I must break you

Welcome to hell

2008-08-17T11:17:00.000-07:00

You know when I realized I was in medical school? When I was examining a prosected cadaver on a Saturday night...with five other people. They weren't kidding; EVERYTHING about your routine changes in medical school. Me time is abrogated and study time intensifies and lengthens. If only I was disciplined enough to handle this right now at this moment, maybe, just maybe, I wouldn't be moping as much.

Pineapple Express

2008-08-10T16:37:00.000-07:00

The latest movie from the Apatow clan is entitled "Pineapple Express" and it stars James Franco and that lovable lump, Seth Rogen. Pineapple is a movie that blends two venerable genres: the action film and the stoner movie. Both are about as American as apple pie and baseball. Anyways, this movie is about the bond between subpoena officer/pothead named Dale Denton (Seth Rogen) and his lovable, easygoing potdealer (also alliteratively) named Saul Silver (James Franco). Basically, Dale witnesses a murder while smoking some high-quality roach called "Pineapple Express". Dale makes a racket while driving away and drops his joint. The drug-dealer played by Gary Cole (Lumbergh from OfficeSpace!) picks up the joint, takes a pull, and identifies the weed as Pineapple Express, which traces it back to Saul. What follows is weed-induced hijinks and hilarity as Saul and Dale try to evade the drug-dealers.

Most of the humor is hit-and-miss I must say, but I thought the action parts worked quite well. Picture the violence of a hilariously bad zombie movie, heavy on the slapstick. It may sound cheesy, but it is an approach that works to complement the humor perfectly. The camaraderie between the two inept drug-dealers chasing Saul and Dale has to be one of the highlights of the movie, along with Danny McBride's supporting role as Red. Although Seth Rogen is strictly serviceable in the film, I personally believe that James Franco stole the show. He was consistently hilarious with his laidback, affable potdealer character. He and Seth Rogen have great chemistry and I hope to see Franco in more roles in the future.

Although I thought this movie fell short of the last Apatow production I saw (Forgetting Sarah Marshall), I was still entertained. The movie is only 1 hour and 45 minutes, which means there is very little lag time from scene to scene. The direction is reminiscent more of an indie film than a blockbuster comedy, which I found to be a refreshing approach. Lastly, the ending has to be one of the most bromantic moments in film history, seriously you expect the guys to start making out at the end of it. In short, Pineapple Express is worth watching in theatres and will sate Apatow fans until the next time he sits in the directing chair.

Political Expediency

2008-08-05T10:37:00.001-07:00

The latest New Yorker has a small, but thought-provoking, article about the clusterfuck concerning rising energy prices. One little excerpt demonstrates the futility of emergency drilling in coastal waters of the United States:

"...Of course, the results of these or any other public-opinion surveys do not alter the underlying reality. The Department of Energy estimates that there are eighteen billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in offshore areas of the continental United States that are now closed to drilling. This sounds like a lot, until you consider that oil is a globally traded commodity and that, at current rates of consumption, eighteen billion barrels would satisfy less than seven months of global demand. A D.O.E. report issued last year predicted that it would take two decades for drilling in restricted areas to have a noticeable effect on domestic production, and that, even then, “because oil prices are determined on the international market,” the impact on fuel costs would be “insignificant.”..."

The New Yorker "Changing Lanes" by Elizabeth Kolbert

The most important point made in this excerpt is when Kolbert explains that oil is a globally-traded commodity. To assume that oil companies would restrict their sales of this oil to domestic consumers is awfully naive. Who really believes the myth of the benevolent entrepreneur? Apparently, the American government does. The proposed expansion of oil drilling is yet another example of doing what is politically expedient, rather than what works for the long-term.

I Drink your MILKSHAKE! I DRINK IT UUUUUP!

2008-08-04T14:20:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I finally got the opportunity to watch one of the most heralded movies of the past year, There Will Be Blood, directed by Paul Thomas Andersen. I expected great things from this film partially because of the Oscar hype, but also because I have a predilection for period pieces like these. The movie tells us of an oil man and his slow, steady descent into madness. It is, in part, based on an excellent Upton Sinclair book, the same author who wrote The Jungle. The aforementioned oil man is played by the very capable Daniel Day-Lewis, who received the Oscar for his portrayal of Daniel Plainfield the oil tycoon.

This movie was very good but I realize that it is not for everyone. This is an "actor's movie" and the plot moves at a snail's pace, mostly to allow the actors to flesh out their characters in exacting detail. In this regard, the movie is successful. The film leaves no stone unturned in the psyche of main characters like Plainfield and Eli Sunday, the so-called false prophet played by Paul Dano. In fact, the juxtaposition of the two malicious men, one who is outwardly devilish and another under the guise of God, is one of the more fascinating parts of the story. As you get to know these characters intimately over the course of 2 hours and 45 minutes, you begin to understand their motives and really what makes them tick.

This brings me to my next point: you need the patience to sit through such a movie for nearly three hours where things move sloooooowly. The beginning, especially, lags at a ponderous pace, but at the end of the first hour I found myself hooked. Someone who can last beyond that initial investment will find a movie that really penetrates you with its well-crafted dialogue and foreboding atmosphere. The last scene, in particular, sent chills down my spine and I believe this is where Daniel Day-Lewis really earned his Oscar.

That said, I must stress that you have to be the type of person who can handle movies that are more about narrative and mood than about nonstop frenetics. My brother, within less than an hour, started playing his Nintendo DS. Like most people, he needs adrenaline-pumped action (his favorite genre is Chinese kung-fu films) amidst a threadbare plot and subpar acting. By no means am I being patronizing, the Rambo and Rocky series are some of my favorite movies despite their lack of a complicated narrative. However, this discussion highlights the need for people to be "ready" for this film before viewing.

When desperation sets in...

2008-08-03T11:04:00.000-07:00

The latest McCain ad is a shameless attempt to vilify a politician whose biggest sin is that he's incredibly popular. The message being promulgated by this ad is that Obama's popularity that cuts across many demographics is somehow correlated with current scandals of young Hollywood (represented by images of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears). Interestingly, if the message is trying to construe that Obama is not representative of mainstream America and is the "Hollywood" candidate, then why juxtapose those images with images of Obama giving speeches to thousands of people? If that isn't mainstream populist, then I don't know what is.

This ad shows me the type of campaign we can expect McCain to run: a dirty, sleazy one that will resort to political mudslinging. Race-baiting will be a part of the McCain strategy for sure and the public and media should prepare themselves for that. I guess McCain figured after South Carolina in 2000 if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Top things I'll miss from Chicago

2008-07-28T19:58:00.000-07:00

1. My Friends, I haven't met a greater group of people in my life

2. Rush St. on a Saturday night

3. Gino's East Chicago-style pizza (Uno and Due are ok too)

4. Jogging by the lakefront

5. That fucking awesome skyline

6. Batman cleaning up the streets

7. Lincoln Park

8. Michigan Avenue

9. Ashkenaz Deli

10. Blackhawks games

11. Wrigley Field and Wrigleyville

12. Indian food on Devon

13. Evanston lakefront

14. Top of the Hancock and Signature Lounge

15. Navy Pier and Millenium Park

16. Jake Melnick's burgers

17. Drinks at the Drake (and trying not to stare at the classy, hot girls)

18. The lab (the people, not the work)

I'm sure there's PLENTY more stuff, but for now that pretty much encapsulates my amazing five years in this city. I hope to be back as soon as I can. For now, goodbye Chicago, you made me the man I am today.

Obama in Europe

2008-07-25T09:34:00.001-07:00

So now Europe can join in the latest phenomenon to hit America: Obamamania. How eerie is it to see people waving, and not burning, American flags abroad? Anyways, Barack Obama just visited Germany where 200,000 people packed into Tiergarten Park to hear Obama deliver a cliched speech about the need for unity between America and Europe. Although I concur with that sentiment, I think Europe needs to show some wiggle room on the war on terror before we fall into each other's collective arms.

First of all, we can all agree that Iraq was a mistake. Atleast, Europe and the more enlightened half of America (which is now the enlightened 90%) have that common ground and I don't blame them for not sending troops there. However, I simply cannot comprehend why France and Germany, the strongest EU countries, are so reluctant to send troops to Afghanistan and other hotspots in the global war on terror. Afghanistan has suddenly seen a resurgence of the Taliban and a growing influx of jihadis from neighboring countries. It's unrealistic in today's world to keep paring down military expenses, especially if you are a supposed ally in the war on terror. Not to mention being so uncommittal. Say what you will about America, but atleast we have the balls to committ to something, whether it's just or unjust is a totally different question.

Regardless, Obama touched on the issue, but failed to drive it home to Europeans. Nevertheless, I commend him for not taking a scattershot approach to visiting Europe as Bush does. Bush deliberately visits countries outside of the Franco-German sphere of influence so he doesn't encounter dissenting viewpoints. I shouldn't be surprised when he utilizes the same strategy domestically. Obstinancy and closed-mindedness, qualities all presidents should have, right?

Anyways, the spirit of Obama's tour is dead-on, but I think the rhetoric needs to remain tough with regards to Europe. A certain level of ideology (but not demagoguery) will be necessary in regards to the war on terror. There is a black-and-white component to the WoT (again not to be confused with Iraq) and Europe should be mindful of that.

Poor McCain...

2008-07-24T11:10:00.000-07:00

If you were to turn on the news nowadays, it'd be difficult to tell if Barack Obama was running against anyone. His international tour has been treated more as a coronation than a diplomatic trip. The media entourage accompanying Obama includes Brian Williams, Katie Couric, and a gaggle of other high-profile newscasters and journalists. Meanwhile, the media hardly batted an eye when McCain visited Iraq and South America a few weeks ago.

In addition, Obama is DEMOLISHING McCain in fundraising. It must be embarassing for the GOP that a Democrat is outraising a Republican by a three-to-one ratio. Much of this has to do with the fact that many Bush donors are not getting behind McCain, but you would think McCain could do better than this. The RNC has more money than the DNC, but it's not a huge margin and it doesn't matter anyways because Obama has so much money that he actually refused public funds! Never thought I'd see the day that a Democrat largely on the backs of smallish donors completely trounces the GOP in fundraising.

It seems that Republicans have largely consigned this election to the Democrats. They're not even trying anymore; you can't just chalk this up to media bias. Obama, for all his charisma and positives, is not Jesus Christ. Although I support his candidacy, I realize that he is just like any other Chicago politician. He knowingly schemed his way to the top of the Southside political scene in the 90s (the latest New Yorker has an excellent article detailing this). Part of my enthusiasm for his candidacy stems from the fact that Bush really has been THAT bad. In any other situation, I'm sure I would be less than impressed with Obama.

Nevertheless, part of me does feel some sympathy for McCain as the forgotten candidate. He really needs to step up his appearances and exposure to fight off the prevailing sense that he's nothing more than an out-of-touch old fogey. The Republicans also need to let go of their hesitation to get behind McCain otherwise this will be a complete wash of an election. But then again, that's sort of what I want I suppose...

The Dark Knight

2008-07-23T08:19:00.000-07:00

Last night I FINALLY was able to watch the much-anticipated batman movie at AMC River East 21 near Navy Pier. Even after the first weekend, tickets for shows have been sold out and people have been queueing up for shows a full hour before the movie actually starts. Truly, I have never seen this response to a movie AFTER opening weekend; it's crazy. Luckily, thanks to a great friend of mine I was able to get seats and watch the movie from a good vantage point in the back of the theatre.

The final verdict? This movie just may be the best superhero film I've ever seen. There are moments where it excels beyond the original Tim Burton film, but I hesitate to make direct comparisons because they are so different stylistically (more on that later).

The first thing that separates this movie from its direct predecessor and other superhero films is its scope. Batman's origins have already been established so now this movie can completely focus on Batman fighting crime against his ultimate arch-enemy, the Joker. This inherently makes the movie more of a thrill ride in comparison to Batman Begins, where lengthy flashbacks and slow-paced dialogue in the beginning were necessary to establish the Nolan franchise of Batman movies.

Second, the storywriting is very solid and always leaves you second-guessing yourself. There were so many scenes, including several huge shockers, that I didn't see coming at all. No-one in the movie, except for maybe Batman himself, is safe and thus the tension built in the film is palpable. I could nitpick by saying a few scenes dragged for far too long, but in the end the two-and-a-half hour running time flew by. I especially enjoyed the mass panic scene at the end of the film; it presents an interesting conundrum.

Third, you can't have a great movie without great performances and here is where The Dark Knight really separates itself from other superhero movies. Christian Bale, as always, is a joy to watch. He's the perfect actor to portray Batman and that's really all I can say. My only gripe is that his choice to voice Batman with that gravelly voice started to grate on me towards the end of the film. I had to strain to hear what the hell he was saying during some of his longer monologues. Morgan Freeman as Lucius and Michael Caine as Alfred are solid again, and Alfred shows himself to be a bit of a Machiavellian. Maggie Gyllenhaal takes over for Katie Holmes as Bruce's love interest, Rachel Dawes. Not a lot to say, she's ok in her somewhat limited role. Aaron Eckhart as Two-Face finally clears our minds of the awful Tommy Lee Jones Two-Face from Batman Forever. To watch his rise and fall is one of the best subplots in the film because of its tragic quality.

Of course, everyone's talking about Heath Ledger as Joker. Let me say this upfront: it will be a shame if he is not nominated for an Oscar. Screw sentimentality over his untimely passing, this was a masterful performance by a great actor. He makes the Joker character entirely his own. Heath makes this Joker a man with a brooding psychosis coupled with the abject mania we associate with the comic book character. It laid to rest any doubts I had about Heath Ledger being Joker. Who would have thought after that awful teen film he did in the late 90s that he would blossom into this? It's depressing to think that an actor so talented is gone, but this is one hell of a swan song. RIP Heath Ledger.

This transitions into another topic of interest actually: Is this movie better than the original 1989 Batman film (where the Joker was also the primary antagonist)? To me, it's like comparing apples and oranges and it really depends on how you think Batman should be portrayed. If you prefer a realistic, grittier version where it seems plausible that a billionaire guy can dress up as a bat and fight bizzarre villains, then you will say Dark Knight is better. The Burton film is fantastical at its core and one could argue it captures the spirit of the comics better than the Nolan movies. It has its own unique cinematography and mood, and in this way I prefer it to Dark Knight. Also, comparing Nicholson and Ledger is pointless. As per the mood of "Batman", Nicholson's Joker is more comic. Ledger's is more savagely, brutally mad (he doesn't even do that trademark laugh very often). Each portrayal fits the respective moods of the films and one is not better than the other.

Nevertheless, The Dark Knight is firmly nestled at the top echelon of the summer action movie blockbuster. This is how it's done. It's a complex, dark adrenaline rush from beginning to end and I can't wait to see it again in IMAX.

As an addendum, Chicago has never looked so magnificent onscreen. It's really surreal to see the River, Lower Wacker, the skyline, Navy Pier, and, rather appropriately, corrupt cops and politicians used to stand-in for Gotham. Plenty of films have been filmed in this city, but the fact that they used Chicago as Batman's hometown gives the city a cool factor that The Untouchables or The Sting could never equal.

Bayh-sexuals

2008-07-21T17:39:00.000-07:00

President-elect Obama (sans some political disaster) recently held a national-security summit in West Lafayette, Indiana aka the home of Purdue University. Not only does this tell us that Obama is working hard to get Hoosiers to vote blue, but it also means that a certain Democratic senator from Indiana may be on the vp shortlist. That's right, Senator Evan Bayh may have just vaulted himself past other higher-profile VP contenders, such as a certain wife of a former President.

Evan Bayh, a typical Heartland Democrat, would help balance out Obama's weaknesses, especially with respect to national security and Obama's not being a white male. Bayh also has experience in governance thanks to his stint as Indiana's governor for 8 years. One weakness is that he can come off as uncharismatic especially in comparison to Obama. Second, if Obama presents his platform with a primary focus on Iraq, then Bayh's former staunch support of the war effort may send mixed messages to the public. Regardless, I think Evan Bayh would be a solid pick, and if it eventually leads to his becoming POTUS eventually, then I'm all for it.

As for the prospect of Indiana falling in the Democratic column, I wouldn't entirely count out the possibility even without Bayh on the ticket. It has been 44 years since Indiana voted Democrat, but tell me if in the last four decades there has been a blue politician with as much hype as Barack. Based on the Indiana electoral map, here is the easiest route to victory in the Hoosier state:

-Win Indianapolis by a large margin. It's the largest urban area in the state and has a large black population. This is the most critical point because Kerry split the vote with Bush in 2004 and the collar counties will assuredly vote for McCain.
-Use your Chicago connections to win the three Chicagoland commuter counties by huge margins
-Win Fort Wayne, Bloomington, and West Lafayette convincingly. Ft. Wayne is a former industrial town with a large black population, while Bloomington and West Lafayette are college towns.
-Lastly, try to do somewhat respectably in the rural areas. I don't expect Obama to win even one of the rural counties, but if he accomplishes the three former goals then it shouldn't matter.

Top 5 ways to die in Rambo

2008-07-18T22:14:00.000-07:00

5. Machete cutting off both of your limbs

4. Bayoneted then thrown into a fire

3. Arrow through your face, then blown to smithereens by a bomb

2. Trachea ripped out by Rambo's bare hands

AND...

1. Disembowled by a knife Rambo made himself then kicked down a hill

Nuh Nuh Nuh Nuh Nuh Nuh BATMAN!

2008-07-18T08:15:00.000-07:00

Like most people in America, I will be watching the latest Batman film, entitled "The Dark Knight". Unfortunately, I did not have the foresight to buy a ticket in advance for a weekend showing in the city where it was filmed. Hence, I will probably watch it in IMAX at Navy Pier early next week. Although it stinks, I'm not one of those who absolutely needs to be the first person to see it so whatever.

Regardless, the hype has been through the roof here in the stand-in Gotham of downtown Chicago. I have no doubt it will kick all sorts of ass, and that I will be well-satisfied. You see, I'm more than just a casual fan. One of the first movies I ever taped and watched religiously thereafter was the original Adam West Batman movie. Batman was the only comic I actually used to buy when I was a kid in the 80s and early 90s. Batman: The Animated Series, in fact, was one of my favorite cartoons growing up. It was unusually dark and sophisticated for a kids serial, even my dad watched it. Of course, I've watched all the movies from the old Adam West one up to the craptastic Joel Schumacher ones and including the modern Nolan incarnations. The question is how does each measure up after all these years and with a more sophisticated, analytical mind?

1. The Adam West Batman film

Like I said before, this was one of the first movies I had my dad set up the VCR to tape for me. Although most people hate the Adam West's Batman, I stand alone as a fan of this movie. Sure, it's incredibly campy, but even today it brings a smile to my face and entertains me. In essence, that's all I require from a movie. Seriously, if you can keep a straight face during that scene when Batman has to dispose of that bomb, then you have no soul.

2. Batman by Tim Burton

To me, this is the quintessential Batman movie. Almost 20 years later, it remains my favorite superhero film. There are some heavweight actors in this film such as Kim Basinger, Michael Keaton, and of course Jack Nicholson. What can you say about Jack's performance, he perfectly captures the manic nature of the Joker. He would almost steal the show if it weren't for Michael Keaton's masterful portrayal of Batman. What I love about his performance is that he is as good as Bruce Wayne as he is Batman. In public, Bruce Wayne acts aloof and goofy, while in private he's a brooding man. As Batman, he's the understated badass we all know and love. It's a subtle, brilliant performance considering that he's playing a guy who dresses up as a bat to fight crime.

3. Batman Returns

For the second modern batman movie, Tim Burton was given full reign over the film. As a result, this movie is even more bizzarre and dark than the first one. Now, I don't hate this movie, but I felt like there are too many Burtonisms in this movie. The man is a visual genius, but he went a bit too far in the visual scope of this film. I sincerely believe it distracts from the plot and the Batman character at times. In addition, the decision to have Catwoman and the Penguin further distracts from Batman himself. Nevertheless, it was still a good movie, but unfortunately the aforementioned "burtonisms" alienated some of the mainstream audiences ( most importantly the kiddies) and spelled the end of the Burton era, which really was unfortunate.

One thing I have to add: the scenes where Penguin bites the guy's nose off or the one where the penguins act as pallbearers after he dies: unintentionally hilarious. Also, this movie spawned one of my favorite brawler video games for the SNES so I can't hate on it too much.

4. Batman Forever

So this is where things started to go downhill for the modern Batman franchise. Gone are Michael Keaton and Tim Burton and in come Val Kilmer and Joel Schumacher respectively. In an attempt to make it more mainstream, they brought in Jim Carrey to play the Riddler who at the time was the biggest comedic actors in Hollywood. Everything is changed in this film. Gone is the subtle, gothic nature of the first film. Gotham itself is like this cyberpunk, garish version of itself full of neon lights.

This movie is strictly mediocre fare. I really disliked the complete focus on Riddler at the expense of Batman, but then again that may be a good thing because Val Kilmer's portrayal is extremely stiff. Even Two-Face, a guy who is half monster and half-human, is overshadowed by Riddler and has almost no development or backstory. They also introduce Robin in this movie, which is a bit of a disappointment given how whiny he is. Then again, this movie is still ok in my book. It doesn't dazzle, but it doesn't really offend either. One thing I must say, this movie has one of the best soundtracks ever. The Offspring, the only U2 song I actually like, Smashing Pumpkins, and Seal are all on this LP. I would definitely download it.

5. Batman and Robin

Oh boy, this one is a real stinker. When I think of this movie one phrase comes to mind, CHEESY AS HELL! The Adam West movie is at least campy in a funny way, this one is just campy in a shitty way. The movie is a spectacular mess because it tries to pack in a million subplots. Mr. Freeze and his wife, Poison Ivy's origin, Robin's jealous nature, Batgirl's origin...it's just too much for one movie. Also, some of the sequences make me cringe with embarassment. For example, Batman and Robin play hockey with a diamond while wearing batskates or how about the one where Batman and Robin publicly bid money to date Poison Ivy. Who the hell wrote this plot? Mr. Freeze also has a million one-liners and puns, and every one of them is painful to listen to.

I think it really says something when this movie essentially destroyed the careers of three actors: Chris O'Donnell, Alicia Silverstone, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Uma Thurman, in fact, had a downturn in her career too until the Kill Bill franchise. Trust me, it's THAT bad.

6. Batman Begins

Almost a decade later, Christopher Nolan rejiggered the franchise with this offering. It's certainly a return to the Burton movies stylistically, but he makes it totally unique. Although I don't like it as much as the original 1989 movie, this movie is fantastic in its own right. Christian Bale may be the best Batman ever, though I liked Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne better. Sans Katie Holmes, there are some great actors in here including Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine. One thing this movie does better than the original is fleshing out the origin of Batman. In fact, most of the movie is focused on how he becomes Batman after suffering the loss of both of his parents.

It's a new batman for a new millenium and it wouldn't have worked without Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan. These guys are young and talented, so I look forward to atleast two more films after Dark Knight. Thanks goes to them for rescuscitating a broken franchise.

The latest New Yorker cover

2008-07-17T20:12:00.000-07:00

The latest New Yorker has generated some real controversy for some real reasons. Hendrik Hertzberg, one of my favorite writers for the New Yorker, has argued that the cover is clearly satirical, and is addressing the obviously false rumors that Obama is a Muslim, etc for purposes of parody. The Obama camp and most of the media has contended that the cover sends a dangerous message to the public and constitutes irresponsible journalism.

Although I agree that this cover is in bad taste, I think Hertzberg and the New Yorker are in the right here. As any avid reader of the New Yorker can attest to, the publication is obviously elitist liberal in its slant. They wouldn't do this cover to be injurious towards Obama on purpose. If this cover came from, say, the Weekly Standard, then I would suspect a more malicious, politicized motive.

Regardless, I can empathize with Obama's camp. Unfortunately, when the average American sees this cover at the drug store, they are not going to understand the figurative layers underneath the explicit image of Obama in a turban shaking hands with a wife holding a machine gun. At this time, the number of people in this country who fallaciously believe Obama is a Muslim has gone up, and this was before this issue came out onto newsstands. Though the New Yorker has every right to publish whatever they want, it does not help Obama's "proving of his americanness" case to the American people. Here is where the New Yorker maybe should have exercised some caution. At the same time controversy sells, so what the hell do I know about the media.

We must remember this also: If we truly embrace what America is about, it shouldn't even matter if Obama is a Muslim or not ! Race and religion still color American life unfortunately, and this cover and the reaction towards it doubtlessly proves that notion.

Russia and China, what the hell are you thinking?

2008-07-16T17:37:00.000-07:00

Russia and China, members of the United Nations Security Council, have both vetoed America's desire to place sanctions on Zimbabwe. Good idea guys, let's continue slapping the wrist of a guy who not only openly flouts democracy, but also one that has presided over some of the largest crimes against humanity over his (now just prolonged) reign of tyranny. It's shameful enough that it took America this long to take some action, but it's even worse that we have not just one but TWO nations opposing sanctions against Mugabe. This is precisely why the Security Council should be expanded to include nations beyond Russia and China, two totalitarian countries operating under the guise of democracy and/or Western capitalism (I realize both are mutually exclusive, but still).

