(Biblical) Love

Love is a powerful word, one that transcends across races, cultures, and even history. I am not going to dwell on the significance of the term -- nor of its connotations in the society we live in. For one, I do not have the time (final exams week, remember?) nor perhaps the extensive vocabulary to explain things thoroughly. The purpose of this blog post is to discuss the famous passage in the book of Corinthians on love.

Before diving into the actual passage, it is important to note that in the context of the Holy Bible, love is not defined in human expressions of affection for one another. It is never referred to in that context. Rather, love is always represented by the relationship God has with Creation (aka us). God's love for us is complicated: it is always unrelenting and without bounds, but can at times be perceived negatively for didactic reasons.

In terms of the actual passage from the book of Corinthians (1 Corinthians 13), my favorite translation is the one from the Message version. Below are the lines copied from biblegateway.com (thanks!):

The Way of Love

¹ If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don't love, I'm nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate. ²If I speak God's Word with power, revealing all his mysteries and making everything plain as day, and if I have faith that says to a mountain, "Jump," and it jumps, but I don't love, I'm nothing. ^3-7If I give everything I own to the poor and even go to the stake to be burned as a martyr, but I don't love, I've gotten nowhere. So, no matter what I say, what I believe, and what I do, I'm bankrupt without love.

Love never gives up.
Love cares more for others than for self.
Love doesn't want what it doesn't have.
Love doesn't strut,
Doesn't have a swelled head,
Doesn't force itself on others,
Isn't always "me first,"
Doesn't fly off the handle,
Doesn't keep score of the sins of others,
Doesn't revel when others grovel,
Takes pleasure in the flowering of truth,
Puts up with anything,
Trusts God always,
Always looks for the best,
Never looks back,
But keeps going to the end.

^8-10Love never dies. Inspired speech will be over some day; praying in tongues will end; understanding will reach its limit. We know only a portion of the truth, and what we say about God is always incomplete. But when the Complete arrives, our incompletes will be canceled.

¹¹When I was an infant at my mother's breast, I gurgled and cooed like any infant. When I grew up, I left those infant ways for good.

¹²We don't yet see things clearly. We're squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won't be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We'll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us, knowing him directly just as he knows us!

¹³But for right now, until that completeness, we have three things to do to lead us toward that consummation: Trust steadily in God, hope unswervingly, love extravagantly. And the best of the three is love.

Some context for the passage would be helpful. The apostle Paul is communicating to the newly established church in Corinth (in present day Greece?) about the significance of love. Amongst the reasons he raises this issue is the temptations faced by those living in the city of Corinth. Back in the Roman times, Corinth was notorious as a place of debauchery and corrupt by sin. Thus Paul urges the church in Corinth (hence the term "Corinthians") to stand fast and remember what love truly is -- as opposed to the public displays of sexuality around them.

I like the Message's translation of the passage due to the straightforward terminology used by the translator (Eugene Peterson I believe). A central point of Peterson's translation is not to focus on poetic metaphors and jargon, but instead to directly interpret biblical text using language anyone can understand without prior theological training. His translations can be controversial as debated by numerous theologians yet, on the whole, I think it definitely has merit and offers a refreshing account of the gospel.

Overall, this passage (as many of you probably know) describes love in its most desirable form. We all have heard that love ought to be "patient", "kind", "slow to anger", etc. but these quotations are often taken out of the context. Here, Paul describes how fellow Christians ought to treat their brothers and sisters in Christ and plainly states that love is the glue holding everything together. Nothing matters in the absence of this love. Yet at the same time, Paul emphasizes that while this love described derives from God's affection for us, our understanding of it is incomplete. We may think we know what love is through our daily experiences, but this is not true in the grand scheme of things. Our knowledge of God's love, even through many experiences, is only a fraction of the depth of this love. It is as if we only had a drop of water in the desert -- thirsting for even more.

