Assorted Rants by Shan-ul-Hai

The new blog

2008-04-27T00:06:00.001-05:00

I think my new blog, Globally Rational, is pretty much complete. I now have a few authors and I think it'll evolve into a real webzine like I want it to. Please let me know if you'd like to write on it.

21. Pakistan's current state of affairs

2007-11-12T16:44:00.001-06:00

Since writing this post, it has been brought to my attention that the issue is apparently more complicated than I initially thought. Apparently, Musharraf had his own set of unresolved issues... so I guess the choice was just between the lesser of many evils. I still attest that the key to success in Pakistan is education, which we haven't seen yet.

A lot of people have asked me about recent events in Pakistan. There is a major flaw with the Western viewpoint of the situation, which is basically that "elected leaders are always better than non-elected leaders." Although I am far from an expert in political science, I do know what it's like to live in Pakistan... so here's my synopsis of recent Pakistani political history for those of you who want to know the real facts instead of just believing the skewed truth that comes from the popular media corporations.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I don't live in Pakistan at the moment, so my views may be outdated... but the purpose of this post is to show the other viewpoint to the average American whose only source of news is CNN.

First off: Islamic extremists won't ever take over the country... politicians just say that because they want the support of the Western population in their election campaign. There aren't many people in the country that are sympathetic with the plight of the extremists, but the extremists are outspoken enough to make the world think that they're everywhere.

Politicians say whatever they need to say to get elected. Here is a true story:

People voted for politician A, who then stole a lot of money from the public and got fired. Then politician B was elected, stole lots of money, and got fired a few years later. By that time, people had forgotten about the past and they voted for politician A again. Then politician A stole money again and got fired again, so they voted for politician B again. Then politician B stole money again and lost power in a military coup, at which point an honest leader took power. Unfortunately, the honest leader wasn't elected, so everybody in the world thinks that he was a bad ruler. Politician B came back and tried to run for office again. The military ruler placed her on house arrest to prevent the country from descending into ruins again and the US started to yell at him because he's interfering with democracy. The problem is that the democracy there is so corrupt that it's basically pointless.

Politician A is named Nawaz Sharif
Politician B is named Benazir Bhutto
Military leader is Pervez Musharraf

Benazir and Nawaz have both been elected twice and fired twice. They were both living in exile until recently... they both came back and now Musharraf is concerned that the stupid public will vote them in again and destroy the country. When they were in power, inflation was rampant, international relations were terrible, and the country was in shambles. So Musharraf places Benazir (a known criminal... here is a good summary with citations to neutral primary sources that you can feel free to examine) on house arrest and the world gets pissed at him because she's an eloquent speaker. He managed to successfully kick Nawaz out of the country (since Nawaz promised in 1999 to stay out of Pakistan for 10 years as part of an agreement with Saudi Arabia to help him... then, of course, he broke his promise and went back to Pakistan), but Benazir is still there and she's still trying to take power. The West likes her because (a) she's a woman who is unbelievably good at playing the gender card, and (b) she's promised to let the US invade the northwestern tribal areas (which will undoubtedly not only lead to thousands of American casualties, but will also undoubtedly cause a civil war in Pakistan... those tribal areas are full of rough terrain and millions of tribal citizens who carry AK-47's and believe that they are independent from Pakistan).

Democracy in Pakistan sucks. There are 2-3 people with power and you can only get into powerful positions if you use unethical means to get there. Because of that, all of the powerful politicians are corrupt. If a reasonable person tries to run for office without first brainwashing an entire political party, they will be shot. That's why the military leaders are usually the only honest leaders of the country... they are the only people who were systematically promoted based on good leadership and great loyalty to their nation. Although past military leaders have occasionally made bad decisions, the decisions were always what they believed was in the best interest of the country.

I think the moral of the story is that democracy doesn't work when the population is uneducated. Many people just vote for the candidate of the same ethnic group, while others just try to choose the least of several evils. Personally, I prefer an honest military leader (who has stabilized what is left of the economy during his tenure) over a dishonest elected leader (who destroyed the economy).

Elections are great when your population actually has options and law enforcement is a reality. Unfortunately, that is not the case in Pakistan... if a person who doesn't have enough bodyguards tries to run for office, they shouldn't expect to live to see the election. The people who have a reason to have a lot of bodyguards, on the other hand, are usually people who need a lot of protection because they exchange favors with the kinds of people who you need protection from.

Now consider the notable exception of the one man who has an army (literally) of armed, professionally-trained "guards"... and it's for an honest, patriotic reason. That man is the chief of army staff, also known as the current leader of Pakistan.

20. Great tips on how to save gas (you probably never thought of some of these things)

2007-11-12T16:19:00.000-06:00

I saw this post on one of my favorite car forums. The author is very well-reputed on the forum (bluefox280 on VWvortex), which is one of the largest car forums online. I have the same engine as he does and he claims to get at least 25 mpg in the city (while I get 20-22) and at least 31-32 on the highway (while I get 29-30).

All of these suggestions make sense, but a lot of them are very easy to ignore/forget (especially the "General Assistance Ideas" section). Everything below this point is a direct copy-paste from his post (I want to make sure to give credit where credit is due), except that I might have changed some fonts/colors so that they are more visible with my blog's color scheme.

"Ugh... another summer of $3.00+ prices on regular unleaded fuel; make the madness stop!"

As much as we hate the gas increase due to the natural supply + demand and inflation of petrolium, you still need... more some than others.
However, this IS NOT an arguement of soaring prices of gasoline, this is more a reminder guide to help increase your fuel econ.
Simple and straight forward, yes. But many tend to forget what you can really get out of your 2.0L, 1.8T, and yes even the VR6 in terms of fuel econ.
With that, lets begin...

Powertrain:
1.) Air Filter - The common thing that the engine needs for good combustion is air. Pure and simple. Air filters, both in paper form and a composite fiber work well. The major thing on an fiber filter is the "oil" that keeps the filter 'wet' to trap particulates. The downside of that is the oil may be sucked off the filter and attach to your MAF sensor which can give you erroreneous metering issues. All in all, change or clean your filter often to get the best unblocked flow.

2.) Throttle Body - Keeping the throttle body clean along with the upper intake manifold really does matter. Using some sensor safe throttle cleaner along with a Throttle Body Adaptation (TBA) via a VAG-COM does assist in saving mileage every tank.

3.) Ignition Components - Worn plugs, wires, and ignition coils or coilpacks don't give you the best spark source to completely burn the air / fuel mixture in the combustion chamber. That's not only wasted fuel, but wasted power to boot. Replacing spark plugs with effective and cost effective copper cores gets the most bang-for-buck results since it's the most electrical conductive material for the price range.

4.) Clean Fuel Line - Most never think that clogged fuel filter would actually help with fuel econ, but it's been shown to help since the injectors don't stay on or "open" as long to inject the fuel into the engine. Better burning and the burning completely of a mixture is majorly dependant on pressure of dispensing for atomization of the fuel molecules. A better mixture equates a better burn, and less fuel required to get the same power stroke.

