EQ and Investing.

A few days ago I came across a HBR article titled "What makes a Leader?" It was written by Daniel Coleman written in 1998. He was the famous professor that investigates emotional intelligence extensively, culminating in a book with that title in 1996. In this article he discusses the 5 values required to be a leader.

1. Self-awareness

2. Self-regulation

3. Motivation

4. Empathy

5. Social Skills.

After reading the article, I wonder if there are different between being a leader and being an investor. And I would base my analysis on one of the greatest investors, Warren Buffet.

1. Self-Awareness.

Warren Buffett is probably one of the most self-aware investors there is. He understands that there is so much he knows about different sectors that he does not invest in a sector he doesn't know inside and out. Retail, financials (insurance in particular), and media are his forte. Edward Lampert is another example. Of course, too bad he is only focused on retail and he is torched in this crisis.

2. Self-Regulation

Once Buffett figures out what he understands, he almost always sticks with it and rarely doubts his decision. He never invested in technology stocks, not in the 60s when Intel started (he was specifically asked to invest, which he declined), and not in the 90s. Of course, he lost an opportunity to make billions of dollars, but he was able to sleep at night in 2001.

Another interesting fact is that Buffett doesn't have many hobbies besides investing. Bridge, and Football game are about what he cares about. Self-regulation is also about controlling your interest. Jack of all trades, master of none. It is fun too learn something new, and Buffett makes sure what he learns is related to making money.

3. Motivation

If you read the Snowball, you should read the last few papers. Basically, the desire to make money is what made him learn to ride a bike, so he could deliver newspaper. The desire is what made him ride a train to Washington, DC to learn about insurance in 1951. The same desire is what makes him become a great public study daily nonstop for years.

4. Empathy

This is actually where I am stomped. As a businessman, he is rational, calculating, and sometimes ruthless. That does not necessarily translate into empathy. However, he is known for flattering people and "buffetting" people into doing things for him... Is that empathy???

5. Social Skills

He was known as a socially awkward till he took a Dale Carnegie lesson when he graduated from Columbia. He became better at it after marrying. Considering the amount of friends he has now, there is no surprise that he has great social skills. Not convinced. take a look at Jeff Matthew's Pilgrimage to Warren Buffett's Omaha. Chapter.. 16 "Artful Dodging."

I understand that much of the analysis is not particularly in depth. However, to get you to read the entire article, i need to be quite brief. We are living in an age of short attention span after all.

The Big Three and Globalization

After years of ineffective management, GM and Chrysler are bleeding cash to the point that they might have to declare bankruptcy soon.

See article
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123483084725295657.html

Instead the naming a “car czar,” the administration opted to step back and let the companies figure out its best alternative. Of course, the administration also has to decide if more financing should be granted which is vital to the companies’

This article touches on many topics. First is the effect of globalization. The benefits from globalization are that resources can be allocated across the globe and the firms can be closer to the customers. The flip side is that the strong companies survive and it is tough to be on the losing end. GM and Chrysler, to some extent Ford, are on the losing end against efficient manufacturers of Toyota and Honda. The two Japanese firms are able to set up offices and factories to enjoy the benefit of being closer to customers, while the big three are being weeded out.

Onto the government side, the benefits are countries specialize in production of goods and services that are produced most efficiently. The con is that the country might lose jobs in a sector that is politically strong, so the government might have to protect that industry. This is exactly what is happening. The big three and their unions wield political power and have exerted this influence for a long time. The government hasn’t strengthened its emission regulation for a long time. The government also had to provide those firms subsidies.

This brings us to an interesting discussion of international trade strategies. The US government supports Boeing with military deal. The Brazilian government supports Embraer with export credit and PROEX. But the government has to factor in the costs and benefits of trade protection. Do the big three really employed enough people that the government has to subsidize their losses?

