Uncle Sam’s broken promise

After driving my parents insane with worry for twenty-three years with my impulsive dare-devil antics, I spent my first few months in this country roaming the streets of New york city till long after midnight ---simply because I could!

After four years of trying to understand the nuances and enjoying the benefits of this newfound personal freedom, my mind still does a little jig when the temperature is a soaring 90 degrees and I can walk out in a comfortable pair of shorts and T-shirt without being penalized for my choice of clothes or point out to my boss why he is wrong without having my paycheck delayed. Only now I take it with a pinch of salt, knowing that while the US is a land where you can, for the most part, do whatever the hell you please, it is more because the ACLU can plead your case than because a majority of Americans agree with what you do.

The ACLU and my favorite Real Time host are my two remaining hopes for America to live up to what I saw from my rose-tinted glasses through Warner Brothers and Penguin books in tenth grade and decided that this was the place to be. I think I have mentioned Bill Maher on my blog about 25 times in 2 months. But he’s the only one I can see and hear who seems to be protesting in any effective way, this country’s going to the gutters and the least I can do is “spread the gospel” (with due apologies to the heretic at my choice of words).

The thing about Maher is you end up admiring him for his views, his philosophy, his guts and yet the reason you love him is cos he makes you laugh so uproariously while putting them “out there”. The man can talk continuously for an hour and a half---without a commercial break--- make you laugh for about 99% of the time and still convey more wisdom than anyone else ever has on television.

While I was on the verge of insanity with Bill being on his awfully long hiatus, he came up with his HBO special. I am swiss, is what he called it; it’s so Bill, cos God forbid, he doesn’t belong here in this land of religiously fanatical people who spend hours lamenting about a piece of stone outside the Alabama State Judicial building, a couple words in the pledge of allegiance or voters who decide elections based on “men kissing men” as Bill himself puts it.

But thank my lucky stars he is. Thanks to him, I know at least a tiny little part of America is what I expected it to be, what I dreamed it to be, what I fantasized it to be. No offense, I love this country and I know I get more here than I could ever dream of in India or in any other country in the world; it’s just that I am only getting half of what I had bargained for. My life is unaffected; I am as yet neither gay nor in need of an abortion or suffering from a life threatening illness that would need stem cell research at its heights, but even looking at all of it from the outside makes me really, really mad.

Hearing Bill talk about all the things that bug him about this country and its policies struck a kind of familiar chord in the back of my mind. Naah, I am not trying to weasel into that league up, up above where Maher belongs, where I have as yet not been able to admit any other human being.

But I have sat at a bar, at a round table or on a couch with a half dozen Indians time and time again and tried to tell them what I think is wrong with India and its belief system and been treated to looks of absolute incredulity and open-mouthed shock. I am an out and out liberal at heart; I don’t have a problem with gay marriage, I don’t believe in religion (of any kind) and I certainly don’t believe that some kid should be brought into this world and made to suffer because you thought it was a crime to kill it when it was in the womb. I would even go as far as legislating marijuana, euthanasia and suicide if I were given a choice. I really, in the true sense of the word do not believe in a right or wrong, and I think that ANYthing in this world can be justified as long as you want it enough and it does not “physically” affect anyone else. Yeah, I don’t understand the concept of laws being made based on “emotional” damage because they can’t be measured. If you’re writing it on paper and putting it in a file folder that can be touched, make sure what goes in it is tangible as well. This emotional garbage is the root of problems like capital punishment and the fight against euthanasia. Besides, anything can cause emotional damage---from playing the music too loudly to statutory rape. What I cannot understand is that after nearly four million years of evolution, I am still in the minority. How long is it going to take the most powerful country in the world to believe that a chemical reaction that can be reproduced in a test tube is more convincing than an unknown entity building the sun, the moon, the earth and Adam and Eve in seven magical days?

While Americans still battle with the idea of gay marriage it has been happening in at least five countries without inhibition and while you can lose a job here for smoking marijuana, in the Netherlands it might well be soda. In the land of the free, presidents would not get impeached for having extramarital affairs and players would not be penalized for trying to build up their muscles.

So when Bill says emphatically “don’t legislate your tastes” or that “religion is a neurological disorder” it is tempting to speculate how different this country could have been if it were not tainted by the lofty, impractical ideals that religion imposes. Let’s face it, as wonderfully as only Maher can put it, America is being ruled by a book that says man lived up to 400 years and that you are to be put to death if you worked on a Sunday.

Since all the other ingredients are already in place, would it be too hard to put religion on a back seat and rule the country on the principles of reason rather than faith, thus putting me back on track with the “Kane and Abel” and “All the president’s men” that I idolized as a teenager?

[I HAVE to mention this ---I’m tempted to pledge allegiance to Switzerland since my two biggest living heros are now Swiss---Bill of course, and the only other human being I have mentioned more times on my weblog :)---and oh, the chocolates and cheese wouldn't hurt...]

When the remote becomes remote….

Over the past few weeks, I have been coming to terms with a very frightening fact, namely, in the world of HBO there is no place for a remote control.

The shock wasn’t so much that I had to keep my hands off the remote as much as that I couldn’t do it. The last time I had to watch TV without commercials was a decade and a half ago. As a fifth grader with an attention span of 4500 hours and with desi doordarshan the only thing on TV, it didn’t pose much of a problem. Plus there was always someone around to hand me the bag of chips.

Didn’t the people at HBO study the human psyche at all? Didn’t they think about insatiable human obsessions ---chocolate, Pepsi, Bill O’Reilly, the telephone and the internet that sometimes --- just sometimes--- rank a tad higher than the show you’re watching?

The task(?) of watching TV is inherently designed so as not to expend too much energy. At any given time there is only one ideal configuration to sit in and watch the idiot box. This is decided by several parameters---your eyesight, hearing, the angle of your couch towards the TV, the distance of your couch from the TV and the glare from the window. And once you have settled in, there is very little reason to move a muscle---well, other than the ones you use to laugh while watching Friends or frown while tuned to Fox news. And the less your options, the less the permutations and combinations for changing your position (physically of course, not in the Fox news kind of way). Considering I have one chair, a TV that sits on a weather-beaten suitcase, a fan that only seems to dispense air in one direction and a processor that serves as the other piece of furniture in the room, I have even less reason to move than most.

And while your body is enjoying this state of sedentary bliss (whoever said we are constantly moving towards inertia certainly knew what he was talking about), the remote control is trying its dandiest best to counter it.
And your treacherous index finger gladly obliges, surfing channels and playing with the volume control, in the process, pandering to your low attention span (or the incompetence of TV shows as the case may be)..
And for those of you who think my worries are frivolous, here are a few things you take for granted with commercial breaks:

Run into the kitchen to grab a bag of chips, thus doing eternal justice to the term “couch potato”.

Be courteous enough to take a call from a friend and tell him/her that you’ll call right back (which usually means ‘at the top of the hour’).

Call your best friend and shriek, “I am soooooo in love with Bill Maher” only to hang up and go back to Bill.

Google ‘McCarthysm’ before the History channel program threatens to go way over your head.

Answer nature’s call because you have an over active bladder, what with the Pepsi and all…

Flip to Fox News to hear that ridiculously stupid viewpoint that only Sean Hannity can provide.

Tucker Carlson moves his show to the 11 pm slot pushing the three programs you watch religiously (you watch the rest non-religiously) to one half hour of divine television. Though watching snippets of Stewart and Tucker and Chandler all in half an hour doesn’t appeal to my digestive system, I would certainly like to have the choice….

My Favorite Libertarians

While the rest of mankind seems to have evolved to forks and knifes over 4 million odd years, I still eat my steak by tearing it up with my fingers. So it must come as no surprise that the libertarian party---the party of no government--- is the only one that makes any sense to me.

So while Democrats and Republicans with their respective love for large government and small government exist on a stalemate in Capitol Hill (and on all news networks except Fox, where GOP is the clear winner), I propose the “libertarian” party as the default party of the world.

Why then, you might ask, have the libertarians failed in a more than humiliating fashion the few times they have had representation in federal elections. For this, you need to understand the concept of political quagmires (and who better to learn it from than a specialist in quagmires, be it in real life or on the TV). The inherent dilemma of the libertarian party--- the party of individualism---is that they can’t have a leader. After all, when you say I am my own president, you can’t elect one (and Ralph Nader merely ensures that by representing them).

Anyway, I decided to defy the fundamental idea of libertarianism --- the shunning of a theoretical orthodoxy --- and do what I do best --- wax eloquent about a subset of very few people that are (un)fortunate enough to fall in my “favorites” list. Here’s my pitch for a libertarian party candidate in ’08…
Counting down:

5. Tucker Carlson

He calls himself a “paleo” conservative, but since I have always liked this bow-tie wearing sloppy-haired right-winger of Crossfire fame, I am going to let him run for the libertarians. Plus, with The Situation, he’s risen to a whole new level. While on Crossfire he was just another screeching conservative, on his own talk show he’s a surprisingly smart and tolerant analyst. And his libertarian views sure make it to the surface a whole lot better when he is not fulfilling duty as Bush’s infallible advocate----with dubya pushed to the back of his mind he apparently finds the time to do more useful things—like oppose affirmative action and push for life-enhancing drugs and smoking in public places. And if he can pick a running mate as well as he can pick talk show guests, he’s well on the road to victory (Max Kellerman and Rachel Maddow absolutely rock :))

Favorite Carlson quotes: On his new show, “Is it too good-natured? Is it not nasty enough? It’s just not unpleasant enough. It’s one of our major problems.”

On 9-11, “... The attacks initially made me sorry I voted for him….My family sat unprotected a few miles from the scene of a terrorist attack; Bush hid in a bunker on some faraway military base”.

4. Dave Barry

It’s obvious that Dave doesn’t like the government. Hilarious as his digs at politicians, the IRS tax code and government-mandated low flush toilets are, I didn’t translate it into being “libertarian” till long after becoming addicted to his columns ;) He not only makes a point, he does it while letting you laugh away your Monday morning blues. He won’t need a speech-writer---that’s for sure… And he’ll inspire laughs without having to say “nucular”

That apart, if Barry makes president, you can be sure of a few things:
There’d be none of those annoying stickers on fruits
Telemarketers will be banned from getting within fifty feet of a telephone
People (or food packagaing) will stop reminding you that the cheese you’re eating contains fat
We sure need to get some of those shackles off.

