Author: ssw15

Ah, back to work? Geez. I don’t even want to think about what’s on my desk for tomorrow.

Yesterday, I saw “King Arthur.” Not spectacular, as the professional critics already observed, but I enjoyed it. My apologies to the male audience of the blog, who may very well think the world of the actress Kiera Knightley, but I couldn’t stop myself from admiring the men of this movie, a handsome bunch if I may say so. 😉 Otherwise, it was one of those movies where the military/male-bonding was pretty predictable (but always moving) stuff. “Lord of the Rings” more or less changed the way anyone thinks of the Big Battle Scene, but “King Arthur” was ok. Go for the matinee or else the DVD with the missing scenes which may have made this one a bit better.

Inspiring story on NY1, where they profile a president of a NYC Harlem hospital; a person of color in the medical profession who is committed to providing quality medical care to the community. Despite discrimination and personal sacrifices, Dr. Samuel Daniel sounded optimistic and dedicated about transforming the practice of medicine and a community.

Interesting article in the NY Times about the Republican Party’s social conservatives feeling slighted about seeing so many social liberal Republicans getting air time at the upcoming convention. One wonders: what does it mean to be “Republican”? Do we naturally equate “Republican” with “conservative”? It’s not like it’s the “Conservative” party (with a capital “C” like in Canada and Britain); surely one could be Republican without being conservative (sort of like it’s ok to be Democrat and not be liberal?). A quote from the article: “Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said: ‘The Republican Party is a national party, and the convention lineup will reflect the broad national appeal of the Republican Party. When the speaker lineup is complete, it will reflect that.’” – it makes me wonder what it means to be a “national” party – does it mean being tolerant and expansive or being more focused (being “conservative”)?

Yesterday, the newsmedia highlighted the 200th anniversary of the Alexander Hamilton-Aaron Burr duel, which occurred out in Weehawken. I may highlight some of the NY Times articles once I get a chance to fully review them, but I think they’ve all been interesting stuff. Little known fact: I may know much more than I should about the Hamilton-Burr duel since I did research on it in college. (considering my Alma Mater, perhaps it was unavoidable that I got into it). I also liked this query about whether Hamilton could have been a precursor to modern Republicans. I’d posit no, since he was strong on making a strong executive (regardless of party designation? – not sure on that actually) and less on states’ power (he was not quite the “federalist” of today’s stripe); and his background is probably less-than-palatable for the social conservatives’ taste. But, Hamilton liked living well and making money; was a social climber; and did lip service for family values. So, it’s debatable as to which modern party he would have been. He could easily be neither. (the same could be said about Thomas Jefferson, a Hamilton opponent who pretty much backed away from Burr, his vice president, after that duel debacle).

The lesson from the duel, I’d say, is one should be very careful about how one defines “manhood” and “honor.” Burr wanted to defend his honor and, rather than just sue Hamilton for slander and defamation and other lovely, non-lethal, litigation at common law, he went for other means. Hamilton, despite having lost a son to a duel the previous year of 1803, was not necessarily better at avoiding the costs of defending or responding to a challenge. So it goes in a day in American history in 1804. Drop by the Trinity Church cemetary in downtown Manhattan, and salute the Hamilton tombstone.

Spent part of last night and this morning on an update to my so-called website, which is still neither flashy nor sophisticated.

Since PBS’ Nova (in NYC anyway) is showing “Elegant Universe” again this week and next, I thought it was timely that Slate.com had this interesting assessment of the physicist Brian Greene. The writer Amanda Schaffer articulates what I thought was valid criticism of how Greene does his whole let’s-pretty-up-science thing (his intentions – to make science palatable for non-scientists – are good; but it’s understable that Greene’s critics want evidence to back up the theories).

I like reading for pleasure; I like that in NYC, you can step into a subway car and see everyone reading something (Bible; newspaper; every possible form of literature, good or bad). But, do people outside NYC do that? According to this NY Times’ op-ed, “The Closing of the American Book,” less Americans are reading for pleasure and the argument is that this affects American culture or hurts America as a culture with an open mind, and American brains will get lethargic. Hmm…

This NY Times travel article about the new Trans-Russia highway is interesting. Imagine driving the longest highway in the world, and then (a) realize that it’s not entirely paved yet; (b) there are no hotels or restaurants or other amenities (the author notes: “And don’t expect to find gas stations, restaurants and roadside motels in Siberia. Drivers pack food and gasoline, and keep their tire irons handy for unwanted night visitors.” talk about roughing it.); and ( c ) it takes 25 days to go cross country (when taking the Trans-Siberian railroad will get you a week).