In particular, I really like the translator's choice of adverbs in the last verse to describe faith, hope, and love respectively:

• "Trust steadily" -- our lives can resemble a roller coaster with its highs and lows, but in the end our trust in the Lord should be unrelenting. In other words, we must not let temporary problems cloud our faith in God and what His plans are for us.
• "Hope unswervingly" -- perhaps my favorite of the three, this speaks of hope that is always present and never ending. Our hope in the future ought to be absolute and never to be compromised for something else.
• "Love extravagantly" -- this describes God's love for us which, in a likewise manner, should also be how we love others. Others as in anyone else around us, regardless of any romantic affiliation. We all know to love, but doing so with extravagance may pose a challenge.

Budget Discussion -- Part 2 "Eating Out vs. Cooking"

As promised previously, I am returning to the subject of budget/personal finance for this blog post. Over the next few days I will be formulating (and posting) an outline of future topics for under this category. For now, the subject will be one that has become dear to me -- the virtues of eating out vs. cooking.

First off, I think it would be good to define the terms "eating out" and "cooking". The latter is a no-brainer since it involves you buying the ingredients, and then using the cooking instruments to create something delicious (hopefully). The former, "eating out", is more complicated as there are levels. I'll say all the levels of "eating out" share similar characteristics: traveling somewhere, spending money, obtaining an already-made food product, and...eating it. But we can differentiate the levels based on cost, waiting time, healthiness, and class status. Let's describe a few examples (in an increasing order of class status):

• McDonalds -- it's cheap, quick to receive the food, but has very little class status. Labeled as a "junk food" factory. Not very healthy overall, but a few items can surprise you.
• Chipotle -- a little more expensive than McDonalds, but it's also relatively cheap for the amount of food you receive. Arguably shorter waiting time and overall with an "okay" health factor. The food is actually good quality, but the serving sizes are enormous.
• Boutique eateries such as "Sweet Green" -- I rarely venture into these but overall, these are niche restaurants similar to Chipotle but with more unique offerings. Healthiness on these tend to be very high, like "Sweet Green".
• "Fridays" and "Red Robins" -- here we wade into the area where one has to sit-in to eat at these restaurants. They are amongst the cheapest in this segment, with average waiting times, but the healthiness is questionable. Think of them as extensions of the fast-foods like McDonalds. They can be niche, but largely serve a wide variety of products. Generally speaking, any sit-down place is regarded as higher in class than otherwise.
• "Cheesecake Factory" -- the Chipotle equivalence to McDonalds, these are restaurant chains similar to Fridays, but with higher prices and a higher class status. Food is pretty good but, again, serving sizes are enormous.
• Boutique restaurants like steak-houses -- these are almost identical to the boutique eateries described above, except with the sit-down requirement. Can be regarded as even higher in status than the above, since they are specialty places.
• The five-star restaurants -- these are amongst the highest in class status, highest in prices, and often also on waiting times. I only been to one of these in recent memory and I remember it being an expensive affair. Food was average in my opinion.

For our purposes, we will stick to the first 3 tiers that I defined. The main reason is that young professionals either can't afford frequenting at the higher tiers, lack the time, or a combination of the two. The first 3 are quick, relatively inexpensive, and easy to hang out with company.

Compared to cooking, eating out (at the first 3 tiers) is advantageous in terms of time and variety. The most significant factor might be time. In order to cook, you would have to acquire all the ingredients necessary to prepare the meal, spend time cooking, and finally eating. Buying ingredients may be very time-consuming if ingredients are difficulty to come across -- and very expensive if, say, you only need a fraction of a package. When eating out, you can just place an order and...eat. A very simple two steps (obviously I am skipping the waiting part). As mentioned, you have the flexibility to pick out whatever type of food you'd like to indulge. There are (many) foods that young professional simply cannot prepare.