Favorite Barry quote: “….I began to think about all the government people I knew ... who were theoretically for the common good. Then I realized not one of them was [for the common good]." That led him to his ultimate insight about government: "It's stupid."

3. Trey Parker

When most people want to express a point of view, they do it by screeching on a talk show or writing a blog. Not Trey Parker. When Trey Parker wants to express an opinion, he crafts the most ingeniously colorful (pun unintended) animation, not only getting the point across but also depositing it in a very memorable part of your brain. I never watched cartoons (Simpsons doesn’t count) till I started getting used to watching four foul-mouthed little Colorado boys sounding off on everything from Mel Gibson to Walmart, while waiting for Jon Stewart to come on air. (Aside: Stewart sometimes seems reverent by comparison!) And for once in my life, waiting actually became fun.

Favorite Parker quote: “What we're sick of — and it's getting even worse — is: You either like Michael Moore or you wanna fuckin' go overseas and shoot Iraqis. There can't be a middle ground. Basically, if you think Michael Moore's full of shit, then you are a super-Christian right-wing whatever”.

2. P.J. O’Rourke

He loves fast cars and advocates drugs. In other words, the guy has no restraint : )

Describing O’Rourke as only he can, paraphrasing: He has no ideology, no agenda, no catechism, no dialectic, no plan for humanity. All he has is a belief that people should do what people want to do, unless it causes harm to other people. And that had better be ‘clear and provable’ harm. No nonsense about second-hand smoke or hurtful, insensitive language. He doesn’t know what's good for you. You don't know what's good for him. He doesn’t know what's good for mankind. And he doesn’t want to tell all the people in the world what to do. This is because he believes in freedom.

Favorite O’Rourke quote: “I really think cigar smoking does make you smarter. Or maybe it just makes you sit still long enough to be smart. Or maybe it creates such a big stink that nobody comes around to bother you while you're trying to be smart. Anyway, it works”.

1.Bill Maher

He’ll never make any nomination in this country---he’s too self-assured, too self-confident and far too intelligent….. He’s the Galileo of the day telling people the earth is round, but people are either too stupid or too scared to believe it.
But he’s my top-contender.

Anti-religion, anti-marriage and utterly agnostic, Bill is AS libertarian as can get. Fearlessly pushing political hot-button issues (to the point of getting fired for them) may translate as being iconoclastic to Jesus-loving, bible-ruled Americans; to me he represents the ultimate in political, journalistic and vocal freedom. And if you don’t like what he says on-screen, his life makes a statement for itself—a guy that apathetically does away with feel-good factors like God or a life-partner is most completely his own man!

Favorite Maher Quotes: "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."

`I'm single and middle-aged, which of course is against the law in America. It means you're evil and wrong and commitment-phobic''

Is humor in the testosterone?

What happens when two of the smartest, wittiest men in the world get together to discuss world issues?
You get Fareed Zakaria and Jon Stewart Leibovitz in the Daily Show studios in New York.
Besides the witty banter (that invariably happens everytime Zakaria is a guest on the show---three, to be precise), I can't help but smile at the irony of the situation.
A third generation American jew and a first generation American muslim sit down to crack the Islamic terrorism problem. The jew makes a joke about the fatwa and the muslim makes a joke about the kosher and all seems to be well with the world.

But my question is not about jews or muslims or religion, but the other big equal opportunity concern: Why is it always the men? Why cant two women sit and discuss religious fanaticism and be funny? Hell, they can discuss Charlie Brown and not be funny. Is humor in the testosterone?

Why are the people that make you roll on the floor with laughter at midnight always a Bill Maher or a Jon Stewart or a Jay Leno? Why does Conan O'Brien merely have to toss his head and do a jig or mimic Dubya to make your sides split uncontrollably?

With all due respect to women, Ellen Degeneres is just not funny. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler did great as Weekend Update anchors but that’s contrived. You can't put Fey in Bill Maher’s chair for instance and expect her to be insanely funny with a guest that’s as boring as Alec Baldwin or as unpredictable as O’Reilly. In fact the one time Fey was on the Daily Show, she was barely funny. Even someone like Stewart is out of the running trying to instigate the funny side of his women guests (Sandra Bullock excepted). Not that his show needs any help in the humor department ---a four man one woman team is pretty self-sufficient (point to be noted: Samantha B never instigates the kind of raving applause that Steve Colbert or Rob Cordury are invariably greeted with, and for good reason).

And it’s not just restricted to the real world:

Would we find it so hilariously witty and endearingly philosophical if Calvin were Calvina? Hell, even Hobbes is male! So are Bart and Homer, Dennis the Menace and Jughead Jones. Susie Derkins is smart and earnest and Lisa Simpson is brainy and righteous---just never funny.

Chandler and Ross are funny, old Woody is hilarious, Frasier is witty, Jerry Seinfeld is a natural comedian, Charlie Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy are the most hilarious characters that ever walked the earth ---they all have just one thing in common… they are all men….

Is it just my inherent bias or is humor in the testosterone?

It’s all about the colors!

Well, Squawkbox bailed on me, taking with it the most entertaining part of my blog—the comments section :(
And it was then that I realized that I was the only moron still using squawkbox in the entire blogosphere. I’ve always been slow with technology; I like to think its cos of my razor-sharp brain that doesn't need any 21st century help ;)

So I had to revamp my template (the blog's I mean; mine is beyond repair), and I decided that while I’m at it, might as well add a backdrop of color. I had stuck to my dull white one as long as I did so as not to distract from the important message my posts usually convey ;). Today I decided that my words were bright enough to stand out against any splash of color. And if they don’t, certainly my caricature here will :D (which by the way, I went through a lot of pains to downscale from its original lifesize---yeah I have a huuuuuge head).

And besides, if Jon Stewart himself had to redesign his studio, my blog was certainly in need of a facelift. I have spent a good hour doin this (including half during my nightly date with Stewart) so someone better acknowledge it.

Music Musing

I have been music-tagged by Mitokondrion !!!!
And since I believe in always doing my byt(e) for the cyber-community (like I haven’t done enough already), here goes….

Disclaimer: I am relatively tone deaf --- I think it happened when I sang “Wouldn’t it be loverly” at the top of my lungs during a high school play --- it bode well for me as an actress that Eliza Doolittle was supposed to sing off-key. So, music veterans, forgive me if the following sounds more like a biography than a list of musical favorites----in my defense, that’s why my weblog is christened thus and there’s more to music than music!

The last CD I bought: Coldplay’s X&Y
Song playing right now: Blvd of Broken Dreams (in my head)

Songs/artists that mean a lot to me, that I absolutely love, in no particular order:

Nothing at all, Ronan Keating: I have been maniacal about this song since long before I started appreciating music. At the time, I only listened to music while driving (that should successfully explain my incompetence in both areas) and I heard Keating’s gem when a pal loaned me one of her CDs. I don’t know if just about anything sounds good after hearing Rush Limbaugh scream on NPR, but post-Limbaugh, I am still in love with this song. I promptly got my then music guru to send me all possible songs by Ronan Keating; seeking the opportunity, he sent me a ton of others I never listened to cos “Nothing at all” was on Repeat for about two months ;).

Blvd of Broken Dreams, Greenday: The reason I even heard this song was cos of Tower music records--- the only shop that stays open till midnight in Philly----and my haven for the short time I was TV-less and daunted by the idea of walking into an apartment that didn’t scream, “there are other people living on earth”. So I walked into the store and randomly began pickin up CDs to listen to (random here meaning the names I’d heard my die-hard music-loving pal Vidy throw out casually during many an intensely musical conversation not involving me --- except for political insights like “Wasn’t Springstein campaigning for Kerry?” that were blatantly ignored). Happily, Greenday’s was one of the CDs I picked---I am now irrevocably in love with the band. And when they played the song to signify Federer at Wimbledon, I knew for a fact that this had to be MY song.

Dancing queen, Abba: Fell in love with it after Abba played the score for Mama Mia (that was the time I didn’t like a song for a song but rather for what I remembered it by). One of the best musicals I have ever been to---I still smile when I re-play it in my head, two years hence. And more importantly, it prompted me into getting my first music CD ever.

Ain’t no mountain high enough: I love Stepmom for a lot of reasons (Julia Roberts, Susan Sarandon and the cutest li’l boy on earth) but this song was DEFINITELY one of them.

Big Yellow Taxi, Counting Crews: As far as I am concerned this is the most-played song on FM and I heard it about ten times a day in the lab during grad skool. It successfully drowned out my co-workers’ chatter on bad days and made the bugs behave better on good days! I don’t know if the song just grew on me, but with skool far behind me, I continue to listen to it….

A horse with no name, America: I am not sure where I first heard this but I think it was in Atool’s car (correct me if I am wrong; that way I can figure out the answer to the all important Q: does anyone read my blog before going to the comments section?). I remember thinking it complemented the mountains but it also sounded out of the world within the confines of my best pal’s apartment a couple months later. That was my first real attempt to listen to music actively (the muted TV or google.com always seemed more active by comparison) and I still absolutely adored it.

America, Simon and Garfunkel: I heard it in Borders after a friend recommended it and realized for the first time that corporate giants don’t let you hear the 4-minute tracks on their CDs completely while you can read a 1000 page book to the very end. Talk of double standards. But it works for me—I’d choose a book with coffee while relaxing in a chair any day over struggling with fitting the headphones with one hand and clutching my coffee cup in the other, while resting precariously on my bipeds. Yeah, that was reassurance that music was not my cup of coffee. But if I put up with the incredibly uncomfortable posture anyway, I must like this song a lot.

Indian favorites:
Pooh Pookum aasai, Minsara Kanavu
Sa re ga ma, Boys
Mere khwabon mein, DDLJ
Snehithane, Alaipayuthey
Mein koi aisa geet gaun, Yes Boss
Abhi alvida mat kaho (as an Indian hi-schooler you’ve heard this in a farewell party every year and you still never tire of it---that says something!)