As for Robert Mugabe, there are very few people I wish to burn in hell, but Mugabe makes that ignominious shortlist. To borrow a phrase from a good friend of mine: "What a cunt!". Thabo Mbeki also deserves some reproach for essentially standing pat. South Africa as the continent's most powerful country has curiously remained silent as people are slaughtered and thousands flee to refugee camps in SA. America may be in decline, but if countries like Russia, China and South Africa fill the void, then the world is in some serious shit. Even Europeans have to agree with that sentiment.

Nevermind about another Rambo movie

2008-07-15T19:07:00.000-07:00

Well I thought that the last Rambo film's ending made it quite clear that there wouldn't be another Rambo film, but I guess I was mistaken. According to news reports, Stallone is working on a script for another Rambo movie (he's about halfway done). I've learned to not underestimate Sly after Rocky 6 turned out so well and the latest Rambo film was quite good as well. If he can resuscitate two icons now in their 60s, then I don't see any reason he can't keep aforementioned 60 year old icons going...

Indians : the kind of Asian

2008-07-12T11:00:00.000-07:00

In the USA, when someone says "Asian" it typically refers to people from East Asia or Southeast Asia, in other words people with Mongoloidal features. Mongoloidal features are your typical single-eyelid, wider faces and fat deposited around the cheeks. When one fills out any census form, Asian is clarified to include not only East Asians or Southeast Asians, but also people from the subcontinent (eg. - Indians and Pakistanis). In many ways, this highlights the problems with using the Asian term as synonymous with race, when it really should mean "person who derives heritage from the continent of Asia". Regardless, under the current classification of Asian in the US, it doesn't make a lot of sense to group people from the subcontinent in with Koreans, Japanese, Filipinos, etc. Although there are some commonalities, I think South Asians are too culturally, linguistically, and racially distant to be lumped in with "yellow Asians".

Now, there are some historical links between India and the countries East. Perhaps notably in the religious sphere. Indian religions have spread East, most notably Buddhism which is a predominant religion in the Far East. In addition, Hindu myths like the Ramayana are known and re-enacted in places like Thailand and Cambodia. Much of SE Asia, in particular, had a strong Hindu tradition and later Buddhist one. For example consider the history of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, a former Hindu temple. Islam's springing board to countries like Indonesia and Malaysia was from India after the Mughals took over. Religion can be a vehicle for culture so you can expect to see commonalities springing forth from this, especially in SE Asia.

However, I think these similarities are outweighed by some significant considerations, and make Indians only nominally "Asian" (referring to the US connotation). First of all, perhaps the most striking argument you can have is race itself. People from the subcontinent, by and large, belong to a different racial classification, particularly those from northern India. Genetic studies have been conducted which have shown people from India to be more related to people from Europe (especially Italy and Greece) than people from Thailand or China, despite the proximity of East Asia to India. This can be attributed to the history of India being invaded from the West throughout its history. India has the tallest mountain range in the world on its northeastern borders and water on the southeastern and southwestern ends. Historically, invaders swept through the northwestern deserts and were able to quickly take over across the relatively flat plains. It started with the Aryans (from the Caucasus), continued with the Macedonians, continued with the Mughals from Central Asia/Persia and then the imperialist Brits. All of these people are Caucasoidal and, hence, have spread their genes to people from the subcontinent, particularly in the North.

Genetic testing supports the notion that Indo-Aryans (which constitute the racial majority of India) are essentially dark-skinned Caucasians. Facial structure and build confirm this. Our faces are longer, hair is wavier, and eyes are rounder compared to people from the Far East. There are Mongoloidal Indians, but they are mostly concentrated in the Northeast with the Chinese border and are not part of mainstream India. They're not even five percent of India's population, in fact. In the 1920s, an Indian Sikh man tried to sue to be included in the Caucasian category, but obviously people can't let go of skin color and look at more relevant markers like facial skeletal structure or genetics. The term Caucasian isn't synonymous with white; it merely means someone from the Caucasus. Going by genetics, Caucasoidal racial classification refers to a broad swath of people from Europe to the Middle East to Central Asia and, yes, including the subcontinent (especially North India and Pakistan).

Linguistics also show a marked difference between Indians and people from the Far East. Most people in the subcontinent speak Indo-European languages, where the vernacular is remarkably similar to languages spoken in Europe. For example, mujhey is me, tum is you (tu in Spanish), mata is mom and I can go on and on. Plus, Hindi uses a conjugation system (endings of verbs and pronouns change depending on who's doing the action) virtually identical to that of Spanish or Italian. In addition, as a result of invasions from peoples of Central Asia and Persia, you will find many words borrowed into Sanskrit script based Hindi. I can't tell you how many words were similar to Urdu-derived words when I visited Turkey, it was quite astounding. As a result, languages like Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi belong to the Indo-Iranian subfamily of Indo-European languages. Although the devanagari script has obviously been used in Thai or Cambodian languages, the actual vernacular is not related at all and vernacular is more important in grouping languages. That's why people learn to talk before they write and most nomadic people were able to survive without a written language for centuries.

Perhaps another difference lies in culture itself. India is really a remarkable country so full of influences derived from all its ethnic groups. However, most of North India has a culture that has been influenced by the Mughal occupation. For better or for worse, relics of this period are evident everywhere you go in the North. Perhaps the most important is in the food we eat. Unlike "Asian" food, Indian food particularly in the North is heavily dairy-based. Yogurt, cheese, and milk are all important components of Indian cuisine, and partially why cows are considered sacred. Can you imagine Indian food without paneer or raita? I can't. Rice (basmati variety) is a staple but is mostly used as a supplement for wheat-based flatbreads (unless you're in the South where it's rice and more rice). Naan, puri, and roti are important for the Indian meal. In addition, many of the foods we eat have their origins from Persia and Central Asia. Paneer, Naan, Kofta, biryani and pulao are all Persian or Turkic in origin. Rice can't be used as a Pan-Asian unifier because rice is eaten everywhere in the world, whether it's Cajun Louisiana or Africa. Walking around India, the edifices, the bazaars, the ladies draped in salwars, it all reeks of a Mughal flavor and doesn't feel "Asian", but rather distinctly Indian with heavy Persian influences.

If it were up to me, the entire racial/ethnic category system would be revamped. There should be more detail employed in collecting this data. Caucasian should be expanded to include Indians and Pakistanis (25% of 2nd generation Indo-Paks do so already). Or if we want to continue labeling subcontinentals as "Asian" then include the entire continent as well, including the Middle East and Turkey. The third option is to simply set the subcontinent aside as its own category. There are just not enough Pan-Asian unifiers on a genetic, racial, linguistic, or cultural level to warrant the status quo.

Irate Gamer...more like Ignorant Gamer! HyukHyukHyuk

2008-07-11T17:16:00.000-07:00

If you grew up in the 1980s and early 1990s, you were part of a pioneering generation. No, it's not because you witnessed the end of the Cold War or had awesome cartoons, it's because of your being alive during the golden age of video gaming. I'm talking about NES, SNES, Genesis and other consoles prior to the advent of FMV and true 3D graphics. Video gaming was not as mainstream as it is now, and the games had real heart. Because this was really the beginning of modern gaming, quality control was not as stringent as it is now. In addition, there was no Internet to widely disseminate information about games or game reviews. You just bought a game through word-of-mouth or took a chance with your 60 bucks. Hence, lots of real shit was released. Outside of a few developers like Nintendo or Capcom, you were taking a big risk. For every Zelda there were a million Pit Fighters.

So it behooves me to see the army of retro game reviewers online willingly choosing to subject themselves to "shitbombs" like ET and Total Recall. It's amazing how saturated the internet is with these sorts of reviewers until you consider the popularity of James Rolfe aka "The Angry Video Game Nerd". The AVGN phenomena started with a video lambasting "Castlevania II" for the NES. A few videos later and suddenly the guy is an internet celebrity. What started as a youtube thing has grown into a franchise hawking DVDs, shirts, and special features on spike tv. I started watching rather late, around the time of the Atari review, but I'd like to think I'm a fan of Rolfe's work. I don't agree with all of the character's gripes about the games being reviewed, but I find his combination of cogent scriptwriting and sickeningly scatological remarks entertaining. I can appreciate the amount of time and work he puts into his videos, and he strikes me as a guy proficient in all forms of media, from tv to movies to video games. The character himself is memorable and Rolfe, though not a Brando by any means, is a good actor for an online serial.

Given his massive popularity, it's only natural that there will be a slew of imitators. Just search "video game reviews" on youtube and I guarantee most of them will be atleast somewhat inspired by a profanity-laced AVGN rant. One reviewer, in particular, stands out as an AVGN doppelganger: a guy named Chris Bores aka "The Irate Gamer". It's not a new assertion to say that Chris Bores, who came well after Rolfe, is a blatant plagiarist of the AVGN. That goes without saying and anyone who believes otherwise is either completely naive or does not know the definition of plagiarism. There's a difference between inspiration and ripping someone off, and Chris Bores errs towards the latter hard. Though that's a compelling enough reason to dislike the Irate Gamer, I think there are a number of reasons to hate his show based on its own merits (or lack thereof):

1) Chris Bores cannot act

The definition of irate is mad beyond belief, or should I say angry. However, the Irate Gamer is more like the "Mildly Perturbed Gamer" in his serial. You don't believe that the guy is genuinely mad because he's a very, very poor actor. He consistently overacts and it's obvious that he's forcing it. You don't need theatre acting chops to do an online serial, but you should atleast be able to convey anger believably when the entire premise of your show is that you're a pissed-off gamer masochistically tormenting himself with crappy games.

2) His "humor" is not funny at all, unless you find the title of this post hilarious

Chris has a unique concept of humor, one that curiously lacks the ability to even make one elicit a chortle here or there. Much of the over-the-top scatological remarks a la AVGN that he attempts just fall flat because he lacks either the delivery or the acting chops as discussed above. Imagine you had a friend who tried to curse you out but was just too awkward to pull it off and ended up just humiliating himself. That's what listening to Chris is like. Plus, his jokes are lame and repetitive, if they didn't work the first time then they won't work the sixth or seventh, man. The rest of his humor is derived from repeating AVGN expressions like "shitload of fuck" over and over. Sorry Chris, why would I settle for your cover band act when I can see the real thing?

3) The script is piss-poor

Many of the phrasing is just plain awkward to listen to. There are serious syntactical errors and mispronunciations abound. You know there's a problem when the person who penned the script has difficulty reading his own words. I think Chris knows his analysis of the games and the writing are weak points so he overuses effects to compensate. Ask George Lucas how that strategy worked out for the new Star Wars movies (but then again he made boatloads of money so I guess the joke's on me).

In fact, the errors in the script are exacerbated by his gratingly annoying voice. I know this isn't really his fault, but I think there's a reason certain people go into voice-acting or narration and others don't. He has this cringe-inducing Clevelander accent that even a native Clevelander like myself finds irritating.

4) You doubt he's a gamer at all

This really is the most serious offense of Chris Bores. Quite simply, it's difficult to believe that this guy is a gamer at all. First, the guy makes frequent errors when he's researching information for his reviews. I first noticed this with the SMB2 review of his and, since then, I've read that there have been research errors in many other episodes. This really is inexcusable if you posit yourself as a retro gamer.

Second, he slams classic games that just happen to be difficult. Sure, Contra and Ghosts n' Goblins are hard games. but they're classics because they have addictive gameplay and adept controls. Hence, the challenge spurs you on, and who doesn't like a little challenge? Slamming Contra solely for being too hard shows a lack of respect for the beginning of gaming. It would be different if he critiqued it because of graphics or gameplay (ie - somewhat legitimate reasons to dislike a game), but after someone forwarded the Contra review to me; I lost any respect I had for Bores' work.

None of these points are really new; these are sentiments echoed by everyone who was a gamer in the 1980s reliving their memories and frustrations vicariously through the Angry Video Game Nerd character. It's unfortunate that a parade of subpar imitators has flooded the internets, led by the grand jester jackass IG.

Rambo: a real American hero

2008-07-10T10:59:00.000-07:00

I just got back from my spectacular trip to Greece and Turkey. Words can't really describe how awesome the Aegean is; it's a veritable Shangri-La.

One thing I noticed from the trip was the curious dearth of American visitors. Usually the cruise ships and touristy locations are chock full of Americans (immediately distinguished by their jutting guts and naivete). I suppose a weak dollar and an economy in recession will do that.

Rather appropriately, when I came home, I watched the entire Rambo DVD collection ( a present for my dad for Father's Day). John fuckin' Rambo, a symbol of better times for America. The first three movies are a guilty pleasure; they are the ultimate 80s action movies along with Commando and Bloodsport. The first movie is a classic, and is as much about Rambo's fucked up psyche and his 'Nam PTSD as it is about action. The second movie is more of a straightforward action film, but is still an entertaining romp. Plus, that Asian girl who helps Rambo is pretty hot. The third movie is undeniably the weakest and is pure anti-Soviet propaganda. Nevertheless, I still liked it for the wanton violence.

Just this year, Stallone released another Rambo film entitled "Rambo" (which, as one might guess, is confusing because unofficially the first movie is "Rambo". Why else would the third movie be called "Rambo 3"?).

Let me say this right away: Rambo is one GORY movie. In the previous Rambo movies, when someone gets shot they fall down. Here bodies explode and guts fly all over the place. Little kids get bayoneted, women get raped, and heads are decapitated. It's certainly not for the faint of heart.

The plot involves Rambo living the simple life in northern Thailand when these Christian missionaries come along and ask Rambo to take them upriver into Burma. Burma is where all the aformentioned raping and killing is occurring. By now, the rest of the plot is self-explanatory: the missionaries get caught and a sixty-year old Rambo has to save them.

The plot is so simplistic, but the film is one hell of a ride. The movie is really a love-letter to Rambo fans. If all you want to see is Rambo wield that badass bow one last time and use a machine gun to mow down enemies, then you'll undoubtedly be satisfied. In addition, I respect Sylvester Stallone (the director) for making the movie as violent as he did because this is what really happens on a regular basis in junta-ruled Myanmar. And it's oddly satisfying to see the resurrection of an all-American badass who doubles as a one-man army, I must say. These are uncertain times for America and although we can't return to our past prominence, atleast we still got John fuckin' Rambo.

It's certainly not as good as the first movie, or the second one, but I think it's better than the third one and is a worthy addition to the original Rambo trilogy. The ending is especially satisfying because Stallone makes it clear that there will not be another Rambo movie.

In fact, if another Rambo movie was made, I think Stallone getting arthritis would be a bigger concern than making up a plausible plot. Stallone is sixty years old and he looks...strange. His face is curiously wrinkle-free and it doesn't move when he talks. It's all botoxed out. Stallone is buff, but not as lean as he was in the original trilogy. Most of this can be attributed to old age, but I wouldn't be surprised if Stallone has been taking some 'roids. Thankfully, he doesn't take his shirt off; a shirtless Stallone in Rocky Balboa was enough for me.

Regardless, I enjoyed this Rambo movie and it gives more closure to the character, as opposed to the third movie which just has Rambo driving off with the Colonel. The critics have not been kind to the movie mostly because of the violence and the superhuman nature of the Rambo character. I think these critics are simply missing the point: Rambo is a cartoon. Of course no-one can infiltrate Soviet camps, fight off entire platoons, or take on the National Guard single-handedly. In fact, one of the defining characteristics of Rambo is that he's a superhuman with a fragile psyche, which makes the Rambo character an interesting dichotomy.

So my advice for any of the four movies: turn off your brain and enjoy the bloody (literally) ride.

The Aegean, here I come!

2008-06-23T18:45:00.000-07:00

Two weeks of fun in the sun in the cradle of Western Civilization. Hagia Sophia, The Parthenon, the Turkish bazaar, Santorini's whitewashed homes, and so much more. Equal parts history lesson and leisure time: this is the ideal vacation for me. Time to bust out the white chinos and bathing suit...

Congrats to California

2008-06-17T16:36:00.001-07:00

Look at the couple in this picture. This is what unadulterated love looks like. Love doesn't discriminate by sexual orientation and this relationship deserves to be validated by marriage. Congratulations to California and hopefully other states will take cues from the state. Judging by New York's decision to get the ball rolling on recognizing marriages from states where gay marriage has been legalized, the process has already started.

Furthermore, I commend Gavin Newsom for having the foresight, and the balls, back in 2004.

Can India catch up to China?

2008-06-15T18:19:00.000-07:00

The international press for years now has clamored for a new counterweight to the American superpower since the implosion of the Soviet Union. With cracks in the American armor becoming more readily apparent, talk of China not only matching but eventually superseding America has intensified. Although I don't believe China can match America in per capita terms, China will most definitely overtake us in gross terms. Naturally, the press has also championed the rise of China's neighbor to the south, India. Could India be the counterweight to China in Asia, and be a powerful democratic ally for America in the region?

For now, unless things drastically change, I would have to say no. The main problem with Indian growth is that it's fundamentally top-down in its orientation. Although India's economy has grown at a torrid pace, I believe that it has largely benefitted a small group of individuals living in the megalopolises like Mumbai and Bangalore. The vast underclass in mid-sized cities and rural areas still live much as they did a century ago. IT is nice, but it's not the basis for wide-scale economic growth. India is moving towards becoming like Brazil, where you have pockets of extreme wealth (levels of affluence like in any Western country) surrounded by third-world impoverishment.

For India to catch up to China, Indians need to concentrate on getting their infrastructure up to par. And indeed, this will be a MONUMENTAL task in India. For example I remember driving from Delhi to Agra to see the Taj Mahal. This would definitely be a high-volume highway one would think, but one wouldn't be able to tell looking at the highway itself. It's a very narrow two-lane highway, one lane for each direction, going pretty much all the way from Delhi to Agra. Farmers with ox-pulled carts constantly slow you down and add hours to the trip. It's absolutely dreadful, and inexcusable for a country vying to be a superpower.

In addition, the Delhi airport, the first place foreigners come through, is literally falling apart. It's dimly lit and ancient-looking. The lack of runways means that most foreigners have to take flights in the wee hours. The cities themselves appear to be falling apart except for a few of the modern buildings. To see what I mean, compare the skyline of Mumbai, India's financial capital, with Shanghai's. Shanghai is a glittering, contemporary sky-reaching city while Mumbai is short and decrepit by comparison. Civic aspirations have to be bolseterd for India to become a financial power, a prerequisite to becoming a global superpower.

China, by contrast, has taken a bottom-top approach and now is in position to vault past America (once again in gross terms). Obviously I realize that it's tough for a democratic country like India to emulate the Chinese model, based on heavy, sometimes totalitarian-style, government control, but India is in real danger of becoming like Latin American countries in this hemisphere. Those countries are rife with social issues concomitant with their vast income discrepancies.

However, this isn't to say that democracy for India is a bad thing. In fact, it proffers one clear advantage: it fosters a system where people have a stake in the direction the country takes. In addition, having democratic freedom fosters creativity and entrepreneurial -minded people. These are positives the Indian government must mine if they want to go beyond regional power and become an international one.

Where the hell did Dubya go?

2008-06-12T16:24:00.000-07:00

The past few months since the State of the Union have been largely devoid of big Dubya news. Just a few years ago, any declaration from the POTUS would be all over the evening news and magazine covers. In fact, I'm pretty confident that in 2005 if Dubya scratched his ass it would be on the front cover of TIME that week. Lame-duck president doesn't even begin to describe the dropoff in media coverage; he's been completely invisible.

I didn't even know the guy was visiting Europe this week and I'd like to believe that I stay on top of the news much more than the average American. Curiously, there haven't been any protests by Europeans or any sort of hullabaloo. How does a guy go from invoking the ire of millions of Europeans to invoking....abject apathy?

My guess is a combination of many different factors. First, the current election for Bush's successor is defined by who can deviate from the course, rather than stay the course. Second, people are experiencing the comedown from the high that is Bush-bashing. Bush-bashing is so incredibly facile nowadays that people figure "Why bother anymore?". Third, when Bush says "stay the course", he really means it. Every speech he has delivered in the last three years devolves into four or five sound bites. To see what I mean, take a State of the Union speech from 2005 and compare it with the one he delivered in February this year. You'd be hard-pressed to see any differences not just thematically, but also syntactically.

This recent phenomenon is almost laughable, if Bush were not our president. Bush was recently on "Deal or no Deal" and ratings actually declined that week. That's just hilarious. That should be the true marker of disinterest in a president: decline in ratings of a popular tv show on NBC. Regardless, it speaks to the indifference of people towards a man who could do no wrong during the first years of his second term.

Is it over? Really?

2008-06-04T18:03:00.000-07:00

By now it's official news that Chicago's golden boy, Barack Obama, has clinched the nomination for the Democratic Party. In addition, there are unconfirmed reports that at the end of the week Hillary will deliver a concession speech. I think the convention will be a real slobber-knocker, regardless. The main question is no longer who will be the presidential nominee but rather will Hillary Clinton be the VP choice. Many have expressed the sentiment that it's a "dream ticket" and, more importantly, that they would renege their support for Democrats in November if Hillary does not get the VP nod.

First, I think Obama should not feel obligated to pick Hillary as his VP running-mate. The Clintonian spectre would weigh heavily over an Obama presidency and it's difficult to believe that Hillary and Bill would merely stay in the shadows given their high profile. Second, Hillary Clinton would be an easy target for the Republicans, for better or for worse. I don't agree with 95% of the charges leveled against Hillary by conservatives, but at the same time I realize the intrinsic, polarizing nature of Hillary Clinton. In an election year where so much is at stake, Democrats can simply not take that risk this November.

In fact, many of Hillary's purported strengths are mitigated in the general election with John McCain. Much of Hillary's blue-collar and Hispanic supporters will have legitimate reasons to vote for McCain this November. First, blue-collar supporters in states like West Virginia and Kentucky are much more likely to vote for a hawkish, old white man than a woman. In addition, McCain's support for immigration amnesty gives him appeal to Hispanic voters. Many of Hillary's perceived strengths are actually a result of running against a black man painted in elitist colors. This strategy worked in the primary, but will assuredly fail against McCain.

Hence, I plea to delegates and superdelegates to exercise some discretion and not get swept up with this "Hillary as VP" talk. There are other possibly better VP candidates (Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh come to mind) who may not be as high profile, but would act more like a vice-president than a president.

The immaculate fit

2008-06-03T17:24:00.001-07:00

This year, I have been forced to wear dress shirts on a regular basis for the first time. In undergrad, there is only one standard uniform: the dirty hoodie, unironed t-shirt, and grease-stained jeans. As I transition into professional life, I now find myself buying fewer hoodies and jeans and more dress shirts and dress trousers. I've found that not all dress shirts are created equal. In fact, a size 39 for one shirt and another by the same manufacturer may have a completely different fit. There's no consistency amongst the couturiers, or whatever you call them. I'm no sartorialist, but there are certain considerations that are paramount for picking the right dress shirt, and rules every man should go by.

1. Fit - Fit is the most important consideration. You never buy a dress shirt before trying it on because a 40 from one manufacturer is not the same as a 40 from another. Similarly, I've found that slim fit doesn't mean that it fits your definition of slim. Personally, I prefer slimmer fits and dislike blousy shirts. I have broad shoulders and a relatively slim waist so naturally a slim-fitting, almost tapered, shirt looks best on me. I HATE shirts that balloon out after you tuck them in; manufacturers should exercise discretion with the amount of fabric they use, not all American men are overweight.

2. Collars - I think the type of collars one chooses depends on the size of your neck. I have a pretty thick, short neck and I'm not that tall. Thus, I like wearing big, pointed collars that cover up my neck a little. I personally don't like the button-down collars; it just seems extraneous to me.

3. Cuffs - I like to mix it up with the cuffs. French cuffs are a bit dandyish, but they certainly have a time and place. At weddings and more formal occasions, nothing looks better than some french cuffs with nice cuff links. Cuff links, other than a tie, are the only opportunity for a guy to customize how he looks in a formal setting. It adds a personal touch, in my view. Otherwise, barrel cuffs should be the default option for most guys and fit close to the hand and not droop over.

4. Color and patterns - There are three standard colors a guy should have: white, light blue, and grey. One other color of your choosing should be added as well. My personal, fourth choice is lavender (not pink) because it's a subtle, yet unconventional, color. I think solid, unembellished colors are best; stripes can be overwhelming.

Those are just some fast, hard rules I live by and as I become more accustomed to wearing formal shirts on a regular basis, I'll find more rules "tailor-made" to myself.

RIP Charles Moskos

2008-06-03T07:45:00.000-07:00

If you are an alum of Northwestern University in the past three decades, you no doubt have heard of Charlie Moskos. For other people he's merely the "don't ask, don't tell" guy, but for Northwestern alum he is THE professor to take a class with. His intro to sociology class is considered a seminal part of the undergrad experience at NU, up there with painting the rock and the primal scream. Six-hundred students every fall quarter cram into Ryan Auditorium at Tech to not really take his class, but to hear his stories. He was essentially a walking, talking encyclopedia on the American military and was the best raconteur I have ever had the pleasure to witness in person.

I was lucky enough my junior year fall quarter to finally have a high enough priority number to take his class and I remember being so psyched when I finally saw "Intro to Sociology 110 Moskos" open. He never lectured on material in the book and thus, you never had to go to class. However, to do so, would rob you of the intellectual profundity of the living legend that was Moskos. I was fortunate enough to have a five minute discussion with him on Kashmiri militants and was exposed to simultaneously the warmth of his personality and the sheer depth of his knowledge. Despite being a confidante and friend to magnates like Bill Clinton, Wes Clark, and other prestigious figures, he was extremely down-to-earth, a rare exception amongst the decorated scholars at NU.

