Thoughts on "First Love" and "Family Strife"

[I know. I've been bad again at posting on this blog. 'Tis what it is...]

Figured I'd spend some time on sharing some thoughts I've had over the past few days on two concepts/ideas that have weighted upon me.

"First Love"
The first is the idea of a "first love", defined in romantic terminology as someone who one falls for utterly and completely. It's not a new concept but one that has been often discussed and experienced even more since the dawn of mankind. To put it simply, I think everyone at some point in their lives meets their "first love". Whether or not that special person becomes something else, something more, is entirely another question.

For those who have read other postings on this blog, you know that I have been very much obsessed with a girl named Mandy. She is incredible, gorgeous, quirky, amazing, and....doesn't like me back. I have tried again and again but to no avail. A couple of months ago I found out she would be leaving this country completely for a doctorate elsewhere, and was inevitably turned down for the last time (in a farewell dinner though, not even a date...). Amidst all the ensuing doom and gloom, I noticed something very peculiar about my thoughts and disposition toward Mandy -- I still really like her, immediately willing to forget all the past disappointment if she gives me the chance. Now this sounds utterly irrational, doesn't it?

I think the underlying reason for my irrationality is that, simply put, she is my "first love". Although it's an artificial construct molded out of feelings and sentiments, it nonetheless can captivate us to the point of not wanting to let go and move on. Oftentimes we'd rather be dwell on this one person -- than being open to our surroundings and others around us. In words, forsaking a "first love" is akin to tossing out an identity that maybe we shouldn't have -- but ultimately did-- nurture. I'm going to go a step further in my definition though. Unlike "crushes" or "fancies", a "first love" is different in that it's the first time we have been willing to bet our future on someone else -- like we would have done whatever for this person. In my own example, in hindsight the possibility of being together with Mandy probably shaped my post-college decision to move back to the same city she was living in. I suppose now it just feels incredibly disappointing to not have this aspiration work out.

"Family Strife"
The second thought is on the topic of family strife, most likely in terms of parents bickering/fighting between themselves. This one is dear to me as it addresses the situation with my own parents, who have been fighting erratically-yet-acrimoniously for the better past of the past 12 years. Personally, I feel that their points of contention are petty and both exhibit a shameful amount of pride. But their fighting being my reality, I have also striven to repair their relationship as much as I possibly could -- from washing dishes and doing other chores, to shielding my younger sibling from the blunt of their arguments. Until yesterday I thought that both parents have learned to be more respectful and caring toward one another, yet all it took was a spat over who was cooking dinner for this presumption to come crashing down.

Now I realize that this family strife will never end and, one day, will result in a divorce. There is simply too much animosity, stubbornness,  and unwillingness to turn the other cheek to save the marriage/relationship. Until it happens I will continue to pray and work toward preventing the breakup from happening but, as true now as it was 12 years ago, I am simply powerless to do anything. Perhaps the following quote from the character JD in the television show "Scrubs" best describes my sentiments on this matter:

"The mistake we make is thinking our parents will change. And maybe they did a better job than we give them credit for. And maybe there, amid all the crap they dumped on us, are some things worth keeping. Like a passion for something you never knew you had. Or the ability to constantly surround yourself with people who love you."

Reflecting in all of this, it seems this undesired strife also shaped my outlook and general disposition on my surroundings -- as a very optimistic individual, and someone easy to get along with.

Economics of the Health Care Mandate

Looks like I've been on a different planet for the past few months (not completely untrue, as I took a vacation to China recently....). I am talking about President Obama's health care reform legislation. More specifically, how a few hours ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the health care mandate portion of the legislation was constitutional. In other words, the much-polarized "Obamacare" can continue its due course to being enacted into federal law.

So what is this health care mandate thing? Admittedly I did not know too much about it -- nor of its existence in fact -- until this past hour. Out of sheet curiosity (and not wanting to sound ignorant), I read many articles on the topic. I still have much to learn, but can at least offer an explanation of it in both plain English and economic terms.