I am TAGGING Sid...He needs to do something worthwhile….

The healing power of water

And I don't mean that in the "Aqua Fina" sort of way, cos God knows that the sound of fizzling, golden-brown Pepsi cascading over a heap of crushed ice would sooner heal my colds than a gallon of pure water.

What I mean here is the healing power that comes from senses other than taste: the sights, sounds and touch of water [and in the case of some insane human beings---“feel”---yeah, those members of our very own species that actually bask in the feeling of hair bunched over their brows or water dripping off their ponchos].

I've been thinking about this "healing prowess" a lot lately and I must say that while the internet and the microchip are all good, the lesser known, less-hyped evolution of human beings that we don’t talk about in PC World is in developing innovative ways to seek panaceas for all evil.

The most popular, of course, is this higher force called "God". I don’t have a problem with God, except that, as I see it, he seems as helpless as I am at preventing the unforeseen, the unexpected and certainly unwanted miseries of life. Nevertheless, to my heretical statements, there is often intense opposition. “He can’t control everything,” people say quite vehemently, protecting the credibility of an entity that may or may not exist and that quite certainly they have never seen. Take it from me: if the attorneys for God functioned in a normal court of law, prison cells would be empty.

And if you don't turn to God, you turn to Nature and this I don't mean in a Darwinian sense (no offense to old Charles; I am a huge fan of his theory, only this is neither the time nor place---and God help you if I decide to make it). Reason why people escape to a park or a stream or for those lucky hillbillies, the mountains to be one with nature during difficult times.
For me (I have discerned after 26 years) this is the simple sight of water ---whether it lashed from the distant horizon while I contemplated trivial high-school troubles on the shores of the Bay of Bengal, shimmered in its reassuring closeness along the banks of the Hudson while I battled with more complicated feelings than the inability to be teacher's pet in many a disheartening Jersey moment or the little lake in a tiny Colorado town I crossed mountains to get to during painful graduation hurdles, water has made washing away my worries just a little easier. What can be better testimony to this than the sheer elation I felt on discovering the Schuylkill River a few short blocks from my apartment a few weeks ago…..I have certainly been a happier person since, though I am quite sure Roger Federer had something to do with it as well. But since he falls under the category of the Gods I have already discussed, I’ll leave it at that. (Isn’t it wonderful to see the sheer invincibility that allows him to make shot after creative shot, putting away with effortless ease every hurdle in his path to the crown? If only we could battle Fate with a racket and quite so supernaturally at that).

In all fairness, the idiot box deserves some credit for my newfound happiness as well. That brings me to my next contender: Nature’s hegemony at delivering solace is fast being threatened by man’s own creations ---- the towering skyscrapers in New York City have oft given me more strength than Nature's concrete counterparts along the Eastern Ghats or the Rockies. Probably comes from the sense that My own species built this mammoth: I must be stronger than I think I am!

And whilst man is deeply involved in figuring out his own ways of dealing with misery, Destiny is deeply involved in figuring out more versatile ways of doling them out. The less vulnerable he is, the more ruthless she seems.
And so the cycle of life continues....

Counting down to the big W

A little late in the day to be counting down to Wimbledon but since the players that matter (to me) are still on the tour, the delay ain’t going to harm anything (yeah, like what I say on my little blog here is going to alter the ultimate outcome of Roger winning his third W title!)

That said, I can’t say I wasn’t a tad worried after Federer's loss to Safin at the Oz open and then him getting as far as the semis in the French and losing to the new-born, Nadal (though God knows a world # 1 of his caliber getting as far as the semis at Rolland Garros involved a magic act-the authorities at the French open have vowed that anyone that wins there ought to satisfy one criterion, and one criterion alone---be unknown to the world before he steps on their very-clay turf).

Now that both Roger's most recent ousters are out (I couldn't resist a little jig after I heard Marat lost in straight sets to a relative unknown :)---I don't forget easily!), I entitle myself to a huge sigh of relief......

Pheeeeeewwwwwww!!!

In other Wimbledon ranting (before I willingly and passionately jump right back to Roger and ramble on to a point where it kills anyone that is kind enough to get that far), it's hard to believe that Justine isn’t making the come back all of us (read: me and a few Belgians who care about hitting a ball with a wire-strung racket) are hoping she would. She really is -- or was (adopting the past tense is a neat way to quell your overflowing emotions when you are as absorbed with inconsequential far-off things as I am) -- the only thing that women's tennis has to be proud of. I don't believe in transients like Sharapova and the Williams sisters are quite necessarily out of their game. Not that I care much about women's tennis---but its more productive to contemplate an area that has probabilities rather than certainities.

Getting back to the certainity that is Roger Federer, let me dwell on some of the so-called-certainities that didn't happen (It’s nice to do this with wayward things---takes a little pressure off the ones that seem to exemplify my life ;)).

For one, I was hoping old Tim (still the most graceful serve and volleyer and an absolute pleasure to watch on grass) would make it to the semis as usual before losing to a high-powered Roddick or Safin or even get as far as the finals and face Roger. But Henmania had to be sadly curbed before it reached the fever pitch it does in the second week.

And despite my biases, I was giving Nadal and Safin a fair chance to get to the third week (yeah, I am quite the tennis advocate on my own little domain here).

So, clearly, seeing that Hewitt is in Federer's draw, I can put my money on watching a Roger vs Andy Wimbledon final ----quite literally, cos I sure as hell have to get a TV to do that.

And if your eyes are not going to be single-mindedly following Federer like mine (whether he's awaiting his turn to get to court, sitting out the grim rain or in the stands watching someone else play), there are still others to look out for:

The chocolate boy, Mario Ancic might face Lleyton in the quarters----an amazing match that should be with Ancic's powerful serve and volleying versus little Lleyton's behind-the-baseline play. That is, if Hewitt gets past the hardest-hitter on the tour---Taylor Dent. A few years back, when both of them were relative unknowns, I watched them play here at Wimbledon and quite naturally found myself on the side of the heavy-hitter. With that kinda serve I thought he'd make a Sampras some day, but Dent is the best testimony there is that you can’t just thunder your way to a slam trophy --- a big serve can be a liability if you can’t mix it up with a fairly all-round game (all you Pete-critics listen up, Dent has a 140-mph serve and he can get as many cheap points as he wants, but he's never made it past the fourth round here).

Another one I am looking forward to is a possible fourth round match-up between David Nalbandian and the big server Max Myrnii. Nalbandian is a treat to watch on any surface against any player but the way he tackles the serve and volleyers on their friendly turf with his impeccable groundstrokes from far behind the baseline is the kind of quality tennis you watch and say, "Trophies are meaningless. This is what tennis is about." I think David is one player who can rewrite tennis books without actually breaking a record or ever lifting a trophy. Though I’m all for him winning a trophy if fortune favors. But till Roger Federer is around, that is going to be a tall order for anyone….

SoS Dubya!

I had decided to shut my trap about Bush's SS plan bcos for one, I am not the advocate on economy or savings by any stretch of the imagination (my bank balance or rather, the lack of it could speak volumes) and for another, I find myself (not surprisingly) on the minority.

Anyway, not knowing about an issue has never deterred me from talking in the past. And when I heard Maher say something a tad favorably about it (another brownie point for Bill M is that as much as he is an out-and-out liberal, he's going to accept what Bush has done right --- his is not political parody for parody sake), I decided I was in as elite a company as I can garner, and so might as well air my not-so-qualified views about it in this land of civil liberties ;) Meaning, I can actually talk favorably about the president of the country and get away with it.

[Aside: Why does googling Bush return a ton more sites that are Bush-whacking than Bush-lauding, and in that case, why is he still the president for the fifth straight year? Is Google merely left-wing or is the media-and-blogger world subsisting on its fancy niches in cyberspace, blissfully unaware of the real world around it (far-off Washington and the local polling booth, inclusive)?]

Coming to my question on Social Security: why is a private account such a bad thing? Isn't it obvious that this country has grown in a way unimaginable by the forefathers who created social security and that some amends need to be brought into the system? Just because social security has been taken for granted all these years, you can’t just sit there and say you are going to keep getting it cos you were getting it all along... (you have been taking a lot of things for granted that seem to be no longer around: civil liberties and gas at a dollar odd per gallon, to mention just a few).

Moreover, I think this is the next logical step toward personal economic freedom; sure, if you bungle up your investing you could lose some money, but by the same token, if you invest wisely, you could end up with more money than the government would have for you.....While the current social security would leave you at or below the poverty line, investing in your own account might leave you a millionaire----that's what the experts say (and it makes sense too!). And the good thing is this would be in addition to what you have in the general trust fund; so there is not a chance that you retire with almost nothing (insert here: feigned financial advisor half-smile).

In other words, averting just part of your social security taxes to a savings account that you can control seems a much more logical way of preparing for retirement than sitting back and letting the government either hike up taxes or reduce benefits.

If the question is, "What would you rather have: a tax increase, a benefit cut or a private account?", the resounding answer seems to be: "Something for which I can’t be blamed." For a country that takes huge risks (skiing downhill at 30 mph and electing dubya to a second term comes easily enough) it seems surprisingly cautious with long-term monetary investment. And if you're one of the few people that don’t ski or bungee-jump and that voted for Kerry, how about investing in the relatively risk-free bonds (in other words, do whatever you want, just don’t ask me to explain this!)? In either case, it will earn you more than what SS promises today, according to the same experts I mentioned a while ago.

The feather-in-the-cap is that middle class and low income workers now get to have a stake in the economy--what can be better for a predominantly capitalist country like the US, than every citizen forced to feel happy about the economy doing well, and hence motivated to do well themselves? While the rich get richer, the poor can get richer too. True ownership society is just around the corner----and beaming!

From literary to contemporary

When I say gone are the high school days of sprinting home from school to get to the end of the 400-page book I started yesterday, I don’t mean it temporally. I have lost my ability to read print! Honestly, if it is not glowing at me from a celluloid screen or running at the bottom of a telly at the speed of light, I don’t seem to want to read it anymore.