So it goes.

“Why does Saturn have rings? – And how come Earth has none?” – Slate.com Explainer explains…

The passing of Jeff Smith, a.k.a. The Frugal Gourmet.

According to the NY Times, apparently, there is more green stuff (of the tree-like variety, rather than the toxic) in downtown Manhattan; more parks are good for you, you know. (of course, my understanding is that Bowling Green also has wireless internet connection, but it’s not like I’ve been able to try that there).

Finished Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone last night. Scholastic, the publisher, annoyingly made obvious edits to slightly Americanize what is supposed to be British, so far as I can tell… well, yeah, I read/watch too many British stuff such that I’d notice the changes, but still, I ask why tamper with that? It’s not like American kids can’t figure out the context of the British terminology or wouldn’t still enjoy the work. And, I cannot accept that J.K. Rowling really originally had her British characters calling their mothers “Mom” or soccer “soccer.” Otherwise, nice read. Went fast (of course, I’ve already saw the first movie, so maybe that’s why it went fast as a read). Let’s if I can get through all five books in the series by the end of the summer (not bloody likely, as there mucho other books to read, but we’ll see).

Enjoy the weekend.

It doesn’t feel like a shortened work week, and I’m apparently not the only one who noticed that feeling at work.

Do we really need another Police Academy movie? Apparently, it’s coming anyway, in a theater near you…

The cast of “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” are making the rounds this week on the tv talk shows to promote their movie. I particularly enjoyed seeing Will Ferrell on Charlie Rose last night; when Ferrell reminisced about the local anchormen of his childhood of the 1970’s , the thought struck me: have local anchormen really changed all that much since then? Are they just great targets or what? See, in NYC, the local news stations are becoming really diverse; there are (reality check time) still vastly more female Asian-American television reporters/anchors than male Asian Americans (at last check, two, I believe), and I’m rather curious that each station has a female African-American anchorperson (usually carefully balanced by a white male anchor). There’s also sometimes even the reverse; i.e., the white female anchor with the male African-American anchor. So, Balance is a Big Deal (pardon my sounding quaint, but I like that the news channels are trying to be diverse). Some time ago, when Channel 4 had the instance of an all male set (meteorologist, two anchors, and the sports guy (usually guy, no matter the race)), it got in the newspapers as something not seen in some 20 years.

Yet, despite the passing of local favorite male anchors (by way of mortality or retirement), you have the following:

–> Channel 2 (WCBS) promoting Ernie Anastos (although, Channel 2 is also heavily promoting the new hire of Roz Abrams, the long popular female African-American anchor who’s of a certain age – so, at least congratulate Channel 2 for not going entirely young on its anchors, despite letting go of the old favorite sports anchor Warner Wolf);

–> Channel 7 (WABC) promoting Bill Ritter (“Say hi to Bill when you see him hard at work!” – what a lame commercial, frankly – so not 21st century; and for the curious, he’s the white male paired at the desk with Liz Cho, who is bi-racial);

–> Channel 4 (WNBC), with the celebrated veteran Chuck Scarborough (white male anchor paired with Sue Simmons, an African-American female veteran – the two have been together on the same channel and timeslot for less than two decades).

Anyway, if you listen hard, the sonorous, deep baritone voices of the men (to best convey trust and confidence and all that) aren’t that much different than what Will Ferrell is satirizing. Of course, there may be one or two anchormen who find ways to express their (more than likely; hopefully?) interesting personalities (Jim Watkins on Channel 11 has the requisite Sonorous Deep Baritone, but his sarcasm has its moments). On the other hand, while it’s amusing to make fun of the local anchors, they’re nice to look forward to watching. I mean, it’s no coincidence that last year, when the Daily News made a poll, NY’ers said that they loved Chuck and Sue the best (it doesn’t hurt that those two have been on so long that it’s like watching an old married couple and they’re amusing for their quirkiness (usually Sue) or otherwise (Chuck and that way serious voice of his)). (Pardon me; I’m still a sucker for the local news personalities and making good-natured yet sarcastic fun at them, so the clips of “Anchorman” are just so hilarious to me – rival anchormen having fights with each other straight out of “West Side Story”? Hehehe).

