Why I am voting for... Obama!

Let me preface my remarks by saying that it really does not matter who I vote for - New York will almost certainly go Democratic, as it always does, and my drop in the ocean has no real value.  The reality is that it is only people who live in swing states who actually have a voice in determining who is President, due to our Electoral College system (it certainly a disadvantage of the system, but then again if we did not have it, then no one would care about little states, and we would get a string of Presidents from big cities in big states.  Maybe.)

So, now that you know that my vote is nearly irrelevant, let me tell you that I will use it to support Obama for President.  I was very disappointed in 2000, when McCain lost the primary battle to Bush, so much so that when I first had the right to vote in a Presidential election, I cast in a write-in ballot for McCain in 2004.  To me he seemed to embody the perfect politician - one who served his country not just in name, but in deed, fighting as a soldier for decades.  Much has been said of his POW experience - I do not think that being a prisoner of war qualifies someone for the Presidency, but it did reveal much about his character, particularly his decision not repatriate ahead of his fellow prisoners (in all honesty, if we were injured, tortured, and living in hellish conditions, would we not jump at the chance to get freedom, regardless of the propaganda advantage for the enemy?)

More than his experience, I agree with McCain on a variety of issues.  His conservative social stance, his fiscal scruples - I believe that he would cut down considerably on government waste and would return to an era of balanced budgets, and just his demeanor on the Senate floor.  He was not afraid of working with the Democrats (campaign finance reform, judicial nominations, etc.) and he favors British style accountability to Congress, by promising to appear before Congress to answer questions on government business (much like Prime Minister's Questions in the UK.)  He is truly a reformer and, in my opinion, a proven leader.

Compare that to Obama - very limited experience, I cannot think of a single important legislative achievement in the US Senate on his part.  He is also a consummate politician, when I first heard of him, I thought that he was a breath of fresh air, a real "change" bringer.  The reality is that he is just like any other politician - when no one knew anything about him, he pledged for public funding, something he has now turned his back on, given his fundraising machinery.  When he was in the Illinois Senate, he voted "Present" on numerous issues, very likely because even then he had his sights on higher office and did not wish to jeopardize that status with potentially embarrassing votes.  His life story is uninspiring - being a community organizer is certainly commendable, but it does not compare to a lifetime of service to country, as embodied by McCain.

And so, given all this, why am I voting for Obama?  Taxes and Palin!

Even though I believe McCain would be a better President in terms of his character and experience, I am a poor medical student who has to worry about his pocket book.  Obama has promised tax cuts to those whose income is below a certain threshold, which means that certainly and I and very likely my family will benefit.  McCain also has a tax cutting plan, but it is not as favorable to my circumstances as Obama's plan.  Obama also has ideas regarding universal health care, but in all honesty nothing will come to fruition there.

In terms of economic policy, we have to be honest and acknowledge that the President has little sway over this realm, even though the President is often (unfairly) credited in an economic boom and almost always (again unfairly) blamed in a downturn.  Even in foreign policy, I do not envisage big changes on the issues that matter between Obama and McCain (you may disagree and scream "IRAQ!!!!", but regardless of who will be elected, US troops will be out in the next four years, and deaths there have been decreasing steadily, making this a relative non-issue.)

And the second reason - Palin.  While I admire McCain for making a seemingly incredibly intelligent decision - picking a woman (breaks the "history breaking" monopoly that Obama had, and maybe appealing to disgruntled Hillary supporters, although the latter is farfetched,) and more importantly picking an unconventional conservative, someone who will energize his base for free (after all, the VP does not make policy,) and that invigorates his campaign with the theme of real change, which I honestly think McCain is more capable of delivering.

All that said, I don't know if McCain will live for the next four years - the man is old.  While this does not affect my vote for him by itself (old people are wise, at least I think McCain is) it does mean that I have to actually care about his VP pick (unlike Biden, who is completely irrelevant.)  If, heaven forbid, President McCain were to die in office, the prospect of a President Palin would be awful.  It would basically be like having a female Bush in office - inexperienced, neo-conservative, and a threat to world stability (imagine that President Palin had to deal with China invading Taiwan, Pakistan's government collapsing and its nukes getting loose, or a domestic terrorist attack.)  The same might almost be said of Obama, although I think his Senate experience (however brief) and his long campaign preparation makes him considerably more ready.

So, to conclude:

-Voting in a presidential election in New York is almost pointless, as all the electoral votes will go to Obama anyway. 

-McCain is a far better leader and has much stronger character and more widespread experience than Obama.  He has actually gotten things done in the Senate, and is a more qualified leader.