Having just moved to Philly, there's not much in the way of celluloid in my apartment yet--- other than my desktop that sits lazily in the corner, thankful for the missing chord that should be able to give the old machine some life. So, while I'm awaiting the laptop from work and looking up tvs of all shapes and sizes, life-saving Borders and B&N are less than a mile away (in case you care-the unbeatable thing about borders: the ambience, that about B&N: Starbucks). Five years ago, two bookstores with practically every book under the sun (or roof, for that matter), and access to divine coffee would have represented incomparable bliss.

Now, all I can do is browse the front and back covers of 50 trashy political paperbacks, as opposed to reading 500 pages out of a single classic. Well, you can hardly blame me---that's the only thing that comes close to the "text-book" definition of surfing a hundred channels on the small screen. If only books had commercials (or Sean Hannity, for that matter), I'd know when to skip and go to the next one.

If people can sue McDonald's for makin them fat, I am filing a suit against B&N for making me daft. They should stop having rows upon rows of the current New York times bestsellers, the past New York times bestsellers, new in paperback, new in hardcover and ‘Our staff recommends’ that make up the unavoidable maze before you finally get to "Literature--arranged alphabetically by author" (figuring out if Capra begins with a C or a K is task enough).

This is the literary equivalent of TBS announcing all the new reality shows that are premiering this season, while I am watching a marathon of friends. Okay, that sure sounds interesting, but will you get on with it already?

And its unavoidable too; if I see a new book by Tom Friedman and I watched him talk about it on the Daily show, I have to glance at it before I can move on. (Same reason why that kid has to buy the cheese burger cos it only costs a dollar, in case you are wondering.)

If boosting the tv's morale by sitting glued to it 24/7 for four years, gradually losing your other interests in life (food exclusive) and now literally going nuts without it isn't a measure of fidelity, I don’t know what is. And I wouldn't trade it for the world. Isn't it easier to put your faith on an inanimate object ;) The touch of a button (at least in a country with unlimited power supply) comes easier than waiting for that much-craved phone call...And getting a new one, should the old one fail doesn't involve folder upon folder of legal briefs or heckling over an alimony settlement...

Paraphrasing Carrie Bradshaw (apt to draw wisdom from one of the very reasons I sit glued to it in the first place), "Some things like a broken TV can be repaired; others like a broken heart cannot."

If I'm rambling, it's cos I have been enjoying my wedded bliss (quite unwittingly) so far. And believe me, the separation is hard....I'll come around.....I just need a new hubby...

Grievances, Inc.

There’s no right jacket

There’s no jacket that’s right as rain. Or right for the rain. Or for the wind or the storm or the snow….

Why doesn’t a jacket come with a hood, be waterproof and have a fleece lining? Why does it always have to be one or the other? And why is the weather always all of it together? And if a jacket has both the hood and the water-proofing then it doesn’t go with your work clothes. If it goes with the black formal trousers, then it invariably doesn’t have a hood. If it has a hood, it isn’t water proof. If it is waterproof, it is not a wind cheater.

Okay, you get it. And I bet you can’t do anything about it either. But London Fog can. Why does London fog make this bulky, fleece-lined, wool-lined, down-filled jacket without a hood? If you are wearing something that insulated, wouldn’t your poor uncovered head cry out in agony, cos no cap in the world can have the wool and fleece and down that your London fog jacket has? Something worth thinking about…..

Oh, so there is a fourth zone?

Picture this: a week before we were all to leave for Colorado in ’03, my boss was giving us the know-how on how to reach him “……..and remember I am two hours behind,” he concluded.

“Oh California is only 2 hours behind us? I thought three.”
He gave me a quizzical look. “California is three hours behind us. But we are moving to Colorado”
Like it makes a difference to an artless Indian who’d traveled 24 hours around the globe to play with bugs that were the same indecipherable creatures anywhere……

“Oh, I thought they belonged to the same zone. So there is a fourth zone?”

You can hardly blame me that I didn’t know a fourth zone existed till I was practically scheduled to land there. All the television commercials go, “.. 9/8 central…. 8 eastern, 5 pacific” If you’re looking at a time stamp on an email it is either eastern or central, sometimes California….

Who was to know there was a zone in between all of that….
Physically dominated by the rockies, and probably the best known zone as the crow flies, it is a shame that the rockies are not represented on the cultural map of the Americas. The people that know it call it the mountain zone…How about the ‘hitherto unknown’ zone?

There’s someone better than Jon Stewart

After resigning to the idea that Sampras was not indeed the unquestioned God of tennis (viva la Federer), I had gotten used to lookin up to Jon Stewart to fill that “infallible” void, as to getting my weeknights’ sleep, my midnight laughs and pretty much all else.

So, when a fellow-Stewart advocate told me recently that Bill Maher is quite amazing, I took it with a pinch of salt…..unfortunately I had to gulp down that salt pretty quickly after HBO on demand (and what a demand that is!)

Bill manages to get a hundred and one points across while being unbelievably funny at the same time. Stewart’s funny alright; but more often than not you are left wondering where he actually stands on the issues--- I know that’s not his job, instead that is exactly what he’s trying to steer clear from ---bein political ---but we already know he’s a left wing liberal and we love it ---why not give people a little more to love…..

Plus Maher is an unabashed heathen (can’t stand Jon Stewart's constant references to his semitism), so skillfully intolerant of even mildly-conservative ideologues and oh-so-single....

And Bill takes the brownie point in handling the other self-possessed Bill ---- O’Reilly, ladies and gentleman----- and actually stimulating his funny side (if ever there was one).
Plus, he doesn’t have any of the detours (read: This week in God, Back in Black) that Jon so heavily relies on.

Maher’s arrogance-----well-deserved, I hasten to add ----- absolutely takes the cake (Jon's nice even to a screaming Giuliani)…Bill has no qualms about revealing his disdain for local news channels or the non-elite (lines unheard on any other show: ‘that’s why he’s a taxi driver’ or ‘the local news channel is for cats caught in trees’).

Stewart is certainly not far behind Maher on intelligence or wit, but Bill Maher is simply better cos he’s not afraid to flaunt it.

The Sociability Quotient

There’s an intelligence quotient and then there is an emotional quotient…Why isn’t there a sociability quotient?

As a self-proclaimed ambivert I demand that there be an SQ pinned on my shirt. So that the extra-cheerful, more-than-merely-vocal guy in that corner realizes that I can’t just walk up to him and say hello. If he comes over and makes the effort, I’d be more that happy to oblige a greeting. But I can’t voluntarily come up to you and ask you how you’re doing or make a casual comment about the folder you’re carrying. Not because I have a problem with you or your folder, but because that’s the way I was made!

Hell, I spent about the first two years in this country figuring out the best way to fit in the “how do you do”, the “good” and the response to their “how do you do” within the fraction of a second it takes two human beings to pass each other. And that was task enough! In any case, if a person with an IQ of 10 can get away with performing badly on the SAT why can’t I get away with being the prude at the party? The world is an unfair place.

So this is how it works: you rate your sociability skills from 1 to 10. If you fall at about 3 and your acquaintance is at about 7, then it befalls on him/her to say the first hello, make the recurring phone calls and invite you over for dinner. That’s the way God intended, if I can mention Him a few hundred words after invoking the name of the unparalleled heretic, Maher.

And on the off chance that your friend is a “1” on the Sociability scale, you’ve got to learn from your sociable pals on how to carry on a conversation with a person that mumbles a barely decipherable “uh-huh” to your comment on Bush’s social security plan. Not a fan? Okay, how about the Italian restaurant across the street--- surely food is a non-controversial issue? Everybody I know loves it. Still “uh-huh”? Then try your last resort: the weather ….(Disclaimer: Might get you a response in Colorado, but don’t try that in Seattle or Pittsburgh. Could be fatal).

So, while the guy at ten talks and smiles non-stop and the guy at one says “uh-huh” and considers the job done, it’s the poor guy at five that has to ‘go both ways’….In this case, it’s not fun, believe me…..I’ve been with the ones and the tens….

There’s no substitute for meat eaters

I mean the meat, not the eaters (though there’s no substitute for them either!)

Yesterday, I went to a Thai restaurant with a couple of friends and I realized I am being discriminated against just for loving meat. My friend is ruled by the virtues of animal-rights and he wanted the chicken substituted with tofu. He was obliged immediately. I am ruled by the virtues of good eating and I wanted beef instead of shrimp. The waitress gave me an unsettling look that was quickly transformed to what could pass for “contrite”. “I don’t know if we can do that.” And they didn’t. She had a very sheepish (read: triumphant) smile on her face when she announced, “Pad thai with chicken and shrimp”. I should have told her exactly what I think of shrimp--- “Seafood is just where it belongs---in the sea. So leave it there.”

I deserve to get my beef just the way my pal deserves to get his tofu…..I demand to proclaim my choice of meat! I demand that when I order a good angus burger I don’t want lettuce spilling out of it. And I ask for “chicken” salad for a reason (or rather it comes as the unavoidable side with my pasta)----I don’t want to pick out two pieces of chicken from a plate full of lettuce and tomatoes. And I demand that the carrot doesn’t sit there impersonating the cow in my beef stew!


A dollar is never a dollar

I rented a car from Dollar rent a car two days ago and it cost me a hundred dollars---a whopping 40$ more than it would cost me from any other place. The McDonald’s dollar menu is always close to two dollars with tax, I have never found anything in the little bucks dollar store for a dollar, or at Family dollar. And while I am on the subject, no coffee at 61c café, the hip, elite student hang-out in Pittsburgh is ever 61 c.

Why call it a dollar when it isn’t a dollar? If I want it, I’d buy it anyway.

If you absolutely want to buy something for a dollar, walk up to the check-out counter --- IMHO, the only place in the world where a dollar means a dollar.

Two-timing a three-year-old and the television set

When I say kids don't become human till about the age of seven, it's not for lack of human emotion, but rather the excess of it; they cry for everything, laugh at nothing and get excited at the most mundane things (see, the sun! wow, a toilet roll! baah!)

Consider this: I have been stuck with babysitting my three-year-old niece on and off for the past few days cos the poor little thing has been really sick lately. Let's call her "she" so as not to be offensive to anyone---it's not too farfetched since that's what she calls herself, the "r" in "shree" being phonetically impossible for her. (Since my sis herself was a self-proclaimed "peeya" for the first five years of her life, I realize that history doesn't teach us anything when it comes to naming our kids).