Little did I know, that was the last year he would teach the class. A protracted struggle with prostate cancer took Professor Moskos from us two days ago. I'm still in shock, to be frank. Just three years ago he was as vibrant as someone half his age, but that's cancer for you.

I'm deeply saddened by the news of his passing and I think I speak for literally thousands of former Northwestern students when I say that. My condolences go to the Moskos family and I hope my alma mater prepares a fitting memorial for him. Rest in peace, Professor Moskos.

What's the big deal anyways?

2008-05-28T18:53:00.000-07:00

Let me preface this with the following statement: I will not be among the hordes queueing up to see "Sex and the City" this weekend. The most compelling reason for why I have zero interest in seeing the movie is probably because I am neither A) a girl or B) a gay guy, which are the two biggest audiences of Sex and the City. However, I have an added motive: I just don't get it.

By it, I mean not just the show, but the phenomenon surrounding SATC. Bear in mind, I have actually watched a few episodes. My overall impression of the show is that it's the tv equivalent of a saccharine candy. Tempting and beautiful on the outside, but ultimately devoid of filling sweetmeat. The cinematography really captures the energy of Manhattan and there is an undeniable chemistry amongst the main actresses, but the show amounts to a one-trick pony for me: different ways to highlight how sexually liberated these women are.

There's nothing wrong with showing middle-aged women as sexually liberal as twentysomething men, but I fail to see the novelty.

In addition, the characters bore me because they are essentially caricatures of women everyone knows in real life. The blonde one is a sex-crazed cougar (dime a dozen on Rush St.), the redhead is career-driven (I went to Northwestern), and the brunette is a traditionalist (any girl back home). Every character arc involving Sarah Jessica Parker's friends revolves around something extending from those basic personality traits. Sarah Jessica Parker is that woman who doesn't really know what she wants and overanalyzes relationships. I also find it kind of weird that every friend has a different hair color like a crayon set.

My distinct lack of estrogen is probably the main problem, but myself and other straight guys will probably go into hiding this weekend like vampires. As for boyfriends dragged into watching the two and a half hour movie (yes, as long as a Bollywood movie) this weekend, may God have mercy on you.

Hoosier day

2008-05-25T09:46:00.000-07:00

Today is the Indianapolis 500, the one day when the Hoosier state is front and center. To anyone who isn't familiar with the state of Indiana (which is basically anyone outside of the state), let me give you a synopsis of the important points, with a focus on the South.

First, Indiana is a political anomaly amongst the Great Lakes States. It is the only red state among the staunchly blue states of Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan. Ohio may be leaning Republican of late, but atleast there is a history of blue leadership there particularly in Cleveland. Indianapolis is the largest city in the state and has largely avoided the Rust Belt decay Detroit and Cleveland have had to deal with. Indy, in my opinion, is not a "real city" because it's so diffusely populated. It occupies more square miles than Chicago with a much smaller population. Hence, Indianapolis feels more like an overgrown town than like a city of the San Francisco or Boston ilk.

Ethnically, there is a heavy German influence and most people are Protestant. Southwestern Indiana is an exception, as many people are Catholic and French heritage is more common (as Vincennes was a French outpost in New France).

Most of the state is split between agriculture and industry. The northwestern part of the state is considered part of Chicagoland and is culturally closer to Chicago than Indiana. Remnants of heavy industry remain in towns like Gary and the decline of industry has led to a rise in crime. The central part of the state is mostly flat and, of course, full of farmland. Most of the area is dominated by the Indianapolis metropolitan area.

The rest of the state is largely agricultural particularly the South where my parents live presently. Southern Indiana is quite conservative and a bit backwards, even by Hoosier standards. The first thing that struck me when we moved there is the "Southern-ness" of the region. People have accents, which are not as thick as an antebellum Southern accent, but are still quite noticeable. In fact, I distinctly remember being taken aback by the twang of people who live there because I had never visited the South before, and didn't think Southern Indiana was that south.

Speaking of speech peculiarities, there are certain idiosyncrasies one has to prime themselves to when visiting. First, any word that starts with a w can be subject to having an r inserted in the middle of it. For example, washing becomes warshing. Northwestern becomes Northwarstern. In addition, when requesting something, people in Southern Indiana have a tendency to change a verb into a present participle for some odd reason. For example, "Do you want something?" becomes "Are you wanting something?". Like a douche, I always correct people when they say that, but it's an oddity so ingrained that the effort is probably futile.

People are, on the whole, quite pleasant. Unfortunately, when they encounter a swarthy guy like me, I inevitably get the ignorant comments you wouldn't get in a more cosmopolitan area ("You speak English real good!").

I almost sound like a cultural anthropologist, but as a Clevelander with roots in England, Indiana really feels like a foreign country. There is real potential in this state though, as there is a skilled labor force, a strong state-supported university system, and that oft-mentioned Hoosier hospitality. It's up to the people in Indiana to take that next step, and be unafraid of change.

The last throes of conservatism (as we know it)?

2008-05-24T19:56:00.000-07:00

The latest issue of the New Yorker contains a sexily entitled article called "THE FALL OF CONSERVATISM" by George Packer. I thought to myself: "An article with such a bold declaration deserves to be read." As per usual with the New Yorker, it was a well-written, heavily researched piece and, at nine pages long, it demands your attention. Essentially, the central thesis argues that the American conservatism that started with Barry Goldwater is in its last throes as the Bush era comes to a close.

The reasons for its demise are manifold, but Packer ultimately argues that the current Republican brand has lost its raison d'etre in current politics. Why's that? Because the Republican predilection for polemics and rhetoric can't solve the problems of today that require governance. Polemics and cultural war posturing can't help rebuild New Orleans or give health care to poor people. The focus on rhetoric to win elections (which worked so convincingly for Reagan and Bush) has paralyzed the Republicans in the face of real problems that this country faces. Even that tried-and-true Republican strategy of promising to cut taxes doesn't work for economic issues that go beyond Reaganomics. It turns out that the American people do want government to do things. As David Brooks eloquently puts it in the article, they want government that is "melioristic" at heart.

Naturally, your acceptance of this reality is dependent on your political affiliation, but bear in mind that the author does not say that the Republicans as a party are dead, just that conservatism as we know it is. Part of the proof lies in the choosing of John McCain as the nominee, someone who is ideologically out of step with conservative base. Republicans need to focus on administering and accept that government is part of the solution, not part of the problem. That idea is more in step with what the average American believes now, especially given the events of the last few years. It will be interesting to see how the Republicans respond as election losses continue to mount and a new, Democratic-leaning generation, thanks to the failures of Bushism, comes to prominence.

Indiana Jones the Redux

2008-05-23T21:43:00.000-07:00

It's hard to believe that it has been NINETEEN whole years since the last Indiana Jones film. I just watched the new movie in a packed house in a theatre on Michigan Avenue and although I was fundamentally underwhelmed, I was still quite satisfied after the two hour joyride.

The Indiana Jones films are a great homage to old treasure-hunting epics from yesteryear. They're cartoonish at their core, but it doesn't seem to matter with all the kinetics onscreen. Be forewarned, "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" is a movie you leave your brain at the door for. I can barely tell you what this movie was about, except that a crystal skull, aliens, and the Soviets somehow combined to make a barely coherent plot. Does it matter?

No in fact, because the frenetic action distracts from the ridiculous plot. In this regard, the motorcycle scene and the jungle chase scene were excellently done, but the latter suffered from overuse of CGI. However, given that this was produced by George Lucas, I can't say I'm surprised by this. Regardless, accepting that Shia Labeuf can swing on vines a la Tarzan, land miraculously back in Indy's vehicle, and ostensibly command an army of CG monkeys to attack Cate Blanchett's character is an arduous task indeed. In fact, now that I think about it, I believe that one's enjoyment of this film is directly proportional to how easily one can stomach the droll scenes and deus ex machina moments in the plot.

Another niggling problem I had with this film was its tendency to be too self-referential. I think this is a common problem with movies that go beyond the conventional trilogy and then 20 years later are resurrected (eg-Rambo, Rocky). The directors and producers try to strike a balance between breaking new ground and hearkening back to the roots of the franchise. In my view, this movie erred by hewing too close to that latter, nostalgic route. Other than Shia's inclusion, everything is just too familiar for my taste.

The acting is over-the-top, but appropriate for a movie like this. Harrison Ford remains one of my favorite actors. All I need is some combination of sardonic grins and grumpy frowns from Harrison and I'm set for the rest of the movie. Cate Blanchett was a great villain and I must commend her on the excellent Ukrainian accent. Thumbs up for that, but thumbs down for that strange bob haircut. Shia Lawhatever consistently impresses me and will certainly be a blockbuster star in the near future.

Although this Indiana Jones falls well short of the original threesome of films, I was reasonably entertained and left wondering if there would be another Indiana Jones film. Perhaps the franchise will be further rejiggered with Shia as the successor to Indy? At 66 years old, Harrison Ford is only five years younger than John McCain, so one would hope if they had another film on the way that they would do it fast. I suppose then the next movie should be entitled "Indiana Jones and the Fountain of Youth"

High-density living : the wave of the future?

2008-05-23T14:42:00.000-07:00

I think it's safe to say that gasoline prices will, adjusted for inflation, continue to rise for the forseeable future. By the time I graduate from medical school, my conservative estimate is that we will, at the very least, see 12 bucks for a gallon of gas. This is the problem with nonrenewable sources of energy and everyone should have seen the high prices of today coming. We have two options: continue to scrimp and save so we can fill up our cars or fundamentally change the way we live.

Outside of pursuing renewable sources of energy or using nuclear power, America may have to abandon the prototypical "sprawling city" model. What this explicitly means is Manhattanization of cities outside of New York. Communal high-rises and multi-use buildings will become en vogue as we cope with higher energy costs. A perfect example in Chicago is the building at Lake Shore and Huron, which boasts living residences, a grocery store, a salon, a coffee shop, a hardware store,dry cleaning store, etc. In short, anything you need is within the building and does not require a car to accomplish daily errands. This is, I'm convinced, the wave of the future in this country.

It will be an unenviable task to coax Americans to give up the "big house and a yard" dream, but the energy costs and maintenance associated with suburban living are catching up to the average American. In 20 years, the American dream may only be attainable to those who make well into six figures, in urban areas seven figures. The only previous obstacle to this reality was the American anathema to high-density living and its purported association with crime and poverty. As that preconceived notion becomes quashed, hopefully Americans turn to the Europeans and how they coped with high energy costs. They have managed to maintain a high standard of living, so why can't we?

Partying like it's 1999

2008-05-21T18:17:00.000-07:00

It's times like these I'm glad I have a cool boss. Only my boss would not only allow me to watch the Champions League final with my Mancunian heroes, but he also accompanies me for the 4 hour match! And what a game it was. After getting thoroughly dominated for the second half and during the extra periods, Manchester United won it on PKs after John Terry effed up the possible winning kick for Chelsea.

FINALLY, ManU has officially moved beyond that great team of 1999. Just a few years ago, things didn't look so good with a rising Chelsea, teams from other leagues ascending, and the dirty Malcolm Glazer takeover. Cristiano Ronaldo helps, but some savvy roster moves (eg - acquiring Carlos Tevez; although I personally would have preferred Fernando Torres) helped them get over the big hump. Good because I was tired of Carling Cups....

I'll be honest. I was a Ronaldo doubter in the beginning. I thought he was simply another diva who dribbled the ball too much and flopped at every chance. To watch his ascent into the best player in the world has been a joy and I now gladly admit that I was wrong.

Cheers to the new champs and may there be continued success.

I'm getting old...

2008-05-20T13:11:00.000-07:00

Operating on 4 hours of sleep or less on 3 consecutive days is suddenly an extremely arduous task...

Sarkozy l'Americain

2008-05-14T19:48:00.000-07:00

I've always been fond of Nicolas Sarkozy's unofficial nickname, translated to "The American". How apt for a President more Hollywood than European, more volatile than understated. Sure, the nickname has obvious negative connotations; but, ignoring the stereotype it draws from; it seems to apply. I'm no expert of French politics, but it appears that Sarkozy has been unsuccessful thus far in changing France's status quo. No-one expected him to change the business climate or erase racial tensions overnight, but I feel that photo-ops of him and Carla Bruni have been more plentiful than concrete steps towards business and societal reform.

In short, France desperately needs an injection of change, not more pictures of Sarkozy in Ray-Bans (although I have to point out, there is no man more chuffed in the world than Nicolas Sarkozy with Carla Bruni; I'd show her off as well).

Wedding season...tally ho!

2008-05-12T11:38:00.000-07:00

I have now been a good year out of college and so have many of my high school classmates and college friends. Not surprisingly, I have received a glut of wedding invitations or news of impending engagements as spring approaches. Although I expected as much, it is still somewhat eerie to hear of so-and-so getting married or engaged. I still see myself as a kid, albeit one who can live on his own and buy a drink.

Marriage is that first step into adulthood, in my view. Getting married irrevocably severs one from his or her youth. Suddenly, one willingly bears the cumbersome yoke of responsibility. One can tell based on my characterization that I am not keen on joining the ranks of married men anytime soon. There's too much to still see and experience. In addition, I'm nowhere close to being established in terms of my education. My conservative estimate is that marriage is atleast 10 years off. I'll gladly attend my friends's weddings, but I sincerely doubt I'll feel a twinge of envy or start to entertain thoughts of the "I should really start to settle down now" ilk.

That byproduct of marriage, kids, is even more unimaginable. How can a kid like me beget children? It's not only unimaginable, but also unconscionable for me. The only conclusion I have come to in this regard is that one child is enough (after seeing my parents struggle as they did with me and my brother). Give that one child all the resources in the world and watch him or her succeed is my philosophy. Let the Amish breed like rabbits.

In short, I'm sure married life WHEN I'M READY will be the most joyous part of my life. I'm not entirely utilitarian; I have romanticized beliefs about marriage. Until I possess the maturity however, I'll perceive it as the hefty burden best left for the future.

Now it's just getting sad....

2008-05-08T16:41:00.000-07:00

Oh, Hillary...

Your unrelenting tenacity is usually your best quality, but now it has become the bane of an entire party. Your motivation to stay in the race is to merely sate your ego. The glimmer of hope that did exist is now completely extinguished.

On that note, I commend Hoosiers for helping to put out that remaining ember. Hillary BARELY won a state she should have won handily. The process is dependent on beating expectations, not wins and losses. In this regard, Obama had an unqualified win. Hillary has no hope now short of mafia style whacking of superdelegates who defect to Obama (which will surely accelerate with the net result of Indiana and North Carolina).

In fact, things are so stacked against Clinton that her behavior has become curiously irrational. She claims to have "the best chance of beating McCain". Clearly this is a belief that the minority of primary and caucus voters believe as evidenced by the explicit results of the Democratic primary process and the gigantic gap in fundraising. The latter is especially telling as Hillary's biggest donor right now is Hillary Clinton (using that cushy 100 million dollars she accrued in the last eight years). The greatest irony is that Hillary is the candidate championing the blue-collar middle American and Obama is construed as an elitist.

No Hillary, it's not the punditocracy that's against you; it's the facts that are. It's beyond time to get out of the race and I hope the superdelegates join the chorus against her.

Indiana FINALLY votes

2008-05-06T16:41:00.000-07:00

It has been quite eerie to see the names of small towns and cities throughout Indiana in the mainstream news. People from New York can't be surprised to see New York mentioned in the news because the city's vagaries and trends direct the nation. Same with the Chicagos and San Franciscos of the country. These are the places that matter because of their power, wealth, and sheer numbers.

So you can imagine my shock when I see Vincennes, Anderson, or Evansville mentioned in the context of a national campaign to decide the Democratic nominee for President. On the front page of the New York Times or CNN I see the headline, "Hillary/Barack visit Evansville" or "Bill Clinton in Vincennes". It lends an aura of celebrity to an oft-forgotten section of America.

Even within the context of an election, it's still amazing to see the Hoosier name-dropping and editorials analyzing the Indiana electorate. If there has been one benefit of this protracted struggle between Hillary and Barack, it's the elevation of Hoosier concerns onto a national level. Perhaps the nominees will, thus, be cajoled into incorporating the voicings of Middle Americans into their respective platforms.

Based on the demographics of Indiana, this should be a relatively easy win for Hillary Clinton. I expect numbers similar to Pennsylvania's (55-45). It won't be a commanding win, but a solid enough win for Hillary to delude herself into thinking she still has a chance.

Harold and Kumar: decent movie, powerful social statement

2008-05-01T17:21:00.000-07:00

Let me be frank, "Harold and Kumar: Escape from Guantanamo Bay" is not an outstanding film by any measure. In almost every regard, it proves to be unoriginal as it relies on a heaping dose of gross-out humor. The opening scene sets the tone with Kumar relieving himself on the toilet with a gigantic dump induced by consuming copious amounts of White Castle burgers. There are also many downright stoopid (sic) moments which are either borderline retarded or cliched beyond imagination (oh, Jews love money and blacks like grape soda, that's novel).

And yet, despite its many failings as a film and "saw that from a mile away" moments, this movie always managed to reel me back in. Ostensibly, the two main draws of this film, chemistry amongst the main actors and the surprisingly intellectual sociopolitical satire, are enough to mitigate its many flaws.

The titular Harold and Kumar (played by John Cho and Kal Penn respectively) have a palpable chemistry with each other. They play well off of each other and their up-and-down friendship is totally believable despite the ridiculous premise of the movie itself. For many people, this is probably the first time they are seeing these actors in leading roles and, hopefully it's not the last time. When you throw in Neil Patrick Harris aka Doogie Howser, the film reaches a high (yes, i did just say that) and provides some of the funniest scenes in the movie sans the infamous Bush scene. Rob Corrdy really hams it up, but it's necessary for his role as an ignorant asshole CIA operative.

Despite the excellent comedic chemistry amongst all the actors, I thought the most enthralling part of the film was the satire of post 9/11 politics. For a stoner film, it is surprisingly sophisticated in its lampooning of the current administration's policies, mostly through Rob Corrdry's rants as he tries to capture Harold and Kumar. The first movie was a landmark because it was probably the first movie to have two Asian-American leads acting like normal people, not stereotypes. The second film needed to do something else to separate it from other comedies, and I think because of the expert parodying of Bush politics, it succeeded.

Furthermore, I really commend the producers and New Line Cinema for willing to bank movies with Asian American leads. For an industry that prides itself on being progressive, Hollywood has been reluctant to put money behind minority actors. TV has been much more willing to cast minority actors, but Hollywood still believes that Middle America would repudiate films with minority leads. Hopefully, the Harold and Kumar trilogy (and trust me, there WILL be another movie) will inspire other studios to take some risks.

Is it a comedy for the ages? No, but it was worth my student-discounted $9.50 ticket.

"Forgetting Sarah marshall" was easy to remember

2008-04-20T08:20:00.000-07:00

Since "Freaks and Geeks", I've been a fan of Judd Apatow's projects. He has a very organic approach to comedy. Sure, there are many contrived situations, but much of the humor and characters are firmly grounded in reality. The way in which characters interact and joke around with each other is eerily true to real life at times. Furthermore, his movies are the closest thing to a brand in today's cinema. I read a review which likened watching an Apatow film to going to a neighborhood bar. What an apt description of the Apatow-watching experience.

Judd's turnaround from earlier in his career has been astounding. "Freaks and Geeks" and "Undeclared" were excellent shows, especially the former. Unfortunately, they were both canceled after a season. Now Apatow has made it his karmic mission to elevate all of his acolytes into movie stars, producers, and writers. The latest Apatow player to receive this promotion is Jason Segel, best known as that guy from "How I met your Mother".

My expectations were not as high as they were for Knocked Up or 40 Year Old Virgin because I had heard that Judd Apatow did not direct this effort and was only superficially involved with the scriptwriting. This was the same situation with Superbad, which was a funny movie but lacked that certain something Knocked Up and 40yov had.

Was this movie as good as the two aforementioned? Not quite, but very close. The mark of a good comedy is a great stable of funny supporting actors outside of the main actors mentioned on the poster. In this regard, the film did not disappoint. Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, Jack McBrayer, Bill Hader, and other unnamed actors do a great job delivering laughs. Perhaps the biggest surprise was Russell Brand, the guy who played the eccentric British rocker. His odd and off-the-wall sense of humor contributes much to the movie, and he has a surprising level of depth for a self-centered, sex-crazed rock star.

This great supporting cast, however, does not overshadow Jason Segel, the guy who gets dumped by the titular Sarah Marshall. His womanly insecurities after getting dumped are simultaneously sad and hilarious. You really feel for this guy because, unlike the stereotypical comedic male lead, he is an actual three-dimensional character with feelings. Mila Kunis, the hot rebound girl, is the chick every guy wants to get with. She's charming, cute, and has an edge to her. She probably gives the best performance in the entire movie. Kristen Bell does the best she can with the role of being the bitch, so I can't rip on her too much.

I think a review of this movie can't go without a mention of the nudity. And most guys would get excited at that prospect with hot girls like Mila Kunis and Kristen Bell, but instead you get Jason Segel's limp dick. The shots aren't really that gratuitious; they fit with the beginning and ending scenes when they happen and add to the humor. The only notable issue with the movie is pacing. At times, the movie lags and becomes long and overdrawn. Some reviewers have said that the film, like any romantic comedy, has a predictable ending. My view is that, first of all, this is NOT your typical Matthew McConnaughey starring romantic comedy and, second, you watch it for the humorous circumstances that get you from point A to point B. And, in this regard, the movie is a rip-roaring good time and a worthy addition to the Apatow canon.

Of Elitism

2008-04-17T17:37:00.000-07:00

Obama's remarks have now had ample time to be taken apart and analyzed by the press. Most sources I have consulted have come to the same conclusion: Obama is a suit and tie, big-city liberal whose intrinsic elitist tendencies came through. Such a rudimentary conclusion, in my view, is a bit harsh. In fact, as someone who spent high school in rural, small-town Indiana, I can verify most of what Obama said as sadly true. Obama has been derided for his "act of condescension", but I think writers from the NY Times to the New Yorker are guilty of using a detached, overly academic looking glass into rural life. And, in a way, are relying on stereotypes about the rural American.

To understand what I mean, one has to understand how culturally different small towns are from New York City. I genuinely believe that it is impossible for an editorialist from NYC to truly understand middle America. It's for the same reason I question how much a Western anthropologist can understand tribal Samoans. We are indubitably victims of our schemas and preconceived notions, as hard as we try to purge them with objectivity.

That said, these writers are relying on an outdated view of small town Americans, that of the "romanticized yeoman". Jeb works hard on the farm/plant all day and comes home to a small, but sturdy house. He may not be smart, but he feeds his six children and teaches them the essentials about traditional values of God and country.

What the critics don't realize is that this view hasn't been valid for atleast 50 years or so. Economic realities have shaken the foundation of formerly robust small towns based on agriculture and heavy industry. Most jobs have gone abroad and are never coming back. People who do get a four-year degree do not stay at home and move to the cities. After all, that's where the jobs are. What happens is that small towns stagnate and decline. When young people move out, sense of community and hope goes with it.

So 50 years later, Jeb becomes a distraught, broken man who's desperately trying to make ends meet. His kids got educated at college and became journalists, nurses, or professionals. He is all alone and has no stake in the direction his country is heading. Jeb has been forsaken by a country defined by the cultural and economic vitality of its urban areas.

Economic hardship breeds the frustration Obama talked about. Religion is only a temporary salve, and in my opinion is not the panacea that economic well-being is for the middle American. If rural people turned to religion as fervently as they could wouldn't it be rational to expect them to constantly harbor hope, or to be more enlightened? Isn't that the point of religion?

To further my point, enlightened behavior does not include racist or anti-immigrant beliefs. Now, because the nation has disavowed the economic interests of the yeoman, the only political arena he or she can have a say is with social issues. Republicans have done an excellent job of deflecting and de-emphasizing their role in siphoning away jobs from America, while simultaneously positioning themselves as the staunch guardians of "traditional values". By fanning the flames of discontent with issues such as abortion and immigration, they expertly distract from their embrace of globalization and other injurious policies that have led to the loss of Jeb's job at the factory. In addition, the rhetorical style of conservatives and their tendency to think in black and white terms would have appeal to a blue-collar American. It's a strategy that started in the 1960s and has gradually whittled away the traditional base for Democrats.

The good news for Obama is that these comments, though controversial, is only a minor issue. By November, it will be largely forgotten thanks to the small attention spans of American voters. If McCain does make it an issue, Obama can fire back by painting McCain as a flip-flopper who did what was politically expedient to make it out of the Republican primary. He will have ammunition. Although Hillary Clinton has snatched onto the quotes with vigor, I don't think voters ultimately buy her posturing as a God-fearing, gun-toting beer swiller.

Should Obama have said those comments? No, of course not. However, I genuinely believe there is a kernel of truth in the vaguely elitist remark.

My Sentiments exactly

2008-04-12T10:25:00.000-07:00

This op-ed was posted just today, verifying some of the things I've said: (Source: New York Times, 12 April 2008, "Losing Our Will" by Bob Herbert

I wonder what the answers would be if each American asked himself or herself the question: “How is the war in Iraq helping me?”

While the U.S. government continues to pour precious human treasure and vast financial resources into this ugly war without end, it is all but ignoring deeply entrenched problems that are weakening the country here at home.