Ooh – the first day of the John-and-John show (a.k.a., the Kerry-Edwards campaign). Loved how this Slate.com entry on the first day makes it easy to satirize the Democratic candidates. I’m still trying to accept how this will work, of course, but at least things are really cooking now in the political landscape. Time magazine’s portrayal of the young Kerry life was deep and sad and interesting. Nice read.

Ok, so Friday is tomorrow. All right already…

Anyway, so it has been back to work. Let’s see what’s in the newspaper…

Ever noticed the Asian musicians in the subway platform who play “The Godfather” theme? Ever guessed at their back stories? “Asian Music, Accompanied by the A Train” in the NY Times profiles a few; fascinating article about a group of immigrants who were accustomed to the grand halls and now trying to make a living underground amidst a time when the reverence for traditional music isn’t nearly what it used to be.

According to Michael Luo of thee NY Times in “Got the Time? At Grand Central, It Has Never Been That Simple,” Grand Central terminal has way too many clocks – and they’re not very consistent. But, soon, they will be. Maybe. At least, Metropolitan Transit Authority’s game plan.

And, so it’s a Kerry-Edwards campaign ticket. William Saletan of Slate.com makes a nice analysis for why Senator John Edwards is such a “wise” choice. Good read.

Looking forward to the shortened work week…

Some observations. Pardon the lengthiness.

Let’s Go Mets! Wow, a sweep of the Yankees this weekend. Crazy stuff – neither would quit. Go Mets…

Catching up on the NY Times reading:

Linda Greenhouse of the NY Times does a year-end round-up of the Supreme Court. She observes what I saw Dahlia Lithwick and Walter Dellinger in Slate.com observes: is it really a matter of the pragmatic justices vs. the doctrinal justices? Hmm. And, I’m not sure what to make of her observation that Chief Justice Rehnquist is no longer the center of influence (or less of an influence). Oh, then there’s Prof. Cass Sunstein’s view that by saying less, the Supreme Court is sort of doing more (“In controversial cases, some judges are minimalists. They say no more than necessary. When they are asked to resolve the largest issues of the day, they try to do so as narrowly as possible,” says Sunstein). Interesting.

Interesting article in the NY Times, “Asian-American Trendsetting on a Shoestring,” about two Los Angeles guys, Martin Wong and Eric Nakamura, and their ‘zine “Giant Robot.” NY Times’ writer Randy Kennedy notes:

Mr. Nakamura’s self-image in publishing, and even as a Japanese-American, has always been that of an outsider. His Japanese is not good. Mr. Wong, whose grandparents were born in China, speaks no Mandarin or Cantonese. They met while writing about punk bands for various zines, and when they started their own — named after a 1960’s Japanese television series about a boy who controls a giant robot with his wristwatch — they were seeking to please nobody but themselves.

They wrote about Hong Kong movies and celebrities like Chow Yun-Fat, John Woo and Jet Li years before they became popular in the United States, but they once declined an offer to interview Jackie Chan because he had become too mainstream. And they often angered Asian-American promoters who saw them as allies.

“Usually it was these really terrible P.R. companies saying, ‘If you really cared about Asians, you’d write about this Asian actress,’” Mr. Wong explained. “But we’re just not interested in mediocre Asian actors in mainstream movies.”

Mr. Nakamura described the magazine as “the punk-rock kids in the corner who didn’t get invited to the parties,” but more often it has seemed that the magazine is the one not inviting people to its party.

With their reflexive self-deprecation and finely tuned cultural antennas, both men are aware of the danger that the underground culture they write about is becoming more mainstream, in part because of their efforts. And they are wary of their own success: of being seen, God forbid, as somehow grown-up and too serious.

The audience may not necessarily be Asian or Asian-American; ultimately, it’s all about what’s cool or what’s not or whatever:

With a decade under their belts, he and Mr. Nakamura say they have not come across any formula for putting out a good magazine. Mr. Nakamura once explained their editorial process to an interviewer this way: They agree on what’s bad (he used a more colorful description) and leave that out, and they agree on what’s good and leave that in.

“That’s still pretty much it,” Mr. Wong said, adding that besides health insurance and a salary, he feels fortunate to have a job that serves as the perfect cover for his obsessions.

“It turns me from being a fan boy into being a journalist,” he said. “If it weren’t for this, I’d be a stalker. Or a creep. Or something.”