5.) System Cleaners - As a helper of removing "deposits" inside the intake manifold, valves, and such, using a intake cleaner and fule system cleaner every 10K miles really keeps things clear of crud and carbon build up.

6.) Oil / Tranny Fluid - Yes, even on a molecular level, there is friction that taking away perfectly good power. So to get the same power output more input is reuired; keeping fluids up to spec with bolth oil and transmission (both manual + automatic especially) reduces the losses found in old fluids and poor lubrication.

Suspension / Wheels:
1.) Tire Pressure - Think you can't get better mileage just by bumping up the pressure in your tires? Think again; with low tires pressures, the drag of rotation increases greatly. Set tires 7 - 15psi less than the maximum pressure; ride quality isn't lost, but less gas is required to hold a constant speed.

2.) Alignment - Scrubing the tires due to poor or incorrect toe or camber will also great affect required power to keep the car at a constant speed.

3.) Tire Compound (thanks pirate golf) - Softer and stickier tires will adhere to the hot road surface increasing the rolling friction of the car. If you're not going to be a track star, some medium to medium-hard tires is all you'll need.

4.) Tire / Wheel Combination Weight (thanks Yetta1.8) - Unsprung mass easily robs power that could have been used to rotate the wheels at the same wheels with less fuel used. Now, not everyone can afford expensive lightweight 18"+ wheels, however there are great 17" wheels that are decent in price and have less weight than the OEM cast aluminum wheels.

Overall Vehicle:
1.) Lighten Up! - All that junk in your car? It's dead weight. That big overpowered amp + subs? Dead weight, but provides sound. Clean out what you DON'T need on short + long trips. Carry what you have to have for emergency reasons and such.

2.) Quick Fuel Stops (personal thought thanks to dv_death3x) - When you get gas only fill up your tank half or 2/3 of the way. Filling it all the way up = added weight. Yeah sure you dont need to stop as often but im sure most people can spare an extra 3 minutes of their life every now and then.

3.) Aerodyanmics & Exterior Options (thanks Here's Johnny) - Avoiding the "body-kit" arguement, this directed more to luggage / ski / bike rack owners; removing of the mounts and bars reduces the aero drag of vehicle. Be aware of when you need or don't need the excess on.

Driving Characteristics:
1.) Feather Foot - And you wonder why grandma can run here car for about a month without refueling? Well, not mashing the gas off every stop sign and light is an great way to save tens of dollars every week. Give up the led foot unless you're willing to pay for it; there's a time and a place to mash the gas when it's needed.

2.) Gear Selection - So, you're cruising @ 40mph, and you think, hey to save fuel I can just dump the car into the lowest gear and coast right? Not always actually, at lower speeds it's acutally consuming more fuel in a lower gear than one of the middle. Barely touching the gas @ 35mph in 3rd gear can save over giving 25% throttle in 5th gear.

3.) No Boost [1.8T] (thanks dragon813gt) - When accelerating, keep shifts under 3000 RPMs before the boost builds on the turbocharger. This will keep the fueling requirements low since you're not pressurizing the intake system.

4.) Cruise Control Use (thanks the_journalist) - Maintaining speed on flat ground is cost effective with the electrical cruise control. However on hills and changing terrain, your foot can actually throttle the car better without "over-using" the throttle to maintain a constant speed.

5.) Drafting (thanks uberwagn) - Think the NASCAR drivers only can draft? No way! When traveling longer distances, catching up with a semi-truck and / or convoy and following it really keeps the fuel econ high. Why? Easy, the truck pushes a wake of air around the truck and trailor creating a low pressure at the end of the trailor; similar to a "vacuum". If you stay in the vacuum, minimal throttle is required to hold speed... however, keep in mind of the possible rock chips, and being closer for reaction speed.

General Assistance Ideas:
1.) Temperature - Fill up your car or truck in the morning when the temperature is still cool. Remember that all service stations have their storage tanks buried below ground; and the colder the ground, the denser the gasoline. When it gets warmer gasoline expands, so if you're filling up in the afternoon or in the evening, what should be a gallon is not exactly a gallon. In the petroleum business, the specific gravity and temperature of the fuel (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, ethanol and other petroleum products) are significant. Every truckload that we load is temperature-compensated so that the indicated gallonage is actually the amount pumped. A one-degree rise in temperature is a big deal for businesses, but service stations don't have temperature compensation at their pumps.

2.) Mixing - If a tanker truck is filling the station's tank at the time you want to buy gas, do not fill up; most likely dirt and sludge in the tank is being stirred up when gas is being delivered, and you might be transferring that dirt from the bottom of their tank into your car's tank.

3.) More than Half - Fill up when your gas tank is half-full (or half-empty), because the more gas you have in your tank the less air there is and gasoline evaporates rapidly, especially when it's warm. (Gasoline storage tanks have an internal floating 'roof' membrane to act as a barrier between the gas and the atmosphere, thereby minimizing evaporation.)

4.) Depense Time - If you look at the trigger you'll see that it has three delivery settings: slow, medium and high. When you're filling up do not squeeze the trigger of the nozzle to the high setting. You should be pumping at the slow setting, thereby minimizing vapors created while you are pumping. Hoses at the pump are corrugated; the corrugations act as a return path for vapor recovery from gas that already has been metered. If you are pumping at the high setting, the agitated gasoline contains more vapor, which is being sucked back into the underground tank, so you're getting less gas for your money. Hope this will help ease your 'pain at the pump'.

Got proven tricks that work? Post em'. I'll add to the list to benifit all owners.
With the following above, I do obtain [on my 1.8T] 360+ miles in the city and easily over 450+ miles on constant highway driving...
And that's with some common "performance modifications".

- Erik

19. Pascal's Wager

2007-07-30T21:22:00.000-05:00

Today, for the first time, I encountered a concept pioneered by the famous French philosopher/mathematician Blaise Pascal (you may have heard of Pascal's Triangle in your algebra class) known as Pascal's Wager. Until now, I had assumed that everybody thinks about these things, but now I'm not so sure. I just want everybody I know to consider it, even if for no other reason than the fact that I find it to be an interesting and fun exercise. It has always been a major basis for many of my beliefs, but now that I have found support from Pascal (and the famous author/cartoonist Scott Adams, whose blog I've been reading daily for the last few years... he writes a lot of intriguing material), I have decided to give you the opportunity to think about it.

Keep in mind that Scott Adams is an atheist, Pascal was a Christian, and I am a Muslim... so this exercise is not about religion. You should also start thinking purely about the economics behind what I'm about to say. Don't worry about the facts or the opinions that lead you to believe the way you do... it's much more fun to think about it if you just think about the potential costs and benefits of each option as a neutral party. After you know about Pascal's reasoning, you can plug in any religious view (and you can plug in how sure you are of whether it's right) and you'll get the same answer either way. I'll let you know when you can start thinking about which interpretation suits you best... until then, just try to think about the numbers.

I also want to preface this by saying that I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HELL. I'm just stating the majority opinions of any given religion from a neutral perspective. If there's a heaven/hell, then I don't know who's going where.