On the same day that President Bush was announcing an indefinite suspension of troop withdrawals from Iraq, the New York Times columnist David Leonhardt was telling us a sad story about how the middle class has fared during the Bush years.

The economic boom so highly touted by the president and his supporters “was, for most Americans,” said Mr. Leonhardt, “nothing of the sort.” Despite the sustained expansion of the past few years, the middle class — for the first time on record — failed to grow with the economy.

And now, of course, we’re sinking into a nasty recession.

The U.S., once the greatest can-do country on the planet, now can’t seem to do anything right. The great middle class has maxed out its credit cards and drained dangerous amounts of equity from family homes. No one can seem to figure out how to generate the growth in good-paying jobs that is the only legitimate way of putting strapped families back on their feet.

The nation’s infrastructure is aging and in many places decrepit. Rebuilding it would be an important source of job creation, but nothing on the scale that is needed is in sight. To get a sense of how important an issue this is, consider New Orleans.

The historian Douglas Brinkley, who lives in New Orleans, has written: “What people didn’t yet fully comprehend was that the overall disaster, the sinking of New Orleans, was a man-made debacle, resulting from poorly designed levees and floodwalls.”

We could have saved the victims of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, but we didn’t. And now, more than 2 ½ years after the tragedy, we are still unable to lift the stricken city off its knees.

Other nations can provide health care for everyone. The United States cannot. In an era in which a college degree is becoming a prerequisite for a middle-class quality of life, we are having big trouble getting our kids through high school. And despite being the wealthiest of all nations, nearly 10 percent of Americans are resorting to food stamps to maintain an adequate diet, and 4 in every 10 American children are growing up in families that are poor or near-poor.

The U.S. seems almost paralyzed, mesmerized by Iraq and unable to generate the energy or the will to handle the myriad problems festering at home. The war will eventually cost a staggering $3 trillion or more, according to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. When he was asked on “Democracy Now!” about who is profiting from the war, he said the two big gainers were the oil companies and the defense contractors.

This is the pathetic state of affairs in the U.S. as we approach the end of the first decade of the 21st century. Whatever happened to the dynamic country that flexed its muscles after World War II and gave us the G.I. Bill, the Marshall Plan, the United Nations (in a quest for peace, not war), the interstate highway system, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the finest higher education system the world has known, and a standard of living that was the envy of all?

America’s commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, and our ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, went up to Capitol Hill this week but were unable to give any real answers as to when the U.S. might be able to disengage, or when a corner might be turned, or when a faint, flickering hopeful light might be glimpsed at the end of the long, horrific Iraqi tunnel.

A country that used to act like Babe Ruth now swings like a minor-leaguer. The all-American can-do philosophy has been smothered by the hapless can’t-do performances of the people who have been in charge for the past several years. It’s both tragic and embarrassing.

The war in Iraq stands like a boulder in the road, blocking progress on so many other important issues that are crucial to our viability as a society. We’ve seen this before. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, which included the war on poverty, was crippled by the war in Vietnam.

On the evening of April 4, 1967, one year to the day before he was assassinated, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. went into Riverside Church in Manhattan and said of the war in Vietnam: “This madness must cease.”

Forty-one years later, we can still hear the echo of Dr. King’s call. The only sane response is: “Amen.”

Pessimism is this season's black

2008-04-08T18:28:00.000-07:00

There's no denying this truth as we march to the election: people are generally not happy about the direction America is heading. Although the economy will inexorably go through bouts of boom and bust, this recent downturn feels more emblematic of something worse: the beginning of the end of American dominance. It extends beyond a crack in the armor of America's economic dominance; American authority itself is starting to be questioned. The result is a new level of despair in the US, which has yet to reach its nadir.

It all starts with Iraq. How naive does it seem now to believe that we would be welcomed in Iraq with open arms? People genuinely believed that building a democracy would be simple enough under the spectre of America, the world's greatest democracy. Instead, we are sending surges of troops to just tread water. Remember the now ridiculous assertion that Iraq's oil revenues would eventually pay for the war? Remember the promise that WMDs would be found? Instead, we're left with empty promises, Dada-esque rationale from Bush, and billions of dollars in debt.

We all knew sunk costs associated with nation-building on an unwilling nation would eventually catch up with America. Unfortunately for Bush and the nation, the full ramifications of mega-scale deficit spending arrived a year early. What we are dealing with is not a mere crack in the facade, rather the entire foundation is under threat. Here's a laundry list of issues off the top of my head: Chinese control of American financial instruments, housing crisis, credit crisis, record deficit, rising cost of living, rising prices of imported necessities like food, rising gas prices, shrinking paychecks, pitiful dollar, etcetera etcetera etcetera. I'm not an economist and I don't pretend to be, but this sounds like a perfect storm.

Perhaps the worst consequence of these going-ons is the crisis in American confidence. Eternal optimism is as much a part of Americana as apple pie and baseball. It guides our country from a moral standpoint and is the basis of the unique entrepreneurial culture here. Americans can take lumps, but a permanent degeneration in our optimism and confidence in our place in the world would be, by far, the worst consequence of the mess America is currently mired in.

The Era of Partisanship

2008-04-05T19:36:00.000-07:00

Sometime around the turn of the decade, it seems that people have become increasingly stubborn with respect to their politics. Being partisan and demonizing the opposition is the initiation into modern politics, not cordially accepting opposing viewpoints and having frank discussions about the issues.

There is no other explanation for the rise in punditry and the fall of (presumably) unbiased journalism. People would rather get their news from Rush Limbaughs and Al Frankens. Nevermind the liberties with truth these pundits take and the screamfests they pass off as guest interviews. People want their news like they want their cheese: processed beyond recognition.

Why are people so angry at each other? Why has the political climate become so hot and uncomfortable? I really yearn for those times when people simply took a viewpoint as just that: a viewpoint. Just because I'm pro-choice and for gun control does not mean I am morally evil or mentally diseased. It's those sorts of attitudes that lead one down the path of dogma and ignorance.

Decay of Rural America

2008-04-05T15:08:00.000-07:00

I pride myself on being open-minded and curious about the world around me. As a traveler, I try my best to adapt to the pace or lifestyle around me, as I think it endows me with this better understanding of the place I'm visiting. In addition, I relish "edutainment" opportunities in a city I visit. Learning about the history of a place is the surest way to facilitate the cultural immersion process. Traveling within the United States is no exception to this ethos.

I've traveled all over the United States and I've become keenly aware of one phenomenon: a decay of rural America. America is fast becoming an urban nation. Education is being used as a tool to consolidate populations in urban centers, where industries of the future (tech, health care, pharma, etc.) tend to congregate. What did backwoods areas stake their economic livelihood on? Agriculture and manufacturing mostly. With the decline of those two pillars of rural America, people have moved out.

It's really quite simple. Manufacturing jobs go overseas to take advantage of lower wages. Further, it's not necessary for so many people to be in agriculture anymore. The government has to pay farmers to stop growing crops. Also, the large amount of investment and energy that goes into farming (with small compensation) is not attractive to young people.

I have no qualms about believing the innumerable statistics or vignettes; I've lived in the Midwest my entire life in America. I've lived in the three microcosms of the Midwest: 1) the former manufacturing powerhouse reduced to a shell of its former self (Cleveland) 2) the depressed rural part (Vincennes) and 3) the regional titan with cosmopolitan flair (Chicago).

Vincennes, in my opinion, is emblematic of the many problems the rural Midwest encounters. The population was never very large to begin with, but in the span of a decade nearly 5,000 people have moved out. Young people are moving out while only the older people stay. Consequently, death rates are high.

And really, a town like Vincennes has no chance. I graduated from high school five years ago, and the only people who stayed are the ones who graduated near the bottom of the class. None of the people in the advanced classes who got four year degrees are coming back. Now that people are getting further education beyond the four year degree, the chances of any people like me returning are effectively nil. What results is an efflux of creativity and intelligence from Vincennes. In other words, decay.

This problem is hardly unique. I've seen the same phenomenon all across the Midwest and the South. You don't really see this on the East Coast and the West Coast, because the consolidation process is more or less complete there. As regions like Southern indiana lose out, your Chicagos and Atlantas benefit.

In the past, this wasn't a problem, I think. The United States was smaller, and traveling around was difficult and expensive. People never got an opportunity to see if and where the grass was greener. Nowadays, I can just pull up some statistics on the internet and know exactly what's up. If you're a bright high schooler in bumblefuck, Indiana, you can go to an Ivy school. Distance is not the boundary it once was thanks to the Internet and rising incomes.

It really is lamentable, but at the same time I recognize that I contribute to the problem by essentially eschewing my hometown. My parents, after these ten years, agree with me now on my assessment of home and seem eager to leave now that my brother and I have moved on.

So will watermelon festivals be a thing of the past? No, but attendance will certainly grow smaller year after year.

HIllary, time to do what's best for the party

2008-03-28T17:21:00.001-07:00

Dear Hillary Clinton,

The quiet chatter has steadily grown into explicit calls for your bowing out of the nomination process. You have every right to stay in this race; I wholeheartedly agree with you. But when you are putting your ego before the good of this country, you are being extremely selfish. You continue in this race and you will become the Nader of the 2008 election.

Numbers don't lie. Unless Barack decides tomorrow to snort crack on the speech podium, he will undoubtedly be the Democratic nominee. You need to win more than 60% of the aggregate vote in remaining states. Bear in mind, the only state you achieved this goal is Arkansas, where you were the first lady. Not even New York gave you that margin. In other words, your chances of pulling this out are basically nil.

So the only thing your campaign is accomplishing is polarization of the Democrats, which directly benefits a flawed candidate like John McCain. Additionally, around 30% of your supporters say they wouldn't vote for Barack Obama if he became the eventual nominee. Through dirty politicking (and admit it please. Since Ohio and Texas, that's what you have resorted to), you've engendered all this bad blood WITHIN YOUR OWN PARTY. Fast-forward to November and realize that McCain can run ads saying you, a bellwether of the Democratic party, support McCain as president rather than the party's own nominee. You're doing McCain's job for him, and some of the damage is irrevocable.

Now, I understand why you're reluctant to throw in the towel. The media basically settled around you in 2006. You had the cash, the resume, and the name recognition. Unfortunately, the dynamo of the century came out of Chicago to rain on your premature coronation.

Do what's best for the party and America. Don't give John McCain, aka Bush 2.0, a free pass until the convention.

Donkey Kong Country 2 : an exercise in frustration

2008-03-23T17:00:00.000-07:00

I recently went back home and found my old Super Nintendo. Ahhhh, the memories of Mario, Zelda, and Donkey Kong. The latter, especially, caught my eye as I rifled through the grey cartridges. I remember when the first one came out. It was a phenomenon. Pre-rendered graphics were a new thing back then and people were genuinely wowed by the visuals and the sound. The gameplay is still enjoyable 14 years later. The only major failing of the game is that it's a bit too easy. I can go through the entire game in an hour without a game over. After the first world, you can easily get 30 lives and just ride that for the entire game.

After ripping through DKC, I popped in the sequel. After the second world, the difficulty amps up considerably. I got my first game over in the middle of the third world. And it only got worse as I progressed. I just barely got 60% after beating the game this time around. It's MUCH harder to amass lives in this game and the secrets are better hidden. I was never a "hardcore" gamer, but I'm no casual gamer either. So it took me aback how much my gaming muscles have atrophied. What happened to my razor-sharp reflexes? My ability to figure out the puzzles? My file from 1995 is near 80%. The proof is in the pudding.

One level, in particular, really blazes my balls. "Animal Antics" in the Lost World is one of the hardest levels of any game I've ever played. The premise of the level involves using only your animal buddies. This is a problem because all of the animals (with the exception of the rhino and swordfish) are awkward to use in one way or another. The snake and parrot are the worst offenders. The worst part of the level is the area involving the parrot, whose controls for flight are difficult to master. Further, this area has turbulent winds flowing left and right in alternating fashion. When you're trying to navigate narrow paths, it's a huge pain in the ass. What's worse is that you have to kill some enemies to clear a path sometimes. When you shoot, his momentum pushes you back and can lead to you losing a life in these close corners.

I think this one level has led to atleast 15 game over screens for me. What sucks is that the midpoint save barrel is in the spider area , which is relatively easy compared to the parrot and snake area. The developers purposely did this to fluster gamers. Thanks a lot, Rare.

Despite this one level, the game is better than the first one. The gameplay is improved and the graphics are stellar. The best addition is Dixie Kong; you don't miss Donkey Kong with her around. It doesn't make it that much easier to navigate these levels, but it adds a certain level of fun when Dixie is spinning and floating around.

Well, next up is Super Mario World.

Indiana population trends

2008-03-21T10:08:00.000-07:00

I've always been a closet stats junkie. There's something interesting about numbers to me. Anyways, this article from the Indianapolis Star (21 March 2008), details population trends in Hoosierland. Not surprisingly, Hamilton county (Carmel, Fishers) had the highest population growth and southwestern Indiana (where my parents live) has the highest death rate. The county they live in was explicitly called out for something I've known for a long time: new residents and young people are not moving to these counties.

Hamilton County -- once again -- is the fastest-growing county in Indiana and the 23rd fastest-growing in the nation.

The state's five fastest-growing counties (the others are Hendricks, Hancock, Johnson and Boone, in that order) accounted for 64 percent of Indiana's total population growth from 2000 to 2007. Each county had more births than deaths in seven years, and together added more than 149,000 residents, said Matt Kinghorn, economic research analyst at Indiana Business Research Center, Bloomington.

A look at the gains and losses across the state and metro area:

Also of note in Indiana

Baby booms: Average birth rates in LaGrange, Adams and Elkhart counties were the highest among Indiana's 92 counties, topping 17 births per 1,000 residents between 2000 and 2007.

Researchers say those counties are home to much of the state's Amish population, which tends to have larger families.

Highest death rates: Three of the top five Indiana counties with the highest average death rates span the state's western border -- Vermillion, Knox and Sullivan.

Vermillion was tops, averaging 13.6 deaths per 1,000 residents between 2000 and 2007. Knox and Sullivan counties ranked fourth and fifth, following Fayette and Henry counties.

The western-tier counties had few newer, younger residents moving in and ranked among the highest in overall median age during the period.

Immigrant magnets: Tippecanoe and Monroe counties, home to two of Indiana's major university campuses, ranked among the top 5 counties in the state in the average rate of international migration -- people moving in from outside the U.S.

Tippecanoe County ranked first, averaging nearly six international migrants per 1,000 residents since 2000. Monroe County ranked fourth, with a 3.6 per 1,000 average. Rounding out the top five: Clinton, Elkhart and Noble counties, three areas where large industries may be magnets for foreign residents, researchers say.

The national picture

Seventy of the nation's fastest-growing counties from July 2006 to July 2007 were in the South, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Thursday.

Just eight of the fastest-growing counties were in the Midwest (including Hamilton County); 22 were in the West.

Fastest grower: Arizona's Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, added the most people in that period -- 102,000, bringing its population to nearly 3.9 million.

Most populous: Los Angeles County held on to that title, with 9.9 million people, though its population dropped 2,000 over the year.

--- Star and news service report

China the bully

2008-03-18T19:16:00.000-07:00

So I'm sure everyone has heard about the recent riots in Tibet. With the Olympics a few months away, China has a significant issue they must deal with before athletes from around the world touch down in Beijing. Unfortunately, China's preferred method of dealing with intranational problems is an ironfist, especially concerning its minorities.

The state-controlled media, as usual, is not being 100% candid with what is happening in Tibet. They have put most of the focus on property destruction and terrorization of the Han Chinese living there. Missing is a mention of the 50 years of Chinese intimidation, unfair treatment, and the systematic extermination of Tibetan culture. In fact, based on Tibet ALONE, China would be among the worst offenders of human rights since WWII.

China has always insisted that they have "liberated" the Tibetans. Seriously? This liberation must have been news to the Tibetans in the 50s. And judging by the periodic uprisings against China, I don't think the Tibetans took too kindly to the liberation. The Tibetan people have made this point abundantly clear : "We don't want you here and you really have no business being here". Tibet has a different culture, ethnic identity, and history from China. Add that to Beijing's hardline stance against Tibetan cultural expression and you can see why lingering, and multi-generational, resentment exists against the Chinese.

China does similar things in the Xinjiang province to tribal Muslims. During Ramadan, Chinese authorities stuff food down their throats as they try to fast in accordance with the tenets of their religion. That's plain disgusting. I know the PRC doesn't sanction religion, but is it really necessary to do something like that? It reeks of ethnic discrimination, in my opinion.

What's worse is that the West just sits there and takes China's blatant disregard for human rights. No-one has the balls to call out China because they have their hands in the economic pot, and are afraid China will slap their wrists if they speak out. The US, in particular, has been largely silent because China for the last 5 years has basically propped up the American economy. Bush's deficit spending has indirectly led to Chinese control of many American financial instruments. In other words, they have our government by the balls. In part, that's why I really admire Nancy Pelosi for visiting the Dalai Lama and speaking out against China. For once, consideration for human rights trumps politics.

When you consider the net effect of China's transgressions (in the modern era, no less), it's really a shame that China was awarded the Olympics. In many ways, the actions of the Chinese government are anathema to the spirit of the Olympics. China may be moving towards vaulting past America and Europe in economic terms, but they are still mired with Burma and Zimbabwe amongst the world's most egregious offenders of human rights.

New York

2008-03-16T18:13:00.000-07:00

On a better note, I just got back from New York. NYC was amazing, to put it plainly. This was my first time there since 1993. I should have gone there in 2003 for my senior year trip, but my classmates went white water river rafting in West Virginia instead(yeah, they're from Southern Indiana, please forgive them. If it counts for anything, I didn't go to WV in protest). There's such a vitality in New York. Everything from the hustle-and-bustle of Times Square to the hipness of Soho to the overwhelming diversity everywhere you go, it all had a profound effect on me.

I went to New York expecting people to be jerks. I was pleasantly surprised to find, on the whole, that people were pretty gracious and outgoing. I struck up random conversations with lots of people everywhere I went. Sure, they aren't as nauseatingly nice as Hoosiers, but that's fine by me. Perhaps East Coast elitism is a bit overexaggerated (except for people from Boston)...

One thing I must especially commend New York on: the public transportation is spectacular. Although it is a little on the dirty side, I never waited more than 10 minutes for my train or bus. It runs like clockwork and it's 24/7. In addition, you can use your ATM card to add value to the Metrocard. Take notes, CTA...

Sure, the cost of living is astronomical, but I understand why everyone wishes they were a New Yorker. It's certainly a special place.

Bush's confident ignorance

2008-03-16T18:02:00.000-07:00

I think this op-ed better expresses than I can my feelings on Bush's perplexingly upbeat attitude regarding the direction America is headed: (New York Times "Soft Shoe in Hard Times" Maureen Dowd).

Everyone here is flummoxed about why the president is in such a fine mood.

The dollar’s crumpling, the recession’s thundering, the Dow’s bungee-jumping and the world’s disapproving, yet George Bush has turned into Gene Kelly, tap dancing and singing in a one-man review called “The Most Happy Fella.”

“I’m coming to you as an optimistic fellow,” he told the Economic Club of New York on Friday. His manner — chortling and joshing — was in odd juxtaposition to the Fed’s bailing out the imploding Bear Stearns and his own acknowledgment that “our economy obviously is going through a tough time,” that gas prices are spiking, and that folks “are concerned about making their bills.”

He began by laughingly calling the latest news on the economic meltdown “a interesting moment” and ended by saying that “our energy policy has not been very wise” and that there was “no quick fix” on gasp-inducing gas prices.

“You know, I guess the best way to describe government policy is like a person trying to drive a car in a rough patch,” he said. “If you ever get stuck in a situation like that, you know full well it’s important not to overcorrect, because when you overcorrect you end up in the ditch.”

Dude, you’re already in the ditch.

Boy George crashed the family station wagon into the globe and now the global economy. Yet the more terrified Americans get, the more bizarrely carefree he seems. The former oilman reacted with cocky ignorance a couple of weeks ago when a reporter informed him that gas was barreling toward $4 a gallon.

In on-the-record sessions with reporters — and more candid off-the-record ones — he has seemed goofily happy in recent weeks, prickly no more but strangely liberated and ebullient.

Even though he ordinarily hates being kept waiting, he made light of it while cooling his heels for John McCain, and did a soft shoe for the White House press. Wearing a cowboy hat, he warbled a comic Western ditty at the Gridiron Dinner a week ago — alluding to Scooter Libby’s conviction, Saudis getting richer from our oil-guzzling, Brownie’s dismal Katrina performance, and Dick Cheney’s winsome habit of withholding documents.

At a dinner on Wednesday, the man who is persona non grata on the campaign trail (except for closed fund-raisers) told morose Republican members of Congress that he was totally confident that “we can retake the House” and “hold the White House.”

“I think 2008 is going to be a fabulous year for the Republican Party!” he said, sounding like Rachael Ray sprinkling paprika on goulash. That must have been news to House Republicans, who have no money, just lost the seat held by their former speaker, and are hemorrhaging incumbents as they head into a campaign marked by an incipient recession and an unpopular war.

If only they could see things as the president does. Bush, who used his family connections to avoid Vietnam, told troops serving in Afghanistan on Thursday that he is “a little envious” of their adventure there, saying it was “in some ways romantic.”

Afghanistan is still roiling, as is Iraq, but W. is serene. “Removing Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency, it is the right decision now, and it will be the right decision ever,” he said, echoing that great American philosopher Dan Quayle, who once told Samoans, “Happy campers you are, happy campers you have been and, as far as I am concerned, happy campers you will always be.”

W. bragged to Republicans about his “considered judgment” in sending more troops to Iraq and again presented himself as an untroubled instrument of divine will. “I believe there’s an Almighty,” he said, “and I believe a gift of that Almighty to every man, woman and child is freedom.”

Although the president belittled the Democrats for their policy of “retreat,” his surge has been a temporary and expensive place-holder for what Americans want: a policy to get us out of Iraq.

“Has it allowed us to reduce troop levels to below where they were when it started?” Michael Kinsley wrote recently. “The answer is no.” Gen. David Petraeus told The Washington Post last week that no one in the U.S. and Iraqi governments “feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation.”

Maybe the president is just putting on a good face to keep up American morale, the way Herbert Hoover did after the crash of ’29, when he continued to dress in a tuxedo for dinner.

Or maybe the old Andover cheerleader really believes his own cheers, and that prosperity will turn up any time now, just like the W.M.D. in Iraq.

Or perhaps it’s a Freudian trip. Now that he’s mucked up the world and the country, he can finally stop rebelling against his dad and relax in the certainty that the Bush name will forever be associated with crash-and-burn presidencies.

Whatever the explanation, it’s plumb loco.

Just when you left her for dead...

2008-03-05T11:24:00.001-08:00

I have to give props to Hillary Clinton: she's one resilient son of a bitch (yes, I know SOB doesn't apply to a woman, but you get what i mean by the expression). Apportioning delegates based on percentage of the vote is democratic, but a long and protracted struggle is now....becoming longer and more protracted. Meanwhile, John McCain is cackling in the corner and letting Hillary and Barack duke it out. John McCain can just sit back, fundraise, and ,most importantly, campaign for the presidency. Hillary and Barack are still campaigning for the nomination. You can immediately see the problem with this scenario for the Democrats.

A lot of my friends thought Hillary was done BEFORE the March 4th primaries. Although Barack capturing the lead in the delegates was huge, I didn't think Hillary would be done if she split Texas and Ohio. In addition, I didn't expect her to lose Ohio despite Obama's substantial gains. The demographics just overwhelmingly favor Hillary; trust me, I've lived in the heart of blue-collar Ohio in Cleveland for years.

In all honesty, I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I just favor Barack Obama. I think either candidate is better than John McCain when all is said and done. Actually, I don't doubt that Hillary can beat John McCain in a general election. But there is so much anti-Hillary sentiment with Republicans that I don't foresee her being successful with regards to any of her proposals. In contrast, Obama, in part due to his neophyte status, has a better chance of pushing through liberal legislation. There's no irrational vendetta against the guy like there is with Hillary. Is it fair? Of course not. In fact, I think most Republicans don't really know why they hate Hillary so much in the first place.

So we march on with neither candidate capable of a knockout blow. All I know is that I'm getting tired of this battle ("the most tired I've ever been" sic Troy Douglas Appel); someone please win already.

As an addendum, doesn't that pic just scream early 70s to you? What happened to Hillary? She went from a hippie wannabe to the most dedicated Lane Bryant pantsuits wearer ever.

A Judd Apatow weekend

2008-03-02T18:48:00.000-08:00

Well, just one more week until New York. I'm so stoked; I can't wait. The Met, Fifth Avenue, Times Square, Central Park...

The only problem is that a lot of work has to be done before I take my week off. Two experiments, immuno work, and loads of analysis are coming up. Yay. When I got back home Saturday and Sunday from work, I watched "Knocked Up" and "40 year old virgin" for the umpteenth time. I remember watching "freaks and geeks" back in the day and I can't believe how much the Judd Apatow comedic brand has expanded from those meager beginnings. This man couldn't even get a show to stay on the air for more than a season just a few years ago. Now he's the undisputed king of the hill.

I hope he directs another film soon. Enough of this producing shit already.

"Stuff white people like"

2008-02-28T15:56:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine sent me the link for a pretty funny blog on wordpress. The title of the blog says it all: "Stuff white people like". Basically, the blog uses faux-scholarship to explain why white people are privy to X, Y, and Z. Some of the more hilarious posts involve topics like "expensive sandwiches", "Divorce", and "Hating your parents".