Former Trade Representative Robert Cassidy wrote in his article that the US government allowed China into the WTO on the false assumption that it would create jobs for the US. However, because of intentional currency devaluation by the Chinese government, all it did was to incentivize US corporations to set up factories in China, to sell the products to Americans, then to load the government the money back by buying US treasuries. It is similar to the big three case because the US government might be under the false assumption that keeping the big three will create jobs. They are so infamous for being too large and inflexible. In order for the firms to break even, laying off workers and setting up factories oversea seem to be the logical solution, which doesn’t really create jobs or protect American interest. “Roger and Me,” however biased, has shown that since the 80s all big three did was shipping jobs elsewhere. Meanwhile, many foreign auto companies are setting up factories in the US. In fact, a Toyota SUV is more “American” than a Jeep, famous for its versatility in WWII. See the irony?

In conclusion, this article touches on cost and benefits of trade, trade protections, and the politics of globalization.

Winner's Curse and stock buying

A few days ago I got a review on auction theory and winner's curse in my sports economics class. Here is the basic idea.

Many cities compete for the right to host a unique event, such as the Super bowl or the Olympics, that they would eventually pay a price much much higher than value the event would bring because of intense bidding. The NFL and IOC would also institute different rules to encourage higher bidding prices, such as multiple rounds and limited quantity (Super bowl is an annual event and Olympics is a quad-nual event). Even though there is an honor attached to winning the bid, the player pays a price higher than the event's value, which is called "winner's curse."

"winner's curse" does occur often. Remember how much you agonized over over-bidding a product on ebay. and remember how much you wished you lost that bid...

The logical solution to winners' curse is to determine the value of product before entering the bidding war. You are only going to bid for the value of the product minus the shipping cost. If the price goes out of hand, you drop out of the competition. Be aware, there are still a lot of fish in the water, especially ebay normally has multiple bids on the same product at the same time.

Onto stock investing. Warren Buffett, or Ben Graham, once said, "price is what you pay, and value is what you get." The stock market is an auction house that allows the players to bid forever. Without establishing a value for the company, players are easily affected by the frenzy winning brings. "Yay, I bought this stock at price (insert number), I was so afraid it would go even higher." only to realize later, "shit, I bought it because my buddy told me to, I actually didn't know how much it is worth. and shit the price is tanking."

Be aware of winner's curse next time you buy. There are still a lot of fish in the water.

Jeff Matthews - 1

Yesterday I had the pleasure to listen to Mr. Jeff Matthews discuss his two amazing trips to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders’ meeting. The shareholders’ meeting, long regarded as “Woodstock for Capitalists,” attract an ever increasing amount of pilgrims through good times or bad. A passionate Buffett fan, I reserved a spot for the event as soon as it was announced and arrived the earliest as early as possible to get a good seat. Getting a free copy of his book wouldn’t hurt my eagerness either. Expecting a religious gathering about Buffett’s astuteness as an investor, I was soon surprised that the event was more about his mistakes and shortcomings. However, his perspectives led me into thinking about the aspect of life that admirers either don’t look for or discuss. As I digested the book and processed his thoughts, I have come to my own conclusion about the man that I admire. What to follow, what not to follow, and how to become my own man instead of blindly following a god-like figure. This part I will talk about what my investment vehicle will be like.

One of Mr. Matthews’ main concerns with Berkshire Hathaway has to do with the company after he dies. When Mr. Matthews had the opportunity the visit Nebraska Furniture Mart the crown jewel of Berkshire, what he found was not a glamorous store that attracted the high end buyers. In fact, it looked even far from a low end retailers like Wal-Mart. It looked old and failing, sustaining by the flow of customers which gave the store some vitality. Clearly, the store was underinvested. NFM was so entrenched in Nebraska and its surrounding states that national retailer would avoid expanding there. However, beyond the mid-west, it is nowhere to be found. The same was true for See’s Candy.