Pascal makes a simple claim: there are two possibilities for what you can believe about the existence of a God. You can be either right or wrong. You can either live as if God exists or as if God does not exist. Here is what happens either way:

You live as if God exists.

If you're right, you go to Heaven and the gain is infinite.
If you're wrong, there is no gain and little loss.

You live as if God does not exist.

If you're right, there is no gain and no loss.
If you're wrong, you might go to Hell and your loss is infinite.

If you just think in terms of the statistics of the matter (think like an economist or a scientist), you can see that even if you're 99% sure that God does not exist, you're facing the potential of an infinite penalty if you're wrong. And that's before you consider the 1% chance for the ultimate prize.

I like the example that Adams gives: many people would be willing to go skiing, despite the 10% chance of getting hurt while you're there, but I don't know anybody who would be willing to take any action that would lead to a 10% chance of a nuclear war. You should adjust your actions not just based on your odds of success, but also on magnitude of the consequences. Even if I am 99.999% sure that there's no God, I don't think that it's a risk worth taking when you consider how little effort it takes to live piously according to whatever religion you choose.

If you say that you're 100% sure that there is a God, then you don't understand the human brain very well. We're not capable of being 100% sure of anything. If you think I'm just speaking for myself (I know that I've been wrong about things that I was 100% sure about), then you need to read more about the human brain. This is just a simple proven fact.

At the risk of sounding redundant, I want to show you what Adams says about the relative certainty of the matter:

An eternity in Hell is the largest penalty there could ever be. So while you might not worry about a .00000000001% chance of ending up in Hell, you can’t deny the math. .00000000001% of eternity is a lot longer than your entire mortal life. Infinitely longer.

Of course, there are many qualms that people present about this concept. I think the strongest argument is made by the people who question our ability to pick the right religion. Odds are that even if you choose to believe in God, you're more likely to pick the wrong religion than the right one.

My response (along with Adams's response) has always been to say that I just want to minimize my chances of eternal damnation. Since it's impossible to be 100% sure about anything, I can't possibly be 100% sure that Islam will keep me away from Hell... but I just choose the explanation that suits me best. You can choose whichever explanation you want to choose, but try to give each of them a fighting chance.

Now you can start to think about whatever it is that your history book or your professor or your preacher has told you.

Most of the core beliefs in Islam are the same as those in most other religions (there is a higher power that will reward you for being a good person and will punish you for being a bad person). Most of these religions require you to believe in things that can't be explained by science. Everybody (including myself) can give a variety of reasons why they believe that their own religion is closer to the truth than everybody else's religion.

There is one thing that sets Islam apart in my mind. Adams seemed to notice the same thing:

[Islam] has the most satisfying answer to the multiple prophet issue. If we assume God speaks through prophets, as all God-oriented religions do, then how can you be sure the last prophet finished the job? Islam gives us Mohammed, the "seal of the prophets," and promises that God intends him to be the last one. That’s a tidy package.
All the other religions seem to leave open the possibility that God has a few more prophets up his sleeve. If you bet on one of those other religions, you can't know for sure if you're living by God's first draft or his finished manuscript.

After going on about how he just wants to pick from the least absurd of the absurdities, here's how he concludes:

Pascal's wager was designed to make people consider the importance of grappling with the question of a Christian God. That's not my argument. I simply borrowed the math part of his argument and followed it to its logical conclusion: The most rational worldview is moderate Islam. And since I am not a Muslim, I must conclude that I am not rational.

Let me take this opportunity to say that if I weren't born into a Muslim family, I probably wouldn't be Muslim right now. But at the same time, I feel lucky that the religion I was born into yields the lowest odds (from the eyes of a neutral atheist observer) of eternal damnation... this way, I don't have to tell my parents that I'm converting.

I'm not saying I'm right... I just think that this viewpoint has the lowest odds of being wrong (not counting atheism, since the whole point of this exercise is to think about the option that keeps you safest from damnation... although I don't know who's going to Heaven, I doubt that anybody thinks that atheists have the highest chance). If you think that your viewpoint is more likely to be right, please tell me why... because if it's true, then I want to follow it too.

18. The smartest people I know

2006-10-22T07:10:00.000-05:00

I know many smart people... here's a list of some of the smartest (just because I thought it'd be interesting). Post your own list (but don't include yourself on the list). If you don't want to read the reasons, at least read the names.
If I forgot you, then you're either not on my Facebook list (I browsed through all the names before I finalized this list) or I just don't know you well enough outside of the world of science. Or maybe you'd be in Tier 3 if there was one.

Tier 1

Dr. Ruth M. Ruprecht, MD, Ph. D, tenured professor at Harvard Medical School (I worked at her lab one summer) - I think her title says it all, but I'll add some more: in addition to completing a full residency and a postdoctoral fellowship, she has helped make significant advances in HIV research and may be currently working on a successful vaccine. And despite her age and the amount of time that she invests in her job, she is still in amazing physical shape and her purse always matches her shoes (or whatever it's supposed to match).
Dr. Wynn Volkert, Ph. D, tenured professor of medicine/nuclear engineering/medical physics/radiology/radiopharmaceutical sciences/biochemistry/chemistry at Mizzou, head of at least one of those departments... if it has to do with radiation (especially radiation in medicine) and it's going on at Mizzou, then it's not important if Dr. Volkert isn't involved. Full professor since 1981, Curator's Professor since 2000, Director of Radiopharmaceutical Sciences Institute since 1999, Director of Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute since 2001.
Dr. Jeffrey Phillips, Pharm. D., associate professor at University of Missouri School of Medicine, Director of Department of Surgery - Applied Research (my current boss). Although Dr. Ruprecht and Dr. Volkert have undertaken more mentally-challenging and difficult-to-execute tasks, Dr. Phillips has been more successful at making a difference in the field of medicine. He invented the drug Zegerid (which is already the fastest-acting and most effective acid-reflux drug available and will soon be the top acid-reflux drug on the market) by applying a very simple principle that nobody ever thought to apply. We are now applying another very simple principle to another problem (ventilator-associated pneumonia, which kills around 10% of patients who are on a ventilator)... but this time, since he has funding now, we are trying to show that an outdated procedure can be resurrected by using new technology... and we can save lives by doing it.
Farrukh Sohail Quraishi, MS (Civil Engineering), MBA - My uncle; graduated #1 in his class at the top engineering college in Pakistan; he got into MIT but didn't go for financial reasons. Don't be fooled by the fact that he's a relative... he's one of the most intelligent people you'll ever meet and has a very analytical personality. He makes good decisions more effectively than anybody I've ever met. Plus, he's a great singer.
Karthikeyan Ettigounder Ponnusamy (yes, I had to type it all out) - Just admitted to Hopkins Med School (btw... Karthik, if you read this, congratulations); already has a patent on some random medical device that I don't know much about; got a 1600 on his SAT along with perfect grades in high school and a 37 on the MCAT (unless he re-took it). I actually don't know much about his personality because he never really talked much, but you could tell that he's one of those guys that doesn't talk because he doesn't want people to realize just how smart he is (out of modesty). One of the few people who I might admit is smarter than me.
Matt Watermann - The only person who can consistently change my opinions about issues - I honestly think that he was sent by Satan. As much as I may hate to admit it, he was better than me at chess in high school and although I may be better at math (and thereby anything related to math, i.e. Physics, some chemistry, etc), he seems to be a more well-rounded individual. We both love to discuss historical and current issues, but I think that he's better at that. Another one of the few people who might be smarter than me and still somehow manages to find the time to run three marathons a day and then go lift weights for twelve hours after that.
Oh, and in case you don't know, I've lived with him for well over a year now.
Nick Dashman - He's a lot like Matt (crazy-smart, modest, athletic)... except instead of a star cross-country runner/chess player, he was an all-conference linebacker. I don't know where he is now; I haven't talked to him since high school.
Robert J. Fischer - My seventh-grade math teacher - He taught me techniques that my high school calculus teacher didn't know; I attribute a good portion of my successes in life to him. He has turned countless promising students into geniuses.
Honorable mentions:
Anis Khimani (has a Ph. D. in virology and did his postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard). He definitely deserves to be in Tier 1, but it's hard for any scientist to match Dr. Volkert and Dr. Ruprecht... and Karthik, for that matter.
Mike Herrmann (teacher at my high school; BS in biology and BA in education) - he could have led a much more "glorious" life as a doctor or a professor, but I think that he does the world a lot of good by teaching promising students how to become good doctors and good resesarchers.
Tim Morrison (teacher at my high school; BS in biochemistry and BA in education) - another great teacher, can't say any less about him than I can about Mike Herrmann.
James Whitney (former co-worker at Harvard; has a Ph. D. in virology from McGill University in Canada)
Ruijiang Song (another Harvard co-worker; Ph. D. in virology from Hopkins)... I don't know them too well beyond the world of science, but they were definitely geniuses.
Added on 1-27-07 (I don't know why I forgot him before) - Saad T. Siddiqui - One of my cousins... another person that might be smarter than me (might)... but I haven't talked to him much recently.

