Welcome to hell

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

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

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!

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...

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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!

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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?

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?

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?

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

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

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?

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

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)?

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

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?

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

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...

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

Sarkozy l'Americain

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!

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....

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

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

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.