That goes back to Buffett’s model. He acquires business with good cash flow so he can buy other good businesses. He is so efficient at investing that he doesn’t want his managers to do it. For the past 40 years, it has worked very well for investors. But then what if the train comes? There are 70 businesses in Berkshire, ranging from candy shop to oil company. Whoever the successor is, he is probably interested in his expertise, whether it is insurance or energy. He wouldn’t want to deal with other businesses.
Here was when I cut in and asked, “Mr. Matthews, I have an opinion about Berkshire. I think another who took Economics knows about diminishing marginal return. By the time the person fills Buffett’s spot, he would have so much money to invest that he cannot get the return Buffett once enjoyed. I envisioned that the company could go slimmer by selling unprofitable businesses and huge dividend distribution.”

He responded, “True, now it leads to corporate governance issue. Take a look at who is at the board. Tom Murphy, Bill Gates, Howard Buffett. Those people wouldn’t allow the new guy, at least in the short run, to reverse what Buffett built. And since Buffett never invested in his businesses, preferring to expand his portfolio, when Buffett dies, the profitability through acquisition might not be sustainable.”

This is when I suddenly became clear. Buffett had a model that worked for him, but it doesn’t necessarily work for everyone. In fact, Ms. Schroeder wrote in “Snowball” that Buffett made a conscious choice that he would have his privacy by restarting his fund or run Berkshire, and Buffett, already a renowned investor, chose latter because he wanted to use Berkshire as a vehicle of his teaching.

It is hard to fathom how he would have done statistically had he stuck with the partnership model, but it is clear that if I have investors in the future, there is no way I want to use the public company model. First, there is far too much scrutiny than I can take. The analysts will torch you if the earning is not up to expectation. The SEC is all over you about filing. If I am interested in teaching, I teach. If I am interested in making money, I make money. I shouldn’t use a model so I can teach.

Buffett was also wearing two hats at the same time: the manager and the investor. He had to schmooze the managers and invest at the same time. As a fund manager the first part can be avoided for the most part (Buffett admitted that he hadn’t talked half of the mangers of the companies in his security portfolio). I don’t have to step in unless the company is underperforming. When it is profitable just by investing, just invest. Buffett said, “I don't look to jump over 7-foot bars: I look around for 1-foot bars that I can step over.” That I am going to follow.

It is far easier to disband a partnership instead of a public company. Berkshire’s model, besides its security holdings, provides little short term liquidity. In transition period, it is hard for the successor to make selling decision. I also believe that Buffett has written enough that people will remember him whether or not the company still exists. Of course, in my opinion, once I am dead, I am dead. I am not particularly worried about my reputation besides how my family, friends and partners view me.

Lastly, I will never be Buffett and be so confident about my investments that they can be held forever. Liquidity can be underrated. Kind of like a girlfriend that you have been with for a while. You don’t cherish her till she is gone.

P.S. I am still hoping to save enough to experience the shareholders’ meeting. Because of the economic crisis, I have to conclude: Long live Mr. Buffett!!

----------------
Now playing: Jimmy Buffett - Margaritaville
via FoxyTunes

Constitution – an elitist document for the wealthy?