Tier 2
No particular order: Sridhar Kandala (friend from Mizzou), Vasu Polineni (another friend from Mizzou), Dennis Yungbluth (another friend from Mizzou, one of my roommates), Manu ben Johny (friend from high school), Mike Howe (high school chemistry teacher), Srikar Rao (another friend from high school), Josh Jacob (random person I haven't talked to since high school), Emery Cox (another random person from high school), Nick Woodard (friend from high school; I still talk to him), Kevin John (random person from high school... he's on my AIM list, but I rarely talk to him), Dustin Shipp (haven't seen him since high school), Jane Song (another random high school person... I think she's the only woman on the list).

Added to Tier 2 because I forgot them before:
Greg Thompson (from high school)

17. Who would take a bullet for you? Who would you take a bullet for?

2006-10-22T05:14:00.000-05:00

I was sitting around talking to Dan (my white brother... not to be confused with Naaim, my brown brother) about his plans to attend police academy, and I got to thinking... what would happen if we were at the pool hall or at Steak'n'Shake or at the chess club (in the Bread Co at the Loop) when somebody held up the place with a gun? If he was a cop, he'd have to take action... but what would I do? Would I face a significant chance of death so that I could reduce his chances of suffering the same fate?
Would he do it for me?
Yes to both questions. Here's what I think (in no particular order); post what your list is. Don't feel bad if I'm not on your list, because most of you probably aren't on mine (no offense, but I'm sure you understand).

Dan - He's first on the list because he was the person I was talking to when this question popped into my head; no questions asked, he'd do it for me, I'd do it for him.
Naaim - Again, no questions asked.
Talal - I'm the oldest of my cousins and Talal is #2. He was the first best friend that I ever had (when I was 6 months old and he was just born), but we've grown farther apart over the years as our interests and our goals diverge. I think that if he were to put himself in harm's way to save me, it would be just as much an attempt to be a hero as it would be to protect me. If it were a split-second, reflex-action sort of thing, I don't think he'd do it (although I would).
Saad - Saad is #3 on the list of cousins by age (9 months younger). I was always closer to Talal (because Saad moved to Saudi Arabia when I was about 5, and when he came back to Pakistan, I quickly migrated to the US), but it seems that I was always more similar to Saad in terms of interests and core values, and we seem to be converging in every way. I would have to say that he would take a bullet for me in a heartbeat and I'd do the same for him... but if he had to choose between me and one of his brothers (or if I had to do the same thing), I'm pretty sure we'd each choose our brother.
All four of my grandparents - They are getting old, but if they ever had the opportunity, they would gladly give their life to make sure that I could live mine.
My uncle Tausif, my aunt Cyma, my uncle Ahson, my aunt Rubina, and maybe my uncle Arsalan (all on my dad's side) - The first three and the last one are my dad's brothers/sisters... aunt Rubina is his sister-in-law. Since I was the first one born on this side of the family, they all think of me as a son... they would never think twice about taking a bullet for me. I would be inclined to do the same for any of them, but I know that they wouldn't want me to (since I'm younger and I have more years ahead of me)... so I don't know if I would (but that's only because I thought about it in advance... if I hadn't written this post, I would have taken a bullet for any of them without thinking twice).
Any relative on my mom's side - There is no question in my mind that any of my mom's brothers or sisters would take a bullet for me and that I would take a bullet for any of my mom's nephews or nieces (my cousins). As much as I'd like to say the same about her siblings, the same goes for them as for my father's siblings... I don't think that any younger relative should ever do something like that for an older person.
My parents - no-brainer there... they'd do it for me, and as much as I'd like to do it for them, the same goes as above.
The President of the USA (whoever it may be at the time) - that'd probably fetch me a Congressional Medal of Honor and an automatic citizenship. Plus, I'd do anything to stop Dick Cheney from becoming President (even if it means taking a bullet for Dubya).
I probably forgot to mention a few people... but that's only because it's late at night (or early in the morning) and I'm starting to get bored with this. And some people are still in the interim stage where they're not quite there yet.

What is your list?

16. Zambian Infant #1157... the cure for depression

2006-10-20T23:16:00.000-05:00

Everybody occasionally feels depressed. Relationships... school... work... family... there is a plethora of reasons. You may be overwhelmed with more tasks than you have time for... or you may be struggling with a core belief in your basic life philosophy... or you may be upset because no way exists for you to get 7 hours of sleep tonight.

So what do you do? Well, every single time I feel that life has been treating me unfairly... I promptly see a picture of Zambian Infant #1157.

I worked with a sample from Zambian Infant #1157 when I was doing HIV resesarch at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The sample was modified and a strain (known as SHIV1157) was produced... and whenever anybody talked about SHIV1157 or its derivatives, they thought of a virus. I'm not sure if anybody knew where the virus came from or why it was numbered as it was... I imagine that there were 2000 infants in a study and the 1157th one had an interesting viral strain.

Zambian Infant #1157, last time I checked, was 6 or 7 years old and still alive, battling HIV. He is one of the few infants born with HIV who manages to survive beyond a year or two. And his parents probably consider themselves lucky because he gets good medical care because he has such a unique viral strain.