On the whole, most of the posts concern latte-drinking, city liberals. I don't remember too many people in Southern Indiana having a passion for Apple products, Toyota Priuses, or indie music.

It's an entertaining read and worth bookmarking. There's even a "Stuff Indian People like" blog which discusses the Indian fascination with things like "Chicago", "Indian fashion shows", and "Taco Bell Fire Sauce". The last one is especially true; I had a friend who grabbed fistfuls of those sauce packets and slurped them like they were vodka shots.

Of course, if there was a blog entitled "Stuff Black People Like", it would be racist. Many of the readers of the white people blog are quick to point that out and I mostly agree with that sentiment. But if one hand you have centuries worth of slavery and discrimination and on the other a good-natured, innocuous blog, I think some mild ribbing isn't worth getting all hot and bothered about.

Anyways, there was one particular entry I wanted to comment on. Interestingly, the most popular post on the blog is "asian girls". The post has sparked some lively (sometimes racist) debate. It's a contentious topic for sure. My East Asian friends are genuinely concerned about that: white guys stealing "their women". There's no denying the discrepancy: Asian women are much more likely to intermarry than Asian men are.

I think there's a domino effect operating here because I'm seeing more and more Asian guys with Indian girls. It all comes full circle when you see that us Indian men buck the trend by being much more likely than Indian girls to intermarry (mostly with white women). By the way, when I heard that stat, I almost didn't believe it. Nerdy Indian guys can be that pimp?

So I can't give reasons for these racial phenomena, but, honestly, it shouldn't matter that much. If white guys are going for asian girls because of their perceived quiet subservience or the whole exotic stereotype, then it is wrong and objectifying. If it's for love, then let it be. Racial intermarriage is bound to happen in a multicultural society so why pick sides and cling to antiquated ideas. Love should be blind to skin color.

I wish I could have jumped out of the theatre

2008-02-25T12:41:00.001-08:00

This past weekend, my friends and I continued a long tradition beginning my freshman year of college: watching low-rated, shitty movies for the singular purpose of ripping on it later. Though movies like "Man of the Year" and "ATL" have some redeeming qualities, the film we watched this past weekend, "Jumper", is so bad that it was worth not only a blog post, but also an attendant analysis as to why it's so humiliatingly awful. Jumper is so horrid that it shouldn't have even been a straight-to-video. The director, Doug Liman, and the screenwriters involved should be banned from Hollywood for conjuring up such dreck. I think banging my head with a frying pan repeatedly would have been a more constructive use of my time.

When I think about this movie, there were a few things that stick out in my head as being the death-knell of this movie. If they had been corrected, MAYBE Jumper would have been mediocre. But then again, it may be an impossibility to salvage such a Titanic failure of a movie.

1. Casting anyone other than Hayden Christensen

I think it's only fair to start with the most explicit, dunderheaded decision of this movie. I used to think Hayden Christensen was just a victim of a bad script in Star Wars. Although that was definitely the case with Jumper as well, Hayden Christensen really seemed to go out of his way to be god-awful. The guy has been in the industry long enough for me to make this assessment: Hayden Christensen is the worst actor working in Hollywood today. Keanu Reeves is a better actor. There, I said it.

He has no concept of voice inflection and how to convey emotion. His line delivery was so bad I found myself laughing out loud during moments that were meant to be poignant. "Wooden" or "stilted" don't go far enough to describe the Hayden school of acting. He just sounds apathetic and/or fatigued when he talks.

In fact, I really think Hollywood studios are conspiring to make Hayden Christensen a popular actor. They think America's stupid enough to not know the difference as long as you have cool special-effects.

2. Giving Jamie Bell a more prominent role

Jamie Bell was the lone bright spot of this movie. You know why? Unlike Hayden, Rachel Bilson, and Samuel L. Jackson, you actually feel empathy for his character. He has a likable, snappy personality, which is a glaring contrast to David's childish adolescence.

In fact, Jumper would have been exponentially better if Jamie Bell was made the main character. Instead, the casting people went with the better looking, safer choice in Hayden Christensen.

3. Reducing the love angle and fleshing out the story of how David is a Jumper

Basically, the whole romance between Millie and David was wholly unnecessary. It's not even believable that these two would love each other. David is like that moody, somber kid who hates his life. Millie is the prototypical, cheery popular girl.

Eight years elapse before they see each other again and, when they finally do, it doesn't even seem like Millie is that enthused. The guy nearly dies getting back that stupid snow-globe, runs away from home, and has been out of her life for eight years. Not only that, but after 5 minutes of seeing each other after such a long time, he takes her to Rome (her childhood dream).

I know this is a movie, but that's totally unbelievable. In real life, Millie would think nothing of a moody loser like David and when he appears out of thin air later to take her to Rome, she'd think he's a creep. To add insult to injury, the chemistry between the two is non-existent. It just feels weird seeing them having sex or an intimate moment.

They should have replaced the love story with an explanation of why the paladins are after the jumpers, Mary's relationship with David, Griffin's backstory, etc. In other words, AN ACTUAL, COHERENT PLOT! They should have made the movie throwing a blind eye to the possibility of a sequel. Those type of loopholes central to a movie are inexcusable.

4. Better script

This is obviously the most egregious mistake. I've already mentioned the loopholes that exist in this film, but compounding the problem is some of the worst dialogue in a major film release in a while. It just seems like the writers neglected to proofread the script. And Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson are much too inept to know the difference. Here's a sample of what I can remember:

"You don't have to tell me anything, just don't lie to me, David." -- Millie

ok, so abject lying is bad, but omitting key details is alright. Makes a whole lot of sense.

"Remember when I said you don't have to tell me anything? I changed my mind." -- Millie

What made the line bad is that it was delivered dramatically AND it hearkened back to a line that was crappy to begin with. A bullshit bonus.

"Only God should have this power, the power to be anywhere." -- Roland

Now, this is the ONLY line proferred as to why the Paladins want to kill the Jumpers. Atleast in the Matrix, you get a slew of dialogue as to why the agents want to kill Neo and company. I must point out as well that this line and its delivery perfectly encapsulates what Samuel L. Jackson has become in the last decade: a parody/caricature of himself.

So I can go on and on, but I feel like I've made my point. Jumper is a movie with a shallow plot, bad acting, and numerous plot holes. It's a confusing mess and I expected much, much better from the director of the Bourne movies. I guarantee if you watch this movie you'll alternate between cringing and snickering at the sheer inanity of it all. I watched it purposely to continue this weird tradition of ours, but Jumper was so atrocious that I think we should end it. Giving 10 bucks to Hollywood for making this rubbish is simply immoral.

Acceptable news alternative...for now

2008-02-17T12:53:00.000-08:00

So a few posts back, I discussed my vehement disgust with CNN nowadays. I've always been hesitant to embrace the New York Times as my ready news source. It's the "liberal" paper out of touch with America's majority. However, lately, I've grown to appreciate the political op-eds and general quality of writing. I agree that it skews liberal, but honestly is there any such thing as an unbiased news source anymore? My conservative acquaintances always level that charge against the New York Times and the so-called "left-wing" media. I guess they're right....except for Bill O'Reilly, Rupert Murdoch, Hannity and Colmes, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Miller...

Anyways, lately the Chicago area has been rocked by the NIU shootings. Suddenly, the safety of the college environment has been compromised. Can anything be done? One of my Republican friends suggests looser gun laws would be the solution. In other words, allowing students to arm themselves would allow students to fight back and kill a would-be shooter. So the solution is to make the classroom a Wild West saloon? I have to disagree.

The only solution that really works is more restrictive gun laws, I'm sorry. If our politicians weren't so far up the NRA's asses, they would realize this as well. Until then, we're just leaving ourselves more vulnerable to future incidents of the Virginia Tech, NIU, and Columbine ilk.

People say you can't say Europe is relatively safer because of more restrictive gun laws, but I beg to differ, when that seems to be the only differentiating factor. I really do agree with those mothers of the victims, and so should the rest of America in the year 2008.

you know what's embarassing?

2008-02-13T18:40:00.000-08:00

...getting your laundry out of the machine in front of a girl and having your underwear fall out of the basket, right in front of her. Oy ve....

Animals gone wild

2008-02-12T14:02:00.000-08:00

Now, this is unexpected. I was reading GQ magazine, a magazine noted for being a men's style manual more than being a profound publication. There's nothing wrong with that, but imagine my surprise when I opened up the issue and saw a bizarre article about animals working in a concerted fashion against humans.

If that idea seems a bit difficult to wrap your head around, let me explain. Basically, it's the theory that constant encroachment by humans on the habitats of animals has caused animals (intraspecially for the most part) to band together and take "revenge" out on humans. For example, in Africa, there has been an increase in incidence of elephants banding together and destroying small villages. Not just trampling down random huts, but specifically going after people and injuring (sometimes killing) them.

How does one show that these aren't just random, isolated events, but are part of an ongoing trend? Well, this seems to be the work of a scholar from a small college in Ohio. He is the primary scholar of this controversial theory. I have to admit; his methodology is pretty interesting. He has an algorithm set to detect geographical trends of this concerted, anti-human animal behavior. For example, let's say there has been a spike in dolphin attacks in recent years off Chesapeake Bay. His program pinpoints the locations of these incidents and determines if the trend is accelerating with respect to say the last twenty years. It also compares these incidents with other regions of the world and sees if this is "out of the ordinary" in terms of dolphin attacks.

It's a bizzare, but tantalizing theory. Imagine if animals were capable of the same sort of base human feelings that we are. It's a higher level of savagery; one that involves active planning and involves complex feelings like "revenge" and "spite". It seems to suggest that animals may have some sort of memory or perhaps some kind of way of saying to each other "Humans are bad and out to get us. It's us or them."

Obviously, this guy is a fringe and controlling for outside variables would be a challenge for his theory. However, the idea that nature's tired of our fucking around and is turning against us, it's such a controversial idea that I can't help but be fascinated.

Energized Youth

2008-02-09T18:26:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to mention that perhaps the best thing to come out of these primaries is the record turnout of an often overlooked and apathetic segment of the population: twenty-somethings. It's genuinely surprising to see the energy of this group for the PRIMARIES! Some states have seen a quadrupling of the amount of young voters. That's insane.

I think there are two main reasons for this surge of young voters: 1) there's a lot at stake this election 2) Barack Obama. Number two cannot be stressed enough. In fact, young voters alone are the reason he eked out the win in Missouri. There's something special about this guy. This is not a one-hit wonder. He's a phenomenon. The rest of the nation is catching the same fever that we in Illinois have had for the last four years.

Number one is an important reason too. Partisanship is at an all-time high. There is a clear difference, it seems, between the Republican and Democratic fields. I mean, just consider the top two contenders in the Dem field : a black man and a woman. I didn't think I'd see this with my own two eyes for atleast a few more decades, but it's happened. And people of my generation are driving this change. So kudos to fellow millenials and continue this trend of involvement in future elections. For now however, let's focus on November.

Mitt's out!

2008-02-07T18:30:00.000-08:00

Looks like Mitt took the hint, capping off a very bad week for New England. America didn't want him and good riddance. From the start, Mitt Romney never understood why people didn't like him, including the conservatives in his own party he tried so hard to court. The primary problem with Mitt is that he never had a clear message for his campaign. And I believe that came out of the fact that he had capricious beliefs.

When he first declared his candidacy, he basically abdicated everything he believed in when he was governor of Massachusetts. After that, Romney obviously had no qualms pumping so much of his personal money into his own campaign. It's true that you need loads of money to run for president, but when you are your own biggest donor, you certainly lose that populist vibe. He was spending immense amounts of money per delegate. It was a strategy he could not maintain for the primaries, much less the actual election. After he failed to essentially pay off Iowa and New Hampshire, he resorted to labeling himself the "conservative" candidate. He even had the audacity to suggest Huckabee drop out. Before that, he was the "CEO" running for America's highest position. So first, he was gearing his campaign towards being the salve to our economy, but then he decides he's going to be the self-labeled successor to the Reagan legacy. Then, after he got whupped on Tuesday, you see "Mitt for change" signs.

There lies the problem. Do you get a clear sense of what a candidate stands for if he or she keeps changing their central message? Of course not. It's like he looks at the polls and then pulls his ethos out of a hat. Principles shouldn't come from polls, but from within. Republicans could see that and hence decided to not vote for him. If he was the conservative candidate, then how come he did so poorly in the South? People could see through the fallacy.

Now, nothing stands in McCain's way. Huckabee will get trounced in non-Southern states and eventually drop out. That actually bodes not so well for the candidate to make it out of the Democratic primaries. Barack or Hillary will already be behind by the time the actual election season starts...

General Reactions from Super Tuesday

2008-02-06T12:01:00.000-08:00

So I ended up staying up until 1 AM watching the Super Tuesday returns come in. I just couldn't turn off CNN or stop refreshing the New York Times page to see how delegates in California were going to be apportioned. As melodramatic as it may sound, it feels like a seminal moment, for both sides actually. Barack and Hillary is a real dogfight; it may go to the convention. Mccain is going to wrap it up, but there's real potential (as one of my friends pointed it out) that a "real conservative" like Pat Buchanan or some other nutjob will try to run as well. At the very least, there will be much conservative opposition to a Mccain opposition. It may embolden conservatives as much as the prospect of Hillary running. Anyways, I wanted to break down the returns and what they mean, in my opinion, for the future.

1. Barack Obama

Overall, Barack did well, perhaps better than expected. Although he didn't win as many delegates as Hillary, he won more states and is really gaining popularity with the independents and new, young voters. Two critical blocs.

What was really encouraging to see is that his wins (besides Missouri and Connecticut) were really definitive wins. He routinely got 65-35 or 70-30. It makes up for the more marginal shortfall in the states he lost, thanks to the proportional representation rule for the Democratic primaries.

Barack is in great shape. He has plenty of money and is moving on to states that he should win pretty easily I think (Maryland, DC, maybe Ohio and Texas too). You get the sense that the Barack train is gaining momentum at the right time. And that's especially good news considering that he's less than 100 delegates behind. Yes we can, indeed.

2. Hillary Clinton

Overall, I think Hillary hd a mixed night. Sure, she grabbed the Latino vote and was able to contain O-mentum in the Northeast and in California, but she failed to put Barack away. That was supposed to be the goal after winning so many primaries after Iowa. In her home state of New York, she had a 15 point win, but it should have been a 30 point difference. Her victory margins weren't convincing enough in those large states she won. That's precisely what she needed to put away Obama.

Regardless, I have to respect Hillary's resilience in the Northeast. The Ted Kennedy, Deval Patrick, and John Kerry endorsements amounted to almost nothing in Massachusetts. Which seems to reinforce my opinion that the Kennedy mystique is really a bunch of hogwash and that Kerry is desperate to appear relevant after losing in 2004. Anyway, Hillary missed a golden opportunity to really put away the upstart and she should be genuinely worried that she came out of Super Tuesday in a virtual tie.

3. John McCain

Not really much to say about Mccain. He did as well as expected by capturing the large states. The only worrisome point is that he did not catch much of the conservative vote. In the Solid South, for instance, they were much more willing to go for the huckster.

Is that going to stop him from getting the nomination? No not at all. The conservative base, although always an importnat component in the GOP, is taking a backseat to moderates and independents in the party this time around. I think people are genuinely fatigued with Bushie style neocons who were partly responsible for the partisanship in this country nowadays. McCain represnets an opportunity to build bridges with the Dems and stop the petty bickering.

The best way for him to allay the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters is to have a conservative VP, in my opinion. By the way, I think it's nothing short of a miracle that McCain is in the race, much less the lead, given how his campaign imploded in the summer. He's a fighter and will roll to the nomination no problem, especially given the winner takes all aspect of the GOP primaries.

4. Mitt Romney

So much for the "I am the conservative" talk. It really amounted to an extremely subpar showing. The problem with his re-positioning of himself as the alternative to McCain lies in his disingenious nature. He's flopped more than a fish out of water from the start of his campaign. Primary voters are smart enough to know that. It doesn't help that he's just plain an unlikable person. He attacks people for positions he once held and has the audacity to label himself a "conservative" and try to have Huckabee drop out. He will do anything that is politically expedient. If tomorrow Republicans decided they all wanted to be pro-choice, hemp smoking, flag burning hippies living in communes, Mitt would start to champion all those in a new, redesigned platform the next day.

Mitt Romney is a tool of unimaginable proportions; I can't stress it enough. He's his own biggest donor, and with a personal value of a quarter of a billion, he will stay in this race until the convention. And then when he officially loses, he will not be gracious and congratulate and support McCain. Instead, he will whine like a little bitch thanks to his oversized ego.

I think it says a lot when Republicans themselves say they would vote for Hillary over Mitt. They can smell a con artist when they see one.

5. Mike Huckabee

No-one gave Huckabee much of a chance to do anything. His strong showing in the South doesn't mean he'll win the nomination, but it will give him strong consideration as a VP candidate for McCain. In addition, his folksy roots and nice guy attitude would really help to balance out the smugness and somewhat elitist tendencies of mccain. Mitt's claim that he was the real conservative candidate and that Huckabee should drop out in all probability helped to rally support for the huckster.

I especially liked how West Virginia turned out. McCain supporters realizing that they had no chance after the first round, put all of their support behind Huckabee. Hence, Huckabee edged out Romney in WV. Was this is a behind the back collusion as the Romney camp asserts? No, it's just genuine dislike for Mitt Romney. Did I mention I don't like Romney enough?

Anyways, Huckabee is a breath of fresh air, but missed an opportunity to capitalize on his Iowa win to build broad support outside of evangelicals. Evangelical support will not carry the day in 2008 and his camp should have made adjustments after the Iowa win.

Let's vote, bitches!

2008-02-05T15:45:00.000-08:00

The real event is today -- Super Tuesday. This is a really momentous occasion, for the first time in a long time, there's actually a lot at stake. Could you have said that eight years ago? And unlike four years ago, the Democrats actually have a couple candidates who can beat the GOP.

Will Romney's load of shit "I'm the real conservative" schtick stop the McCain express? Can Barack's O-mentum catch up to the suddenly faltering Hillary Clinton? We'll see. Although the Republican nomination may be all but decided by this time tomorrow, the Democratic nomination may go on for a while longer especially given how both Hillary and obama are adept fundraisers. It should be exciting....

Eating my words

2008-02-03T19:02:00.000-08:00

Well, I guess I was wrong. Wow, Eli Manning pulled it out. Never in a million years would I have seen this at the beginning of the season. Did Giants fans even see it coming? Then again, if being wrong and seeing the Patriots win the Super Bowl are my two options...then I'll take the former gladly. Congrats to the Giants and Peyton's little bro.

General Reaction from the State of the Union

2008-02-03T11:17:00.000-08:00

So this is much delayed because I've been out of town, but I wanted to give my reaction from the State of the Union. Basically, this speech could have been given in any year of the Bush presidency. There was nothing enlightening or new, just the same deluded crap. Bush has surrounded himself with so many cronies in his administration that he's completely oblivious to what's going on in this country. They stroke his ego and spin every negative into a positive. That's the only explanation I have for why he continues to "stay the course" when his approval ratings are piss-poor and most people have soured on current Iraq policy -- a failure that will define his presidency for decades to come.

It was so unremarkable and trite that specific details less than a week after his speech are escaping me. I do remember his saying that social programs like Social Security have to be reformed. What does that mean exactly? In Bush terms, it probably means "less funding" or "cut".

The tax rebate is nice, but it may be too little too late. We're heading towards a recession. And honestly, it's exacerbated by Iraq. Bush may be in denial, but the constant deficit spending because of the war is a huge contributing factor to a recession. Coupled with the housing crisis, declining infrastructure, stingy R&D, and the falling dollar, I really think that things will get a lot worse before they get better.

So as we gear towards Super Tuesday, the fact that the Republican field is distancing themselves from Bush is a good thing. For example, consider the debate in California. I especially like the bullshitting the candidates employed when asked "Do you think things are better from 8 years ago?" or something like that. It was a clear barb against Bush. Mitt Romney, aka everyone's favorite tool, started talking about what he did in Massachusetts -- totally dodging the question. He's political poison and even the GOP knows it.

On another note, the Super Bowl is today. One thing before this spectacle designed for non-fans gets started...people are making too big of a deal of how the Giants nearly beat the Patriots in week 17. NEARLY is the important word here. They still lost, in other words, they didn't win. So why is everyone making such a big deal out of it?

This Midwestern life

2008-02-02T17:14:00.000-08:00

So after revisiting one of my old stomping grounds in Cleveland, I became flooded with old memories from childhood and my early teens. I took the 6 bus along Euclid Ave to University Circle. Ahhh, the Cleveland Clinic campus. The building that looks like an Aztec pyramid and the douchey "we're ranked number one in everything" signs still remain. Case has a wonderful campus with new modern buildings. Beautiful Severance Hall is very nearby. The biggest knock on Case, in fact, is that it's located in Cleveland, Ohio. When I was a kid, we only lived in dicey Cleveland and Euclid for a little bit. Most of the childhood I can remember was spent in much nicer Mayfield Heights and Solon. The suburbs of Cleveland are nice and clean. Beachwood and Shaker Heights are comparable to the North Shore suburbs of Chicago.

The city of Cleveland itself? It's a model of urban blight. I knew it was going to bad when I stepped out of the RTA station into Tower City. Tower City is billed as one of the major shopping attractions downtown. Oh yes, FYE and Rave are really going to bring in the tourists. The mall is a joke. It doesn't even have anchor stores; it's only redeeming points are that the Ritz and Bice Restaurant are there. I saw not one, but TWO altercations at the mall. One guy getting in a scuffle with a guard for bringing his bike in and a kid stealing from the FYE.

Once I got out, I started walking towards my hotel in downtown Cleveland. Sure, there's some downtown revitalization. Gund Arena and the Jake, for example, but the city still looks dirty and dingy. This is your downtown area. Where are the trendy restaurants and people walking around? It's even more barren and depressing once the clock hits 5. Not to mention unsafe. I heard downtown Cleveland had improved and shed it's Rust Belt image. If anything, it seems that things have gotten marginally worse since I was last there. One positive: I don't remember the RTA being so good. The seats are cushioned and it's relatively fast. Take a cue from Chicago and have value added fare cards, please.

It's funny how Indy has taken a widely divergent route from Cleveland. Indianapolis was also a manufacturing-based mid-sized city. That's where the similarities seem to end though. There's actual development in Indianapolis' downtown. The new stadium and condos are being constructed. Circle Centre is a decent shopping place and there are a number of hip eating establishments with outside seating during the warmer months. It's genuinely surprising to see how clean everything is in a city of about a million.

The point is that the vitality of the city isn't in the suburbs or the outer-reaches, but rather downtown. Indy can be boring though. You have to try harder sometimes to find fun. It's not like Chicago where the sky's the limit in terms of what you can do. Plus, Indy has PATHETIC public transportation. A couple of buses and that's it. At the very least, there should be a light rail system downtown and around the IUPUI campus. If they wanted to be more ambitious, connect to the Broad Ripple neighborhood and around 86th st. Still, not bad for the dreary Midwest. Chicago remains the gold standard, especially when considering a city like Cleveland. But I think towns like Indy and, hell, Minneapolis have enough to offer too (with cheaper housing).

When did mainstream news get so horrible?

2008-01-14T16:32:00.000-08:00

What happened in the last few years? Seriously, so much crap on the tele, with the news being the worst. I just can't stand CNN anymore. Apparently, the only way CNN can compete with Fox News is to report the going-ons with celebs. Punditry and analysis (or what little they had to begin with) has gone out the window in favor of discussing what body part Britney Spears is exposing today.

I mean, who really cares? It's not like there's a shortage of real news out there, both domestically and abroad. Instead, let's make way for pictures of Brad Pitt's new kid and what George Clooney is up to. There's such a demand for celebrity news that they're really starting to scrape at the bottom of the barrel. For instance, I remember seeing on the front page of CNN a story about Brendan Fraser breaking up with his wife. Brendan Fraser? What is this, 1998? It's not like he WAS an A-lister. He NEVER was an A-lister. Ever.

Who knows why this stuff has suddenly burgeoned in popularity. Maybe Americans are so interested in other people's problems because they want to escape their own. This is plausible given how south things are going in this country. Regardless of the reasoning, all this tabloid stuff has no right being on the news. Leave it for TMZ.com and Perez Hilton. Hell, if Fox News is unabashedly conservative then why doesn't CNN become an unabashedly liberal station? Fight fire with fire.

Just crown them already...

2008-01-13T13:51:00.000-08:00

Really, if there was anyone harboring hope that the Patriots would lose in the playoffs, those people have now been silenced. The Colts just handed in an EMBARRASSMENT of a game against the Chargers. It was so bad that it was worth commenting on. It was a 4 point game, but what made it so bad was that it wasn't Phil Rivers or LT beating the Colts. Instead, it was a backup QB and the Colts' own defense doing them in. It was a choke-a-rama of epic proportions.

Though hats off to the Chargers, they don't have a chance against the Patriots. Same with anyone in the NFC. Express mail that trophy to Foxboro right now. I mean, what's even the point? Brady won't lose. Too much is on the line and, unlike the Colts, they can handle the pressure. Better luck next year and hopefully Dungy decides to come back.