Okay. Good to know that there are outlets out there to help people from doing strange things and toward something productive. Sort of.

Brooklyn in the house: this NY Times notices that on the Fulton Mall (mall in the dictionary sense, that is, a space where one walks (not the post-WWII sense of an indoor place to buy stuff), there are amazing pieces of historical architecture – just look up and see the ornate cornices, atop of the beauty salons, delis, and so forth:

[L]ooming above, preservationists say, are the reminders of the area’s 19th- and 20th-century grandeur, brick and stone relics of a thriving shopping and theatrical district serving Brooklyn and Long Island.

“You have to look up, particularly here, it’s so dramatic,” Robert B. Tierney, chairman of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, said on a recent afternoon, pointing toward the Flemish-inspired gables, decorated in vibrant, multihued glazed terra cotta, atop a building on Livingston Street with a hair salon below.

Glad I’m not the only one who has noticed the beauty in the urban setting. Now, let me go back to enjoying the day off…

The month begins on an odd note. Saw the Mets v. Yankees game at Shea Friday night, game 1 of another 3. Mets win, 11 to 2. Would have had a lot more fun of it tonight had the rabid Yankee fans (apparently a known rowdy contingent from Yankee Stadium) made way too much raucous and tawdry vulgar chanting, inspiring some retaliating Mets fans to get equally stupid in their (not very creative or clever) chanting. I like a good baseball game, but despise stupidity. Seriously, Rabid Yankee Fan, is using the Dick Cheney expletive to describe the Mets any good, particularly when there are children sitting right behind you? (and if you really want to know what a “Dick Cheney expletive” is, feel free to ask; I can’t even take credit for it, Joe Klein of Time magazine came up with the term in his column this week). I would very much like not to sit behind rabid Yankee fans again if I can avoid it in the future.

Oh, and Mets win. Yeah. No guarantees on what can happen the next two games, but such is life. One step at a time, Mets fans, even if it means some steps backward (which happens way too much with the Mets). Let’s go Mets!

The news from NASA on Saturn sound exciting. So cool this year – Mars and Saturn.

Oh, and I finished reading another book on physics – “The Physics of Star Trek,” a nice, more-or-less-light by physicist Lawrence Krauss. I liked how he explained the time travel paradox – “Can I kill my grandmother before I am born?”; think of it this way – if you did kill Grandma before you were born, then you wouldn’t be born; and yet, you were the one who killed her; so, you had to have been born to even do that; and if you weren’t born to kill her, then she doesn’t die; and then you’re… born. So, for some reason and at some point in time, you exist but you simultaneously…don’t? Well, I can still get confused by the idea of the time paradox.

Anyway, I bought the paperback version of this book way back when, from a lovely secondhand book store in downtown Manhattan’s Nassau St. I recommend the book as a nice subway read. Slight quibble – Krauss’ book is slightly out-of-date, as string theory (as Brian Greene noted in his book) had made some progress (well, short of physical evidence anyway) since the publication of “The Physics of Star Trek.” Krauss also kept referring to Riker of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” as “Lt. Riker” before finally referring him by his correct rank (commander) – although, Krauss may have actually referred to Riker’s clone, who was stuck with the lieutenant rank, so my quibble there may be really silly nitpicking on my part.

Marlon Brando passed away, age 80. He immortalized Stanley Kowalski’s “Stella…” and is always going to be “The Godfather.” Which reminds me. Maybe I ought to watch the Godfather trilogy already? Hmm. Well, another thing to add on the to-do list, along with “really ought to read Harry Potter already.”

Have a nice Independence Weekend…

Hmm. Got on the D-train tonight, and there were all these people with Yankee jerseys on. I kept thinking, huh? And then it hits me – the D takes people to and fro Yankee Stadium. D’uh – I got aboard a train just after the game ended. At one point, some guys teased (rather harmlessly, thankfully) a pair of Boston Red Sox fans off the train (they were at their stop, apparently). Oh, well. So it goes in this city.