In short, the health care mandate is part of Obamacare that is essentially a tax on those who do not have health insurance. Rationale behind this mandate is spread the cost of healthcare insurance more fairly amongst the benefactors of the healhcare industry -- since the uninsured currently still receive the same pricing and benefits without actually paying the cost, e.g. emergency services at hospitals are required by law to treat the sick regardless of whether or not they have insurance. From an economic perspective, the mandate targets the so-called "tragedy of the commons" phenomenon allegedly present in the current system. Revenue generated from this tax would supposedly goes to a government-sponsored pool that, in theory, would contribute to lower health care costs in the long term. The money will probably end up in the coffers of the government health insurance policy that citizens can purchase -- as an alternative to the private options from the likes of UnitedHealth Care, etc. All would be right and well in the world, right?

The reality is much different, and probably why the topic has become so divisive for the public as well as for the Supreme Court justices. From a legal standpoint, the constitutionality of the mandate is questionable as it effectively forces everyone to purchase insurance or face being fined by the government. Not only are the powers of federal government being debated (e.g. whether or not this topic should be left to the states) but also in how the healthcare mandate is treated as an economic entity -- should it be considered a tax, or not? If it is indeed a tax, then there would further implications on the powers of Congress and the IRS. From a civil rights perspective, the point of contention is clear -- the mandate is another encroachment on the civil liberties available to Americans, since it deprives individuals of the right to choose to purchase health insurance. This question then derives further into the penalty itself being leveraged, as some economists have argued that the fine levered of $695 to $12,500 is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. To an individual who must pay $2,000 annually for health insurance, he or she might just pay the $695 fine and remain uninsured.

Personally, I think there are 3 implications of this development that must be noted (which currently are not):

1. Not really helping those it intends to help. The true economic burden of the mandate seems to fall on the poor, since they would be the population that would be most likely not be able to afford insurance and now must pay the fine of not having it. Adding insult to injury, they still wouldn't have insurance after paying the fine. My premise is that if the vast majority of those who can afford health insurance would elect to buy it, and therefore this tax falls on those not being able to afford it -- in other words, the poor. If you think about it for a second, who is really being helped by this mandate?
2. The Supreme Court missed out on a chance to further augment its jurisdiction. By upholding the mandate, the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to expand its powers over the legislation of this country. The issue at is hand is as much legal as economic, since the White House evoked the interstate commerce law to support the legality of this health care mandate. Furthermore, the Supreme Court could have clarified its position on how the mandate constitutes as a tax -- and in the process revising its jurisdiction on the tax laws of this country.
3. Do we really need health insurance in the first place? For all this discussion about the merits of the health care mandate as well as insurance, I think it would be wise to take a step back and reconsider on why we need health insurance anyway. Why can we not just go to the doctors and pay every time we have a medical condition? Setting aside the argument that preventative/proative steps like regular checkups is cheaper than only going to the doctors on a last-ditched effort, this "need-based" model would eliminate the bureaucracy and additional costs of the health insurance industry. Not to mention it would make health care more market-led, such that doctors can choose where and what to practice. It can be regarded as a all-or-nothing question: we can be like Canada and Great Britain where health care is compulsory, or a true libertarian society where individual choice is first and foremost the priority.

Game Changer: Ford Fusion 2013 Sedan

It's an open secret now that I am biased when it comes to Ford Motor Company. This is because I'm a shareholder of the company and, as a result, have been following its product development and sales trends closely for the past 3 years. I've been ecstatic with the leadership of Allen Mullaly as Ford's CEO, especially with the re-dedication to the core brand and its recent lineup of product offerings.

The recent Ford Fiesta, Focus, and the TransitConnect represent the shift of Ford's strategy away from the traditional American car model -- the so-called gas-guzzlers and large-sized vehicles. In addition to the appealing looks (the Focus in particular looks great), these vehicles are very fuel-efficient. Ford also took a gamble by attempting to streamline the vehicles chassis for its models across the different geographies, whereby the Ford Focus, for example, is often referred to as the "Global Focus". From a financial perspective, the immediate advantage is lower development costs as all the geographies now share a single chassis that the company can build and market to customers.