Zambian Infant #1157, an impoverished child who was born with HIV, is lucky. He is still alive at age 7 and his viral strain is used wordlwide in HIV research.

So what is unlucky in Zambia? And who am I to be upset about my bad stroke of luck?

I look to the right at the PowerBook that I recently convinced my boss to upgrade to a MacBook Pro, I look to the left at the Ford Taurus that I hate because it is one of the few cars that succeeds in mixing bad power with bad gas mileage, and I look above my head at the projector that I complain about because I don't have cable and can't watch the Cardinals play 162 times every year.

Until the day that I can't afford to eat and my son is born with HIV, I am in no place to complain.

15. Death-defying feats... does Steve Irwin classify as a tragedy?

2006-09-07T22:23:00.000-05:00

A variety of "tragic" events will, unfortunately, occur throughout time. 16-year olds will be involved in car accidents, oblivious HIV-positive mothers in Subsaharan Africa will give birth to infected offspring, and occasionally, terrorists will blow themselves up, and occasionally, somebody will be stung in the heart by a stingray.

Which of these things is not like the others? Simple IQ test question.

I think this group is more fitting: occasionally, somebody will fall off of a motorcycle during a "death-defying" stunt... or somebody who has a lot of unprotected homosexual sex will be diagnosed with HIV... or a member of the bomb squad will blow himself up... or a crazy Australian (who likes to feed wild crocodiles while carrying his infant child) will, after surviving a thousand instances of disturbing dangerous wild animals in their natural habitats, be stung in the heart by a stingray.

I liked Steve Irwin and I was as upset about his death as any average American... but I just want to remind people of the old idiom: "you play with fire, you wind up burned"... "you play with stingrays, you wind up stung."

At least he can serve as a posthumous example of what NOT to do (for kids). Don't play with crocodiles and stingrays... because if you do, they'll eventually kill you.

14. The end of consistency

2006-08-16T12:01:00.000-05:00

Maybe I am more emotional than a man should be, maybe I am the worst carnivore ever, maybe I am simply the weak offspring of two strong parents. But after three years of raising a fish, you get attached.

They weren't just any fish... these fish stuck with me through thick and thin, through richer and poorer, through happy and sad; they are the only thing in my life that has been consistent over these years that have been so volatile. There has been depression and rebirth, there have been destructive moments and refreshing ones, there have been regrets and endeavors, but the fish have been swimming, as always, in the 10-gallon tank. There has been heartbreak and recovery, there have been mistakes and good decisions, and there have been countless episodes of Scrubs, but the fish don't go away after 100 episodes; they simply swim around the 10-gallon tank and eat whatever fish food is sent their way.

But, as with any other trend, this consistency had to come to an end. The fish had become far larger than what is recommended for a 10-gallon tank, so I was forced to acquire a new, larger tank. My roommates and my friends and I were excited to supply the new tank with a filter, rocks, decorations, and typical functional necessities, but we went one step too far... a new algae-eating fish from Walmart to keep the tank clean, unlike the previous tank. We transferred the fish to the new tank; little did we know that the Walmart fish was, like many other Walmart fish, infected. It did not take long for it to die, and my fish followed soon after.

I stared at those sick fish for hours; I know that fish don't supposedly feel emotion, but I don't think I've ever seen them so sad. They flocked together as long as they were all reasonably healthy and then the smallest one quarantined itself. I bought some water treatments that were supposed to cure them, but I couldn't save any of them; over the course of the next two or three days, they were all gone.

I know, they're just fish, but I've been dreaming about them. I had a dream that I never took the last one to die out of the tank and that it was magically cured. But then the cured one turned out to be the ghost of the sick fish; the original fish still floated at the top of the tank. I was excited for a second.

Goodbye fish; may you rest in peace.

13. Resurrection of this Blog

2006-06-05T05:56:00.000-05:00

This blog has seen no new posts for the past three and a half months. I would like to attribute this to the fact that I have had nothing to write about.

The reason why I have had nothing to write about is, in case you haven't noticed, that my blog posts have been progressively more and more serious and profound. My first posts were jokes (literally), but I eventually began to write about trends in education, sociology, science, and, finally, religion.

My latest post, which required the reader to choose between a belief in God and a belief in a total lack of human conscious control over anything, was probably the most profound thought that has ever entered my mind. I made the claim that any atheist must believe that every universal occurrence is the result of a certain molecular interaction and that these interactions will occur in a given way, no matter what. Therefore, atheists believe that no matter what, we will make the same decisions and the outcome of the world will be the same; whether or not this is true, I doubt that most atheists realize that by claiming that there is no supernatural power in the world, they are stating that there is no form of "human" control over the world.

I found it difficult to write something more profound than this. Therefore, I just wrote nothing. Starting today, I will start writing again... regardless of how deep of an issue I am writing about.

12. Randomness, Predestination, and God

2006-02-16T15:24:00.000-06:00

All physical forces can be explained and predicted using particle physics. Any chemical reactions, genetic conjugations, and simple human decisions are possible to predict with perfect precision by a powerful computer with a working knowledge of every physical force in the universe. There is no such thing as "random"... all of our decisions are governed by electrical pulses and all environmental factors are governed by photons of determinable wavelength and by interatoic interactions with calculable forces and momenta.

Scientists in every field use the concept of "randomness" to avoid calculating all of these factors (which, of course, is practically impossible) when the factors can be simply replaced by statistics. When such statistics are accepted, results will traditionally vary from expected results due to "randomness" or the "standard deviation."

So, if randomness is not truly random and can be explained by physical forces, then is everything in the world predestined?

Most people will be inclinded to say "no." But why not? You like to think that you are in control of your life? Me too.

But everything in my life can be explained by a physical force. Everything can be predicted by a very advanced science whose surface has yet to be skimmed. So yes, I am in control of my life, but electrons and photons are in control of me.

Then who am I?

Am I a creation of God or a product of evolution? Or both?

If I am not a creation of God, then the world is controlled by physical principles and not by independent thinking. If you are not a creation of God, then you are merely an amalgamation of subatomic particles which work together to do things... not only are you not in control, but "you" do not even exist. Your mind is just a collection of neurons that is only different from other minds becuse of slight differences in the neurons. You are nothing more than particles that do not differentiate you from anybody else. And these particles will interact in the same way with their surroundings no matter what you decide - because they control your "decisions."

If I am a creation of God, then He provided me with a soul that cannot be explained by physical means. I can make decisions because He gave me free will and I can control my fate.

Why? I don't know. I don't really care. All that matters is that if I am a creation of God, then I am in control of my life. If I am a creation of God, then I can make decisions. I can control my neural impulses because I exist as more than just a product of these impulses.

So is the concept of randomness truly nonexistent? Does everything in the world occur with a precise plan?

Or do we have some control?

11. Evolution: Mathematically Possible

2006-02-03T09:26:00.000-06:00

Many people argue that evolution, notwithstanding all evidence found by science, simply doesn't make sense. How can a bacteria, they say, simply become a human, even if it has a billion years to do it? How did homo habilis suddenly decide to "get taller" one day and "evolve" into modern man?