The advantages of eating out being laid out, what are the disadvantages? Well, the obvious one is cost. If one averages $5 per meal (a burrito is about $7 at Chipotle vs $1 McDouble at McDonalds), then the weekly cost of eating out will range from $70 to $105 -- depending on whether breakfast will be skipped. A more sensible estimate might be $90 per week. Picky eaters may raise this tab all the way to $140 per week. This total translates to $360 to $560 per month! This would be a significant expense for most young professionals. Comparatively, cooking meals and packing lunch while occasionally eating out results in a sub-$300 food budget (my own figures).

But what people often ignore is food safety or, in other words, the sanity of restaurants and other places. In most cases, a person's kitchen is much better organized and sanitary than restaurants. Eating out thus results in an externality (economist speak for "non-calculated cost") that can be very significant. Furthermore, one has little control over portion sizes and quality of the food being prepared. Returning to a previous point about cost of ingredients, how do you know the meat patties from McDonalds were not left overnight? Or the Alaskan salmon you ordered is really Alaskan salmon? You'd have to trust the restaurant to be honest in its advertisements.

Personally, I tend to cook about 3-4 times a week. Most of the time I cook a two portion-meal every other night: 1 portion to eat immediately, and another to take to work the next day. Sometimes I make so much that I save the extras as a snack. The biggest draw to cooking is the ability to learn about cooking and come to appreciate cuisine for what it is. It's also simple and cost-effective -- a good stir-fry simply requires the ingredients, a wok, and a rice cooker to make a side of rice. The results are surprisingly good.

Upcoming Changes (to this Blog)

Namely due to work (testing for the next 3 weeks) and schoolwork (finals are next week), it has been fairly crappy week thus far. I haven't been sleeping much and I definitely have been feeling its effects. The heavy rain this morning also did not help, as I normally very much enjoy the morning bicycle commute to work. But sometimes it's about sucking it up and taking things in stride -- and in the process being mindful of the many blessings in our lives.

The above being said, I have been considering changing the content of this blog lately. This blog has thus far mainly functioned as a personal daily of sorts, in addition as a means to verbalize my streams of consciousness. Not that the aforementioned is bad, yet I think it deviates from the main purpose behind this blog. The main reason I started this blog was, as its title implies, chronicling the ups and downs of being a young professional in the Washington D.C. area. Although the location isn't important (I have only posted once about something specific to the D.C. area), so the point is to share my experiences with the (imaginary?) readers.

Anyway, here is a list (along with an elaboration) of changes I foresee making:

• More frequent postings. This is an Achilles' heel for me as I often go on for weeks without posting a single entry. It's not that I do not have things to blog about -- contrary to popular belief, I lead a very interesting life -- but I think most of the topics I blog are redundant. They centered mainly on personal issues (aka Mandy). My hope is to post about once a day, if not more.
• Revelations about experiences in the working world. True to the title of this blog, I am an employee for a sizable consulting company after all. This being the case, I have much insight to offer, such as interactions with coworkers and with the boss, workload fluctuations, career planning, etc.
• More (helpful?) discussions on other important topics, like personal finance. I already started doing this, but the goal here is to transform random postings into a series with a beginning and an end.
• Label blog entries better. I must admit that I just create whatever labels come to mind right now. This will change as I hope to streamline the labels into something more useful.
• Including multimedia onto the blog posts. Currently it's just a bunch of words from a newbie writer like myself. My writing can be humorous but it needs additional visualizations like pictures and videos to capture interest. Otherwise it's just another mundane blog full of streams-of-consciousness essays.

So that pretty much wraps it up. I have formulated a plan and shall, in good faith, execute the plan as best of possible. Not sure when the start date is (final exams are coming up) but definitely within the next two weeks.

In parting, I want to leave with a stream of consciousness (only fitting, right?). I have a friend from college who is an illegal immigrant currently working for a software company in Washington state. He's a nice person overall and was baptized as a Christian before graduation. Another friend told me that this person just received a substantial raise and now makes close to 100k a year -- not bad at all for a fresh college graduate! However, he seems to be dealing with some sort of personal issue that resembles a depression. At least his blog entries have become much darker and he just posted an alarming status update on facebook (something about someone should take a knife to him...). I bring this up because it seems contradicting to profess a Christian faith, make a (very) decent living, and fall into some kind of depression. I am going to try to reach out to him of course, yet psychological depressions confuse me overall.