I am also a fan of the TransitConnect and happy to see the vehicle more frequently on the roads. It seems custom-built for small businesses, a market segment seemingly under-served by the competition. The TransitConnect marked the hybrid of the truck and the mini-van -- resulting in something businesses can acquire cheaply and use for their needs. Ford essentially defined a new lucrative market for itself. But to me, the biggest star has just been announced by Ford at the 2012 Chicago Auto Show back this January. The unveiling of the Ford Fusion 2013.

Ford's Cash Cow for Years to Come...

You can read more about the different configurations here at Autoblog. The quick and dirty is that new Fusion combines the styling of the luxury brands like Audi and even Aston Martin, with the integration of new technologies -- all into a package that should cost around $25,000. It will come in a myriad of different flavors, ranging from diesel to hybrid to electric. You can see that Ford is betting big on the success of this model...

What gets me excited is the sheet positive reception garnered from this initial preview. Heck, I want to buy one too! One would assume the car is a luxury brand at first sight: the styling is aggressive, spacious, but also extremely elegant. The key selling point is mixing all these factors into an affordable package. In short, this model could be disruptive to the mid-size sedan segment as customers rich and poor alike will forgo their "natural" price points and converge on the Ford Fusion 2013. Why pay $50,000 for an Audi when you get something comparable in style for half the price? The Audi-loyalists will balk at this suggestion but I think for the general populace, my hypothesis will prove to be true.

My only gripe with the model is, paradoxically, its resemblance to the super luxury brands like Aston Martin. After the "love at first sight" moment, the Fusion 2013 seems almost trying too hard to imitate its much more expensive cousins. The net effect is a sense of "phoneyness", a visible element of forgery that makes those who value authenticity to cringe at its sight. It's akin to committing conscious deceit. Oftentimes when I see a Nissan Z, I laugh a little as the vehicle's styling resembles so closely to the Porsche that it's almost....sad. I think the owner of these vehicles are those forced to settle because they can't afford the real thing. The same, I fear will happen to this upcoming addition to the Ford lineup.

Movie Quote: 500 Days of Summer

[Allow me to preface this blog post by announcing my return to the world of blogging. My most recent hiatus was long and unexpected, but I realized recently how much fun it was to blog. Blogging also helps me retain my writing skills which, in my line of work, I don't use too often.]

So.....500 Days of Summer. Most of us have seen it (I'm sure). It was a "comedy drama film" (so says Wikipedia) that was released in 2009 and took the world by storm. Okay. Maybe not by storm, but it certainty was a surprisingly popular film that many critics considered their vaulted Movie of the Year award. The plot was about the beginning and end of a relationship between 2 young professionals, starred by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel. Joseph plays the character of Tom, a trained architect who works as an artist at a greeting card company; Zooey plays Summer, the new executive assistant to Tom's boss. 

Long story made short: they meet, like each other but Summer is non-committal and eventually breaks up with Tom. Tom falls into a depression, made worse when he learns that Summer quickly becomes engaged to another. Her reason is quite the kicker, "[I was sure with him] what I was never sure with you". Tom goes through this rhapsody of melancholy before finally sucking it up, quitting his job at the greeting card company, and returning to pursue his passion of becoming an architect. The film ends as he sets up a date with a girl named Autumn. Deja vu time, Tom?

I'm not a fan of the plot, because I feel it's depressing and doesn't really go anywhere. Tom isn't really enlightened through his experiences with Summer. It's not terrible, but not jaw-dropping either. However, I must admit that the acting by Joseph and Zooey is superb. What I did also like though, was one scene from the film in which the male characters are asked (in a mock-interview) to describe the girl of their dreams. The responses are all pretty predictable until it comes to the character of Paul, a level-headed person who has a girlfriend named Robin. Below is his long-winded but quite remarkable answer:

"I guess I just got lucky, um.. We met in Elementary School, in 7th grade we had the same class schedule, and we just clicked. You know, technically, the girl of my dreams would probably have like, a really bodacious rack, you know  probably different hair.. and yeah, you know she'd probably be a little more into sports. But, truthfully, Robin's better. Robin's better than the girl of my dreams. She's real."