I will not devote a great deal of time here to natural selection; it is clear that, if a mutation in an individual organism is a favorable one, that organism will live on and reproduce. The organisms I will use in this pseud0-proof are two HIV strains that I work with on a daily basis, HXB2 and 93TH253; more specifically, I will talk about a gene known as the "RT gene" (if you are some form of biologist, I apologize for the oversimplification). I chose these two strains solely because I know a lot about them and I can probably answer any questions; these strains are no more adequate in proving my point than any other two strains.

HXB2 comprises a major branch on the HIV "family tree" (a.k.a. the phylogenetic tree, for those of you who know a little bit about genomics). It was first found in France in 1983, and a great deal of humans is now infected with one of the many mutated variations of HXB2.

One of these mutated variations, 93TH253, was found in 1993 in Thailand. The RT gene of this strain has well over 90 mutations, which comprises over 10% of the gene. Therefore, let's be safe and say that IT IS POSSIBLE for 10% of a gene in a simple organism to mutate within ten years.

Now let's assume that in only 20% of cases (1 out of 5) will this 10% change in a gene result in a 5% increase in gene size (this is, again, a very safe estimate) while the other 80% of cases will either result in insignificant size changes or a decrease in size.

Therefore, in ten years, a gene has a 20% chance of increasing in size by 5%.
Take 20% of 5% (equals 1%).
So, in ten years, a gene may very plausibly increase in size by 1%.
So, in ten years, a gene's size may plausibly increase to 101% (1.01 times) its original size.
If this is true, in a mere thirty thousand years, a gene's size can increase to 9 trillion (9,000,000,000,000) times its original size. After thirty thousand more years, it will be 9 trillion times that amount (81,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

The human genome is about 3 trillion bases long and took over a billion years to create.

The human genome is one-third the size and took over thirty thousand times as long to create as this theoretical genome.

30,000 / (1/3) = 90,000.

Therefore, by this interpretation, there is a 1/90,000 chance that these calculations are incorrect and that evolution is, as a matter of fact, impossible.

Remember that all of these calculations are approximations and are not 100% correct... the actual probability may be 1/60,000 and it may be 1/120,000.

10. Writer's Block

2006-01-26T14:59:00.000-06:00

What do you do when you have writer's block? I'm in the mood to write (I'm sitting in class and, therefore, I have nothing better to do) but I can think of absolutely nothing to write about. I have plenty of opinions, but none that you care about. I mean, what could it mean to you if Punjabi groundsmen seem to be preparing horribly draw-oriented batsmen's pitches in their cricket stadiums? Why would you care if I just finished taking a final exam that I postponed because I was going to Pakistan?

And there are plenty of things that readers care about, but I really don't want to write about them. If I poured out my opinions on P.Diddy & Jennifer or Nick & Jessica or Ben & Jennifer or Brad & Jennifer or Brad & Angelina or Tom & Angelina or Tom & Katie or Aishwariya & the guy from Masti or whoever the hot new couple is in Hollywood or Bollywood (forgive me if one of the couples I mentioned is broken up by now), then I'm sure I'd have plenty of readers. And readers would leave comments like "yeah... Nick and Angelina would make such a cute couple!!!! Nick's so hot!!!! I wish I was Jessica!!!! heehee giggle giggle!!!! I don't have the capacity to challenge myself in my own life, so I like to worry about other people's lives!!!!"

I apologize to whoever is currently reading this for killing a couple of your brain cells.

9. Evolution and Science Education

2006-01-19T15:32:00.000-06:00

Scott Adams (the genius who draws Dilbert cartoons and writes a pretty damn good blog) recently made a post his blog (click here to see it) that concerns how he knows nothing about evolution, but believes it because scientists -- his specific example mentioned microbiologists -- say that it must be true. He basically said that a person who is vehemently opposed to the concept of evolution would make a "crappy microbiologist."

As a religious microbiologist, I was delighted that he mentioned that issue. No reasonable microbiologist can deny the concept of evolution; a plethora of microbiology experiments not only rely on evolution as background information, but also validate the fact that it happens. Even as I type this post, I am sitting in the lab and waiting for the results of such an experiment.

Mutations happen in every species; this is undeniable. Even in humans, every person has unique characteristics that define the difference in their respective genomes. Larger distinctions exist in populations that were isolated from one another for thousands of years, as evidenced by the clear variations in genetic traits between East Asians, South Asians, Africans, Europeans, Australian Aborigines, and Native Americans. When we go a little bit farther back in time and get a little bit broader in the spectrum of life, clear variations exist in genetic traits between chimpanzees, humans, and the various other members of the ape family. The question is, "have we had enough time for our genomes to change from a bacterial genome to a monkey genome?"

Whether or not evolution gave rise to us the way we are today, I can guarantee you (based on experiments that I have performed with my own two hands) that evolution does, as a matter of fact, happen. Maybe the world was made as it is today and evolution started afterwards (although a paleontologist would kick me for saying that), but evolution is happening right now for all scientific purposes.

Typically, the main reason why we care about history is to learn how to handle the future. We only really care about evolution because (notwithstanding the "curiosity" factor) understanding evolution helps us plan future scientific experiments in, among other fields, microbiology. Therefore, whether or not evolution happened in the past, all that really matters is that it's happening now.

Anyway, my point is that for all practical purposes, it shouldn't matter whether evolution happened. We should still learn about it in school because, even if it's not true, it's a great guide for experiments. If you choose not to believe in it, that's fine, but remember that it can explain all physical principles and its validity can be assumed for any study. So, even if you believe that evolution didn't happen, keep in mind when you're planning some form of study that evolution is happening now (take my word for it) and, assuming that recorded history wasn't simply fabricated, has been happening for all of recorded history.

But if you do care about history, then stay tuned...

COMING SOON, TO A BLOG NEAR YOU:
Shan uses a mathematical proof (involving probabilities) to determine whether evolution in history is plausible.

8. Trust

2006-01-09T19:01:00.000-06:00

I generally attempt to be laid back and accept the world as it is. However, there are a few things that bother me to the extent that I am probably developing a brain tumor just by thinking about it. I don't have many of these pet-peeves, but here is all that I can think of:

1. Lies
2. People accusing me of lying
3. Murder
4. Stubbornness

As an honest man, I would like to advocate a provision that requires a form of lie detector to be affixed to everybody. This would easily solve many of the problems aforementioned. Although I have occasionally done something to lose an element of trustworthiness, I would be delighted if I had hard evidence to prove every correct statement I made.

I fail to understand why people must accuse me of lying, especially about subjects where I have nothing to gain from lying. So, I would like to hereby formulate this new philosophy:

Choose to either trust a person or to not trust a person, and be very selective about who you trust. If you trust a person:
1. Believe everything they say, and:
2. Expect from them what they expect from themselves; applaud them when you get more, chastise them when you get less.
If you do not trust a person:
1. Believe only what is believable, but:
2. Expect nothing from them; applaud them when you get more and chastise them only if they hurt you.

By following these simple guidelines, a person will be affected much less adversely by the actions of others.