-I will still vote for Obama, because I will benefit from his tax policy and because I am scared of a President Palin.

New Beginnings?

I am now two weeks deep into the second year of medical school, and I must say that for all the fuss, things have been going far better than expected.  I suppose the tougher parts lay ahead, but Microbiology has been less stressful than I had imagined.

For this year, I have decided that instead of slacking off continuously and panicking a couple of weeks before the test, that I would simply do my best to stay current with all the material.  As of today I am behind on Friday's material, but that is what Sunday is for, and so the plan seems to be working.

Of course, I doubt it will make me do any better - I rather expect that I will be spending more time studying and my grades will remain about the same, possibly a little worse (for all the stress that last minute studying entails, the pressure tends to focus the mind and crystalize concepts far more efficiently than one might see with steady studying.)  All the same, I like the reduced stress and diminshed feelings of guilt that I am getting under this new system.

Ramadan also started earlier this week.  The first two or three days I had the mixed blessing of having a cold - on the one hand colds suck and I am incredibly grateful that I no longer have any symptoms, but on the other hand it did serve as a potent appetite suppressant and it made my transition into fasting quite smooth... oh how the universe operates in mysterious ways.

I find Ramadan to be a truly great time.  First, I think I have lost a couple of pants sizes, going back to 32 (for the past few months I was quite inconsolable over the fact that I had to wear a size 34, utterly inconsolable.)

More importantly though, I believe that it gives one time to think and reflect, and instills a deep peace in the mind and the soul.  When you are no longer worried with pleasing the tyranny of the stomach, the constant call for nourishment, and instead rely a bit on some self-control, the feeling you get is quite superb. 

This has given me some insight as to who I am.  I normally hate self-description, I find that people who describe themselves are often arrogant, greatly underestimating their abilities and talents, or worse, dishonest by being overly modest and obscuring their true self under the guise of propriety.

No - the honest truth is this:

I believe that I am a jerk.  I was not always this way - I recall a good old time when I was positively polite beyond all imagination, looking out for everyone's best interest before considering my own (if I even considered myself,) and trying to live to the highest ideals imaginable.

I miss that person - but it seems that with the passage of time that my normally whimsical or "maverick" behavior has lost much of its redeeming qualities, leaving me a bitterly cynical, unfunny person.  Sometimes I wonder how my housemates and colleagues ever put up with me.  (The answer, of course, is that they are also immensely littered with faults, and so I suppose it makes us all even.)

The crutch of academic achievement, which got me through many a day in my middle and high school years is similarly gone - I am instead lucky to be "mediocre," although I don't feel too bad about it.  Why don't I feel bad, well my curriculum is not based on intelligence (or so I tell myself, I hope I am right) but rather on your ability to absorb a tremendous number of facts.  If you can do that, the concepts and the logical connections are incredibly easy to grasp, but sticking the facts in (at least for me) is very difficult.

I have also become slightly more assertive.  I believe that, especially with my classmates, as long as you raise your voice a bit and pretend to speak with some authority or a hint of confidence, that those around you will listen.  I don't know if this is a universal truth or if it just true for my demographic (namely medical students,) who might be predisposed to doing that which is orthodox and seems to be accepted by all.

I am also someone who hates to be ignored or disrespected.  I suppose it is because I do my best to avoid ignoring or disrespecting others and naturally expect the same from all.  It drives me mad though - the injustice of it, when you make an effort and it is not reciprocated.

A funny story about that.  I used to be in student government back in undergrad, and I had a very interesting political career.  After my junior year, I made the decision to get out of the whole thing, but a friend of mine became Executive Vice President (a post I once held,) and that friend wanted me to stay on as Secretary of the Senate.  I suppose my friend wanted to have someone experienced close at hand, although she was very capable of doing her job.  Anyway, I decided to stay on and I rather enjoyed it - I was still involved in the goings on but from a unique perspective, and I wrote a column in the school paper (which I doubt the general public paid much attention to, but which the politicians looked at.) 

Towards the end of the year, through some complicated scandals, the President resigned, and my friend the EVP became President.  There was something like two meetings left in the year - and the general expectation (mine included I'm afraid,) was that my dear friend would appoint me in her place for those two meetings, so that I could end my undergraduate career on a high note. 

Such was not the case - and although another qualified person assumed the mantle of office, I was devestated.  I think I cried for a minute that day, come to think of it, I believe that was the last time I shed tears, some 18 months ago (that's rather interesting, try to think about the last time you cried, was it something that warranted tears?)  Anyway, I felt betrayed, cheated... the respect and trust I gave was not reciprocated, and I simmered for an opportunity to get revenge!