Watched PBS the other night (without cable, it appears to be the only stuff I can watch these days without grumbling about how crummy tv is lately). “History Detectives” season 2 – wherein PBS does a twist on the Antiques Roadshow with History Roadshow; the scholars are presented items and they dig through various resources to see what’s the story behind the item. Cool stuff. I like how they get into what they’re doing and get really interesting stories. The other night, sociologist Tukufu Zuberi, is presented with watercolors of a Japanese-American internment/concentration camp from World War II, painted on the back of reused paper that had been postered notices that sent communities to the camps. He followed up on various resources (even sifting through the microfilm) to track down the artist himself, who didn’t get his apology/reparation from the federal government until 1990. Amazing story. Check out the website for the episode’s transcript on the camp’s story segment and other interesting slide shows and links.

I enjoy the moments where I appreciate that I went to law school; for instance, I can watch the Lehrer newshour talk about the Supreme Court decisions on the enemy combatant cases and actually understand what the talking heads are saying. Ooh.

Anyway, good read on the Supreme Court cases in the continuing dialogue between Lithwick and Dellinger on Slate.com. Their discussion on the enemy combatant cases are links 6, 7, and 8; loved how Lithwick tells Dellinger:

I have loads of questions for you, like what to make of the fact that the court decided Hamdi [the American-born enemy combatant who was caught in Afghanistan when the U.S. armed forces were getting rid of the Taliban] but punted on Padilla [the one who allegedly planned a dirty bomb]? (And does the decision in Hamdi mean that Padilla will necessarily have his day in court, so long as he files his next habeas petition in the right one?) I felt strongly at oral argument that the court was much less sympathetic to Padilla than Hamdi—that at least some of the justices appeared more worried about tying the president’s hands when an alleged “dirty bomber” (or as Breyer said, a “ticking time bomb”) was the bad guy, as opposed to some punk kid who may have been fighting for the Taliban.

Uh hmm. The justices may very well be only human in perceiving the differences between an alleged “punk kid” and an alleged “dirty bomber.” Maybe. 😉

An interesting story on the Statue of Liberty on NY1.com, for this week’s “One on One,” in honor of the upcoming 4th of July holiday.

The Yankees went ahead and used their bats on the Mets yesterday, beating them in both games of the doubleheader. Beaten them soundly. Met fans should at least take comfort that pitcher Al Leiter made it through seven innings and won on Saturday. There’s some hope in Metsville (but, seriously, wasn’t it expected that the interleague series was going to be 2 games to 1 one in the Yanks’ favor?).

Anyway, let’s thank the Supreme Court for making today an interesting day; rule of law prevails. Lady Liberty can continue to hold up her head and her torch real high.

The Cheney thing continues – although for me, the story is the reaction to the story. As today’s NY Times and the Washington Post notes, the two parties are getting real nasty. The Democrats, via Senate minority leader, Daschle, was calling for unity and peace and all that, and various Republicans went with Cheney that Senator Leahy asked for the profanity. Despite Daschle’s (well, more or less) asking whether we can all get along, according to the NY Times article:

Senator Don Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma, said, “I definitely think it’s needed.” But, he added, “I think the Democrats are greatly responsible.”

Bob Stevenson, a spokesman for Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said of Mr. Daschle: “He can talk the talk. The question is, Can he walk the walk?”

Umm. What? I thought Frist wanted to get the folks of Congress to get along too; but how can one expect to get along if one person curses the other out, and then calls for unity get laughed at? What? Am I missing something?

Oh, and there’s the Slate.com article trying to explain why, oh why, did the Washington Post put in the F-word (nicely spelled out), while the NY Times (in today’s article anyway) went coy. Acknowledging that the NY Times’ coverage had left out “the fact that what the vice president thought Mr. Leahy should do was anatomically improbable,” latest Slate.com Explainer observes:

Editors weigh the newsworthiness of the event in question against concerns about community standards. Readers can be just as distracted when a newspaper clumsily sidesteps profanity as when a paper uses it; it’s up to the editor to decide whether the journalistic purpose of the story is best served by bluntness or decorum.

Ah, a Slate.com article that mixes bluntess and explanation and a reference to a Supreme Court case. Cool.

I better stop it with this particular news stuff; if I’m more worried about profanity in Congress rather than about the rest of the world stage, boy, what does that say about me??? 😉

I will eventually read the commentary on the Supreme Court’s end-of-term decisions on Slate.com; Dahlia Lithwick and ex-solicitor general Walter Dellinger are good reads with their running conversation (not the resigning Theodore Olsen, who’s moving on with his life after three years with the administration; oh, and sorry, Dellinger’s a former Acting Solicitor General – as if that makes that much of a difference).

Mets v. Yanks on. Play ball.