Post comments to this blog if you disagree or if you have suggestions; trust and truth are topics that I love to hear others' opinions about.

7. A Prick in Perfection

2006-01-02T12:48:00.000-06:00

We, as human beings, are always striving for perfection. We want the perfect job, the perfect partner, and the perfect family. In this quest, however, few succeed in any of their aspirations for even a short period of time.
Many people, including myself until recently, say that you should aim high if you want to come near your goal. Nevertheless, I would like to hereby make a case against the strife for perfection on these grounds:

The navigator on a journey to perfection will be most deeply hurt by an imperfection when the journey is nearly complete.

The perfect job or the perfect partner or the perfect family is, of course, unattainable; many people are simply trying to get as close to it as possible. The navigator of a ship on its journey to perfection will learn when he nears his destination that in the land of perfection, any small imperfection in the ship can cause it to sink.

When a situation is in a perfect state, it cannot tolerate any misgivings. Anything that happens that is less than expected will be devastating. A family of people who hates each other will be relatively unaffected if one of the cousins becomes a wanted criminal; however, a "perfect" family will become distraught if one of the cousins fails to graduate from medical school.

When a near-perfect state is attained, the attainers are clearly very capable of maintaining such a state. However, the negative influence will come from outside rather than inside. Not only can one bad girlfriend or wife or boyfriend or husband can destroy a person's interactions with their perfect family, but collections of militant tribes has succeeded multiple times in destroying the potency of an entire empire (as with the Romans, the Holy Roman Empire, the Mongols, Alexander's empire, the British Empire, and a multitude of others). The founder of the "perfect" state may be spared, but the perfection itself will find its way into a tailspin.

A state of near-perfection can be maintained only in an isolated society; once outside influences become involved, the innocent inhabitants of the perfect society are exposed to the rest of the world and are rarely able to maintain their perfection. They will instead fall into the clutches of temptation and, as many wealthy families can attest to, will annihilate the hard work of their predecessors in less than a generation's time.

6. The Death of the Reformation

2005-12-06T01:31:00.000-06:00

I HAVE HEAVILY MODIFIED THIS POST (AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, 2am)... IF YOU READ THE POST BEFORE DECEMBER 8, PLEASE READ IT AGAIN.

A multitude of periods of enlightenment have passed throughout the course of time as humanity watches and learns. Various cultures in both the New World and the Old World have undergone times when the ignorance of the past is replaced by an age of learning. Most recently, the end of the Dark Ages of Europe in the 1500's eventually gave rise to the commencement of a time when a lack of complete religious submission was no longer considered unacceptable. When Renaissance thinkers rediscovered the teachings of Socrates and his successors, a new era of religious thought was invoked.

The spirit of the Reformation is dead. Modern religious thinking seems to simply involve affirmation of one's current thoughts rather than the formulation of reasonable judgements. Clearly incorrect opinions are often accepted and are considered "self-explanatory" by those who cannot explain them. How was Jesus's death related to my sins; why is an eternity in heaven considered a punishment for him? What exactly is the Trinity? Why do you think this conversation is "going nowhere" just because your arguments are nonsensical?

Today, it seems that independent religious thinking is dismissed as easily as it was during the Dark Ages. One cannot be Muslim without following the Hadith, one cannot be Christian without believing in the Trinity. Many Muslims ignore the fact that only the Quran is still present in its pure form and that this idea forms the very basis of our beliefs; many Christians ignore the fact that Jesus never claimed to be a member of a Trinity and that this concept was a one of Paul's many fabrications (which I can explain later if you want). Many Muslims deny the beliefs of certain other Muslims simply because they drink alcohol or have promiscuous sex; they seem to ignore the fact that a Muslim becomes a Muslim by simply asserting the oneness of God and by accepting His word as true. Many Muslims deny the beliefs of a peer who lives his life simply based on the teachings of the Quran rather than taking verbatim the traditions that have been produced over the course of history.

They may deny the purity of somebody's faith when they want to, but they are not the ones who are capable of judging. I can say that Mohammad Yousuf is not a true Muslim and that he only converted out of pressure from the rest of the Pakistani cricket team, but only Yousuf and God know his true intentions. I can say that Osama bin Laden misinterprets the Quran and induces many people to follow him blindly, but the final judgement still resides with God. Nobody can deny the intentions behind anybody else's actions.

Osama's followers, however, similarly to Hitler's followers, epitomize the death of the Reformation. They are incapable of forming their own thoughts and simply follow a ridiculous opinion solely because it is advocated by an eloquent speaker with political power. Many people still fail to understand how so many people can agree with such extremist philosophies; after reading Mein Kampf, however, I understand how. Osama probably uses the same tactics as Hitler did; he simply has to convince the populace that he is eradicating an evil population.

Modern education promotes the absorbance of facts. Only the more advanced courses will allow independent thinking and in today's world, such a restriction of independence is nothing short of evil. Such restrictions will inevitably lead to another Hitler or another Osama or another Stalin or another Bush (God forbid). Who gives us our facts? Are they reliable? Were they invented by an anti-semitic lunatic, were they invented by an extremist Westernization-phobic militant, were they invented by a sadistic authoritarian tyrant, or were they invented by a war-mongering Texan oil tycoon? A plethora of great thinkers has established the great society that we live in today... Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he were to see the requirements to earn a Ph. D. at a modern university.

5. Proposal for Research to Inhibit the Effects of Estrogen

2005-11-27T23:20:00.000-06:00

It has always been a well-known fact that the presence of estrogen in one's body causes a multitude of negative side effects that have plagued heterosexual males since the time of Adam and Eve. This affliction, however, is caused by a gene that is currently excessively present in 50% of the human population; due to its mysterious nature, this gene is traditionally referred to as the "X-chromosome." Despite current genetic engineering efforts, we have been unable to modify the chromosome to prevent the effects of estrogen, which are clearly harmful and are caused when a person has two X-chromosomes instead of one.
Most men can attest to the fact that those suffering from "estrogenitis" tend to have clear mental disturbances caused by the excess hormone. They will typically have a relatively complex mind and are nearly incapable of expressing their true feelings. Anything that they desire will be expressed in an encrypted form; for example, "I'll be mad at you if you get me a birthday present this year" means "get me an amazing present."

I would like to propose two potential solutions:
1. We devote more money to X-chromosome research (it will still be cheaper than what we spend on our girlfriends/wives). It is highly likely that with the proper studies, a genetically-engineered X-chromosome can be produced that will involve restricted production of estrogen.
2. Women learn to express their true feelings because men, despite their seeming incapacity to perform tasks, are perfectly capable of understanding. I suggest that every woman makes a list of every man that she may be interested in and every man do likewise for women; such a task can be performed secretly over the Internet, and a computer program will then match the proper women and men based on the interest rankings that each one establishes. After this point, the woman ceases to be secretive with the man and tells him exactly what she wants for the rest of her life and the man satisfies the desires that he is capable of satisfying.

The theory can be further developed, but is clearly a start to better interactions between men and women.

