Author: ssw15

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.