...we learned to fight with our minds and not our fists?

"The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race, or his holy cause." -Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer".

Riding on a promise of change and an offering of hope, now President Barack Obama channeled the frustrations of discontented Americans, transformed them into political fervor, and built perhaps the most successful presidential campaign in the history of the United States. Some attribute his success to the internet, others to his nurturing of grassroots organizations, and still others to his brilliance as a politician. While these factors may have greatly accelerated the speed of his success, if we take a look at history, we will find that Obama's success draws largely on the concepts of "Change" and "Hope". More importantly, we will also find that both "Change" and "Hope" have been implemented to sway the masses many times before.

Christianity, Nazism, Communism, the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, Zionism: Each of these mass movements fed off discontent, promised change, and offered hope to its constituents. The outcomes were different, but the mechanisms of motivation were the same. (More in depth discussion in Eric Hoffer's book)

Another mass movement of particular importance to the United States is that of organized Terrorism. Groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda feed off discontented members of Islam and ostensibly give them purpose. Our current efforts to combat terrorism focus on training our military and upgrading our weapons systems, but what if we could hit the problem at its source? How do you fight a mass movement on the ideological level?

Perhaps the best way for the current administration to find this out is for it to find out how to defeat itself.

...I talk the talk but don't walk the walk

Within the next 60 days, I will have to make the hardest decision of my life. Ultimately, this decision will affect where I go in life, who I meet, and what I do. It will challenge the foundations of my beliefs and ideals, and if I survive, it will show me who I truly am.

I am talking about the decision I must make between which medical school to attend next year. I have narrowed down my selection to two schools of roughly similar repute, but which could not be more different. The Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University is in the very heart of Chicago. It's campus is located in one of Chicago's most prestigious neighborhoods and its medical centers are home to first-class research and patient care. Despite its almost exorbitant cost of attendance (nearly $70,000 /year), I believe the connections I have already established as an undergraduate there there will help me find a high-paying position as an orthopaedic specialist (an average salary of $400k).

The University of Massachusetts Medical School is located in Worcester, Massachusetts. Worcester is the second largest city in MA next to Boston, and was once thought of as the center of the industrial revolution. Surrounding it are many low-income areas home to a medically under-served population. The cost of attendance is estimated at roughly $45000 /year tho-thirds of which will be forgiven with a promise to practice primary care for 4 years in an under-served area. The average primary care physician makes about $150k /year, and probably less in lower-income areas.

I hope you can see why this decision is so hard for me to make. When I first decided to pursue medicine, I swore to help people regardless of the money. Indeed, if the choice was between helping people and getting paid nothing, or not helping people and getting paid a ton, perhaps the choice would be easier. But in my case, I would be helping people in both scenarios (though in different ways); one scenario simply pays better than the other. And when one considers the amount of added debt (on top of undergraduate loans), the desire to raise a family, buy a house eventually etc., it seems that any rational person would opt for the higher paying option. (It is no wonder that there is a primary care physician shortage in this country. In fact, it is no wonder that we have a shortage of good public primary and secondary school teachers.) So why am I hesitating? My fear is that taking the higher paying path will become a slippery slope to the extreme mentality of not helping and getting paid a ton.

Quotes from C.G. Jung's "Memories, Dreams, Reflections"

"Several times my father had a serious talk with me. I was free to study anything I liked, he said, but if I wanted his advice I should keep away from theology. 'Be anything you like except a theologian,' he said emphatically. By this time there was a tacit agreement between us that certain things could be said or done without comment. He had never taken me to task for cutting church as often as possible and for not going to Communion any more. The father away I was from church, the better I felt. The only things I missed were the organ and the choral music, but certainly not the 'religious community.' The phrase meant nothing to me at all, for the habitual churchgoers struck me as being far less of a community than the 'worldly' folk. The latter may have been less virtuous, but on the other hand they were much nicer people, with natural emotions, more sociable and cheerful, warmer-hearted and more sincere."

-pg. 75

"About this time I had a dream which both frightened and encouraged me. It was night in some unknown place, and I was making slow and painful headway against a mighty wind. Dense fog was flying along everywhere. I had my hands cupped around a tiny light which threatened to go out at any moment. Everything depended on my keeping this little light alive. suddenly I had the feeling that something was coming up behind me. I looked back, and saw a gigantic black figure following me. But at the same moment I was conscious, in spite of my terror, that I must keep my little light going through night and wind, regardless of all dangers. When I awoke I realized at once that the figure was a 'specter of the Brocken,' my own shadow on the swirling mists, brought into being by the little light I was carrying. I knew, too , that this little light was my consciousness, the only light I have. My own understanding is the sole treasure I possess, and the greatest. Though infinitely small and fragile in comparison with the powers of darkness, it is still a light, my only light."

more guitar (not really a what if...just felt like posting)

This is a clip I made of "When She Cries" by Andy Mckee



This is his actual version on YouTube... What if I were that good? I probably wouldn't be posting this blog that's for sure ;-)

. . . I had taken Guitar Lessons?

These would probably sound better :-)

...but as they are, I just wrote these on a whim. Pay no attention to the gaping holes where I am trying to adjust my fingering :-P





I didn't write this one, but it's very easy to play...

...there was a gene for hate and it could be deleted?

Ever since the ability to filter desirable and undesirable traits from our offspring became a possibility, there has been heated debate over the implications of playing "god". Already, it is possible to have one's DNA tested and evaluated for increased risks to certain hereditary diseases. With advances in in vitro fertilization, it may also be possible selectively implant embryos with specific traits (a la the movie Gattaca).

In society's current state, such biological experimentation is often frowned upon. It is seen as unnatural and potentially unjust - only the wealthy would have access to procedures and hence, they would only become wealthier. In addition, much of the motivation for such technology is selfish. Increased intelligence or longevity only potentially benefits an individual...

...but what if such technology could eliminate a societal problem like hate? (Assuming that nothing else - like anger or love - is eliminated concurrently)

First imagine a world without hate. What would it be like? Would 9/11 have happened? Would there still be conflicts and warring in the middle east? Would riots and hate groups still exist?

Next, consider: If genetic modification would make the world a better place, shouldn't science pursue that option?

...we believed strongly enough to do something? ...but couldn't?

On one hand, he has a point. If someone I care about is about to be hit by a truck, and they are unaware, then yes, I have an obligation to let them know, or if necessary tackle them. But, what if it is their choice to get hit? What if I tackle him, and he jumps right back in front?

In C.S. Lewis's book "The Great Divorce" (which I am reading, but have not yet finished), Lewis approaches the concept of heaven and hell from an interesting perspective. Heaven is not a place for the "good", not is hell a place for the "bad". Heaven and hell are merely a means for separating the "only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' "