowls is a New Year’s tradition to enjoy. Cheers!