For the many hours that I have spent in this humongous task, I have realized that two-timing her and the television set is the only reasonable way to do this. After all, the idiot box has in the past helped me deal with stress, impending doomsday and plain boredom; it failed miserably at the task of taming a toddler, however. I still think I did extremely well and for the fact that I have never been left in charge of such a tiny little thing ever in the past. So, I decided to take a leaf out of my book and leave it on the blog for anyone else (god forbid!) stuck in a similar situation:

First of all, if a kid lives around a 50 feet perimeter of the television, never turn the tv off on a possible kids-channel---Nickleodon, Cartoon Network and Disney are strictly off limits (your local PBS channel is the most deceptive---beware if you watched the Newshour the night before). Here's what happens: after a lot of nerve-racking, you somehow figure out a way to keep the child occupied and heave a sigh of relief before finally turning on the tv ---and bam, in float the high pitched shrills of Dora and her fellow-adventurers. That's it: she turns to eye the idiot box, is totally absorbed in no time, downright oblivious of the hundred other channels a fully-grown human being would rather watch.

And don't ever forego a news show and switch to a sitcom ---believe me, to a three year old, it doesn’t make a whit of difference --- the background laughter doesn’t seem to fool the kids like it does us (the fact that they guffaw at the most serious statements is a different point entirely; "she, you'll get very sick if you don’t take this medicine" *peals of laughter* duh!) If you are indeed watching a news program, choose one carefully--- she's a little more sympathetic to good looking anchors, so I'm sticking with Brian Williams; this is not the time for old newsmen like Scheiffer and Larry King is definitely off the table (sure respect her judgement there!)

On sitcoms, there's a wider range of choices; Full House and The Cosby Show are likely to be better tolerated; believe me, nothing interests them more than their own kind (read: those that shriek with delight on spotting a spider and giggle uncontrollably at the sight of a ball). Which reminds me, if you absolutely have to play a game, play ball or "hide'n'seek". Tossing the ball back and forth not only allows you to watch tv in peace, you'd be impressed at a three-year-old's hand-eye coordination. Hide-and-seek is not only a fun game (from age 3 to 33) but it also allows you to sneak into the den and check your mail while you are "hiding" and sometimes you can just "forget" to seek. Leaves the three-year-old out of your hair for a bit ;)

If she decides its story time, I choose to listen. In that case I can get off with an 'uh-huh' every five minutes. In my defense, the few minutes that I do turn my attention to her, she doesn't make any sense. But you can’t escape your turn at reading. So, make sure you pick your times right. And at this, I have advice for the so-called kids' book writers. Can’t they make it just a tad interesting? I read a 15-page book, the entire content of which was: "Shhhhh, tigger, pooh is asleep. Shhhhh, tigger, piglet is asleep. Shhhhh, tigger, Eeyore is asleep. Shhhhh, tigger, roo is asleep. Goodnight, tigger" !??!! It's only fair, cos she, for one, is not even listening to it. I might as well be reading the Times. That, by the way, is another good strategy: reading the newspaper out loud. Choose the art or sports section as opposed to politics. And put up with her absolutely frivolous observations--- "Blue shorts" as opposed to 'Federer won the Nasdaq Open'. It has something to do with colors. Reason why Barney's purple. Speaking of which, kids' videos are brilliant. I actually watched three barney videos and would watch more if I have to.

If its pee time or poop time, there's no way out. Just your hard luck. Time to start cursing the digestive system that you marveled at in high-school biology. Paraphrasing Marge Simpson, “How did you make that into that?”

At the end of the day, when she has just spent an hour to successfully finish a bowl of ten pasta shells and your patience is wearing thin, she looks up with a winning smile and shrieks "love you, maasi". That's when you hug her, decide she's adorable and switch off the telelvision. Only for a bit though. Friends is up next....

You explain to her that Friends is the grown-up Barney and you can’t get through an entire day without it…Hearing her chirpy “okay” you switch on the idiot box only to watch Monica, Rachel and Phoebe ogle at pictures of li’l Ben. Can’t the world function without little kids anymore?

The battle of the micropipette Vs the pen

[It occupied about a third of a page on an 8’ by 11’ magazine....a spectacular fourteen lines.....I still remember it vividly…...like any other ten year old, the toll of exams was probably the heaviest thing on my mind....so that's what my maiden limerick was about......the chill that ran down my spine wasn't a reaction to the subject of my article....rather, it was the immense feeling of pleasure that comes with seeing your name printed clearly in black and white as opposed to the barely decipherable squiggle you can manage on your own].

For as long as I can remember, I have been an ardent fan of the tabloid. I think it began at an age where I transitioned from the colorful set of building blocks to the equally vibrant world of newsmagazines. Wide eyed awe at sensational pictures soon lead to a scrap book of interesting bits and pieces; I prefer to use the euphemism, "collecting news", as behooves the nature of this essay. When I turned my attention to the accompanying text, however, I became a full-fledged editor at age 8, for striking out lines that do not appeal sure qualifies as "editing" in every sense of the word! Two years down the road, I took up pen and paper. Be it the dissonant array of words I called poetry in my elementary school years or the pen portraits of high school teachers that decorated my lecture notes, writing became an incurable passion.

When I became the unanimous class elect for essay contests, I progressed to graver topics than exams and teachers---if only for the reason that academic contests prefer to follow politically correct decorum. Soon came phases of being reporter, feature-writer, columnist, critic and editor-in-chief for the college newsletter. That’s when I finally outgrew the conventional writing pad and overcame techno-phobia to play with Microsoft Word and Acrobat Distiller. It was with some reluctance that I began to accept that Word Art did justice to my calligraphy and Paint Shop enhanced the appearance of my sketchy cartoons.

My obsession with writing, however, did not take away from the strong inclination I had towards research in the science of the living world. My fascination and bafflement with Nature’s myriad strategies, her intricacies and nuances were too strong to be tossed to one side. When came the stage of choosing the right road and I walked into the School of Lifesciences, it was not a case of wrong choices. Rather it was the self confidence of a person that had lived and breathed journalism all her life. Where I needed training in biology, I believed strongly that I could walk into a newspaper office and do just as well as anybody.

My fascination for the fourth estate has oft found me racing through dense, canopied forests or visiting horrendous crime scenes --– the best school could not conjure up the kind of laboratory I have had for journalism ---from the spine-tingling pages of paperbacks by day to elaborately fabricated dreams by night! As I have learnt most of life’s lessons from books and the celluloid, the likes of All the President’s Men and The Evening News taught me that the clanging of the teletype was music to my ears. (Little wonder then that Beethoven and the Beatles still fail to impress me!)

If my penchant for writing determined the choice of my dream profession, the general belief that journalists are not nice human beings only served to reinforce it. Yes, mortal that I am, I’d like to believe that the many facets of my character (often unappreciated in real life ;)) would probably be god-sent to a wannabe scribe. One essential attribute to my persona is a brutal forthrightness that leaves no room for shades of gray. Newsprint journalism with its promise of black and white thus has to be much more than just an interesting proposition! While I have found it easier to pen my thoughts during particularly difficult moments in life than shedding tears, the end-result is usually an emotive poignant piece proving merely that the pen is an easier vent to my emotions than the lachrymals.

The most defining trait of my character is also probably one that is of utmost importance to a journalist ---an undying thirst for thrill, excitement and danger and the willingness to pay a price for it. At every stage in life, I have felt a profound feeling of vehemence, an inexplicable and incessant need to live life on the edge. Contemplating over my choice of careers, I have felt that both my greatest interests in life have stemmed from this very search for a sense of disquiet. While journalism is an embodiment of it, research is a subtler portrayal; every novel discovery in the lab is an adventure in itself---a skirmish with the unknown and the mystical.

My first attempted foray into journalism came just a couple years into graduate school when I decided I was going the alma-mater route and defy my original dream of breaking into the fourth estate the ‘unconventional’ way (read: write a deep-throat-grade story on an internship and fly away with a pulitzer :) )…For what that was worth, I did get accepted into all the journalism programs I applied to but the twin determinants of fate and fortune wouldn’t allow it. Turns out, the NIH doesn’t fund you to be a journalist, neither do the Reuters. The fact that I was a fresh immigrant to the country with a bad credit history didn't help either. So, accompanied with four acceptance letters more for promise than comfort I moved to Colorado to continue to patronize the micropipette.

The second was when I began moonlighting for my campus newsletter --- spreading the gospel of scientific research (pardon the oxy-moron) to lay public on campus came easily to a person that had spent years trying to convey her fascination for the workings of the human brain to disinterested technocrats. Much too easily, it seemed when I started giving the 20$-a-month job more importance than the one that paid 2k. Moreover, moonlighting wasn't exactly my forte; let's face it, I have hardly been able to hide my emotions, much less a job under the table. And when my already flailing science began to take a beating, I knew I had to give up the pen for a while longer.

Back to 24/7 commitment to science without passion, I made my next big decision: quit the PhD --- a task already long overdue. It wasn't hard to convince my boss that my relations with science were not exactly dandy; my work spoke for itself. Through the after-effects of a broken ankle and an even more shattered faith in practical biology, I managed to graduate with a Masters. My job-hunt followed the usual process of grade A, grade B and grade C; namely, journalism, science writing and good-old-faithful science.

That paved the way to my next 'dangerous' decision. After being all-set for what would be a fascinating career to most (another two years of struggling with emotions at the bench for me) in New York, I decided to take a risk and fly to Colorado to interview with a company for a technical communications position --- the same sunny state I had fled in a hurry less than two months ago. After getting through three high-wired interviews, all inclusive of an intensive technical one, they called to say they were extending the selection process to one more on-site meeting. Drill me on technical issues and I could come out on top, but if they were going to call upon my charm (or lack thereof) -- or the requirement of a non-immigrant visa for that matter-- I guessed I was pretty much done. Moreover, a communications position probably preferred an American who can say her can'ts right ;). My suspicions came true when after nearly three weeks of nerve-racking, I got the dreaded "unfortunately...." call. So, went the story of my first "i-really-want-that" job interview.