And revenge I did get - my friend (we are friends, it takes a great deal for me to hate someone) and I both graduated, and while I moved a short distance away to the medical school, she got herself a job in local government.  Still, the undergrads needed a "Parliamentarian" for their meetings, someone who could not be a student, and she and I were basically the two candidates fielded.

And let me tell you, though I was done with all that stuff, especially since I was bitter about how it all ended, and although I had to walk from Chapin to the SAC (a rather lengthy walk when it is the dead of winter, with a heavy bag on your shoulder,) and though it was taking valuable time that could have been spent studying in medical school - I went for it.  I had no need for this job, and it would have made much more sense for my friend (who was in "real" politics) to get it, but bloody hell I wanted my revenge!  And I got it!  It felt great.

Of course now, looking back, it might not have been the most mature decision I have ever made, and my perspective on the world has changed somewhat, but nothing gets me more angry than when someone screws me over or belittles me.  If there is a way to redress it, you bet your ass I'll find it and execute it!

That's about enough for now.  Good night. 

Honor and Cheating

On Friday afternoon, several honor committee members and I made a presentation to the first year medical class regarding the Honor Code, a document which all students are forced to sign and adhere to.

My part was primarily to tell them not to cheat or plagiarize... or else!  My intention was not to get into a philosophical discussion as to why this was necessary, but merely to briefly discuss the practical aspects, namely the disservice that cheating does to a future physician and their future patients, as well as the heavy penalty imposed on anyone caught cheating.  I uncharacteristically was able to do this in two or three minutes, and I think the overall presentation went well.  And yet, in my mind, I had some doubts of my own...

It is fairly easy (at least for me) to understand the underpinnings of prohibiting plagiarism, since it is necessary to protect the original writer or researcher with his/her intellectual property, or even more generally to defend their hard work, research, or even the unique way that they strung a few words together.  Credit should therefore be given when we use the work or ideas of others, which then allows us to use that knowledge to meet our purposes.

With cheating though, I am not so sure.  The reason being that while I was thinking about my presentation, I was about to use the "equal opportunity" argument - that we could not tolerate cheating because every student had to have an equal chance to succeed.  Yet that is inherently impossible. 

Each student has a different IQ, with varying capacities to learn, to memorize and regurgitate, and to process.  Each student is similarly unique in terms of their other responsibilities and the time available for studying - some have families, for instance, and there is no quota on how much studying a person can do.  Likewise (but less significant,) each student has different financial means - some might barely have enough cash to get the required text, while others might be able to afford a variety of review books, tutoring, etc.

Anyway, the point is that there is no point in pretending that each person has an equal chance to succeed.  That said, what right do I have to sit in judgment over a colleague who cheats on an exam?

"Now wait a second!" you might say.  Perhaps you will retort that if cheating is to be tolerated, who will study?  What will the point of exams be? 

What is the point of studying and taking a test?  Perhaps it is a way to ensure that required knowledge is attained, with the latter serving as a mechanism of determining the extent to which this was done.  If so, it is certainly an imperfect system, but perhaps the best we have. 

So, granted then that cheating must be prevented so that students study and learn facts and knowledge that they will need in the future, how do we deal with a person who defends their cheating because the information tested is not important or relevant?  I am sure that you can think of plenty of examples in your academic career where a test demanded the answer to a question that was pointless or irrelevant.  For instance, let us suppose that on a pharmacy exam this year, I am asked to list the maximum safe dosage of a particular antibiotic or perhaps to list three contraindications to a certain medication?  These are relevant questions, in that they might be important to know, but in real life a physician handles this problem by using their PDA, or in a worst case scenario consulting an internet source (Wikipedia) or a more experienced colleague.  We can say with great certainty that while the answer to these questions might be helpful to a physician, it is in no way essential.  What right do I then have to recommend the expulsion of a colleague, who cheated on that exam, by say consulting his PDA in the bathroom, to answer the two questions I posed earlier?

In an ideal world, irrelevant questions should not be tested.  But if they are on an exam, (or if the entire course is irrelevant,) then we must still demand full adherence to the rules and cannot tolerate cheating.  We do this because those students, either through signing a statement adhering to the "Honor Code" or through some equivalent declaration or understanding, make a commitment to keep to the rules under which their exams are given, and further commit to their classmates that they will not break these rules.  A cheater harms his colleagues, by declaring that while they may study and endure as they will, he need not do so and may unilaterally decide that the information tested is unimportant, making him free to cheat. 

