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.