So, what's in store for me next? I'm quite sure a 'micropipette job' is around the corner and I know I'll sleep easier knowing I tried. And my love for writing hasn't diminished a tad (don't 1000-odd words speak volumes!).

Oscar Wilde once said, "The difference between Literature and Journalism is that Journalism is unreadable and Literature is not read". Hopefully, one day, I will be able to refute my favorite short story writer, help reverse the former and justify the latter….

Ten Reasons to live on the East Coast

1. Jon Stewart re-runs at times you can actually watch them
2. Homo sapiens @ 1 per sq.ft.
3. Jaywalking
4. Sex and the city doesn’t seem like far-off fantasy land
5. The rapid-fire tongue (in more ways than one)
6. Skin tones that go beyond beige
7. Dunkin’ Donuts and its $1-breakfast sandwich :)
8. Public transportation
9. Jughandles (good to make life complicated sometimes)
10. Good Old Faithful wool (doesn’t always have to be fleece, ya know?)

Ten Reasons to NOT live on the East Coast

1. Sun
2. Sun
3. Sun
4. Sun
5. Sun
6. Sun
7. Sun
8. Sun
9. Sun
10. Sun

Common Nonsense

I don’t usually like to gather up a bunch of issues and call it a blog, but then, I just visited NYC, the city that spells randomness in every possible way, plus being jobless has generated too many thoughts in my mind in no semblance of order or conceivable pattern.

Hmmmmmm, so on this umpteenth trip to the city (about a hundred of them in the last month alone) I came up with another astounding realization about the big apple.
It refutes every possible theory ever proposed by man (I do, too, with all due respect to Newton et al., but then, noone takes me seriously).
For one, there’s Newton’s third law of motion ---in NYC no action has an equal reaction, believe me; opposite yes, but waaaaay more than equal! And Galileo’s concept of inertia. Moving objects don’t stop Mr. Galileo, not even eventually, whenever that might be. Then there’s Heisenberg’s theory of uncertainity ---it IS possible to predict both the location and momentum of a very small object in very vast space----even if that object happens to be me. That’s what the streets and avenues are for--- 2nd avenue, 33rd street or 7th avenue, 52nd street absolutely defines your location at any given time. The one law that NYC does actually follow to a tee is Murphy’s laws..

Sunday was my first superbowl “sighting”. I mean I did watch it a couple times before, but that was between flashes of Newt Gingrich’s shouts and Ann Coulter’s whinings (trust me, Fox News is the only channel that delivers hard news on weekends –hard, here being relative of course; most other cable news channels think Sundays are for eulogizing the dead or measuring the length of snake fangs). Anyway, getting back to superbowl, I must admit I have taken a liking to the American sport. But I still have my grievances: First of all, I think offensive and defensive are misnomers; to me, when I watch the sport, the offensive people have the ball alright but its the defensive team that’s scrambling all over them, so they are the offensive ones. But then, when the ball is so wrongly christened, I shouldn’t be complaining about the teams.

How on earth do they ALWAYS win the one-extra point? It seems awfully hard to be able to do-- kick the ball between the posts --- at least almost as difficult as a field goal. Which brings me to my next complaint; if I were a coach, I’d elect to keep doing field goals, since attempts at touch downs almost always end in tussles and don’t seem to go anywhere for a long time. 3 cheap points but faster nonetheless. But then there’s the journey is more important than the destination thing: whether you run or pass the ball to the very end (thus getting yourself nearly killed by your scary opponents), or just reach a point and throw it across to earn the low credit you deserve for your cowardice.

All said and done, a cool sport to watch....

And while I am in a ‘sportive’ spirit, let me bypass the rather painful process of making sense of Federer’s loss. I could concede and say that Safin played incredible tennis, but some things are just not meant to be: Sampras winning the French, Henman winning his country’s grand slam, Nalbandian getting past the quarters in any slam despite playing miraculous tennis, Taylor Dent powering his way past early rounds, me giving credit to Safin for ANY win (I didn’t do it when he disposed off old Pete from his home turf an awfully long time ago, I’m not doing it when he’s toppled the God of tennis). As a rule, I don’t like putting it down to injuries, but then Roger’s made an exception to every rule, so injury it is. With that, I look forward to seeing him defend his Wimbledon title in July and this time, actually watch him play the men’s final at Arthur Ashe. May Pavel be banned from this year’s Open. I’m buying tickets to the men’s quarters, semis and finals well in advance, just in case.

And finally, the reason for christening my blog thus—other than the fact that that’s precisely what it is, here’s an absolute katrician must read: Andy Rooney’s Common Nonsense. For one, it rescued my low morale on my absolute inability to “twist off” American bottle caps (apparently it’s a universal problem if Rooney cant shove a lid off somethin ;) viva la Passion), and for another he has some really wonderful lessons on how to surf channels without missing much of either (it’s an art, really, considering that a given “non-sports” program on TV has about 10% of actual worth---couch potatoes, listen up).

A big blow to the pro-life gang today......Ian Wilmut authorized to clone humans.... I am sure the conservatives are sulking.....Here’s my twopence: God /Nature’s role (depending on what you believe) in evolution is done. It’s now upto man to evolve himself...and if with all the technology we have, we can’t manage to cure our diseases there is no point in progress....Oooooh, I forgot, the conservatives don’t believe in progress. I wonder how they make words like liberal and progressive sound like poison and get away with it.

I hear they have plastic pooches now.....that, even I must say, is taking science a tad too far. Do dogs actually care how they look?

Methinx, I sound like Conan O’Brien, if you will----- jumbling a list of goings-on together and airing my inconsequential opinions on them. Oh well, sounding like Conan on a bad day, pretty much better than sounding like me on a good day......

WHAT THE %$^&%*$@!#& ?

That's all i can say about Roger's loss....
Still gathering my wits......
I haven't completely believed it yet.....
When I do, you'll see a post as to why that was all wrong....
I mean, after saving 6 match points wasn't he s'possed to win???
Suffice it to say: a guy that can save two matchpoints at deuce, when he's clearly not playing his best --- still God...

A denizen’s guide to being jobless in Sam’s Land

Eat more than you normally do (if that’s possible without getting sick 'cos nobody’s paying your health insurance).

Get your host to sign up for HBO on demand so you can watch every movie on the planet and yes, unlimited Sex and the city (they all have jobs alright, but their lives still suck more than yours does).

Take to NFL cos that’s the only thing you can watch on American TV ANYtime of the day or night.

To that end read “Idiot’s guide to Football” and realize you rank one rung lower than the idiot.

Go back to watching a game that makes sense when they start airing the first grand slam of the season if only for a fraction of a second (relative to American football) and scream your lungs out rooting for Federer, though he’s the last one on the tour that needs it.

Or here’s a better idea: Walk down to the nearest Barnes and Noble, grab a cappuccino at the cafe and sit down to read....

Books worth glancing at:

What’s the matter with Kansas
Thomas Frank (which reminds me, I have loved excerpts from his other book, ‘One Market Under God’ refuting the convoluted concept of free markets as an engine for democracy—amazingly well-written, though I have never gotten down to reading it).

Though What’s the matter with Kansas was written after the 2000 Election, it elegantly answers a very relevant question today--- How did the lowly-paid, blue collar worker (whose ideals and way of life are so obviously upheld and patronized by the Democratic policy) become a loyal Bush-loving red-stater? Other than the now-famous (and pain-stakingly resounding) ‘moral values’ concept, there is another perfectly valid answer. The “Two Americas” divide is not between John Edward’s rich and poor. In the mind of the average, small-town worker, the divide is between the intellectual irony-loving elite democrat living in the blue state and being paid to write legal briefs and economic reviews, the guy that thinks manual labor (the bread and butter of red-state America) is obsolete. Hence, these God-fearing, gun-loving moral-value-touting Americans are voting for Bush to wage war against Wall Street. Hear that? Waging a war against Wall Street and voting for Bush. Something sure is amiss there. And that is what Thomas Frank explores in this book. Tracing the history of the “great backlash” of populist conservatism, that essentially began as a fight of the little people against the high-flying liberal elite. The book actually makes sense out of the ridiculously fast-paced growth of conservatism in the country.

The Games Do Count
Brian Kilmeade (host of Fox and Friends—an attempt to show some patronage as my interest in the channel dwindles)

Tell me what games you play, I’ll tell you who you are. I was always a reserve on the high school basketball team. I have no complaints. I have quite a few certificates because of being reserve, which I wouldn’t have had I been on the team. But my point is, you play what you are in life. One of the reasons why I did better at athletic games as opposed to team games; so did a lot of my equally introverted friends.

Brian Kilmeade brings out that concept in a book where he describes celebrities (politicians, journalists and the like) as a portrayal of their sporting interests. It comes as no surprise that Jon Stewart’s idea of fun was hanging out with the guys in a bus and traveling to soccer games or that Bill O’Reilly thought he was a better player than a lot of guys on the high school football team though he himself was never on the team.
I’ll leave you with a quote from Dubya in the book that is bound to make you go searching for it:
“I loved the game [baseball] but frankly my talent didn’t match my enthusiasm.”
“ I took the game seriously but I never felt the pressure to be a better player than he [George Bush senior] was.”

I betcha he doesn’t feel the pressure in presidential debates either.

God’s Politics
Jim Wallis
An evangelical sees that ‘God bless America’ is found nowhere in the bible. Come on! How often does that happen?
A good book if you are wondering how faith in Jesus came to be known as pro-rich, pro-war and pro-American. And baffled by the republican claim that they speak for God and their monopoly on moral values. When faith asks that we do justice for the poor, why is the so-called religious party supporting enrichment of the wealthy? And when did abortion and gay marriage gain precedence as hot-button social issues over equality and justice for all, truth-telling, capital punishment and human rights?

Naked pictures of famous people
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart’s amazingly original style of humor is just as compelling in print as on celluloid. ‘Lack of Power: the Ford tapes’ is sure to get any political buff cracked up while “Martha Stewart’s vagina” will send many rolling on the floor with laughter. Particularly funny was his portrayal of the last supper as a dinner party at Jerry’s and Jesus’ crucifixion as a bachelor party gone awry!!