The founders of our nation assembled in 1787 to revise the problematic and ineffectual the Articles of Confederation, which was created in fear of a tyrannical central government. However, they eventually scrapped the whole document and wrote the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation, unfortunately, became a threshold to a quasi mob rule. An example of this is the Shay’s Rebellion in which a group of armed farmers revolted because they were unwilling to pay taxes. To ending such incident, the founders thoroughly divide up the government into different levels through federalism, controlling and satisfying a variety of factions such as the farmers. Even though their intention was well grounded, the Constitution systematically became a tool for the wealthy to achieve their agenda. All three branches outlined in the Constitution favor the wealthy tremendously under the gilded pretense of preventing uprising against the government like the Shay’s rebellion by deliberating preventing the less wealthy from participating in the government. The poor, evidently, became an intended victim of a stronger government.
The founders wrote the legislative branch into the Constitutional design first, followed by the executive and judicial branch. The order of this outline suggested the idea of democracy. However, even the most popularly controlled branch was oligarchic in nature. In Section two of Article one, the members of the House of Representatives were designated to be chosen every two years. Such frequent elections, however, encouraged a game of money politics because politicians, in order to be reelected, needed a reliable source of support. Hence the so-called “parties,” a conglomerate of what Madison called factions with shared characteristics, were born. Election style evolved into a more money-oriented system. For example, there was no unbiased news source at that time. Politicians operated their own journalistic agencies to sway the public, which required a fair amount of money. During the period following the creation of a two party system, northern newspapers were generally Federalist, whereas southern and western newspapers were Republican. Alexander Hamilton founded the Gazette of America; Jefferson founded the National Gazette, which Hamilton called "an incendiary and pernicious publication." Both newspapers soon entered into a political tabloid war full of unsubstantiated partisan criticisms. Philip Freneau, the editor of the National Gazette “routinely attacked Hamilton.” Hamilton charged that the Gazette was "a news paper instituted by a public officer, and the Editor of it regularly pensioned with the public money” as a clerk for foreign languages.
Besides utilizing the newspapers as a source of political influence, politicians soon realized they needed advertisement; for they, inadvertently, became a product marketable only through strategic and resourceful advertisement. Another reason for more advertisement is that there was a population explosion. To reach out to the rapidly growing population, the politicians needed posters, campaign buttons, and possibly bribery. In a mayoral race in New York City around the1830s, as much as $22 was being paid to an undecided voter. The thirst for money gave birth to political machines, as well, which garnered support from the people through providing benefits and employments, but which also picked their own candidates. President Harry S. Truman was the product of party machine. He was a failed farmer and salesman before entering politics. He was supported by “the notorious political machine of Kansas City boss Thomas J. Pendergast,” who backed Truman’s senatorial election in 1934. Evidently, the candidates only represented the political machines to which they pledge loyalty but not the people. The emergence of political parties and machines occurred within a century after the Constitution was ratified.
The selection of Senators and the president was also oligarchic in nature. Senators were chosen by the state legislature; the presidents were chosen by the electors. The state legislature and the electors both acted as a buffer against a direct democracy. However, a buffer prevented the people from electing the best person they believed in for the position. Presently, 21 states allow electors to vote for whoever they want without regard to the public’s desire. And since the founding of our nation, 156 electors have not voted for the candidates for whom they were delegated to vote.
In addition, a federalist government encouraged a two party system that has survived since Washington was president. Article Two of the Constitution discusses how the president is elected in the Electoral College:
The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately [choose] by Ballot one of them for President.