What makes his response remarkable is the simplicity-yet-truthfulness behind his answer. While everyone else names qualities they idealize about for their significant other, in the end, reality is superior to the greatest fantasy one can conjure. Paul acknowledges that Robin, his girlfriend, isn't perfect...or at least could be more perfect by having the "bodacious rack" and "different color of hair". But he also takes her as a whole package, instead of trying to break her down into parts. It's the quintessential example of synergy: to Tom, Robin is desirable and attractive because of all her qualities summed up and personified together. 

Oftentimes the reason we are drawn to others is not because of their perfection in our eyes, but by their perceived flaws that makes them more like us, more....human. It's being able to like someone in spite of their imperfections, celebrating together their successes and empathizing in their failures. Because in the end, it is the experiences we have together --and not mere physical traits-- that bond one person to another. 


Some may view Paul's response as someone who settled, but I don't believe so. We all have different preferences and personal tastes, therefore it is incredibly patronizing to downplay someone else's choice. (Yes, I know Paul is a fictional character). The truth is that we don't really know what we want in a significant other. We may have vague ideas like their looks and personality, but one cannot measure things like chemistry -- even less on their whole being. While men may claim to like women like Jessica Alba and Sofia Vergara and women for the George Cloneys and Brad Pitts of the world, we like them mainly for their physical looks. Ultimately we all know that beauty cannot transcend time. As Paul says so well, the girl of my dreams is the one who is real.

The Power of Twitter

As a self-dubbed "technocrat", it may seem an embarrassing confession that I do not have a Twitter account. I have other social media accounts like Facebook, Groupon and, as much as I dislike them, LinkedIn. But I never opened a Twitter account, primarily since I saw it as an additional distraction on top of all everything else. Though I will admit I was tempted more than once to do so.

Personally, the main advantage of Twitter is its ability to post a public text for all your friends/"followers" to see. It's identical to Facebook's status bar -- yet much more simple, and with the myriad of additional features like editing your profile, etc. I suspect the main reason for its exponential popularity lies in this interface model: specialize in one thing only, which in Twitter's case is simply allowing members to post a line about themselves or others (but mostly about themselves). It's the main reason Facebook trumped MySpace, as the latter offered too much customizations. Seems like people like the ability to customize, but only to a certain extent.

This news report from ESPN illustrates one of the great things about Twitter: allowing the direct communication between two individuals who otherwise would not have been able to. In the example, the owner of the NBA team Miami Heat is fined for purportedly violating the league's policies on discussing the current lockout. The $500,000 fine comes from a number of tweets the Heat owner, Micky Arison, responds directly to a number of questions from NBA fans. In short, his tweets mock the other owners and possibly reveal the growing rift in the opinion between all the 30 team owners. Humor nature of the example aside, it shows a billionaire talking directly to a....non-billionaire -- something that could probably not occur in Twitter's absence.

I might finally be signing up for Twitter, in the (very) near future. Why the change of heart? There are two reasons. The first is that Google recently announced the shutdown of its "Buzz" feature, which was quintessentially Twitter-on-Gmail. I don't "Buzz" a lot, but I think I will miss it. Second reason is the real possibility of obtaining a new smartphone -- with a data plan. This means I'd be able to tweet from anywhere, which is something I am not currently able to achieve.

The Implications of Anwar al-Awlaqi's Death

On paper, I agree that terrorists deserve to die. My reasoning is simple: those who are not afraid to take the lives of others deserve to be deprived of theirs. Although as a Christian I believe in compassion and forgiveness of the sins of others, this is one of those rare exceptions. In a similar vein to serial killers/rapists -- defined as those who commit the same heinous crimes over and over again-- one's number of chances to change is limited. Can you imagine what would have happened if the in the biblical story of the prodigal son, the younger son left his father again? I shudder to think that the father would have shown the son the same love and are as before.