America: The Book, A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction
By the writers of The Daily Show
Cheeky and irreverently brilliant, the Daily show team does what it does best----dissect American democracy and critique everyone responsible for it—including the pilgrims. While the graphic pictures are the high-point of the book, the “discussion questions” and “classroom activities” are downright ingenious. If not for the now-infamous naked pictures of the justices, I am all for introducing this marvelous fabrication as required reading in high school.

Poll cracker

The only thing that depresses me more than Bush’s re-election today is the state of the US media.

It appears that in the aftermath of Dan Rather’s rather unforgivable gaffe for a news outlet as powerful as CBS and a program as popular as 60 minutes, Bill O'Reilly’s sex scandal after a lifetime spent delivering conservative sermons on sexual decorum, Jon Stewart’s being chastised for saying the truth at a time when he arguably conveys more news than his top conventional counterparts; the impending retirement of Tom Brokaw, undoubtedly one of the greatest broadcast journalists of all time and Dave Barry’s proposed hiatus from writing, we have a new miscreant: the new media.

Blogging is all well and good when you are complaining about the awfully cold weather in Colorado or lamenting a badly gone presidential election (like I am doing now), but when you are throwing out stats about exit polls (and warped ones at that) while an election is unfolding, you are doing more than offering solace to that cheery person in sunny Florida (though that might have helped Kerry): you are influencing the election.

Complacence is a state of mind that comes easily to Americans (we saw that in airport security months after 9-11). The last thing you want to tell a voting electorate, especially youth voters that have been dragged out to register at the very last minute, is that the candidate they were intending to vote for is doing extremely well in their swing state, with six hours left until polling booth closure.

If that explanation for last night’s results seems ridiculous, then the other one I have is even more so: Moral Values. Voters in Ohio, a state that has been the hardest hit in terms of job losses, wage stagnation, No Child Left Behind and Health Care, said moral values were the most important deciding factor. Why a man who's worrying about feeding his own child would care about an unborn one two hundred thousand miles away is beyond me.

The final explanation I have is the most disturbing. Americans like idiots.I should have seen it coming: the mistake they seem to excuse most easily is a lack of competence or efficiency but they would go all out to ridicule anyone with even the slightest taint of character.

Reason why George Bush's obvious lack of intelligence is not only easily excused, but appreciated (he actually got away with making jokes about his dismal performance in the first debate this year) as was Ron Reagan's charming presidential debate comment in an attempt to mask his lack of knowledge of the then president of Iran. The most powerful man in the world can have an IQ of 80 but he cant do anything that goes even slightly out of the prototype of a morally conscious individual, something the American people set rigid rules for. The same reason why Bill Clinton gets thrown to the gutters for having an extra-marital affair and John Kerry loses by the largest margin in US Presidential election history because he accepts civil unions and propagates abortion rights.

The media’s explanation for Bush’s likeability takes the cake: Most people in middle America identify with Bush when he looks down, pauses and tries to think about what to say next (and somewhere along the way, manages to utter irrelevant arguments like "He forgot Poland"). “Identify” with him? Are they picking a high school buddy or President of the United States?

Ten reasons to not vote for Bush

In the old days we'd see a threat... we could deal with it if we felt like it or not.

This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place

It’s hard work. It’s incredibly hard.

Well, actually, he forgot Poland.

I own a timber company? That’s news to me. Need some wood?

The only consistent thing about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent.

Here's some help for you to go to a community college

We were right to take action

I hear there’s rumors on the Internets that we‘re going to have a draft.

And, finally....

He and I share some things. We both married well. We both have trouble speaking the English language. And we both have big biceps.

Pity he thinks it fit to compare himself to a body-builder turned hollywood-star turned politician. American people (I hope) are looking for brain instead of brawn in their presidents. Not that Bush has either.

Quite frankly, a few months ago, I couldn't care less as to who would be in the Oval Office come January 2005. But watching George Bush against John Kerry in the presidential debates, I wondered how anyone would want to vote for a man that is so obviously out of touch with what's going on in the world and so incompetent at defending his own policies.

And the ease with which he makes jokes about his problem with articulation is absolutely over the top. While some might find his self-deprecating humility endearing, I myself think it's better suited in a comedy show.

The Oval Office, on the other hand, could do with complete sentences.

And miles to go before I sleep....

I have promises to keep...
And miles to go before I sleep....

I seem to be doing a lot of that lately--- the sleep of course, and then the miles, for the little town of Fort Collins seems to have blown out of proportion from its originally estimated four streets and a reservoir, come chilly autumn and a half healing ankle.

Getting to the good part --the sleep---there are these phases in life when you go through the entire day in a rush as if the whole intention of waking up were to go back to sleep again. While having to graduate in a month and working twelve hours a day certainly doesn’t help that process, it sure as hell provides a clear incentive.

Anyway, since I decided about three months ago that I was going to get off the beaten path and do something about the one that has consistently occupied my dreams since eighth grade, I have taken living "hopefully" to a whole new level. I mean it is one thing to go through high school, thinking college would be splendid but an entirely different one to fervently wish that by some force of magic the micropipette in your hand would transform into a pen, while the white precipitate in the tube tries its dandiest best to convince you that it is indeed the blueprint of life that all scientists claim it to be. That theory seems lost on you momentarily for that gleaming little white glob might well be papyrus in some condensed form, to harbor the deluge of thoughts threatening to overflow. (Scientists don’t call it blueprint for nothing!)

Like my good pal described it quite eloquently the other day, "living for the future while letting the present pass you by". He said it just didn’t seem right and I agree, though I have never believed in a right and wrong. As long as it works for you, and you are not affecting the fellow-law-abiding-human-being next to you, hold on to it, I say. Nor do I believe in a set of rules to acquire happiness, if it ever chances to come your way.
Grab on to it, be it with twenty minutes of an unseen-unheard-soul online or shattering a ridiculously expensive piece of crystal, as long as it delivers.

That's why yesterday took me completely by surprise; in my attempt to battle with science I have been adopting numerous strategies, the simplest being "attacking it probabilistically". Since I don’t really seem to understand Science or logic, I decided that if I conducted the same experiment over and over and over again, chance has it that it would work at least that one all-important time.

And it did! But what I wasn't prepared for was the unparalleled ecstasy I felt on seeing it work. "What the #@##$%@#%^@#%^@%^!" It goes against the entire principle of my being --- "I can’t derive happiness from something I positively hate!"

But it happened all the same and I am one step (out of 100000000000000000000000000) closer to graduation.

Oh well, don’t ever attempt to play life by the rules......

Game for New York? Roger!

Since I’ve never really attempted to enunciate greatness, I wont be writing here a blog on Federer’s incredible performance at the US Open or his winning streak at grand slam finals or his matching Wilander’s record or his doing it all without a coach.

Suffice it to say that if Andy Pavel had had the misfortune of running into me on day 8 of the US Open Championships, a herniated disc would not have been the only thing he’d have had to worry about. And for good reason. Weeks of planning, anticipating and scrutinizing draws ‘flushed’ right down the ‘meadows’ as I glanced up at the glowing celluloid screen say “Fourth Round: Roger Federer Vs Andrei Pavel Walkover.” Through my tear-filled eyes, it almost seemed to gloat in amusement.

I had of course conveniently forgotten the big role destiny plays in my life, blaming my ill-luck on poor Pavel alone. Lady Destiny couldn't remain elusive for too long however; she reinforced her position as the flag bearer in the play of events in my life, by not only ensuring that I didn’t watch Roger smash a tennis ball but also letting me watch Justine Henine lose to a considerable novice. (Justine, I consider as the single best thing in women's tennis this day and age).

As if to justify my dismay and frustration that day, Roger destroyed Lleyton Hewitt last Sunday in three hours of breath-takingly classic tennis that included everything from incredibly placed ground strokes to amazing backhand passes. Federer has every shot there is in the bag and as if that were not enough, he is constantly inventing new ones, catching his opponents off guard, stunning his audience and rewriting tennis record books. Yet he’s humble enough to say “That’s all I got”.

Rarely is there an occasion in tennis when you can hail a 6-0 set and say the guy at love played his best; thanks to Federer, Hewitt has two to his name!

The only reasonable explanation is that Federer has transcended tennis. He not only has it all, he also has the ability to churn them out when he needs them-- just like he turned around one of Hewitt’s few break points by flashing three aces. If McEnroe is calling him the best player ever, there must be something to it. And at the cost of sounding pompous, if I am saying Roger has left Sampras far behind, I’m saying a whole heck of a lot.

Let me switch gears a little bit from a subject that I simply could do no justice to with words alone to one that has, in the past, managed to fall prey to my plethora of adjectives, if only barely.

While Flushing Meadows was a deep disappointment on my holiday weekend, New York city more than managed to aid in recovery.

While one would hardly call a city of open water puddles and overflowing trash cans and airway-clogging trains a recuperating process, it does the job pretty nicely. Having always lived by the ideology, "make life as easy for yourself as you can", it took me a while to realize that my favorite city tries its dandiest best to refute that idea in every possible way.

My first grievance was with — well -- finding my way about. After finally settling down to the concept of following the looming Rockies westward for the past year, I found the sharp rights and slight rights and very very slight rights at Newark's Liberty airport way beyond my navigational skills. And the people who kept getting in the way certainly didn’t help. While I shrugged off my inability to read unreadable signs as forgivable, I was dumbfounded on learning that the towering Empire State Building on 6th Avenue didn't do me any favors in direction either. Bottom line: Without the guiding force of the monumental Rockies, I am pretty much lost.

While I have oft visited Fort Collins' old town during my rare attacks of loneliness in search of strange human company, and cursed its inability to deliver even on a Sunday afternoon, I wasn't prepared for New York's "too many people in too little space" concept. For one, my still tender ankle didn't take the shoving and pushing too well; secondly, I blame the sudden recurrence of my dormant asthma to NY-after-effects. Either that or my poor little lungs are simply not able to handle the vast amount of air Colorado rations to its denizens.