As much as I dislike their racist, douchebag fans; I just can't hate the Patriots as a team. I'm man enough to admit that. They're so fluid and fun to watch. Even when they were running up the score, I couldn't say I didn't enjoy watching that ridiculously efficient passing game. It's a guilty pleasure, I'm sorry to fellow Colts fans. And as I said in a previous post, it's hard to dislike Tom Brady. Unlike his coach or the fans, he's not an arrogant asshole. Maybe his being a 6th round pick and a backup for Bledsoe has given him that humility. And yes, he's one of the few guys I can say is a good looking guy and not feel gay (this statement is an assent to my friend, Troy). Cleft chin, dimples; it's just impossible to hate this man. He's just too pretty.

So let's just avoid the next month of drudgery until the Super Bowl. Let's just skip to the inevitable result.

A moment of nostalgia

2008-01-10T15:16:00.000-08:00

So I grew up in the 1980s and the early 1990s, which was a bitchin' good time to be a kid. The cartoons, music, video games, toys, and everything were so superior to the pop culture of today. What do kids have today to contend with the awesomeness of Transformers and GI Joe? Dora the Explorer? Yu-gi-oh? Yeah, it's no contest. I'm at that age where I"m beginning to yearn for the carefree days of the past. There's no more time to screw around and be a kid. All I can do is reflect and look back on those times, which is exactly what I want to do with this post. Specifically, I want to comment on two of my big obsessions back in the day: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Nintendo.

If you grew up in the 80s, you couldn't get away from the lean, mean, green fighting machines known as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Literally, they were in all forms of media. Comics, tv, video games, and movies. In addition, the toys flooded toy stores everywhere. Looking back, it made no sense at all why TMNT was such a craze. The premise is that these four turtles and their rat master come into contact with ooze, which transforms Raph, Leo, Mikey, and Don into these anthropomorphic turtles who can walk, talk, and most importantly kick butt. They're named after Renaissance artists and love New York style pizza. If that's not kooky enough, look at the bad guys. Shredder looks like a can opener with a purple cape. Krang is a brain controlling a big robot thing. Baxter Stockman is an anthropomorphic fly and Rat King was a big weirdo lording over sewer rats. We must have all been on crack!

Regardless, I ate it up. In England, I had this TMNT backpack and a coin pouch to buy milk with the logo emblazoned it. I had, and still own, many of the toys. Sumo Donatello, Pop-up Raph, Leonardo with the swords, and some of the bad guys too. I had way more Transformers toys, but only the TMNT toys made the trip from England to America. I watched all the cartoons and my first crush was April O'Neill. I didn't own an NES in England, but I frequently went over a friend's house to play the video game (even if it was a piece of shit). When we moved to America, I got Turtles in Time and that tournament fighter game for the SNES and spent countless hours on those games. When the movies came out, I nearly shat my pants. I recently watched those movies again and I"m surprised how good the first one is. It's no Oscar winner, but it's gritty and tells a good story (well, for a Turtles movie at least).

Love for the Turtles is what united me with my friends in England and America. Of course, we pretended to be the Turtles on the playground. EVERYONE wanted to be either Leonardo or Donatello, I remember. Leo was the leader and Donatello was the smart one. I always favored Raph though. He was the sarcastic rebel, and was kind of mysterious, especially in the movies. He also had a temper, which means he reminded me of myself. Plus, red is my favorite color. Mikey was the tool and no-one really wanted to be him. It's funny; it kind of reminds me of how all the girls had a crush on Paul McCartney or John Lennon from the Beatles, but Ringo and George were all but forgotten. Strange analogy there.

Unfortunately, the god-awful 3rd movie and the Power Rangers were the death knell for my beloved green heroes. I never took to Power Rangers as much as Turtles. I still say the Turtles could kick their red, yellow, black candied asses...

I recently noticed that there's a new Saturday morning cartoon and new video games have been released based on TMNT. But the cartoon strikes me as weird. Granted, I've only seen it a few times on a Saturday morning while nursing a hangover, but it strikes me as too X-treme. Part of the charm of the 80s show was the slapstick nature. You take that out and nothing really differentiates Turtles from the rest of the crap kids today have to watch. Oh well, atleast I can always play Turtles in Time on the SNES which brings me to my second love during childhood: Nintendo.

When we first moved to America, I got my first glimpse of the SNES. Video-gaming was not very big when I was in England for some reason, so SNES was really my first extended exposure to video games. NES was almost too primitive for me; those early games were fun, but I could never really get into them. The sophistication of games on SNES, thanks to better graphics and more plot-driven games, really got me into gaming.

Now in the early 90s, you were either a Nintendo or a Sega guy. For me, it was Nintendo all the way. They just had better franchises: Mario, Zelda, Final Fantasy, Starfox, Donkey Kong....these were my best friends in elementary school. Genesis had Sonic, who was cool but I found the games to be a bit nausea-inducing. Plus, they released so many stupid add-ons like 32X; I just couldn't get into Sega.

My favorite games on SNES were the platformers like Mario and Donkey Kong Country. You could play those levels a billion times and still find them fun to play and challenging. I thought platformers going 3D was a step down actually from those games. Oh, and Zelda. Wow, that game was the first hard game I ever played. In retrospect, it wasn't that hard, but for a 7 year old it was a bitch. It was a fun little adventure game, which i still like to play from the beginning.

Back then, games weren't as mainstream. You didn't need millions of dollars to make a fun game. Games had heart and quirkiness. They weren't all about 3D rendering and CGI movies. Don't get me wrong, the new Final Fantasys and Devil May Crys are simply amazing, but they still lack the charm of old school RPGs and games. Because of hardware limitations, gameplay was always the bottom line. Now I think it's all about graphics, with few exceptions.

For a long time, I subscribed to Nintendo Power magazine. There was no Internet back then. If you wanted gaming news, you had to get it from magazines. The first of the month was always the most exciting time of the year because that's when NP came in the mail. Nothing got you more excited for an upcoming game than seeing cool artwork and screenshots. I saw Angry Video Game Nerd's video about Nintendo Power and that was me back in the day. All those small posters were on my wall in Solon, Ohio. I pretty much got an N64 because of NP.

Eventually, I did get a playstation, but it was kind of the beginning of the end for me and gaming. There was some really good games on playstation, but you could start to see the end of an era for gaming. Out went quirky, fun games and in came high budget movie-style production. As long as Nintendo stays weird, I'll continue to support them.

So maybe I haven't moved on at all. I'm just the same little kid with his knickers and tucked in shirt playing with my Turtles toys and Nintendo....

The mess that is Pakistan

2008-01-09T18:34:00.000-08:00

Yes, I know this is old news, but I haven't had much time to seriously analyze the situation in Pakistan. Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you know that Benazir Bhutto was brutally murdered during a PPP rally. Though this is tragic, it is somewhat fitting given how the rest of her family has died. It seems like no-one in the Bhutto family has died naturally. They've been poisoned, shot, or died in some violent manner. Was Musharraf involved? Probably not, though you never know.

Now I'm somewhat hesitant to give my two cents on Pakistan's volatile situation. I was born in the West, but you can never take the India out of an Indian. I have Hindu family roots in the Jammu-Kashmir region as well. That fact very much biases my opinion of Pakistan. Regardless, I think that Pakistan's stability is crucial for the welfare of the subcontinent. A destabilized nuclear nation with a strong terrorist network is no laughing matter.

That said, what does stability mean for a nation like Pakistan? Every time they've tried democracy, the same thing happens. Leader turns out to be ineffective and corrupt and then a strong-armed (and often military backed) guy comes in. The previous leader goes into exile or meets a violent death. Rinse, wash, repeat. The cycle has gone on since partition. Now enter the two supposed saviors of Pakistan: Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Both of them were no exception to the trend of democratically elected leaders in Pakistan: they were corrupt and ineffective. Sharif did the smart thing and stayed basically out of the current melee in Pakistan. Bhutto, however, came back from exile and, with Western backing, tried to initiate some power-sharing scheme with Musharraf.

Now Western media (by which i mean CNN) did a shitty job of explaining the situation. They treated Bhutto as this Joan of Arc of democracy. In reality, she was the lesser of two evils. She really wasn't going to bring democracy back to Pakistan. Just the appearance of a democracy. The western media neglected to mention how bad of a leader she was and why exactly she got driven into exile in the first place. What really would have happened if Bhutto worked with Musharraf is basically nothing. Just an even more fragile and fractious sham of a government for Pakistanis.

Which brings me to Musharraf. He really is Pakistan's best bet for the forseeable future, as bad as he is. Sure, he's basically flouting basic ideas of modern government, judging by his dealings with the Supreme Court. But he actually ensures some level of stability, believe it or not. Whether he was involved in Bhutto's death or not is immaterial, if he steps down now after that incident, what's the second most powerful entity in Pakistan right now? That would be the Islamic fundamentalists.

I suspect that the real reason Musharraf is still alive is because of negotiations and compromise with the terrorists (done in secret of course). Think about it. He should have been dead by now for his lip service alliance with America. If the terrorists could kill Bhutto, then they can kill Musharraf just as easily. But by negotiating with fundamentalists, he's playing with fire. If his power and authority is constantly being chipped away at, the fundamentalists have a perfect opportunity to seize power.

It's really not a crazy idea even if the majority of Pakistanis are moderate secularists. My mom lived in Iran under the Shah's rule for a few years. Girls wore short skirts, people went clubbing, and generally lived secularly. Did that stop the Ayatollah? Afghanistan was the same way too prior to the Taliban takeover. All that's needed is a perfect storm for a small, but strong, contingent to take over. It happened in Iran and Afghanistan, it can happen in Pakistan too.

So if Musharraf is option A and the fundamentalists are option B, then I pick Musharraf. He shouldn't step down at this juncture. Democracy is always the ideal we hope for, but right now it would weaken the country further and make Pakistan more vulnerable for jihadi takeover.

For example, what happened after Saddam was toppled? The perfect situation existed for terrorists to fill the void. Powerful dictators are antithetical to our personal notion of democracy as the end-all be-all. There are instances however, such as with Pakistan, that it would not be the best template to follow.

I'd like to re-emphasize, I REALLY hope the situation gets resolved. Pakistan should really swallow their pride and ask India for help. America right now doesn't have either a grasp of the situation or the international prestige to tell Pakistan what to do (thank Bush for pissing away all that). India, as a South Asian neighbor, probably has the most expertise to help them out.

Like a phoenix rising out of the ashes...

2008-01-09T18:17:00.000-08:00

So that old fart McCain managed to win New Hampshire. Hats off to him. The codger was left for dead this summer and somehow he clawed back for the win. I don't really support any of his major policy points, especially concerning Iraq, but anyone who prevents Mitt Romney from winning is ok in my book.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton squeaked out the win. The media is making a big deal out of Obama squandering a high single digits lead in the span of a few days. Here's what I think really happened. The polls lied. Somehow they overemphasized the bump from the Iowa caucus. Regardless, I don't think Barack should be too disappointed. He was getting destroyed by Hillary just a month ago AND he just barely lost at the primary. Often, these primaries are just about doing better than you're expected to do, not how you actually place. If everyone thinks you're going to get 4% of the vote, but you end up with 10%, in a way you're still a winner in the eyes of the public and the donors.

By this logic, that's bad news for Mitt. The guy should have won Iowa because of the sheer amount of money he put in to that campaign. He should have won New hampshire because Massachusetts is part of fucking New England. It was basically his backyard and the guy lost. He should be worried right about now.

In the coming weeks, it will be interesting to see how Barack fares in the Southern states. How will he do in South Carolina, for instance? Florida? Black voters seem to prefer Hillary so I'm wondering if white Southern voters are going to vote for the mixed race black man with the last name rhyming with Osama. And yes, I think American voters are really that stupid.

Reflecting back on '07

2008-01-07T12:59:00.001-08:00

2008 is only a week old and I'm already nostalgic for 2007. Everyone called 2007 a "year to forget" in political, fiscal, and cultural terms. That may be, but for me 2007 was full of events to remember. Here are specific happenings in 2007 that I was fortunate to witness or be a participant. (Names have been altered to protect identities in some of these potentially embarassing, but fuckin' hilarious vignettes):

1) The Cake incident

The place was Northwestern University and the time was Dillo Day, a daylong festival dedicated to bands and booze. My good friends, Jason and Val, had a bit too much to drink in the span of a few hours. Hardly unusual for Dillo Day, but the real fun starts when we get to the concert held at sweaty, cramped Patten. You know how at concerts people are supposed to sway in unison to the music? Val thought it would be a good idea to NOT sway to the music and instead purposely bump into other people. Imagine someone doing that for a few hours in a piece of shit gymnasium and you might be just a wee perturbed. Although many people got pissed at Val, they mostly quietly grumbled and tried to tell him off. That is, until the band Cake took to the stage.

As the alcohol set in, Val started to yell random crap during the Cake performance. Guess what? Cake got pissed. THey called my friend out for being a douche. It takes talent to piss off a seasoned band. Anyways, like any starstruck observer, Val started to take pictures of the band. After that song, Cake's lead singer said "Please don't take pictures during the performance, it distracts us". The next song, Val continues to take pics and the Cake singer makes gestures to make him stop. The crowd starts to get pissed too and starts roughing up Val. THey first knocked down his camera, then knocked off his glasses. Val calmly put his glasses on and proceeded to take more glasses. Then the crowd starts to mob Val as he tries to take pics. At this point, Val starts swinging punches and elbows at the people around him and storms off while throwing elbows.

You would think this was the end, but apparently the amped-up security for the day was trying to find my friend. My friend overheard on one guy's walkie-talkie "We're looking for a male who assaulted several students at the concert". At that point, he went up to his dorm room and locked the door. After the concert, Jason and I came to the dorm room and saw him lying there with the copious amounts of alcohol starting to wear off. What a great story: I know someone who pissed off Cake!

2) Do I look like fucking mapquest to you?

Funny, this one also involves Val and Jason. We were bar-hopping in Lincoln Park and looking for Lion's Head Pub. We stopped a bald guy on the road and asked him "Do you know where Lion's HEad Pub is?". This guy couldn't be bothered and told us, "Do I look like fucking mapquest to you?"

Val, never one to mince words, said "NO, but you look like a f--." This douche didn't hear him so he followed us around as we walked in the opposite direction. He asked him "what'd you say to me?". Val repeated what he said until this drunk got out of his stupor and started shoving my friend. I tried to help my friend out and his douche friend started shoving me. It could have easily escalated but we just walked away. Cops don't screw around in Lincoln Park; they'll arrest you if they see that stuff because of LP's reputation. If I ever see that belligerent yuppie again, I'll ask him that same question, then kick him in the nuts before Rogaine has time to answer.

3) Oh, you're hard

Nelson, Peter, Fred and I are walking up and down Sheridan Road during freshman week. We thought it would be pretty funny to say very random crap very loudly to scare some freshmen. One of our things was to talk about the "northwestern BDSM" club and how everyone was joining it. Another conversation was talking about the cyanide gas leak at the library last year. Pretty incredulous stuff, but freshmen are too stupid to know any better and they lapped it up.

So as we make a 5th pass on Sheridan, we see a group of ghettoed out black guys and a white poser guy. Fred says to the group "Oh, you're hard!". Most of them said "Fuck you!" etc., but the funny thing was that the guy who got pissed off the most was the white guy with the tracksuit, saggy pants, and tipped to the side hat. This guy went on and on as we passed him and stopped for a few seconds to curse Fred out. In fact,I believe some of the black guys giggled at this spectacle too. Wow, just wo I thought.

4) Dood, it's raining too hard

Peter and I were anxious to hang out with our friend, Arnold, after he got off work. We hadn't seen him in ages because he always had a handy excuse (some were legitimate and others were just stupid). Anyways, this was the day I'd been waiting for.

That is, until Arnold calls us at 5:15 and says "It might rain today so I won't come". We'd been planning our whole fucking week for this meeting, what an asshole! Here's the thing, there was no torrential rain that day; in fact it didn't rain at all. It was a regular overcast late summer day.

He works 2 el stops away from us. So for only a few blocks would he actually be outside. And even then, I need to point something out. There's this thing called an umbrella. It's used by individuals to keep themselves dry. If you want to get fancy, throw on a raincoat. Problem solved. Arnold will never live that one down. From now on, he is the pussy afraid of water.

5) Hitting on a mom and an engaged woman

So this one takes place on Paul's 21st birthday. We went to Bella Lounge,which is not too far from whereI live. When I go out with my friends, we have an unofficial rule (usually I'm the only one who adheres to it): hit on atleast one girl.

Bars and clubs are intimidating and nothing can be more crushing than getting rejected. On occasion, I'm the one who gets to be the rejector. I danced for a bit and then plopped down on a lounge sofa. I struck up a conversation with a woman next to me. She was a decently attractive blonde and I estimate we talked for about 10-15 minutes. It was easy because she was from Indiana and so was I.

All the signs were there: eye contact, hair playing, lip licking, etc. Then I mentioned I was here for my friend's 21st, when she mentioned that she was 34 years old. No problem, i thought. Then she mentioned she had a teenaged kid. WHAT!?! After that, I tuned out and invented some excuse to get back to my friends. Just my luck. When I don't strike out, something like that happens

Another funny, related instance: My friends and I hit up a conversation with these attractive, slim girls. We went on for a while until one guy (who was really sitting nowhere near these girls) tells us to scram. "This is my fiance, you fucks!". The girls didn't seem to acknowledge that guy's statement; it was the weirdest thing. I didn't see any rings, but we didn't risk it. The guy was being a territorial bastard, I just know it. I'm beginning to hate Lincoln Park....

I'm sure there are more stories, but those are the ones that come to mind at this moment. 2007 wasn't just a precursor to 2008. It was a year to remember. If not for chewing out Cake, then definitely for tooly white guys preteding to be black. Here's to 2008 and it's potential for more hilarity and the opportunity to give my friends more shit.

Stop the Nirvana lovefest, please

2007-12-18T17:33:00.000-08:00

Vh1 had another idiotic special: "Top 100 songs of the 90s". Vh1 hasn't played music since 1999, instead they have LAME specials like "Top 100 One-Hit Wonders" or "Top Ten Celebrity Meltdowns". Anyways, this list (as you may have guessed) had Nirvana's Smell Like Teen Spirit at number one. Like I didn't see that one coming. It was a really good song back in the day; it was much better than most of the crap coming out in the early 90s. In fact, I have no complaints for most of their songs. They were notable rock songs chock full of catchy, simple riffs. The two biggest misconceptions about Nirvana is that 1) they were revolutionary and 2) Kurt Cobain was a 90s John Lennon.

Nirvana was basically a punk revival band. They followed the underproduced, stripped-bare model of the Sex Pistols and Stooges. But they took their biggest cues from the Pixies. The whole loud-soft-loud dynamic came from the Pixies and even if Kurt admitted that "smells like teen spirit" was a homage to their style. They brought the style back in an era of overproduced songs. That was a significant event in the early 90s, but it wasn't a one-of-a-kind thing at all.

Second, Kurt Cobain was nowhere close to a John Lennon. John Lennon was an activist and musician who transcended his time. Kurt Cobain was apathetic, in contrast. He would never write a song like "imagine" because he wasn't an idealistic man. He was more of an anarchist, if anything.

Third, Kurt was NOT one of the greatest guitar players ever. I see his inclusion in non-guitar magazines and it makes me sick. Basically, his guitar solos fell into two categories: following the melody of the song note for note or playing a dyssynchronous fuzzed-out mess. His rhythm parts were solid, but unexceptional. Nothing wrong with that because that was kind of the point of grunge music: straightforward and devoid of fluff. In short, he wasn't in the same ballpark as Jimmy Page or Eddie Van Halen, which is just fine.

Huckabee scares me

2007-12-17T18:27:00.000-08:00

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/huckabee.aids/index.html

wow. Bear in mind, this was in 1992 after Magic Johnson found out he had HIV and we had established that HIV was not a gay disease. Maybe I could excuse him if he said this in 1982, not '92. Suddenly I've gone from indifference to actively not wanting him as president....

Proving my point

2007-12-17T17:50:00.001-08:00

So I wasn't expecting the deluge of comments from the previous post. Sorry (genuinely) for misstating the facts about the NBA championships, but the rest of the points are still valid. It's funny how those comments just prove my point about classless Boston fans and also the problem of micro-racism in this country, to which I alluded to in a previous post. I was born in England (not Bangladesh or Pakistan as one person said), you NEW England people. Your guys' region got your namesake from the country I was born in.

Plus, it's SPORTS! If my team wins, it makes me happy. But it isn't life or death and I'm not going to fling racist remarks at people if my team loses. Plus, I like how people are criticizing my English on a blog, which is supposed to be a stream of consciousness activity anyways, not a college paper. I have a higher SAT verbal or SAT Writing score than 99% of the people in this country. Again, you're looking at the color of my skin and passing judgment. The moment people said something prejudiced; you people lost and I won.

Funnier still, some people did not read the entirety of the post. I do a fair amount of patting Boston on the back. For example, I LAUD Tom Brady. I don't diss him at all, you idiots. Furthermore, I say that the Patriots going undefeated is a GOOD thing for football.

So I'll concede I made a mistake on the celtics thing, but all you hate-mongerers lost your credibility, not me. That's all I'm going to say on the matter because I'm not going to waste my time on you cretins.

As an addendum, the only critique that's allowed is one that is intelligent and doesn't involve cursing people out and flaming. This is my blog, and I set the rules here. If you can't adhere to that rule, then you forfeit the right to post; it's that simple. Because 10 people failed those criteria I set out, the Boston topic is closed for discussion.

Here's another solution for you thickheaded morons: DON'T READ MY BLOG if you think the topics are dorky and/or random. The title of the blog says it's about random, weird stuff so you have no right to complain in that regard.

Curse you, Ravens! and why Boston should shut up

2007-12-16T14:24:00.000-08:00

Dammit! I was hoping the Dolphins would go 0-16. No offense to Miami fans, but I think that lifelong infamy is a way sexier storyline than unprecedented dominance a la the Patriots. I wanted to be able to tell my kids that I witnessed the worst of the worst. The ultimate stinkers. Unfortunately, the Ravens took pity on the Dolphins and choked hard as hell. So fuck you Kyle Boller and co.

The other big storyline this year: the dominance of the Pats. They have 2 games left in their bid to go undefeated. I'm largely indifferent (partly because I'm from Indiana). I don't have a huge beef with Tom Brady. Most Hoosiers reflex answer to Tom Brady is "he's gay". I can appreciate the guy though. He came from nowhere: a 6th round draft pick to win 3 Super Bowls (and probably a 4th this year). And if you were that good-looking of a guy then you'd be spitting game at supermodels and actresses too. Belichick, however, is a classless prick who deserves all that shit. All things considered, I think the Patriots going undefeated is a good thing.

Speaking of teams on a roll. The New England region is having a sports renaissance of sorts. The Celtics are the best team in the NBA and will probably make the Finals because the East sucks. The Red Sox just won the World Series..again. Good for you guys, but that doesn't mean I have to share your enthusiasm and "be happy" for you. Why? Because I'm not from the frozen tundra that is New England. Big surprise: the world doesn't revolve around Boston or your sports teams. The whole Boston love-fest is off-putting for the rest of us and we don't need major media and douchebag fans trumpeting their successes. Coincidentally, Bill Simmons of espn falls into both of the aforementioned categories. I really hate that guy. He uses Page 2 on the site as a tribute for Boston and its sports teams on....every....single.....column. He should be deposed for biased journalism. It's totally unprofessional.

So here's something for New Englanders to chew on despite your recent teams's success. And yes, I'm looking at you Bill Simmons:

1) Even if the Patriots do win the Super Bowl this year and go undefeated, the whole Spygate thing will always be mentioned in the same breath in the history books. I don't deny that other teams do it, but they got caught. The rules book is clear: it's cheating. It won't invalidate a Super Bowl win, but it will certainly taint some of the legacy of the year.

2) The Celtics will probably make it out of the East playoffs easy, but I think they won't win more than one title, if any. The team beyond the Big Three is thin. Also those players are all on the wrong side of 30. Before long, they'll become more injury-prone and then Danny Ainge will realize he traded away all his young prospects and draft picks.

Plus, you won't get any closer to catching the Lakers' record 16 championships for atleast another generation.

3) Red Sox congrats on finally breaking the curse and getting another championship. Too bad you can't buy your fans and organization some class. or a razor. Plus, I hate to remind you: the Yankees still have 2 dozen more titles than you guys.

Here's a great site I found:

http://kissmesuzy.blogspot.com/2007/10/ksk-guide-to-being-insufferable-hole-s.html

In appreciation of Apple

2007-12-15T16:52:00.000-08:00

Given the recent strides Apple has made this year in cornering the digital music realm, increasingly gaining prominence in the personal computer market, and the launch of the iphone, I thought it appropriate to write a laudatory post for Apple, the company that will go down as owning the year 2007. What a year for Steve Jobs really. He should be patting himself on the back. The ipod has always been a must-have, but this year finally the computers have also been selling like hotcakes. Apple stock is now worth more than Dell's partly because of this fact. The new OS, Leopard, can run the Mac OS and Windows, so now there really is no excuse to not own an Apple. My MacBook has never given me problems since I got it in the summer of 2006. My Vaio, in comparison, was nothing but trouble from day one. The only real compelling reason to stay with PCs is if you're a hardcore gamer, which I am not.

I remember my very first Apple computer. Back in 1993 when we moved to America. It was a Performa 630C. The first time I logged on the Internet was on that 32 MB beast. I rocked Carmen Sandiego on that thing. I've been an Apple fan from the first time I moved to America.