While I understand it is a legitimate disease, I think that in most cases, it occurs due to unrealistic expectations, having goals but unwilling to work toward them, or just not maintaining perspective. Most of us overlook the "little things" like having good health, living in a peaceful environment, and comforts like public libraries and running water. Most others in the world do not have these conveniences -- can you imagine not having both your arms, or perhaps living in a war-ravaged country? At least for me, remembering how blessed I am to have these "little things" keeps me from dwelling on the negatives. In other words, this is how I "suck it up".

Thoughts on the Death of Bin Laden

As most of the world found out last night, Osama/Usama (?) Bin Laden was killed last night in a nighttime raid by U.S. Navy SEALs on his well-fortified fortress in Pakistan. News reports indicate it was a short struggle -- 40 minutes and the architect of the September 11 attacks was dead, along with a few other collaborators. This news resulted in an amalgam of sentiments, an overwhelming amount which were positive, in addition to speculations of its implications. Most of the latter were on its impact on President Obama's reelection bid for 2012. I just thought to summarize the viewpoints I've been hearing about, as well as add in a few of my own.

Let's first examine at the implications being expressed by both individuals and by the media:

1. Obama just locked up the reelection bid.
2. Obama just capped up a "winning" week, with his snub of Donald Trump and this news.
3. Note to other terrorists: do not mess with the U.S. of A.
4. So proud to be an American!
5. This news just made my day!

Indeed the death of an individual responsible for more than 3000 deaths on September 11 and reshaping our world forever is to be celebrated. Al-Qaeda has certainly complicated the security issues surrounding our current environments. It also brings an end to a 10-year hunt for Bin Laden, who the former President Bush memorably conjured the "wanted sign" for a bounty on the person's head. But I feel that most people have either forgotten or just ignored the preface to the terrorist attacks.

(Before I proceed, I became a U.S. citizen last year through the naturalization process and am proud to consider myself to be an American. Yet at the same time, it is important to be critical of my government and the thoughts of the populace when I feel they are going down the wrong path. What I just stated is the essence of what being a patriot is all about.)

American imperialism is the main trigger for the September 11 attacks. Other explanations are negligible compared to the impact of America's attitudes and actions against other countries around the world. Yes, I know it doesn't sound pleasant but it is very true. We Americans live in a place very much secluded -- often voluntarily-- from the rest of the world. Most Americans simply do not care about the state of the world affairs, and possess this attitude of "We are better than anyone else". Representative of this arrogance, the American government has been at war with other countries for most of the last 200 years. We all know about the Second World War, Korean War, and Vietnam War. But how many of us know of the controversial actions taken by the government, such as the assassination of former leaders of nations (e.g. Salvador Allende) and the propping up of despotic governments (e.g. Shah of Iran, Cuba before Fidel Castro)? It is the latter that have profoundly instilled a mixture of fear and hatred towards the U.S. Unfortunately, the latter sentiment cannot be altered by sporadic humanitarian gestures.

When the U.S. attacked Iraq in the 1990s, it was rightfully under the guise to uphold the sovereignty of Kuwait. Saddam was beaten back and ultimately surrendered. But the U.S. often operates under the assumption that it is above the law of nations to which all countries are subject to. The political science term is "unilateralism", which stems from the U.S.'s position as the world's remaining superpower since the demise of the Soviet Union. This assumption results in taking actions regardless of opinions of other countries or peoples. For many in the Middle East and across the world, Bin Laden's planned attacks on September 11 were captivating for the sheer fact that he dared to stand up to the mighty of the American military machine. If anything, it damaged this image of America's invincibility and showed that she could be hurt in spite of all the military power.