Every time I've wanted a much-needed change from Fort Collins' almost perfect, 97% Caucasian, incredibly fit and predominantly wealthy population, I've craved a trip to Denver or Boulder to see the oddities. With it , comes usually a sense of nostalgia and the distant thought of NJ transit and PATH trains that would effortlessly transport me to New York city every Friday and Saturday night. What I had conveniently overlooked in my dreams were the half eaten bags of Lays chips and dripping Pepsi cans left at doorsteps, the unmistakable smell of McDonald's fries, the impossibly long queues at ticket counters and the scrambling into just-fleeing trains at Penn Station.

But when the end-result is a walk along the waterway at Hoboken, a frappacino at a Starbucks by the Hudson, a bite of sound Indian food at Jersey City or Manhattan’s unmistakable charm, the train rides, the crowds and the discrepancies seem not only acceptable, but well worth it.

For all its quirks and its "I'll make life as tough for you as possible" attitude, for probably the millionth time, New York gave me what I went for --- the ability to pull off another mundane year of life in its wake.

In all fairness, it has also helped me appreciate the little things Colorado offers in stark contrast. For when I heard the friendly “Here ya go gal” that accompanied my first post-New York cappuccino, I looked out the window at the formidably protective Rockies and knew I was home.

My first bite of the Big Apple

With my 26th birthday fast-approaching, I am not getting any younger and as has always been with every B-day in the US, I originally set out to visit a new city (yeah--another point on my 'uncountable reasons to love Sam’s land' is that Labor day falls conveniently close to my birthday every year), but this time I decided that a broken and still-recuperating ankle, a lost car and painstakingly fruitless weeks of science later, I deserve a much-needed break and instead of venturing out to a new city (Vegas, San fran and LA were on the cards) I should just travel to the one that has never failed to promise (AND deliver) unadulterated joy for me. Yeah, what better than New York city, where I made my debut as a lost and lonely fresh-off-the-boat desi on this very day three years ago?

So, here I am, planning my trip ---right from the bustle of Flushing Meadows to the unlimited spread of desi food--- and sure enough, reminiscing about the city has made me nostalgic; so here's an excerpt from my carefully penned-down thoughts the first time I set foot on it......

[I wasn't as seasoned a writer then, but I’ve learned since that seasoning takes something away from the unmistakable awe that only naiveté can render. So much so, that when I write my travelog post-labor day, I cant promise that it will deliver the candor of this one....My acquired experiences and cultivated Americanism since are sure to cloud my ability to convey the supernatural that is New York...]

After almost twenty-three years of the arcane artlessness of India that I had so grown to love, it wasn’t surprising that my first sampling of American soil took my breath away. Who would have thought, however that my maiden step onto Madison Square Gardens would positively return it all in full earnest? And while my lungs were battling the extra gush of air, my mind was working overtime despite the month-long ‘jet lag’ of a 24 hour trip across half the globe. New York city could breathe life into a corpse was my first thought on recovery.

Sky scrapers and museums is what the city probably depicts in the literature, but when you actually set foot on it, it is not so much the Empire State Building or the Museum of Natural History that overwhelms you, but the rather pedestrian and ubiquitous species—the Homo sapien.

People -- that was the first thing that struck me -- literally and figuratively! People on sidewalks, people shopping at malls, people crossing streets, people roller-blading, people walking down Central Park, people running and jogging or even people simply standing and staring in awe and wonderment. I was not alone.

I could have stood there all day, gawking at the lights and life of the city, but that wasn’t to be. I was soon catapulted into the pandemonium that was Manhattan and as I flowed along with the deluge of people, and walked towards the famed Times Square, it was almost as if a gradient of life had been set.

42nd Street and 7th Avenue could well be a microcosm of the city itself-- billboards and neon lights flashed relentlessly and as if the place were wanting demographically, effigies and figures sprang up the tops of buildings and mannequins stared out of shop windows, almost ready to spring to life and match the tempo of the city; somewhere a clock ticked, quite unnecessarily, in the timelessness of Times Square.

There is something profoundly special to the people of New York -- the emphatic ‘Hello, how do you do’, the smug smile, barely concealing their pride and love of the city (bordering on scorn for their less fortunate brethren), the complacence that allows them to walk past green lights, heedless of honking cars and oncoming traffic and finally, the sprightly spring in the step, exuding cheerful optimism are all distinctly individual to New York’s denizens.

And as if to match the people’s élan, the city is bathed in lights. Be it the well-lit foyers of hotels and restaurants, glittering shop lights, flashing neon signs or the headlights of oncoming vehicles, they all give the city its sense of completeness, rendering superfluous, extraterrestrial light sources that lesser mortals so gravely depend on.

As if to add a third dimension to the bustle of the city, vehicles blare, music plays and sirens screech, barely audible over the babble of the crowd.

The city boasts of rhythm of a different form, however. While roller bladers, cars and buses alike whiz past, cyclists and joggers struggle to compete, not quite matching pace, but the true ruler of the streets is the ambulatory pedestrian, his only dictator, his own whims and fancies. Amidst all these classes of people is the contented equestrian on his chariot, neither interested in affording competition nor belittled by the pace of those around him.

While I returned from the city that night, one billboard caught my eye. If all the energy of New York City could be harnessed…….. I read no further. The sudden rush of adrenalin and the racing of my pulses were probably for real.

'Fox'ily conservative?

[After the option of watching CBS news, arguably the best news channel in the States---I think the Early Show and 60 minutes can attest to that---was snatched out of my hands on moving to boondock Colorado, I have been an ardent devotee of the Fox news channel, much to the perplexity of my friends and fellow-political-buffs].


I decided that as a loyal patron of FNC (read: taking blows from friends for following news on it, accepting their right-wing tilt despite being a diehard social liberal and returning time and again to number 42 after tirelessly flipping channels for half hours straight on weekdays) I needed to come to the defence of the most-watched cable news channel in America after the recent controversy over the premier of Greenwald's "Outfoxed".

OF COURSE the channel has a distinct right wing tilt. But so what? The right wing tilt is attributed more so by Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume, all of whom have openly proclaimed that they are conservative americans that respect the traditional views this country is built on. 

I dont see what the problem is with that. A news channel without a flavor would be like an Op-ed column without an opinion. What needs to be objective is the reporting, not the talk shows.

If a fox news reporter reporting the Abu Ghraib prison scandal came out and said that it was not as bad as those inflicted under Saddam's regime, it wouldn't be fair. Because a reporter is expected only to report. 

But if Sean Hannity said he supported Bush's war on terror as opposed to his liberal counterpart, Alan Colmes, I dont see why that is wrong. And in defence of the channel, I think it is a whole lot better to say it openly than proclaim to be an objective channel like CNN whose left wing tilt is more than obvious.

Nor is O'Reilly wrong when he claims that the ACLU sometimes takes matters too far when he has reinforced time and again that he is a conservative church-going american. Because the very idea of a talkshow IS to air your opinions and give your perspective.

If Ann Coulter can get away with Treason and Mike Moore with Farenheit 911, then I am sure Brit Hume can be excused for having more republicans on his show than democrats. After all, you pretty much have the choice of not watching FNC as much as of not buying Stupid White Men.

I might not want to watch Bill rant about his conservative social views but give me a news channel other than FNC that will allow me to watch Jonathan Hoenig give us capitalistic thumbs ups. Or even remotely suggest that Martha Stewart was penalized more than she deserved. What a breath of fresh air that is after seeing left leaning, equal-opportunity advocates denounce her on the basis of her success alone. Being complacent over your success is acceptable, but over someone else's downfall? tsk tsk...

Bottomline: A cable channel is gonna show you what they believe they should. It's up to you to choose what you want to watch.

The only thing I take offence with is the "fair and balanced" slogan for the channel. But, then again, CNN calls itself the "most trusted name in news". What's that all about? Excuse one rhetoric, excuse them all, I say.

And I have one little suggestion for FNC skeptics. Try watching The Co$t of Freedom, Cashin' In and Cavuto on Business---the best financial news there is, is on FNC.

When the other side is 'green'er...

If you thought Dean's getting ousted from the democratic presidential race because of his "primal scream", or Clinton's infidelity being compared to Watergate or the infamous Florida ballot of 2000 (to borrow Dave Barry's eloquent style, ‘[where the voters] apparently voted for two presidents, or no presidents, or part of a president, or, in some cases, simply drooled on the ballot') were the funniest, most ridiculous things that happened in American politics, you haven't heard of the new-found alliance between the former green party face and --surprise, surprise-- the GOP itself.

Much as 'My enemy's enemy is a friend' works wonders in the uncomplicated life of a layman, it takes the already comical world of politics to new heights of absurdity.

Why would two conservative groups that oppose same sex marriages and abortion rights support the farthest left-wing candidate in the nation?

Kibbe, the president of one of the groups, the Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy says ----Nader "forces John Kerry to explain where he is on things". Unless I'm grossly misinformed, this surely is the first instance of nominating candidates to explain what OTHER candidates stood for. And if the theory of painting black to make the white look whiter were true, how about a far-right candidate on the spectrum? After all, doesn't Bush support civil-unions and fund stem cell research?

And if I were to go a little further and suggest a candidate, Ann Coulter would fit that role to a tee. You don't get any "righter" than that. I think she comes closest to balancing the scales with Mike Moore on the other side (Not literally, of course).

She should be able to exemplify all the Republican mantras: "Do you actually BELIEVE that Bush is more dangerous than Saddam? Do you actually believe that Scott Peterson is innocent? Do you actually believe that Iraq did not train al Qaeda terrorists?" When will the grand old party learn that you don't run a country on belief? That's religion; but I guess we can’t blame them for not knowing the difference; after all, they oppose gay marriage and abortion and euthanasia because religion tells them to. Apparently, supporting someone that supports all of that doesn't count.

And their excuse for helping Nader: they want to "provide more choice".
Republicans --- those members of the political arena that are always intolerant to the liberal viewpoint, that NEVER let the democrat be heard in a talk show, that scream 'media bias' when the NY Times publishes more stories about Abu Ghraib than Nick Berg, that would move mountains to block distribution of a movie that represents the opposite side, that are ready to attach the label "traitor" the moment you oppose a single act of the president want more choice?

IMHO, they’d be better off allowing people that choice in choosing their life partner or making a decision about their unborn baby.