And yes, I'll admit it, my very first purchase with my first check from work was the iphone. It's almost perfect. It can't match Blackberries in terms of sheer software packed in there, but I prefer it because of the simplicity of the interface and the intuitiveness of the applications. 8 gigs for music and photos, oh yes. And the touchscreen is not only easy to use, but by not having bulky plastic buttons there is a lot of space freed up for surfing the web and checking emails. Those designers know what they're doing; they're so in tune with the user. The only addition I would have liked is a movie recorder, but it's not that big of a deal.

Apple made some bad business decisions in the past, but hopefully they continue this recent run of success because Windows needs the pressure of a competitor. Within the last few years, Microsoft and PC makers like Dell and Sony have really been resting on their laurels. Vista blew up in Microsoft's face and lately Dell's computers have become less reliable and have lagged in customer service (once their forte). Vaio comes packed with cool software, but the hardware itself leaves something to be desired, as I found out with my last computer.

So I wonder how Apple will outdo themselves in the coming year. How can they?

Babes of the week: MILF edition

2007-12-14T20:33:00.000-08:00

I'm bored...all my friends are already back home for the holidays and I'm stuck here for another week. Ironic ain't it? In a city like Chicago, I have NOTHING to do. I guess this proves the adage that the city can often be the loneliest of places....

Anyways, I was compelled to do another "babes" of the week segment, with a focus on older ladies aka MILFs. For some reason, this week has been rife with milf sightings on tv, in the paper, or any other form of media. So here's my salute in list form:

1) Ann Curry

Yes, I'm an old man already because I watch the Today Show on NBC every morning. It's always on when I'm eating breakfast, and I only have local channels anyways so the options are not exactly great. Anyways, I'll admit it to the world: I have a mini-crush on Ann Curry. She's a good-looking, slim, and vaguely ethnic older woman. She has a sexy voice too. And get this: SHE'S 50 YEARS OLD! How does that happen? Some women just age extremely well I suppose. Meredith Viera, one of the co-hosts, isn't bad, but she pales in comparison to Ann Curry. Plus, there's just something about a girl in a peacoat that drives me crazy...don't ask me why.

2) Sheila E.

Prince be damned, sometimes Sheila E. was the best musician on stage when they played together. I just watched "Next Great American Band" and she looked GOOD. She must be pushing 50 too, but she still looks like a million bucks. All women should have bodies like hers in their 40s and 50s. A girl who can play a "guy" instrument like drums, guitar, and bass is always hot too.

3) Angie Harmon

She's really not that old, but I'll include her anyways. She has a nice smile and a slim body. Always a plus. She's absolutely stunning in that new show of hers.

4) Salma Hayek

Again not that old, only 40 some years old. But hot damn. She has wonderful....assets. Look at the pic, nuff said.

I just noticed that all the women I picked are somewhat ethnic. It seems that ethnic women age better in general. Who knows why that's the case, let's just all admire these babes of the week.

Crappercrombie

2007-12-14T18:53:00.000-08:00

I've mentioned this before in a previous post, but I'd like to make it more explicit: Abercrombie and Fitch sucks. The first ,and last, time I stepped inside a store was when I was 14 or 15. And even then, I had the gumption to know what millions of kids my age didn't know: the clothes are low-quality and overpriced. Why do they sell jeans with holes in them already? I can buy a pair and use a razor myself if I was compelled. Everything is worn and tattered when you buy it, what's the point? When you buy something new, it should look new. I just don't get it. Please someone tell me.

What's with the ads too? Am I supposed to be coaxed into buying clothes from nude models? Those ads are disturbing.

More disturbing is their history of discrimination of minorities. Their ads make it clear: they are marketing to a white prepster audience. That's ok, though incompatible with a society that is one-third minority. But then they use that to market shirts that advertise Asian laundromats. These shirts say "Two Wongs make it white!" and other racially insensitive remarks. This is supposed to be a national, publicly traded company, bear in mind. Oh, and then what about how they put minority employees in the stockroom rather than let them be on the floor? Abercrombie got sued for that a few years ago apparently, though I guess I shouldn't be too surprised from this socially irresponsible company.

I thought I should spell it out because a lot of people ask me "Seriously, why do you hate Abercrombie so much?". I wouldn't dislike them so much if all they did was make crappy clothes, but I have a legitimate, ethical reason for not liking them as well. If I ever set foot again in one of their stores or *gasp* spend a dollar there, I may seriously self-implode.

The Heart's a wonderful thing

2007-12-13T16:54:00.000-08:00

The heart is the only organ that exists in a literal and figurative sense (except for the ass, but let me continue this more romanticized allegory). It's the bellwether of our bodies and simultaneously the seat of our emotions. Not only does it spread that life-giving blood, but those emotions and feelings that make us uniquely human spring forth from it as well.

The more I've studied the heart this year, the more in awe I become. It's so incredibly complex, but the way it acts is so logical and precise. Like clockwork, it contracts and delivers that blood day and night. The conduction system is so in sync with the contractile aspects of the heart; it just amazes me.

Plus, it takes so much abuse and can keep on ticking. I thought about this yesterday: I just cut open a rat, blood was everywhere. Immediately, the rat's body goes into respiratory throes, as ischemia takes hold. Next I distend the aorta and cut it. Then I take it out of the cavity with surgical, but imprecise cuts. I throw it in this solution which is essentially just sugars and salts. Next, I attach the aorta to this glass cannula and perfuse it with an artificial solution that is just dextrose, albumin, potassium, and sodium salts. And barring infrequent tachycardia, it keeps beating! Thank God our hearts are so hardy and can take this kind of abuse. Why appease our stomachs with fatty foods and risk our heart's well-being? What good does that no-good organ do? I think we have our priorities wrong and take our hearts for granted.

When we can't help it, such as in congestive heart failure, the heart finds a way to be as viable as it can be until things start going south. Remarkably, the beginning stages of heart failure can be construed as a good thing. Our heart muscle gets bigger, the same thing happens in marathon runners. But then the stress of all that beating takes over and the heart can't take it anymore.

As nerdy as this may sound, I love studying this stuff. I genuinely do. I'm glad I picked this over my second choice: the kidneys. Blech!

Implicit Racism or ignorance?

2007-12-12T17:08:00.001-08:00

So I read this RedEye article today. And yes, I occasionally read the RedEye because it's free and there's a lot of pissing away time in the lab. Anyways, the cover article discussed a phenomenon called "micro-racism", which is when individuals unintentionally do prejudiced things. For example, when a person. For example, asking a black person "so how was it like being raised by a single mom?" is a type of assumptive racism, according to this article. On the whole, I agreed with much of what the RedEye journalist had to say except I would argue that most of "micro-racism" isn't as much about racism, but about ignorance due to living in a bubble of an environment. A bubble being a location where not too many ideas or people migrate in or out, a place in stasis. A great example of a bubble would be the town my parents settled in about 8-9 years ago: Vincennes in Southern Indiana.

I think a lot of people got the wrong impression about me back then. Some (ok, a lot of) people thought I was this standoffish, somewhat intense kid. The truth is that, more often, it was because I felt out of place. Part of it was because of an immense cultural gap, just discounting race. Here's a rundown:

I was born and raised in England, then moved to Cleveland, where I spent my seminal moments as a kid. Cleveland, I still consider, my true home after all these years. I remember when we first moved from the industrial North to rural Indiana. I had never really seen a real farm other than through driving in Pennsylvania and upstate New York on the way to Canada. It was a shock to see tractors and John Deere stuff and stalks of corn as far as the eye can see. Another thing that I couldn't wrap my mind around were the accents of people. This was the very first time I had an encounter with Southern-ish accents. Drawling of syllables, etc. I thought it was the strangest thing in the world. I remember thinking "Where the hell am I?"

This doesn't mean that Hoosiers aren't nice people. On the whole, they are much more pleasant than Clevelanders and Chicagoans. Though it's not like people in Cleveland and CHicago are jackasses like in the East Coast, rather people in Indiana go out of their way to be friendly, which is a nice change.

However, the one thing I absolutely HATED about Southern Indiana hearkens back to that article I read about. Implicit racism manifested in ignorance. It wasn't intentional, but ANNOYING to have to deal with. It's these sorts of things that I have yet to encounter in Chicago, that are all so prevalent back home. So here are the stupidest comments/questions you'll get in Hoosierland:

1) "Where are you from?"

How I should answer this question, but I'm too nice to say it: "I'm from here, but more importantly where are you from? Germany? France? Italy?"

2) "Your English is very good!"

How I should answer this question, but I'm too nice to say it: "Thank you. Yours however could use some work. Perhaps you could increase your vocabulary and get rid of that annoying drawl and you'd be an acceptable orator like me."

3) Do you know English?

How I should answer this question, but I'm too nice to say it: "Well if I didn't know English I wouldn't be able to tell you right now that you, my friend, are a Dumbass with a capital D."

4) Are you related to (insert random Indian person)?

How I should answer this question, but I'm too nice to say it: "No, but I can see why you'd ask me that question. I just assume that all you people here are related to each other because I'm the only one coming from a fresh gene pool around here."

5) Go back to your own country/where you were born!

How I should answer this question, but I'm too nice to say it: "Well, England's pretty far away for me. Plus, if I did, then who the hell is going to be your future doctor/lawyer/high-roller earning buku bucks and contributing to this economy, while you're working at the local gas station?"

6) Stay with your own kind! (eg. - eyeing a white girl)

How I should answer this question, but I'm too nice to say it: "It isn't my fault that I'm better-looking than you. Here's some advice: Don't marry your second cousin and maybe your kids won't have buckteeth and a round, featureless face like yourself."

Other than the last few questions, most of these questions are innocuous. But that doesn't mean I get tired of answering them in an inoffensive way. Or that I don't want to slap somebody. So who knows what's the real culprit: actual racism or utter ignorance? I'd like to believe the latter. If people are fine with the bubble, why perturb it? That's the beauty of moving out of Vincennes, I suppose...

Candidate Rundown

2007-12-11T18:49:00.000-08:00

Less than a year until the elections! *crickets chirping* Yes, the fact that every election season starts earlier and earlier has led to an unprecedented level of election burnout. Political pundits are running out of worthwhile questions to ask so they're resorting to asking "What tv shows do you like?" Which is a stupid question anyways because we all know that politicians are robots and therefore do not watch television. Anyways, here's an election guide for all you people out there, detailing you with the relevant candidates and who you should vote for...

Dems - Ah, the party of liberalism, taxing, and Kennedy; the trifecta. I'll almost certainly be voting Democrat this election and I'll say this: if a Dem does not win this time, it's time to move to Canada. Seriously, just give up if you can't win in an environment where Bush and the neocons are pissing away their political capital. I'd be happy with living in Vancouver, the smell of cannabis will help wake me up in the mornings...

1) Hillary Clinton - The unofficial frontrunner though her lead is dwindling. She comes off as strident in her speeches and a little bit of a hardass. I can't make out if her frontrunner status is because of her or because of having some guy named Bill as her husband. People already have strong opinions about her, so I'm unsure of her ability to win new votes. I think her being female is immaterial; she'll get the votes.

Pros:
-She's a real take-charge politician
-Experienced
-Bill would be First Lady

Cons:
-Most people already have already made up their minds on her
-Though people mistakenly think she would be the first female elected president, she, in fact, has a penis

2) Barack Obama - The man from Chi-town gets my respect, even if he was a prof at U of C (boo!). What an orator and personality. His inexperience shows, however, in the debates, but who cares. Americans don't care about policy issues; they just want a guy who looks and sounds presidential. I have my reservations, but he's my choice. He may not be "black enough" but that doesn't matter because he has enough mainstream appeal to trump that deficiency.

Pros:
-Dynamic speaker
-Good-looking guy
-Would bring the crucial Oprah-watcher vote

Cons:
-Not "black" enough apparently
-Would bring Oprah one step closer to becoming the Earth's overlord

3) John Edwards - The guy comes off as a slimeball to me. And his speeches are so blase. "Poor....blah blah blah....poverty....yadda yadda yadda....average American". I could be his speechwriter easily. I think his time is done. He's gone stale

Pros:
-Young candidate
-cares about poverty

Cons:
-seems to forget that he lives in a multi-million dollar mansion in Carolina
-has a wife dying from cancer and is out campaigning

4) Who cares about everyone else...they don't have a chance in hell. Kucinich gets some points for being an elf of a man and somehow bagging a smoking hot wife.

GOP - The party of rich, white men has candidates which are coincidentally rich, white men. Most of these candidates seem to get that Bush is as toxic as a radioactive waste dump so they're distancing themselves from him. Smart decision guys.

1) Rudy Giulani - I think it says a lot when the frontrunner for the nomination is a pro-choice multiple divorcee. It shows you how much the Republicans need a winner. Rudy is riding the 9/11 wave to the nomination unless...

Pros:
-the least conservative of the Republicans
-snappy dresser

Cons:
-apparently being conservative is important for the GOP, who knew
-would bring an annoying New Yorker accent to the White House

2) Mike Huckabee gets in the way. Mike who? This guy came out of nowhere (arkansas). But then again so did this one guy back in '92. Can't remember his name. Huckabee reminds me of Bush before 9/11: an aw-shucks social conservative who'd be happy to just twiddle his thumbs and run out an unremarkable 4 years. What we wouldn't give if Bush stayed that way, huh?

Pros:
-Pretty down-to-earth guy
-Lost all that weight. No-one wants a fat president. I'm looking at you Taft!

Cons:
-Huckabee would be the least-presidential sounding last name in the history of America
-he's a Bible beater

3) Mitt Romney - aka bald-faced liar. He's the epitome of a slimy political tool. Changes his views so he can get the nomination. If he was running as he is now, no way in hell Massachusetts elects this guy. I genuinely dislike Mitt Romney.

Pros:
-NONE at all

Cons:
-Hair was combed with a fork
-Flip-flops on issues
-99% of Americans don't even know what a Mormon is or what he believes, why would they vote for one?

4) Again, no-one else has a chance. John McCain is like Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace and Ron Paul, who is like a 1930s conservative, is at the wrong place at the wrong time as far as the GOP is concerned

There's my election rundown...now go back to your enlightening interview about John McCain talking about being a Vietnam POW for the 1,070,956th time.

at peace...

2007-12-09T15:33:00.000-08:00

Nice, relaxing weekends are the best. My parents came up and other than requisite shopping on Michigan and partaking in some Chicago-style pizza, we just chilled and talked. It's those unhurried moments that can be the best sometimes.

Hot Topic owned by Gap?

2007-12-04T14:09:00.000-08:00

The moment I saw a story about Hot Topic on cnnmoney.com and saw that the store is owned by GAP, I thought it blog-worthy. So that store that claims to appeal to emo kids, goth kids, and other pseudo-counter cultures is OWNED by the definition of a mainstream clothing company? Wow, you can't make this shit up. So everytime a mallgoth buys that pair of black trousers with a chain motif, it's almost like they're buying khaki pants? That has to be the funniest piece of news I've ever heard.

Here's the problem with purported counter-cultures. By the time they become sufficiently big, they are basically waiting to be corporatized. It happened with punk rock, and it was bound to happen with Hot Topic. Hot Topic doesn't make this information very easy to find, atleast if google results are to be trusted as a confirmation. There should be mass rallies outside Hot Topics spreading this news.

How can a self-respecting goth shop there knowing the money ultimately goes to irritating ads? But then again, I've never heard a more convincing argument to be goth other than "because I can" so I suppose it's all a moot point. Here's a new slogan then for the store

Hot Topic: dressing people who have the disposable income to pretend that they don't, all while enabling GAP to make more cargo shorts

France is on fire--literally

2007-12-03T12:55:00.000-08:00

Some of my more conservative acquaintances accuse me of being overly critical of America; this could not be further from the truth. I am thankful everyday that I live in this country. I just believe that there are numerous things that this country can improve on. Number one on that list is getting rid of Bush and his coterie, discussed in a previous post. Despite these failings, I can be just as thankful that I do not live in France, a country riddled with serious problems. France recently elected a new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who has promised to put France back to work and make it,economically speaking, more like Britain and America. If you've been paying attention to the news in the last month, you can see that the only thing he's been successful in is being the overseer of Paris riots and railroad strikes.

Actually, that may not be a fair assertion to make. It's not Sarkozy's fault really. I applaud him for going up against decades of bloated "cradle to grave" programs and other quasi-socialist ideas that have made France a difficult place to conduct business, namely the 35 hr. workweek. These are ideas ingrained in the French consciousness; they have become as quintessentially French as a croissant and the Eiffel Tower. It's going to take him his entire presidency and beyond for France to even consider repealing some of their state-funded programs.

The 35 hour workweek, in particular, is crippling. In experiment weeks, I easily work twice that amount. There's no way a company based in France can be globally competitive with that kind of law. It encourages laziness and cuts down incentive. This is why the best and brightest of France have actually moved to the UK in recent years. Also, 6 weeks of vacation is a bit excessive. Us Americans get by on 2 weeks and in those 2 weeks we still answer our emails and have our attached to the hip Blackberries. It can't be that hard if "stupid Americans" can get by on working longer hours and having less vacation time.

In urban areas of France, unemployment reaches almost 10 percent. Think about that for a second. The US average is 4-5%. Our lawmakers freak out if it reaches 6%. To put this into perspective: inner-city Detroit has around 10 percent unemployment. So there are swaths of France with unemployment rates similar to Detroit, recently named the Top Most Dangerous City in America. If high unemployment is correlative with other "urban" problems, then France is in big trouble.

Although there are major economic problems, social problems in France may trump those in severity. Ask pre-1960s America how marginalization of minorities worked out for them. Not so good, I hear. France in the coming decades will be more Muslim than native French, which is a problem because France has systematically ignored the minority population. Instead of engaging and integrating them, Turks, Algerians, Moroccans, etc. have had to live in barrios and working-class neighborhoods. This is a recipe for social unrest, which is what has happened in the last few years. Riots will become more frequent if they don't address this problem. It may be too late because the Muslim population is large enough such that they would have to make significant cultural concessions. Does France think the hijab ban or ban to call to prayers will last? They're kidding themselves. The social unrest is going to breed terrorist groups just like with Londonistan. They're stuck because they refused to engage the immigrant groups, the number one rule with immigrants.

It's a shame to see France devolve into its current state. I really admire French high culture. The paintings of Monet and Cezanne and the innumerable artists in that country since the end of the Roman empire have enriched the world. The French Revolution was a necessary, albeit bloody, moment in history. There would be no such thing as populism without that fountainhead movement. Hell, there would be no America without France, a fact I remind France-hater, Bush-lover friends. For all its faults, France has contributed much to the world. That's why you gotta cheer France on.

Babes of the week

2007-12-02T13:02:00.001-08:00

Once upon a time, Hollywood women had class. It was a simpler time devoid of tabloid photographers and vag flashing. Audrey Hepburn, Ingrid Bergman, Grace Kelly...need I go on? Try as they might, the actresses today just cannot equal the elegance of those women. The only Hollywood actress I can think that comes close is Keira Knightley, and she's British. There's been a push to emphasize girls with freakish proportions over actual acting ability, and as I mentioned before, class. For example, jessica Simpson is an example of too much. Too much breasts, too much legs. But also of too little ( eg. brainpower).

Part of the problem may be because I'm not a big fan of the stereotypical American babe: blond hair, blue eyes, big boobs, racehorse legs, etc. I just don't get the obsession with blondes. The only blonde I can think of that stopped me in my tracks and made me say "wow, she is gorgeous" is Gwen Stefani. On the whole, I prefer darker hair and more Mediterranean, ethnic features.

So what can a 20 something do with his need for unrealistic pining? Go abroad of course. Hence I present to you two hotties abroad. The first is Amrita Rao, an underrated Bollywood actress. Sure, these actresses can't act, but when I saw her in Main Hoon Na, I almost fell over. This might sound weird, but I liked her better as the tomboy. She was quirkier and more raw, which is sexy as hell to me.

The second babe is Mylene Jampanoi, a French actress. She has a penchant for being nude in her films, which works for me, but if you've seen her in interviews you can see that she just exudes classiness. She's absolutely gorgeous as well, but unfortunately she's married. And guess what? To an Indian actor! That makes me happy when the brown man succeeds, often we're the butt of so many jokes while the women win beauty pageants like they're a peewee hockey league. She's half Japanese and half French too, which is obviously a recipe for hotness. That's why she is currently my desktop picture and the wallpaper on my iphone.

So please enjoy these grade A certified babes of the week.

BRILLIANT article

2007-12-02T12:08:00.000-08:00

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712?currentPage=1

After reading this article, I printed it out and put it on my wall. I've always had a fascination with economics since taking classes at NU and this article systematically tells you the consequences of Bush's spendthrifting ways and dunderheaded economic policies. Since when did conservatives become so "liberal" with regards to spending government money? Atleast liberals have the good sense to raise taxes instead of spending money that doesn't exist.

Probably one of the most poignant points in this article is the mention of the weak dollar. In itself it is not necessarily a bad thing. It makes goods cheaper relative to Europe, which means Europeans come here and buy thousands of dollars of goods and help retailers. However, when people on the forex market have such a poor opinion on the validity of our currency because of our president and the state of affairs in our country, it's hardly a good thing. It's a symbol of economic malaise.

Another point that especially stuck out is how the government has been borrowing the past six years to help consumers keep up their own consumption. Where should that money have gone? Oh I don't know, maybe infrastructure, education, fixing Medicare and Social Security...but it's not like we're lagging behind in brain capital, had oodles of natural disasters and bridges falling, and a looming crisis with baby boomers getting older and older, right?

Anyways, read the whole thing, it makes you feel enlightened afterward and gives you rational reasons to want Bush out of office.

In anticipation of turkey day...

2007-11-18T13:43:00.000-08:00

I'm ready to get out of the city for the week. As strange as it sounds, I want to go back to the cornfields. And no, not just to see my parents, but to actually experience the familiarity and slowness of rural life. Chicago is so high-powered and intense, which is great, but can be tiring after months and months of it. I just went out 3 nights in a row, until 4 AM last night. Oh by the way, I also had experiment days this week, which means I didn't get home until 9ish. I'm exhausted. But good news: I get to start immunohistochemistry on the preserved hearts. Good to know that all that work goes towards the engendering of more work to do. Awesomeness haha. So yes, I need this week, even if I probably won't eat turkey. I guess an appropriate level of nostalgia has sickeningly set in for me.

Get over it, Grey's Anatomy sucks

2007-11-12T17:33:00.001-08:00

Whenever I'm at the gym on Thursday, this show is always on. Why does everyone love this show so much? It belongs on daytime television because it's merely a soap opera, with docs. I don't mind shows that give an unrealistic depiction of medicine, otherwise I wouldn't enjoy Scrubs. It's just that each and every character is superficial and, worst of all, annoying. Basically, this hospital is a high school. Nothing but cliques, gossip, and drama, especially of the latter. The cast is nice to look at, and that's the only plus. Even then, it's a given that a show on primetime will be full of good-looking people so that isn't much of a positive, imo.

Also, this show is just chock FULL of ridiculous moments. In one episode I watched while on the treadmill (I run for 45 minutes so I watched almost all of the show), katharine heigl was treating a deer. Yes, a fucking deer. Let me describe how cheesy this scene was. A dad runs over a deer in the woods. His little boy beckons his dad to bring the deer to this hospital (which is in the middle of downtown Seattle). Katharine Heigl is lo and behold the only available doc and has a group of interns around her. She explains to this guy's 5 year old son, "Honey, this is a people's hospital". The kid goes on and on whining. And guess what, Heigl relents and starts hooking up an IV to the deer and administering heparin. And then she asks interns to fetch her ECG leads and the shocker thingies. 1....2....3....CLEAR! And then magically the deer arises. During this whole segment, the deer is laughably fake looking. It's obviously an animatronic. This is the number one show in America, let me reiterate.

God.... it seems that the writers of Grey's Anatomy and the Bush administration have a corner on sheer idiocy in this country.

Why Men should not be afraid of style

2007-11-11T14:16:00.000-08:00

So I went out until 6 AM celebrating one of my good friend's 21st. Inevitably, going out requires one to dress up better than one would usually. It is de rigueur for women to go all out, but for us guys it can be off-putting for a guy to care about his appearance too much. You cross the line and you're immediately a "metrosexual". God, I hate that term. In England and Europe, men aren't afraid to dress sharp not only for going out, but for regular old afternoon jaunts. Here, if you don't just put a ballcap and sweatpants on, then people seem to question your sexuality (both men and women).

Now, the best term for the guidelines I follow when I dress: I try to be as rakish as possible. I'm not incredibly trendy, but I try to wear form-fitting clothes that fit both my physical body and my conception of style. So, I don't just buy whatever; I put thought into the image I want to project because as much as people claim to not be shallow, we actually very much are. You get judged by your outward appearance and I've found that I get treated considerably better at work and in everyday life when I put thought into what I wear. In other words, when I go somewhere wearing a cashmere sweater with a nice dress shirt underneath and tweed pants, I get considerably more respect than when I wear a hoodie and jeans from co-workers and the cash-register girl at The Coffee bean. In fact, let me give you a clue as to what ensemble consistently gets me attention and respect: a Ralph Lauren jacket, cashmere Scottish scarf, Bachrach black Italian tie, a striped H&M dress shirt, a blue Express merino woolen sweater, Armani grey pinstriped pants, and Alfani Italian-made shoes. Basically, I trust that italian men know how to dress so i take cues from them largely. Basically, one of my good friends said this, "A guy should not have as big of a wardrobe as a woman, but his clothes should all be quality stuff."