Using film as an analogy, it is very much in the second Iron Man movie, where the villain Ivan Vanko stated his only reason to attack Tony Starks was to "make God bleed [because then] people will cease believing in him". Bin Laden, in a similar manner, destroyed the myth of America's invulnerability. And this is what makes things so dangerous, even following his death. Bin Laden was an inspiration for the haters of America to take up arms against her -- and inspirations tend to outlive their creators. Therefore, we should be weary (as some military strategists have declared already) of declaring total victory just yet. I will argue that unless this arrogance perception of the world is changed, very little will have. Another madman may come along to formulate another plan to make America "bleed". This just leads to an endless cycle of violence -- because of the hatred for the country we call United States.

Going back to the implications discussed in the beginning of this blog entry, Obama will take/receive credit about the death of Bin Laden and I think it is largely unwarranted. He simply inherited the operations from the previous president and it so happened that Bin Laden was found and killed during his presidency. He did not have an alternative to hunting down Bin Laden. If it does propel him to a second term, I really hope this is not the reason why.

Now now, I do not hate Barrack Obama. I think he is a positive change from Bush, but has largely fallen short of expectations and remains over-hyped. Inasmuch as Bin Laden was killed during his presidency, in the same way Obama inherited a dismal economy from Bush. He may not have done as much as I had hoped, but perhaps there is nothing more he can do.

Budget Discussion -- Part 1

As the title indicates, this will be the first of many (not idea how many) blog posts discussing issues related to personal budget. I think this will be very useful for any readers since it is a reflection of where I currently stand as a young professional. Since I have little idea of how long this series will last for, I think future posts will reflect on any changes in my budget and thus generally encompass a wide-range of issues.

Perhaps the most important part of any personal budget is spending, which can categorized into different areas and set with a numerical target. To give you a glimpse of my spending habits right now, here is the current breakdown on a per month basis:

Food (including groceries and eating out)-- $250 to $300

Transportation (including gas, and public metros) -- $100

Worship offering -- $200

Housing (including all utilities) -- $450

Miscellaneous -- $400 to $500

Total -- $1400 to $1550 per month

Right off the bat, I honestly believe that my monthly spending is (much) lower than the average young professional living in the Arlington VA area. For one, the housing around here can be mindbogglingly expensive -- e.g. a 1 bedroom apartment costs upwards of $1500 a month. I live in a shared apartment about 2 miles away from a metro center, which reduces costs considerably. In addition, my food budget is probably much lower than most individuals. This is partly because I am often indifferent about food (company is always the reason I would go out to eat) and possess a fantastic amount of pride in my own cooking skills. I also do not drink. I am not a great cook by any means, but the self-winning argument I always make is: if I can make just about anything ordered out, why would I need to eat out?

The other items on my budget also deserve clarifications.

• Transportation is capped at $100 since I own a car and currently commute into the city to take evening classes twice a week. The commuting is achieved through the wonderful (I jest) metro system, which costs about $4 each time and thus totals to around $30 per month. Gas is increasingly becoming expensive but, fortunately, I drive a very fuel-efficient Honda Civic -- which means I gas at most twice a month (1o gallons each time = $70 to $80).
• As a devout Christian, I make a point to make an offering on Sundays through my church. Personally this is a symbol/token of thankfulness to God for everything in my life. I donate $50 each time, which adds up to around $200 per month.
• Miscellaneous is the most interesting category and probably the most confusing one. This is pretty much where I dump anything that cannot the categorized in the other ones. For example, spending on new clothes or glasses get placed into this. I also put things like some grocery shopping if they are irregular. My records reveal about $400 per month in this.

Now, let's be clear that I will not be revealing my monthly salary (but you can infer from my budget that it is greater than $1550 a month). I find the most difficult category to remain under the capped amount is food expenses. Although I sometimes bring cooked meals from home (as much as I think I am a good cook, my mother is infinitely better...), eating out with friends often wrecks havoc on this. Eating out with friends may only happen on weekends but it costs about $10 per meal, which can easily add to account for 1/3 of the food tab.

