The new blog

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

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 I don't live in Pakistan at the moment, so my views may be outdated...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)

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

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:

1. You live as if God exists.
1. If you're right, you go to Heaven and the gain is infinite.
2. If you're wrong, there is no gain and little loss.
   
2. You live as if God does not exist.
1. If you're right, there is no gain and no loss.
2. 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

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?

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

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?

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

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.