The proper way to combat unfair or irrelevant questions is to petition the Professor or other authority and to constantly demand that examinations are made fair and relevant.  Easier said than done, for sure, but the only way to go.  That way, the prohibition against cheating is no longer some abstract moral idea, but a firm commitment with one's colleagues to stick by the rules in place, so that any disadvantage born by one (by an "unfair" question) is suffered by all.  Those who cheat can therefore be punished, severely if necessary, for failing to abide by the community's standards.

The Unnamed Feeling

After having a relatively productive and yet relaxing summer, I am feeling somewhat depressed (err... not in the clinical sense.  More like a feeling of sadness and tiredness, but strictly temporary in nature and without any real consequences.)  I could not quite put my finger on it, but I think I have finally figured out what has been irking me.

In two words: medical school.  Two words are not enough, however.  I am somewhat depressed not (only) because the period of relative relaxation and merriment is rapidly coming to an end, but because the challenges that will soon face me are daunting and unpleasant.

IN the first instance, there is all the studying involved.  I did a poor job of keeping up with studying last year, to nearly disastrous consequences, and while I understand that I have to study, I can never really commit to a long-term heavy duty studying program.  Perhaps this year will be different - perhaps I will find the right balance between goofing off and studying, and perhaps all will work well.  We shall see.

More than this, however, is that I feel that my colleagues have no love or respect for me.  While I can tell you with a straight face that I could care less what any one person thinks about me, since it is true enough, I believe that I have at least a subconscious need to have acceptance by the collective group or community, which in my terms is my medical class starting in a couple of days.

I have always sought opportunities (I am not sure if I went about this in a systematic, deliberate fashion, or if it all sort of happened according to some latent programming) to integrate myself in the social fabric and, if not successful in making myself indispensable, at least carving out a small niche all to my own.

To that end, I have done a variety of things.  I became the Note Service VP (even before I knew all the details of the position,) because I knew that I would have the ability to assign who writes transcripts (power) and write a weekly e-mail reminding people of their responsibilities, as well as giving me a forum to discuss other matters, if done discretely and in moderation (dialogue / integration into the social fabric.)  The same can be said of my desire to serve on the Honor Committee, my making obnoxious/amusing music videos on facebook, etc.  Even my demeanor with friends and housemates on a daily basis, complete with an exaggerated sense of exacerbation at the foolishness of the world and the death of common sense, my constant state of feigned anger, and the overly sarcastic way that I approach most things - these are all acts, designed consciously or subconsciously to curry the favor of my colleagues, or at least to get their attention, be it positive or negative.

Again, I do not place much value in the opinion of any particular person with respect to me.  This is because I believe that my own opinion of myself is at least as good, if not certainly better, than that of any other person, making their opinion (positive or negative) irrelevant.  At the same time, I do care for what the general public feels - because how else can someone measure their success or influence in the world, if not through the perspective of others? 

So then, to bring this entry to a full circle, why the dread feeling?  In past years I have felt that my life was the account of the main character in an epic story.  I might have even committed the sin of pride in thinking that there was something "unique" or "special" about me, which set me apart from the world, and made me treasured.  As I entered medical school and ever since then, I have instead been steadily gathering the feeling that my life is but a footnote (if I'm even that lucky) in an incredibly dense book about other main characters (whose lives surround mine); an incredibly dense book which no one will ever likely read, and still less likely to pay attention to my little footnote. 

If I was a more adventurous person, or if I was much more sure of myself, I would immediately quit medical school, buy some LSAT study materials, and try to get into a prestigious law school by next year.  I would then work very hard in something that I know I could do (and do well) and get myself posted as some law clerk to a Supreme Court or other high court judge, create a successful practice, make tons of cash, then get myself appointed as a federal judge - thus acquiring a perfect life, with tons of cash, a family, a fulfilling career, and a lifetime appointment as a petty dictator in a courtroom - with people standing at attention when I enter, calling me "Your Honor" and trembling as I held their life and freedom in my hands.

Instead, now that I know what ails me, I will likely just shrug it off, go on with medical school as best as I can, and try to avoid caring too much about what my classmates think about me.  While it is great to be admired, or even occasionally thought about or mentioned, it is far more important for a person to feel true to themselves, to be a person they can be proud of, and to live life according to their own personal convictions, morals, etc., and achieve their own aspirations.  These are the categories that I can control (not the fickle realm of "popularity" or "respect from others,") and which I will work on, and to Hades with the rest*!

*"and the rest be damned" might work better here as a closer.