4. Disclaimer

2005-11-27T16:50:00.000-06:00

This is my informal disclaimer. I would like to establish that if you like to be politically correct or are easily offended by jokes (even when they are completely non-serious), you will probably not enjoy my informal writing. However, I do write an occasional formal essay that may appeal to you more.

-I am laid back and I like to make jokes. I also like to reflect and, once in a while, I will have a serious conversation. My serious conversations, nevertheless, are rarely free of jokes.

-I am religious enough to avoid alcohol and pork, but I do not like to live my life based on what is written in the Hadith (because I can't validate their reliability... sorry to all the Shias that I just offended, but this is an entirely different discussion). Therefore, if something is not specifically mentioned in the Quran, I will treat it as wisdom rather than as laws.

-I always question my worldviews and am always willing to hear your point of view, whether or not it is consistent with mine. You can NEVER offend me (many people have tried).

-I talk too much.

-I hate being alone... I always prefer the company of others. I have learned that this is atypical for somebody who enjoys writing, but I am more of a thinker than a writer and I like to hear everybody's perspective before I form a solid opinion (which will, however, still be malleable). Therefore, feel free to come over to my apartment.

If you're still reading, then your name is probably Manu ben Johny and you probably know what I'm thinking right now, so I don't need to tell you.

3. A Mathematical Justification for my Life Theory

2005-11-24T22:55:00.000-06:00

Time is money; therefore, time=money
Girls require time and girls require money; therefore, girls = (time)(money)
Since time = money, girls = (money)(money) = (money)^2
Money, of course, is the root of all evil; therefore, girls = (the root of all evil)^2

So, girls = (the square root of evil)^2
Therefore, girls = evil

2. The Taxonomy of the Campus Desis

2005-11-23T20:27:00.000-06:00

I have determined that all of the brown people on any campus can be classified into one of many groups. Although exceptions exist, we can typically ignore these because generalizations and stereotypes are much more fun than political correctness.

1. The ABCD/Whitewashed/Oreos
The well-known Oreos... brown on the outside, white on the inside. Although the term ABCD (American-born confused Desi) traditionally has a derogatory connotation, I still attest that there is nothing wrong with accepting American culture as long as you retain your core family values. Typically, it is hard to distinguish the whitewashed Desi from a whitewashed Hispanic or African-American person... they speak only English and will typically know little about their history beyond the fact that their "parents came from India."
These people, despite their title, are actually the least confused of all: they have embraced their American side and they consider themselves as American as any white person who has been in the country for the same number of generations.

Also affiliates with: Ghetto Gujjus, Old Immigrants

2. The Ghetto Gujjus
Although they do not necessarily need to be Gujju, the classical example is Gujarati (a few are Punjabi and the rest are assorted). These people are very similar to the whitewashed group and are often still considered "ABCD." However, they play more basketball, listen to more rap music, and wear baggier clothes... the most successful Ghetto Gujjus are often confused with an African-American.
The Ghetto Gujjus can typically be identified by their accent, which is often an entertaining mixture between an Indian accent and a ghetto accent, and since they usually have roots in Chicago, New York, or another city with a large Desi population, they will typically speak at least one Indian language.

Also affiliates with: ABCDs, Old Immigrants, Western-born Desis

3. The New Immigrants
Many refer to them as "Fresh off the Boat," but even if they have accents and large remnants of Desi culture left in them, these are typically some of the coolest Desis on campus. Most members of this group are seeking a graduate degree in Engineering, although a good portion are also in the fields of Chemistry and Biology. They do their best to assimilate into traditional American society by playing basketball and getting drunk every weekend, but they will always retain their knowledge of their background. They will have groups of friends, but due to the size of this class of people, they are rarely clique-forming.
The New Immigrants can nearly always be identified by their accent and their level of "newness" can usually be assessed by the thickness of their accent. The newest immigrants will also usually still don apparel and hairstyles that came with them from India, and anybody with a concept of the differences in fashion can spot a new immigrant from a substantial distance.
Pakistani immigrants can usually be differentiated from Indian immigrants by their choice of hairstyle and clothing. Pakistanis will nearly always have longer hair that is styled in one of many various fashions and will generally prefer brand-name clothing as per fashions in Pakistan. Most others, meanwhile, will have short hair that, if styled, is probably oiled. Their clothes will usually be tighter-fitting and less distinguishable, since they were probably custom-made by a darzi.

Also affiliates with: Old Immigrants

4. The Old Immigrants
This class of people has been in the US for around 6-12 years, which equates to about half their life; their characteristics are rarely easy to generalize. The group includes stoner Muslims, Gujjus who refuse to accept American culture, Pakistanis who try to distance themselves from everything Desi, and people who, after being shielded from American culture by their parents for nine years, are finally discovering the "wonders" of the American concept of "sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll" (although most prefer hip-hop). The old immigrants can usually also be categorized into one of the other classes.
They can rarely be differentiated from other groups.

Also affiliates with: all other categories

5. The Western-born Desis who refuse to be American
This is the most interesting class of Desis. They have been born and raised in the US, Canada, England, or a similar part of the world. For some reason, however, they choose to block out American culture and will rarely have seen classic Western-made movies (i.e. "Caddyshack," "Star Wars") or know classic Western-made music (i.e. Nirvana, U2). Their favorite movies are "DDLJ," "HDDCS," and "AAA," and they are more up-to-date with Indian music than most of the New Immigrants. Interestingly enough, they have the most Desi friends and the least non-Desi friends and they easily fall into cliques.
They typically wear fashionable clothes and typically have no accent, so when alone, they are difficult to differentiate from the ABCDs. However, they go everywhere in their Desi groups, making their identification slightly easier.

Also affiliates with: Old Immigrants, Ghetto Gujjus

6. The Smart Kids
This group, similarly to the Old Immigrants, is very diverse. Most of the members of the group do not prefer to affiliate solely with Desis, although they may be recent immigrants. To classify, the Smart Kid must have graduated from an American high school, where their friends were as culturally diverse as anybody's (although they prefer to affiliate with other Smart Kids, regardless of ethnic background). A significant portion of the Smart Kids have immigrated, and even if they were born in the US, their exposure to American culture was limited to school and their exposure to Desi culture was limited to an occasional movie; the culture that they were raised with was "study" culture.
They can typically be spotted in the Life Sciences buildings or at the medical school. They will look decently Desi, but will only occasionally affiliate with the Desi clique. Their mannerisms and overall composure signify their intelligent upbringing.

Also affiliates with: Everybody

Let me know if I missed anything... I'd be glad to add your group of people if I missed you...

Shan's rant #1

2005-11-22T00:57:00.000-06:00

I hereby kick off this blog. Thanks to Sharanya for the idea and thanks to Prashanth for the inspiration (I've never actually met or talked to Prashanth, but Sharanya and Bijal speak very highly of him). I tend to have a lot to say... if I ever offend you, please tell me; I like to hear other people's perspectives. Most likely, if I offended you, I was probably right and you were probably wrong, but I'd still like to hear your opinion... haha...

Anyway... I tend to stand by my principles, but my opinions are as malleable as those advocated by anybody with an open mind. Feel free to contradict any claims that I might make.