But the death of Anwar al-Awlaqi, the Al-Qaeda terrorist suspected of organizing activities targeting American soldiers and civilians, raises a profound and vital question. Does the U.S. government have the constitutional right to target and kill its own citizens? The central issue, of course is that Anwar al-Awlaqi was born in the United States and therefore is a U.S. citizen. By having him assassinated, President Obama and the CIA essentially have just ended the life of an American citizen on purpose. Had this man not been a terrorist, this mounts to blatant murder. But, the problem isn't so black and white as Anwar al-Awlaqi is a terrorist.

Based on the comments I have read from the Yahoo article, it appears the overwhelming majority of commenters support the action of President Obama and the CIA. They say things like "terrorists only have one right: the right to die" and express gladness at al-Awlaqi's death. I agree with this sentiment on the grounds that, despite being an U.S. citizen, the man effectively convicted treason when he took up al-Qaeda's cause in terrorizing the United States. In the olden days, the punishment for treason is...death, since treason is regarded as the most egregious sin one can commit against his/her country. But let's stop for a moment and think about the consequences of this. In other words, what's next?

What worries me is that this marks the beginning of something terrible: the erosion of our rights as citizens of this country we call the U.S. of A. Not that this hasn't started since 2001 -- the Patriot Act and espionage scandals that followed-- but for the first time, the government has targeted and killed one of its governed. This time the killing is justified as al-Awlaqi is clearly a terrorist and therefore not subject to the protections offered by the Constitution. Yet what would stop the government eventually to label other "classes" of citizens and also designate them to die. The line has been crossed and the boundary has been blurred.

An analogy that comes to mind is the message of the movie V for Vendetta. In that film, the British government essentially creates a disease that frightens the population into voting for an absolute dictatorship. It is an extreme comparison, but I think we should be careful and not overlook the significance of what has happened. There may be frightening consequences.

Follow up on the Xiaomi Phone

A month or two ago, I posted something concerning the newly announced Xiaomi M1 "superphone". While I was very impressed by the specifications of the phone, it was the (relatively) low price of $310 that really caught my eye. Other tech enthusiasts shared my opinion -- how could a dual-core 1.5 Ghz, 1 GB of RAM, 4-inch HD screen phone cost a meager $310? It just did not seem possible as similar spec-d phones retail for at least double that price. Needless to say, I was eager to see the reviews of the product.

Well, now Engadget released their review (a first in the English-speaking internet world) on the product and it is positively raving. To summarize, the reviewer(s) were impressed by the MIUI version of the Android OS, the large battery size, the transflective LCD screen, and (shockingly!) the Xiaomi phone's low price. The knocks/criticism was minor at worst: its relative heft and processor performance. All in all, Engadget's review validated the Xiaomi M1 phone as a successful product that will be sure to sell millions....under the right market conditions. Only problem is, the device will not be available outside China PR. I'm sure you can purchase it off Ebay or other international retailers, but that is a serious obstacle to the device's popularization.

So what's the point of this blog post? It's not just to regurgitate the contents of the Engadget review. Instead, I am declaring the very real possibility that I may purchase one in about a month's time. You see, my father will be traveling to China for a business trip and I realize that I could have him bring me back one (I would reimburse him of course). Furthermore, this possibility is made more real by the opportunity the Xiaomi phone presents to improve my fluency in Chinese. Figure that having a device in native Chinese would force me to re-learn some things, right? The Engadget review already mentions that the device should work with the AT&T network. Bingo.

For repeat visitors to my blog, you may remember my former discussions about possible gadget acquisitions from iPads to a new phone. Fast forward from then to now, we have seen the formerly "possible" devices become reality. For instance, the iPhone 5 is right around the corner, the Samsung Pad 10.1 has been released and, after much agonizing delays, the Samsung Galaxy S II phones have been released (or close to) at AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile. I am no longer in the market for a tablet computer, due to my company's expected transition to Windows 7 -- which nets me a Lenovo X220 laptop. But I am still very much in the market for a new cell phone. Do I risk purchasing the new phone from overseas? That is very much possible.