More broadly speaking, it comes easy and natural for me to stay under my planned monthly budget. Maybe this is just unique in my case as I consider myself to be a simple, low-upkeep individual who enjoys reading and playing sports much more than "bar hopping". I am also largely not materialistic -- I may blog about gadgets to buy but am also very loyal to the possessions I have (e.g. if it doesn't break and works great, I feel kind of a traitor to buy something to replace it).

The two biggest "suckers" of any budget are bound to be housing and food expenses, as these are "essential" commodities. We are need nourishment and shelter to live comfortably. However, I think the main problem that often arises is what we consider to be "essential". Eating out is not "essential" unless it is to take a client out, nor is living in a luxury apartment complex. It's very important to understand the differences between a common good and a luxury good in economic terms. I will make the case that cutting out luxuries actually improves one's quality of life, because it allows a refocus into the things that really matter. The inverse is a constant preoccupation with material possessions and not on relationships with those around us.

All in all, remaining debt free is not difficult at all if you keep yourself grounded (aka "keeping it real"). Most of it is refusing to succumb to peer pressure to pursue happiness through your wallet, or become enamored with things that do not last. From a Christian perspective, everything we have are blessings given by the Almighty God and thus we should live in thankful for everything. It's often the little things that we overlook, like our health and relationships, that truly bring meaning and joy to our lives. There is no secret staying financially solvent -- if I can do it in an expensive place like Arlington VA, anyone can!

Tech gadgetry in consideration..

If not revealed by now, I am admittedly a big geek who is always fascinated by the latest gadgets. Even of Apple goods --though I would never buy them. So this blog entry will be a verbalization of my current consideration for future gadget purchases. Haven't bought anything alike for a while, so this may get long and mushy...

1. Cell Phone.

First up is the cell phone. Currently I have a Nokia E71x, arguably the best smartphone with a physical keyboard on the market. It's thin, fast, reliable, and with a long-lasting battery (I charge once every 4 days!). The bonus is the built-in wifi, which allows me to connect to internet anywhere wifi is available. But alas there are also downsides: the non-working GPS, the slow browser, and the general lack of applications for the Symbian platform. What I am looking for is something as reliable and quick, but with a touchscreen and running an operating system not yet confined to the dungeons of DOA (dead-on-arrival).

Naturally I am been keeping with the new developments. The top choices right now are: Nokia N8, Nokia E8, Motorola Atrix, and the to-be-released Samsung Galaxy II. The first two are being considered due to the company that makes them: Nokia. Nokia has proven they make terrific products with long-lasting batteries. I like the Atrix due to its dual-core processor, innovative ability to transform into a computer, and the 4-inch screen. However, this was before I found out about the Samsung Galaxy II -- which is clearly superior to the Atrix. The main question surrounding the latter is the release date.

Based on my needs, the main criteria is going to be price. I will be pushing for a phone without a data plan commitment (a rarity these days). Technically my current E71x is required to have one, but I won the argument with AT&T over it. The two Nokias will also likely be unlocked and contract-free, which means the price will be north of $300. The N8 currently retails for $350 but I hesitate due to the death of the Symbian platform -- but its hardware is immensely impressive (e.g. 12 megapixel camera). My willingness to pay for the Atrix is probably at most $100 with a contract extension, since this is the price I paid for my current Nokia. Samsung Galaxy II would be higher at $200 but both would need a continuation of my lack of data plan commitment. Even so, this propensity to say might be affected by...

2. Tablet

No, not an iPad 2. I need something with a proper operating system. Over the past two weeks, I was very interested in getting the Asus "Transformer" (released this past Tuesday). But it sold out quickly and now I am reconsidering. The main draw was the price of $400, along with the office application and Android 3.0 OS. The biggest reason I would consider a tablet is the size and weight -- especially now that I bike about 6 miles a day to work, I need something like to carry around with me. My work laptop is great but a bit too heavy. The other reason is something to show off to my mom so that I can get her one to view photographs on.

