Have you ever wondered why weather is the preferred topic of conversation providing ultimate protection from uncomfortable silences? It’s the perfect topic, IMO, because the weather is never constant and well, there’s almost no chance of it offending anyone, unlike politics or religion. Nowadays, it seems as if weather has been displaced by gas as the number one topic. Whether it be work or at the checkout line at the supermarket (heard it the last two times I went to the supermarket), it’s definitely the hot topic. Why is that? Well, i suppose it’s because everyone ‘feels’ the pinch caused by rising gas prices and so everyone can relate. It’s on everyone’s minds as well (most of us have to fill-up once a week). The rising gas prices is the kind of calculus that even a high school dropout could comprehend (the same can’t be said about the whole sub-prime mess).

Michael Moore has this new Sicko documentary on the U.S. health care system (compared to France). While I haven’t seen this movie yet, I’ve read a column in the Businessweek article that pretty much sides with Moore’s thesis–that the French system is probably better.

What the article doesn’t mention (and I hope Moore’s movie does, but highly doubt it since it would sort of go against his argument) is that on the whole, obesity is not as big a problem in France as it is here in the U.S. So it’s likely that the French socialized healthcare system wouldn’t necessarily be better for Americans, since a lot of U.S. cases are related to being overweight (heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer, etc) and are, for the most part, preventable.

Also, most of the countries that have ‘model’ health care systems are countries with a much smaller population such as France, Canada, and the U.K. In general, with a smaller population, things are easier to manage.

Until sales from fast-food chains drop significantly and the government starts regulating the pharmaceutical industry, i can’t see how our healthcare system will improve.

I’m part of the school that believes in the following:

1.  There’s no such thing as a good candidate/politician; there are only bad apples and then there are the really rotten ones. 

2.  The main purpose of elections is to alter people’s psychology.  Doing so changes people’s expectations for the economy or at least makes it easier to play out in people’s minds.  In short, elections have more to do with economics than politics. 

3.  What is the meaning of pi? 

I love it how those in positions of power or influence (conservatives and liberals alike) like to dumb down key issues.  Take for instance, the debate over stem cell research.  You have one side saying that it’s immoral and the other side saying that it’s very practical and necessary. 

If only things were that easy to figure out…

Suppose that one’s against stem cell research…..if one day that person has disease X and the only cure is through stem cell therapy in another country (that allows stem cell research), would that person consider making the trip? 

 

Just because someone watched Terminator 2 and learned how to say “Hasta La Vista!”, does that mean that he speaks Spanish? I think it’s funny, both the frequency and the extent to which people would pad their life resumes.

Breast Implants linked to Suicides?. 

I have no way of knowing this, but I suspect that it’s mainly because those who underwent breast augmentation procedures were either those who were more likely to be depressed than the general population to begin with, or who later realized that having larger breasts wasn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.  It illustrates the absurdity of the time and value that people tend to place on such worldly things.   

I dunno about you, but I’ve lost count of how many times I’d visit a news website and see a grainy photo of a hostage in an orange jumpsuit knelt before her hooded captors (is it me or does the graininess of the photo give it more shock value or realism, similar to how amateur porn is more ‘believable’ than the kind from Van Nuys) . But in almost every article pertaining to the kidnapping, without fail, you’ll run into this hillbilly quote: “We do not negotiate with terrorists.”

You then start to wonder if the person talking tough would be saying that if he had a knife pressed against his jugular. Why is it that there are fewer female hostages than males? (I wonder what Dave Chapelle has to say about this…). But what’s perhaps more amusing is how tough talk like that relates to game theory. According to this article written by Alan Dershowitz that appeared in The Guardian some 3-4 years ago, giving in to terrorists’ demands begets more terrorism. He argues that the prisoner’s dilemma heuristic model is evident in many cases and because some nations have caved in to terrorists’ threats (apparently he’s not shy about calling them out) in exchange for its citizens’ security, while their neighbor’s lot gets torched, which culminated in the events of 9/11. While we can all appreciate Mr. Dershowitz’s take on the etiology of terrorism, I feel that this excerpt is too dogmatic in its assertions (from the reader’s perspective, it appears that he’s simply picking and choosing which events to use to corroborate his statements and not being entirely objective) and assumes that all situations ought to be viewed with the same lens. As with games of strategy, the players need to adjust to the situation and each other, chip counts, the degree of predictability, patterns, etc.

In the three years since the article’s publication, have these tactics worked in our favor or have they backfired? More discussions on this topic can be found in The Strategy of Conflict by Thomas Schelling (the 2005 Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences). It’s collecting dust on my desk at work, but I’ll have to review the related chapters.

In my vain attempt to comprehend the situation in the Middle East and the terrorist threats, I should probably read up on the essays on Guerilla Warfare by Lenin, Mao, Che Guvara, etc. And why Bin Laden hasn’t been caught or identified yet is baffling. Must be more frustrating than waking up in the middle of the night and could’ve sworn was aiming straight but instead started spraying in three different directions for 36 seconds before your legs and feet tell you that perhaps you’ve missed the target and just about run out of ammo. And now you’ve gotta clean up the mess.

There is no worse feeling than that.

Of course, it depends on who you believe is really winning the ‘war on terror’. All I know is that the insurgents continue to pose a danger or else the war would’ve ended by now.

And also ask myself why civil disobedience or active nonviolence isn’t widely discussed as a means to curb terrorism? Hmm…