Gambling - How to (Probably) make money

First a little rambling about my recent AC trip.  Then comes the gambling advice.  (If you want to go straight to the advice, read after the dashed "---" lines.)

I was at Atlantic City this past weekend, and had a great time.  The sand on the beach was amazing, the water was warm, the waves were gentle but still entertaining, and that was just the first couple of hours.

And while I enjoyed the whole trip, including gelatos from the food store in Tropicana, Salt Water Taffy from the Boardwalk, and having a good time with friends, the most exhilirating part was the gambling.

I hate gambling - I feel guilty if I win (for I have committed a sin, and acquired money without working for it, etc.,) and I hate it even more if I lose (for I have violated religious and moral precepts that I supposedly value, AND lost money!)  Still, for some reason, whenever I go to Atlantic City, and the one time I visited Vegas, I have had to gamble.  It sucks - I wish I had better will power, but the problem is that I always miraculously win a modest bit of money, and thus never learn my lesson.

Take for instance my last trip - after losing some $200 in two or three Roulette spins, I placed what in retrospect was a stupid bet - $100 on Black, $100 on Even, and $100 on "First 18."  The wheel spun, I cursed myself for what I knew would be a tremendous loss of hundreds of dollars in barely five minutes, and somehow the ball landed on Black 10 - I had just made back all my losses and then some.  I went on to play some blackjack and roulette that weekend, and managed to leave AC slightly up - again unfortunate since it means that I will probably be tempted to try again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the way back home, tired but not sleeping, my mind wandered and I came up with an interesting betting strategy.  After reading some Wikipedia, I found that I was not the first to come up with the idea (referred to as "Martingale Betting,") but Wikipedia and I disagree over how "flawed" it is.

Basically, the scheme works like this.  In American Roulette (the kind you'll see at Vegas, Atlantic City, and almost any other American casino,) there is a board with numbers 1-36, as well as a "0" and a "00."  Many people bet on specific numbers, since the payoff is enormous (35 to 1; i.e. if you bet $10 you can win $350,) but the odds are low (1/38, to be exact.)  I prefer to instead make the 1:1 "outside" bets.  Basically, you can bet that the number the ball lands on is either "even" or "odd", "black" or "red", "1-18" or "19-36."  Notice that while the payoff is 1:1 (You bet $10, you get $10 plus your original $10, for a grand total of $20 if you win,) the house has a slight edge, because of the "0" and "00", where you lose all (or in the Taj, half) of your bet if the ball lands there.

So basically, if you bet on "black," you have 18/38 or ~47.3% chance of winning.  The way Martingale betting works is that you bet a certain amount, but if you lose, you double your bet the next time, and keep doing so until you win.  If you had infinite wealth and there were no maximum bet limits, you will eventually be right, and win.  Obviously though, these conditions are not present in reality, but it is still a good gambling strategy.

For example, say you had $750 in your pocket, that you allocated for gambling.  You start with a $50 bet on "Black."  If you lose, your next bet is doubled ($100), and if you lose again, you keep doubling your bet, until you either win once OR run out of money.  This is what could happen:

First bet:  You win $50 (47.3%); You lose $50 (52.7%).   Your total "expected outcome" is equal to ($50*0.473) - ($50*0.527) = -$2.63

Second bet:  You win $100 (but since you lost your first bet of $50, your grand total is +$50).  The odds that you win in either the first or second bet are (1-(0.527*0.527)) = 0.723, or 72.3%; Of course you could also lose again (bringing your grand total of losses to $150), and there is a 27.7% chance that you will lose both your first and second bets.

Note though that your expected outcome has become more negative; ($50*0.723) - ($150*0.277) = ~$5.40

The trend will continue for all of your bets, unless you are unfortunate enough to have lost your first, second, third, and fourth bets, of $50, $100, $200, and $400, respectively, thus losing all $750.

What are the final odds then?

You have a 1-(0.527)^4 = 92.3% chance of winning $50, but a 7.7% chance of losing all $750 of your dollars.  The expected outcome is quite negative (-$11.60), so the casino is still making money even if you pursue this strategy.  So, why is this a good idea still?

Well, many gamblers waste $750 quite readily - with my strategy, you have a huge chance (92.3%) of winning a modest amount ($50), but in doing so you carry the risk of losing an enormous amount ($750) if you are unlucky enough to lose four consecutive 1:1 outside bets.

Heh, so if you think you are lucky enough to win at least one in four coin flips (with a coin weighted slightly against you, giving you only 47% chance of winning,) then this strategy is for you!