The other choice besides the Transformer is the to-be-released Samsung Tabs, both the 8.9 inch and the 10.1 inch editions. I haven't read too much but know that the 8.9 will be cheaper and come better equipped. Again, these are Android 3.0 devices (super!). The only question marks about these are the price and release dates. But these are the problem with new technologies: they typically become obsolete within a year of release. I'd say my propensity to pay for a tablet is anything south of $450 -- as south as possible especially considering...

3. Laptop

I sold my 4-month old Dell laptop soon after I was issued a Lenovo for my work. The Lenovo is not only better equipped, but pretty much came free since I carry it around all the time and it's exclusively mine to use. It's very well equipped for now (Intel i5 processor and a SSD hard drive) so I don't expect to need a change for a year or so. But as any good geek, I look ahead.

Windows 8 (did you really think I would get a Mac?) is scheduled to be released in 2012, if not by the end of this calendar year. I do not know any details about it, other than it should run on ARM chips (aka what smartphones today use). I genuinely like Windows, not because I dislike Macs, but because I am familiar with it. I was an early adopter of the much-criticized Windows Vista, and never had any issues with it. If anything, I liked the new interface that came with Vista. All in all, I would probably purchase a new laptop only after Windows 8 is released. Price range? I have no idea, but probably less than $1000.

How Aging is Good

A common sentiment in today's society is the emphasis on the richness of youth against the decay of aging. We see and hear about this everywhere, from television commercials on anti-aging solutions to billboards of young people playing sports and looking happy. The universal message appears to be: youth is good, and old age is terrible. But I think there is something both wrong and very dangerous about this attitude.

For one, all this epitomizing of youth only emphasizes the upsides and thus avoids the downsides of being young. There are many downsides and arguably only a single upside. Ignorance, immaturity, and naiveness are all downsides. When you are eighteen or even into the twenties, you have very little understand of life and can easily succumb to social pressures. I think we have all read stories (or even personally experienced) feelings of inadequacy, and misery to the point of harboring suicidal thoughts. Arguably there is only one upside to being young-- a healthier body with which we can better compete in sports, dance, and travel around. But even this is not completely true. Just think about all the examples of those labeled "old" in their active endeavors: Dana Torres, the 41-year old Olympic swimmer; Michael Jordan in his last comeback tour with the Washington Wizards; and Dick Hoyt, the father who competes in the Iron Man Challenge while carrying his son Rick.

Perhaps what creates this emphasis on youth is not about the joys of being young at all. Instead, it is a reflection of unsatisfied/unfulfilled lives. Lives that have not found meaning or purpose. Because if one has, then one would not want to go back to the way things were. One would want to always moving forward, desiring more -- to do more, see more. It's like this: why would you want to go back to the dark when you have seen the light? Furthermore, the desire to being young again ignores the "enlightenment" that comes from the wisdom derived from life experiences. Returning to when we were eighteen would mean losing out on all the friendships, life events, and knowledge (aka experience) accumulated since that period of our lives. I'd consider that to be a very unequal trade...for the worse.

One book I read that profoundly discussed this preoccupation with aging is "Tuesdays with Morrie", by Mitch Albom. The book is a recount of the lessons passed down to Mitch by his professor (named Morrie) in psychology at Brandeis University. Morrie discussed a wide-spectrum of issues that confound today's society and singled out this worry about aging in one chapter. In particular, he states that: "It's impossible for the old not to envy the young. But the issue is to accept who you are and revel in that. This is your time in your thirties. I had my time to be in my thirties, and now is my time to be seventy-eight".

His point, which I wholeheartedly agree with, is that aging will happen regardless of whether you like/want it or not --instead, the focus should be on the present and making the most of every opportunities you have. Sometimes it's about taking a chance and leap into the unknown. Because the worse that can absolutely happen is gaining experience.