Because a majority in the Electoral College is required to select the president, third and fourth parties can easily affect the election result by causing no majority in the Electoral College through garnering enough electoral votes. Then the decision would be up to the House of Representatives. However, every state has only one vote, making the election tremendously less of a democracy than of a republic. There is a large possibility that the candidate the majority wants may not become president. The 1824 election was an example of blatant corruption and betrayal of democratic principles by politicians. In this election, there were four major presidential candidates, Andrew Jackson, John Q. Adams, William Harris Crawford, and Henry Clay. Based on result, Jackson was, statistically speaking, the winner of the election because he the most popular and electoral support, with 41.3% of popular vote and 37.9% (99/261) of electoral votes, when the distant second, Adams, attained only 30.9% of popular vote and 32.2% (84/261) of electoral votes, followed respectively by Crawford and Clay. However, because a majority vote of 131 was required to win the electoral votes, the election decision was thrown to the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House, at the time, was Henry Clay, whom Adams actively lobbied. Adams eventually won the presidency after Clay gave Adams his support, in exchange for a position as secretary of state, while Jackson lost the election even with the most popular and electoral support.
As a result, even though the Constitution did not explicitly provide provisions for establishing the winner-take-all system under which the party with the highest popular support in a state got all of the electoral votes in that state, this system emerged gradually to prevent the third party from creating a majority in the Electoral College. After the election of 1824, states passed laws imposing the winner-take-all system. This system certainly had its benefits, but it stripped the minority of a chance to be represented in the national level. Candidates who desired to win had to align themselves to a party or faced the dire consequence of losing. The minority needed to follow the rest of the party to have its opinion heard. For example, farmers could not have a candidate who was a farmer because farmers compose such a minority in each state that, given the winner-take-all system, the third party had no chance in electing its candidate nationally. However, in a two-party system the farmers, whichever party they belong to, are a minority. Therefore, that clause in the Constitution about having a majority in the Electoral College to elect a president practically created a two-party system in which minorities were not represented. To operate a big party required a large amount of money, which only wealthy interest groups could afford. The less wealthy people could not possibly contribute as much as the wealthy people. Therefore, they became frustrated by the party platform that did not honor their interests and decided not to vote during election, abandoning their last weapon to the wealthy people. The truth was that they became expendable in the two-party system.
Moreover, the judicial system was not alleviating the situation either. The Congress was authorized to create however many courts below the Supreme Court it saw fit. Therefore, under the premise of federalism, the judicial system was divided into different levels, each with its own jurisdiction, and many cases started at the lowest court. Therefore, the legal process became a strenuous crusade. Generally, lawyers cost a fair amount of money, and since the legal process was lengthy, lawyers were not very affordable for poor people. The Constitution also did not have any provision protecting the poor, such as giving them legal counsels in court, both in civil and criminal cases. This proved to be a disadvantage to the poor. In many cases, even though the poor were taken advantage of, they decided not to sue the aggressors because going to court was unaffordable, and hence, useless. The result was stunning, as “90% of lawyers are serving 10% of interest” because of the length of a trial, a claim that President Carter charged in 1978. Here is the excerpt of his speech to the Los Angeles Bar Association:
On the last day of the Administration of Lyndon Johnson, the government filed an anti-trust suit against a major computer company. Nine years have passed; three new presidential administrations have taken office; hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on legal fees. But still the trial is not nearly over, and it has been speculated that the judge who has supervised it for the last nine years may die or retire before the trial is completed, in which case it would start all over again.

Even a trial initiated by the government turned out to be a lengthy battle with no end in sight. To solve the problem, President Carter suggested, “We must remove the economic barriers to justice. When a poor family is cheated by a merchant, unfairly threatened with eviction, falsely accused of a crime, it can very rarely take advantage of the skilled legal talent at reasonable rates.” However, since the lawyers generally charged high legal fee, they would not be willing to help the poor who could not pay as high as lawyers expected. Therefore, the problem emerged, “In the City of New York there [were] 35,000 lawyers, one for every 200 citizens. But only a handful of these lawyers, are available for service to the city's poor — one lawyer for every 5,000 poor people.” That is the effect of the problem that the justice system became accessible to the rich because they could afford lawyers, but those who could not afford lawyers were denied access to the system.
The Constitution was written by a group of aristocratic elites of the nation, and it reflected their interest. In all three branches of government the Constitution explicitly and implicitly protects the interests of the rich and bullies the poor.

Privatizing Public Education

Since the mid 1800s, the government has stepped up its role in education. States government started funding for education because the reformers believed that education should not be reserved to the riches. Public education has given millions of students a chance to learn and to have better life in the future, and many did take advantage of such system and bettered their well-being. However, public education is getting worse and worse. Our standard now is lower than that of twenty-years ago. The politicians, who know this problem for long, have done little to solve it. The new No Child Left Behind program does not seem to do the job as well. Public Education has proved its worth already, and it is time for it to go....

I am one of the beneficiaries of American public system. I take the hardest classes, try my best, and succeed. I am now going to a good college. However, not only does the school have to offer such hard classes, it also has to have students like me to sign up for the classes. The majority of kids isn't taking such advantage.

My school has three levels of classes - GT/AP, Honors, and Standard. What ends up happening is that a hierarchy is created, with the most students taking Standard classes and the least students taking GT/AP classes. The GT kids, as they are called, are motivated and eager to succeed. The Standards kids are lazy, and unwilling to try.

We also have to question what we learn in school. In my Honors English class, we have very few work. I honestly say that I have not done 10 homework seriously because there is no accountability. Writing is not valued. I haven't written 10 serious essays in these three quarters. Reading is not that important either. I also confess I haven't read a lot. If Honors is like this, what would Standard be like?

