Author: ssw15

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…

Last night’s “Angel” – 100th episode – wow. I say “Wow” because of the ending. (spoiler alert; wait for it; skip if you don’t want to be spoiled; then again, I won’t give away everything…) – Lindsey the ex-Wolfram & Hart lawyer steps up on his revenge against Angel (not just on Team Angel). Basically, it’s total recall time – if one doesn’t remember the first season, we get all kinds of reminders – Lindsey’s recollection of his first meeting of Angel (not a good memory for either man); a hint of Doyle, Angel’s late sidekick, who was sorely missed, psychic, half-demon/half-human, and all-Irish (more than Angel ever was, since his accent thoroughly disappeared during his 200 year lifetime); and, more importantly, the return of Cordelia, the girl sidekick who joined Angel from “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and spent the past year in a coma (on the show, that is). (Wesley, the other carry-over from “Buffy” didn’t come in until season 2 and even Spike and Harmony are late-comers).

The storytelling was quite compelling – as it seems as if Angel has finally regained the sense of self, thanks to Cordelia (Lindsey always brings out the most compelling feelings out of Angel). Spike realizes that Lindsey has strung him all along – but, does this mean anything less about Spike’s mission to do good and be good? (Spike has to be good on his own – intrinsic good, for goodness’s sake! – after all, he can’t just be good because he wants to attract some girl or continue his rivalry with Angel – i.e., due to outside forces). It was also nice to see Cordelia recall her own journey – from being shallow California girl to a woman determined to make good win. And, then came the surprising end. Wow.

Quibbles – really, answers are not fulfilled. Angel is still heading Wolfram & Hart, and both the forces of good and evil are after him and the team (the good are after Team Angel because Team Angel’s working for the evil firm, and the evil are after the team because they are/were good; there’s no end to the confusion for Team Angel, but no one but Angel and Spike get it? Wesley seems close to realizing and being disturbed by the dilemma of working in the gray area). There were moments I would have liked more of – the rest of the team ought to realize what Angel’s feeling; I would have liked to see if they’re feeling the dilemma too – that the ambiguity they’re in isn’t pleasant stuff. I mean, come on – why don’t Gunn, Fred and Lorne realizing that working for Wolfram & Hart is going to suck them in before they start changing the world, as they claim they’re doing? Wesley’s so close to feeling it, short of expressing it. Worse, the rest of Team Angel still have amnesia about what had happened the past two seasons, relating to Angel’s son Connor – but at least Cordelia called Angel on the decision of wiping everyone’s memories about the past two seasons. I would have also liked to have had more Cordelia moments with the rest of the gang – but, for whatever reason (in real-life or in terms of the storyline), she was available for only the one episode.

Next week – Angel and Spike recall their World War II days, when Spike was still evil (and apparently working for the Nazis – odd, since he’s so British, but not so odd because he was evil) and when Angel was really struggling to atone for all his sins (by apparently working for the Americans). The teaser preview looked good (although it looked eerily like a commercial for “Pearl Harbor,” a movie I so definitely have not and probably won’t be seeing, since it didn’t seem that good; unless, someone tells me otherwise?).

Can’t believe I watched yet another episode of “The Apprentice” – there’s something eerie that made it compelling to actually watch it, even though I don’t like the show. Producer Mark Burnett (the same guy who brought us “Survivor”) is very good about editing his series so that there’s suspense.

Finally, an “ER” episode that didn’t end in complete misery. Hmm.

Tomorrow – the end of NBC’s “Ed”? Well, it was a nice series; catch it, especially if you’ve been enjoying it the last four years and would like the end. What is it with NBC letting decent shows go but keeping the not-so quality stuff?