So I'll keep wearing my Armani pants, Italian shoes, and merino sweaters, because they very much impact the way I get treated, especially in an urban environment. Image isn't everything, but one cannot deny its importance in even quotidian circumstances. That's why i salute Tom Brady and George Clooney for giving a touch of class amongst all the Dane Cooks of the world.

That said, I want to clarify what is NOT rakish. And that is any article of clothing from Abercrombie, American Eagle, and Hollister. Never in a million years could you pay me to set foot in any of those stores. The clothes are poor quality, tattered, and give off an unprofessional look. And yet, Midwestern girls and guys lap this shit up like it's Dom perignon. If you're going to spend that kind of money on clothes, then you could always buy something from Polo at the same price point with atleast some panache and class.

Observation of the day

2007-11-10T15:54:00.000-08:00

Now I can't say that I accomplished nothing today. Remember that Sanjaya kid on American Idol (yes, it seems eons ago). Well, it turns out he has a sister who is hot as hell. She joins Navi Rawat, Padme Lakshmi, and girl on ER as a grade A certified IILF. Da-yam, the only thing that detracts from this pic is that chick to her right...oh wait, that's Sanjaya heyoooo!

The Next Great American Flop

2007-11-10T09:58:00.000-08:00

So, it's been a long time since I've posted something. Partly because of work and partly because of nothing blog-worthy out there. Well, the wait is over. What has necessitated a blog entry? A new show on Fridays called "The Next Great American Band". It's from the same creators of American Idol and, trust me, it's NOTHING like that show.

-The host may be a short metrosexual, but he's from NEW ZEALAND, not america
-Sheila E. is a woman with a vague ethnicity who is largely a beacon of support for the bands, nothing like Paula Abdul
-Ian "Dicko" Dickson is a snarky Aussie, not a Brit like Simon Cowell, who always has a one-liner at hand to diss a band's performance. Never has there been a more appropriate nickname for a person, btw.

Anyways, the show uses the whole "least votes from texts, phone calls gets voted off" system, which automatically means that the best band is not going to win and inevitably a band equivalent to Sanjaya is going to pwn all the better, more experienced bands. In other words, a bunch of tweeners from Kansas are going to determine the winner that looks the best and isn't necessarily the most musically accomplished. But hey, that's what the music industry has devolved into nowadays so who am I to complain.

Despite the contrived premise of this show, I find myself surprisingly entertained by this AI spinoff. I usually go out on Thursdays and Saturdays and rest on Fridays after work. And for those of you who actually watch television on a Friday night, there's slim pickins. The only alternative is Friday Night Lights and Las Vegas, neither of which particularly appeal to me. Anyways, I'd like to run through the 12 bands that made the show and what I think of them because a) I got nothing better to do and b) there is no b.

1) The Likes of You - I've heard of this band before. The lead singer is a myspace darling and it was sad to see them go so quickly. Their vocals are amazing and if you're looking for the most marketable band, these guys are definitely up there.

2) The Hatch - I can never remember this band's name. I always refer to them as that "maroon 5ish quartet". Although their lead singer is a good-looking individual, I found their sound a bit too safe and bland. Nothing really innovative or musically interesting, but the tweeners would've loved these guys if they lasted longer.

3) The Muggs - I knew these guys would be eliminated quickly. These guys are like old people who just can't let go of the 70s and try hard to be hip and relevant. The lead singer looks kinda like an ugly Trey Anastasio. The band is really tight and their guitarist can rip pentatonically speaking. But I have to agree with Dicko, the vocals blow donkey nuts. His vocal range is way too high for the songs he tries to sing. And he can't pull off the Geddy Lee or Claudio Sanchez thing and sing high but sound freakin' awesome. Great bar band, but not a legit album-seller.

4) Rocket - The requisite "rocker chick" band. These girls are the epitome of flash over substance. The show spun them as this model for the young girls out there, but there HAS to be better chick bands out there than this sorry group. The instrumentation is not tight and the vocals are absolutely horrid. One thing they have going for them? The lead singer is nice to look at; she looks almost exactly like this girl I had a crush on. And like most girls she paid no attention to me...depressing I know.

5) Denver and the Mile High Orchestra - I've never been into big bands. There was a brief period in 1998 where big bands made a resurgence headed by Brian Setzer. And by brief I mean, like in the summer of that year. For missing the boat by 9 years though, these guys have a good chance of making it out of this competition. The instrumentation is tight, which is an incredible feat when you have a brass section along with guitar, bass, and percussion. The vocals are ok, but the lead singer is as bland as plain vanilla ice cream. He's the kind of guy who shops at Eddie Bauer, wears pleated khakis, and watches the Today Show every morning before going to work as a realtor.

6) Cliff Wagner and the Old No. 7 - Git yer gitter and meet me at Uncle Cletus' hoedown. These bluegrass guys are talented and I'm impressed that they can come up with bluegrass covers of Madonna and Billy Joel at a whim it seems. The one problem: bluegrass is even more niche than jazz or techno. As much as I admire the gitter and banjo twangin', there's no way in hell this would sell on itunes or at your local sam goody.

7) Tres Bien - A nouveau British invasion band. Take the Beatles, the Who, The Kinks and add liberal amounts of The Animals to get Tres Bien. Though they lose points for originality and I halfway expect them everytime to bust out singing "She loves you, YEAH YEAH YEAH", the band is decent. The frontman is charismatic and they're solid, but not exceptional musicians. I hope they have a metal themed round to see a moddish take on Megadeth.

8) Dot Dot Dot - Chicago love! My best description for Dot Dot Dot is New-Wave-y, powerpop band with emo-ish affectations. Their look is clearly inspired by Flock of Seagulls, Duran Duran, and From First to Last. In other words, they look like immense tools and silly nannies. What saves them is that 1) i have a penchant for 80s new wave and 2) they can actually play their instruments. Though their lead singer is a poster child of androgyny, he can sing pretty well. Their version of that Elton John song blew me away. And the guitar player chick is pretty damn good. I can see these guys making it because they are equal parts flash and substance.

9) Sixwire - I don't know if it's fair to have this new country band in the competition. They had a major record deal and the members toured with lots of country acts individually. It really shows as they are the tightest band. The gang vocals are just fantastic and perfectly synchronized. These guys would sell well to a broad audience despite being a Nashville band. My only beef is that they sound too squeaky clean. They have little edge from their perfectly kempt to look unkempt hair to their slim fit jeans. They need some rawness to their look and sound.

10) Light of Doom - Look at the above picture. You can see why this band is the favorite of pedophiles everywhere. I feel perverted watching shirtless kids with long hair headbanging away. *shudders* Anyways, Light of Doom is a bunch of 12-13 year olds who are like a mini-Iron maiden. Their guitar player, who is a good 10 years younger than me, puts me to shame. I feel like I've wasted my time next to this kid. He flawlessly plays 80s metal guitar. I just can't get over how good they sound and concomitantly how young they are. Their biggest challenge: their lead singer going through puberty could sideline the band for a good 3-4 years.

11) The Clark Brothers - A trio of bard brothers. They have no bass or percussion and guess what? They don't need it at all. These guys are one of my favorites. The singer just sends chills down my spine when he sings, so emotional and spiritual. And the way they incorporate violins and slide guitar is astonishing. It creates an atmosphere to the music that's both eerie and unbelievable. Unlike Cliff, I could see this back-country band selling records and venues.

12) Franklin Bridge - Wow. These guys blow me away. Take the Roots and add Boys 2 Men vocals with urban flair, and that doesn't even begin to describe Franklin Bridge. Carefree vibe and smooth as silk vocals are what these guys are about. Oh, btw the singer can rip on guitar. How the hell these guys go from R&B to rock so seamlessly is beyond me. I want these Phillie guys to win.

Public Transport can sometimes be too public

2007-08-23T20:28:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite parts of Chicago is the extensive public transport system. Between the El, Metra, and the buses, you don't need a car in this city. And with gas around $3.20 a gallon nowadays and parking such a pain, it's not advisable to even have the burden. Yes, I'm so dependent on the CTA that I'm willing to shell the 3 bucks if fare increased next month. Further, I have no idea what I'll do in Indy since they have such a shitty public transport system.

One niggling thing though about public things: they can be too public. You're in close quarters with other people, especially during rush hour. What am I supposed to do in the morning when the 50 year old lady next to me is drifting asleep and dangerously close to my shoulder? I HATE that! Plus, you get some real weirdos on the el. Just today, I was on the bus to community health and this guy comes on to the bus around chicago and halsted. Apparently I have a sign on me that says "psychoanalyze me" becuase that's what this dude did. He starts saying that I need to stop folding my arms; it shows I'm a selfish guy. I then said (with no hint of sarcasm mind you), "thanks for the psychotherapy, buddy."

This prompted the guy to then say I'm snobbish for being so rude. Oh, I guess passing judgment on a complete stranger whose just trying to get back to the lab because he has a shitload of analysis to do isn't a jackass type of thing to do. My bad. One other guy on this same bus route (watch out for the 66 on Chicago Ave., guys and gals) started saying out loud "I want me a white girl" and this high school girl talking about how much of a slut she was and wanted to break up with her bf by sending him a text message. I knew I was getting old when I realized how annoying high schoolers are.

Oh yeah, at the end of this day, I got soaked from head to toe in a Chicago monsoon while two shuttles decided to not come tonight to pick up students. A great day for the CTA.

Empty Nest

2007-08-12T18:22:00.000-07:00

So my brother just got dropped off at Purdue for college. We'll see how it goes; hopefully it gives him a good dose of reality. More importantly, my parents now are all alone back home. Wow, that's weird to think of. They have zero hobbies so I'm wondering how they're going to cope with that. It will be interesting nonetheless. I told them "you guys always have the dogs", but I know they're going to be bored in that big ole house in the middle of nowhere in Indiana. It's unfortunate but everyone grows up eventually and becomes independent from the 'rents. So here is a list of things they'll start doing without us there:

1. Work, work, and work: My parents already work pretty long hours, but I've noticed that working is a pretty good alleviation for boredom. In this summer after college, my circle of friends and people I hang out with has shrunk to a pittance. Coupled with an apt. without AC and lack of cable tv, itt's been a pretty good motivator to work 12 hours a day. What else am I going to do? Hopefully, my parents don't work too hard, but I see this as a pretty large likelihood.

2. Rent more movies: My parents are closet movie junkies, but hate paying for stuff without my brother and I being present. So this is not very likely.

3. Read books: very unlikely. My parents hate reading for leisure.

4. get a new dog: My parents have been talking for a while about getting a new dog (actually just mom), but Silky is getting old and may need a "replacement" soon. We'll see where this goes but I wouldn't be opposed to it at all. It'd be kinda cool.

5. Get friends: My parents have zero interaction with people in the community. For doctors, they can be pretty callous, but I really wish they had friends with whom they could talk to and invite for dinner, etc.

I feel bad for them, but hey it had to start sometime. As long as my dad doesn't get a motorcycle or a Cadillac, I think they'll get through the midlife crisis okay.

whooo craziness

2007-08-05T11:33:00.000-07:00

Whooo...just got back to Chicago to start my research job. I get paid 500 a month to work 60 hr. weeks. Yep, i guess I must really like this stuff then. My boss, the PI, is really cool and so is everyone in the lab. God, I missed this city, though it's been steamy and sticky these last few days (and without AC in my apt. it sucks). Only 2 weeks left until I move to Lakeshore....YES! My new bachelor pad is the shit and I'm only a 15 minute walk from Mich. Ave. Can't wait to move in and enjoy the year off from formal academia!

Looks like the NFL has problems too...

2007-07-24T21:01:00.001-07:00

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/don_banks/07/24/vick/index.html

You can put a thug in the NFL, but all the money in the world can't take the thug out of him. I hate thugletes, there were many at my undergrad college who had no business being at a so-called elite school. All American pro leagues need to clean up their act starting with the NBA going down the list. Send this guilty-ass thug to jail; that's true gangsta.

Ho-hum another starlet in jail

2007-07-24T20:51:00.000-07:00

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/24/lohan.arrest/index.html

I'm sure everyone's heard of this by now. All I want to say is that the solution is not another slap on the wrist referral to a Malibu rehab center or fine. The spoiled brat needs to rot in jail, or better yet just lock herself in a spaceship along with Paris Hilton, tara reid, and Nicole Richie on a one way trip to the sun. This brat thinks she'll win an Oscar and be a serious actress? Yeah right...good luck on being taken seriously anymore by anyone.

Yi Jianlian holding out, Team USA floundering, and ref corruption -- other than that the NBA's great

2007-07-21T16:57:00.000-07:00

Fans have known for a long time that the NBA is not what it used to be. I can't even watch regular season games anymore not involving the Suns and a few other select teams. There's no heart from players nowadays or real sense of rivalry. Players back then were in it for the money, but atleast they didn't mail in games and played with palpable intensity. Today's NBA players are robots with both fans and the media, and have a reputation for being pricks a la Kobe Bryant.

I'm sure everyone's heard about the ref corruption. Great, now refs aren't only incompetent bastards, but now they're corrupt bastards too. I bet Rasheed Wallace is sitting at home saying "I told you so" at this very moment. It makes me suspicious too; to think that the last few years of play in the NBA have even been legit.

Team USA is another problem in itself. Adding Jason Kidd was a very good thing. He's the kind of player that needs to be on Team USA. There should be a character screen from now on. I;m tired of arrogant thugs like Melo who may be ballas, but take international competition lightly. From now on, force these guys to live in the Olympic Village too. If it's good enough for Jordan, Barkley, and Malone then it's good enough for Lebron, Melo, and D-Wade

Another thing that makes me pissed is when players "force" themselves out of situations by demanding trades, etc. The worst example of this type of behavior is when drafted players do this type of maneuver. Even worse is when entire governments do the same thing. Well, this is what the Yi Jianlian circus is in a nutshell. I commend the Bucks organization for standing up to the Chinese government sporting body, an entity known for being duplicitous. Their reasoning makes no sense. His marketing potential won't be dented at all if he plays in Milwaukee. If you're good, you get endorsement deals, plain and simple. Look at Lebron he plays in Cleveland. If he doesn't want to live in Milwaukee, which is what I think is the real issue, then he wouldn't be any different from any other NBA player. Most NBA players unless they play in LA or New York don't actually live in the city they play in. It makes no sense to even do that because half of their games are on the road and then there is a substantial break between seasons (when Yi will be playing for China's national team presumably).

Further, Chicago is literally an hour away if he wants to be among a big population of Chinese people so badly. And after YOU ACTUALLY PLAY AND PROVE SOMETHING in the NBA then you can negotiate yourself to LA, New York, or wherever you desire. Yi and the Chinese sporting body are being big crybabies. You can't just force your way in America like you did back in China; there are rules here and being a bully won't work. the best thing for Yi to do is play for Milwaukee -- it'll be a good place to develop.

Plus, it goes against the ethos of the draft. The draft is supposed to help small market teams without big payrolls get better. Regardless if this Yi thing is solved, the NBA can count that as one positive in the last 5 years in this dysfunctional league. Count me out on watching the NBA next year. David Stern needs to regain American fans and stop catering willy-nilly to the international scene

If I were a Persian Prince....

2007-07-20T22:23:00.000-07:00

A zany college friend of mine made this. Pretty good, eh?

Constructing the perfect female

2007-07-20T21:30:00.000-07:00

How does one construct the perfect human being? In a human sex class, I learned that there are researchers who actually study this sort of stuff. So let me take a stab at this discipline of psychology (it was at this point that I learned that psychology is very much full of BS (no offense to psych majors)

1. Eyes - It's a toss up between Aishwarya Rai and Audrey Hepburn. I give the edge to Audrey hepburn because her eyes are so big that she almost looks like an anime characters. Those eyes are like saucers or something.

2. Face - Aishwarya Rai wins out this one. Perfect face; she's a Helen of Troy. And I wish she'd forget about Bollywood and take Hollywood roles. Sell out like the rest of Hollywood, actors act! Kissing an actor is part of the job; you're not actually kissing anyone for God's sake!

3. Legs - Jessica Simpson has the legs of a racehorse. She must do stairmaster for 6 hours everyday or something. It's true that everything is bigger in Texas I guess...However, I must decline because I think there is such a thing as too much. I'll go with Gemma Atkinson

4. Bum - Yes yes this will be a very trite answer but yes I'm going to say Jennifer Lopez. It's a freak of nature. She owes that caboose her entire career. I know that it's for the best and I shouldn't complain, but what the hell has she been doing for the last 5 years? You don't hear about her doing movies, music, or anything.

5. Chest - This will definitely be a contentious one, there really is no right answer. I'll go with Jennifer Connelly for the time being on this one. She got a breast reduction surgery even!

6. Body - Subjective again, but I pick Gisele Bundchen here. There is certainly a reason she's a model. Abs of steel pretty much.

7. Lips - No I'm not going to put Angelina Jolie here. Her lips are just plain scary. I'm going with Priyanka Chopra. She has nice full lips and doesn't look like a mutant like Angelina

8. Hair - I have a thing for nice long tresses. I think the right haircut on even a plain jane can make a girl look irresistible. I'll go with Kate Beckinsale up above. Brilliant marketing by Diet Coke. Perfect way to get the male demographic interested in diet soft drinks that taste like shit.

NIH should get on this project right away. Why are we wasting time looking for a cure for AIDS? This is way more worthwile BY FAR!!!!

An exercise in superficiality

2007-07-20T13:28:00.000-07:00

Many people have told me that I'm a superficial person and I would have to agree for the most part. Invariably, when my friends and I see some pretty girl we go into the requisite guy talk going something like this:

"Oh dude, did you see that girl?"
"yeah man, the only problem is her _____ is too big/small/abnormal/etc."

I was just wondering why I have to be so nitpicky about stuff like that? Do girls do the same thing when they see a guy too? Then in that case I thought about the stuff girls would say about me and my friends. I'll use myself as an example:

"Oh God, did you see that guy?"
"Yeah, he'd almost be cute except for his _____"

The blank can be filled in with the following I can surmise

1. Large nose - My nose isn't as big as some Indian people's, but it is a bit on the ponderous side. My brother has a pretty big schnoz so I should be grateful

2. Short height - I can see this being a common problem. My dad is 5'4 and my mom is 5'2. Genetically, I had zero chance of clearing 6 feet. i try to compensate by staying fit and muscular, which is an insufficient thing to do when you're a munchkin like me. But hell Tom Cruise, Humphrey Bogart, and Tobey Maguire are shorties but they seem to do well for themselves.

3. hairiness - As any Kashmiri, I'm built for mountain living, but in the temperate American climate, it's proving to be unnecessary. I think all real men should have some hair on them; it's simply natural. A hairless chihuahua is unnatural for dogs just as is a hairless man. Women should stop demanding this of us. Regardless, I'm a Chia Pet.

Alright so there you go, I'm not a perfect specimen. Vain, I am. Excuse me, while I schedule some plastic surgery...

Top Six Movie Badasses

2007-07-19T10:08:00.000-07:00

If I decided to forget about medicine and go into acting, I know exactly what typecast I'd want: the badass. I'd want to be known as the guy who can wield enough artillery to take out a small country all while getting the babes. I'd have the art of snapping necks and kicking ass down. Every director would call me up if they had a story that called for mowing down hundreds of men and doing death-defying stunts. So, as a homage to my fantasy, I devised a list of top ten movie badasses.

6. Steven Seagal - I think that family guy cutaway said it best. The one where Steve Seagal is beating up a bunch of arctic seals on an iceberg. Yes, Steve is the kind of guy who would do such an audacious thing. He didn't selectively kick ass; the guy was an uncontrollable killing machine in his movies. My favorite move by the guy is the snapping of necks, cheap but so effective. Too bad he crapped out bigtime with that DMX movie; this guy was the shit back in the day. (please refer to Undersiege and Undersiege 2 for good ole Seagal)

5. Bruce Willis - "Now I know what a tv dinner feels like" Bruce Willis gets on this list simply because of the Die Hard movies. The best part about those movies was how fallible the guy was. He was genuinely scared about being in dangerous situations, but he nonetheless perservered. I think that's why he survived into the 90s, whereas these other guys didn't. Plus, I hope he makes a comeback. We need more red-blooded, macho men with receding hairlines.
Watch: DIE HARD, The Fifth Element

4. Bruce Lee - So my brother is a huge martial arts buff. He loves any movie with guys flying around trees and wielding swords. Most of these movies are god-awful in my opinion (I don't get why people love Street Fighter with Sonny Chiba so much). But I'll always make an exception for Bruce Lee movies. Lightning quick moves and he had the whole don't mess with me attitude. Extra points for the cool sounds he makes.
Watch: Enter the Dragon, The Chinese Connection, Big Boss

3. Charles Bronson - Ahhh, I still remember the first day I watched Death Wish. It remains to this day one of the most violent movies I've ever seen. But then again if someone raped your daughter and killed your wife, I think any logical individual would respond by bringing hell on earth. You're not a real action movie aficionado till you've watched Death Wish. It was the precursor for Auh-nuld and Sly flicks later on.
Watch: Death Wish (the sequels pretty much blow), The Great Escape

2. Arnold - I can't spell his last name, but you know who I'm talking about. The Governator was amazing back in the 80s. If you needed a muscly, red-blooded guy to kick enormous amounts of butt, this was your man. Commando is one of my favorite action movies to this day. Paper thin story, but so entertaining. Seriously, Commando's story makes Bollywood movies sound like Shakespeare. Dutch, John Matrix, and the Terminator remain iconic characters. How did this guy get elected, pleeeeeeease go back to acting, will you? But no more movies where you're pregnant.
Watch: Commando, Predator, The Terminator

1. Sly - Stallone gets my number one spot because his movies were generally of better quality than Arnold's. You know, most dudes only get to play one iconic character known by only one name, but Sly played TWO. Rocky was the ultimate underdog and disregarding #5, they all ruled. I was genuinely surprised how much I liked Rocky Balboa, the latest film. I thought Stallone just wanted to revive a character that shoulda been laid to rest, but it was a smart movie and I was cheering for Rocky again. Oh yeah, how can you forget about Rambo. "God has mercy, John Rambo won't". Big muscles? Check. Big guns? check. Foreigner baddies or rednecks to beat up on? Check. How awesome would it be if there was an American platoon made up of John Rambo, John Matrix, and Charles bronson? America would finally solve Iraq for sure.
Watch: Rocky and Rambo

Honorable Mentions: Steve McQueen, Sean Connery (bond and the untouchables), Jet Li, Al Pacino

Day One

2007-07-18T20:38:00.000-07:00

Well, it appears I've only missed the blogging bandwagon by about a decade. Better late than never, I suppose. You see, I'm selective on the fads that I join. Facebook? alright I'll do it. Myspace? No thanks. Pogs? Sure! Pokemon? Not so much.

I'll spare the boring details, suffice it to say I am a pretty ordinary person who just recently became a college graduate. Yay! I've joined thousands of other individuals in our great country in that endeavor. One thing I must let the random people who will read this blog know one thing upfront: I like listing things. So I guess I'll kickstart this biatch with a list of some of my favorite things...(cultural references are, incidentally, the first thing on the list)

Favorite Movies:
1. ANY Martin Scorsese - He's my favorite American director. I've yet to find a film by this guy that I hate. Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Raging Bull, The Departed, The Aviator....

2. North by Northwest - First of all, I have to say that Cary Grant is one of my favorite actors. This guy oozed cool in all of his movies. Albert Hitchcock equals movie gold as well. The story is convoluted, riveting, and has a surprisingly good sense of humor about it. How can you forget that crop duster scene or climbing Mount Rushmore? Plus, Eva Marie Saint...WOWZER!

3. The Great Escape - Hence the title of the blog...I've only watched it three times, but it's probably the best overall movie I've ever seen. Steve McQueen is a badass, plain and simple. It's the perfect guy movie and I don't think I'd ever get tired of watching Charles Bronson in his pre-Death Wish glory (i'm the deeger!)

Favorite Music:
1. The Smashing Pumpkins - Probably my favorite band. You either love this band or not, and I can see why Billy Corgan's voice can be enervating. The musicianship and hooks are there though. I refuse to believe that the reunion, by the way, is genuine until James Iha and Darcy (i'll take melissa auf der maur I guess) are back also.

2. 1980s music - I'm a sucker for synthesizers and balls to the wall music. Hence, my adoration for the tunes of the ostentatious decade. Back then, music was fun, not something dreary nor something lacking musical talent to perform (take any implications you want from that statement about music today). Van Halen, Phil Collins (yes, I said Phil Collins), GnR, Dokken, Michael Jackson...ahhhh musical bliss.

3. Led Zeppelin - As a guitar player, I don't really listen to lyrics when I hear a song. I pay more attention to the background. And for what it's worth, Zep has the best background guitar music of any band I've ever listened to. So you got that going for you, Jimmy Page, which is nice...

Favorite Random Stuff:

1. Inappropriate levels of alliteration - will probably become apparent from the musings in the blog
2. Medicine - Well, it's my intended profession so I'd better like it
3. Retro stuff - Something you can surmise from glancing at my list...old is gold

So there is the initial list for any person to pore over. I think my next post will be something more serious...even though being frivolous is so much fun.