Let's talk about math. I am lucky that I am in Calculus. Not only have I gotten the best math education in the school, I also can earn college credits. However, because the graduation requirement level is pathetic (Algebra1,2 and Geometry), many students stop after taking three math classes. Math is an integral part of thinking. It trains our reasoning and logic skill. If students are not taking math, they will lack such skills.

The government has tried pumping in money to the system. Better schools are built; there are more equipments. However, the students aren't getting any better. It is time for the government to loosen up the "monopoly."

I have a tentative plan for privatizing education. I do not suggest that the government totally privatizes education, but I suggest giving private organizations control of some schools we have now (since we have the building already). That is how i want to start.

The privatized schools (I use "privatized" because they are newly privatized schools. they are different from the private schools that have been around for years.) compete for funding on a merit-based standard. If the school overall achieves (like meeting a certain standard), the government awards the school funding which it can use freely in promoting its standard more. Of course, the school does not function solely based on the award. There is where I propse a grant/scholarship system for the students to motivate them to succeed.

Because there are still public schools around, the students can choose to go to a privatized schools or stay. When they decide to try the new school, the government gives the family the necessary funding needed for the first few years. After that, the grant begins to work as a scholarship which students have to work hard to earn it (The first few years are time for them to get acquainted with the school). If the students are not doing well one year, the government cuts back some of the funding (punishment). If the students are not doing well consistently, their funding is gone, and the parents have to pay the education themselves.

The parents, in this plan, should have considerable latitude in choosing the schools. Also, because there is money involved (grant), the parents can motivate the kids to care more about their education. Part of the problem with our current education system is that parents don't much participate in their kids' education. They expect the school to take all the responsibility of the kids' failure. This is a wrong concept.

Question comes, how to define doing well for individual students? I believe that the schools can make up their own curriculum and set up the standards themselves.

How can the schools get the awards? I think in this section the government sets up the rules. However, the award money should not be too much that every school covets. It should be more like an intrinsic goal for the schools to achieve (the honors) rather than an extrinsic goal (actually getting the money).

Also, if the school doesn't get the award and it is in financial difficulty, the government should have money ready to give out to the school. The award system is not to punish the schools financially, I repeat.

After talking about the plan, I would like to talk about its current disadvantages. Many non-believers would not like the idea because most of the time, they argue, the schools would be controlled by parochial or religious organizations, and it violates the principle, or rather, the tradition, of seperation of church and state. Well, I do not intend that they will end up being parochial. However, every demoniation of Christianity or any religious or social group has the right to operate the schools. Therefore, the schools are not reserved for the Catholic Church only.

Another problem is that my plan might force the students to work hard. It is stressful for the students. Well, life is not easy. Those students can still go to public schools where they are not subjected to any academic evaluation. However, I think that education is important. And to get a good one, I believe everyone shold put in personal time and motivation. They may be very stressed, but in the long run, it is going to pay off. It is better than going to school and learn absolutely nothing for years.

This plan is very tentative, and I sometimes think that it is just a dream or a fantasy... Anyone who reads this should give me some comment. I really want to have some feedback on this one

Welfare

The Republicans always accuse the Democrats of creating an irresponsible welfare system that benefits those who do not deserve it, and they advocate destroying welfare. It may be true that there are many people who abuse the system. However, it is too radical to abolish such a system. All the system needs is a certain degree of regulation, since many people do benefit from welfare, and they are not abusing the system.

To abuse it, the system has to present the beneficiaries loopholes. The main argument that conservatives have is that many people keep getting benefit, and what they get through welfare is higher than what they would have made if they had a job. Therefore, they give up upgrading themselves and seeking jobs, and they become a drag for the country.

