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.