To solve this problem, we have to know the goal of welfare. For many, the goal is to assist people who are presently disadvantaged and to hope that, with welfare, they eventually can live on their own again. If that's the goal of welfare, then I can honestly say that the system fails. Every government system or sub-system should be checked, to guarrantee that it is meeting the goal. Welfare system does not have checks currently. Why don't we install one? We need an agency to check on the progress of every welfare recipient, ideally. We have to make sure that everyone of them is making progress toward upgrading himself/herself or getting a job. If a person has been getting welfare for a long time and he is not working toward improving his marketability, he should be punished through reduction of benefit. If he has actually acquired a job, we can also reduce benefit so that he will not grow dependent on welfare.

Of course, when evaluating their progress, the officials have to take their personal hardship into account. Some, especially single mothers, have kids to take care. Some, such as elderly, are less marketable. If the officials encounter such people, they have to be more relaxed. Again, we want to make welfare helpful and accessible to those who need it.

There are also a kind of people who give all of what they have to their sons and daughters then apply for welfare afterward. To prevent this from happening, when evaluating the applicants' need, the officials have to take what their sons' and daughters' assets. Ethically, a son or a daughter is responsible for his/her parents. Therefore, we can't let them "off the hook."

Welfare is not something that is harmful to the society, at least it is not what its creators hoped for. If a system is not broke, don't replace or abolish it. Fix it.

appearance

A week ago I went to see Fantastic 4 with my friends. When I expected this to be another cartoon-turn-moive, I think it is one of a few good ones that come out. One event in the movie especially caught my attention.

For those who have seen the moive, you can probably skip this part; for those who haven't, i shall begin. The big bald guy Ben has a good relation with his wife before going to space for a mission. After the failure to detect a seculiar space storm, everyone's, including Ben's, gene is altered. While one member can bend like a rubber and another one can heat up to Sun's temperature, Ben's face is totally disfigured. He does not look like a human anymore. He looked like that dude from Hulk, escept that he is not that big and not green. While he hopes that his wife will accept his disfigured physicsque, his wife confirms his worst fear, leaving him in disappointment and terror. comic stories always have good ending. eventually, Ben finds a blind woman who can't see him to love him.

While the moive conveys more happiness than sadiness. that particular plot conveys one of the saddest events in life, that people judge others by their appearance. Are people that superficial? When asked, "how would you choose your friend?" many people say, "based on their personality." But am i having some eye problems, or are people hypocritical. Why are pretty people hang out mostly with pretty people? Where are there teen moives based on the idea of a group of less pretty girls against a group of more popular and pretty girls. If people don't like to see that kind of moives, those movies would not have existed in the first place. Moives may not be accurate, but it sometimes reflects stereotypes of the society. American Pie 1-2 reflects the stereotypes that teenages guys yearn for sex and try to be competitive (at the second one, the guys try to compare the amount of times they have sex during first year of college.)

There are also statistics that say that socially agreed pretty/handsome people make more money, and take a look at our presidents. most of our recent presidents have hair and are at least 6 feet tall. our last bald president is Eisenhower, whose presidency was from 1953-61. why? With the advancement of technology, people could actually see the president, via newspaper or TV. they judged the presidents through his appearance and public image. Kennedy, a very "hot" guy; Clinton, another "hot" guy. What have Kennedy done, his presidency was less than 1000 days and he did not improve US-Soviet Relation or US racial begotry. He is famous b/c he died young. Clinton was lucky enough b/c by the time he ran for reelection the economy started booming. they both have good look, and they both did not aciheve anything specific.

we have to think about if appearance is that important. appearance is deceiving, and many of us buy into it. which is a sign of ignorance. I hope one day people don't care about people's appearance when they befriend each other. caring about appearance is just a way of creating begotry and unhappiness

terrorism and what we should do about it

A week ago, the world was shocked again when the london subway blasted into pieces. The country whose flag once never set was strucken by terrorists. Does terrorism ever end? Will we ever eliminate terrorism? no. Terrorism has always been around. even "we" Christians, not just Muslims, had/have terrorized people of other religions, ethnicities. This is just a mere cycle. Now, the Muslims unleash their vengence through terrorism. To trace their hatred toward us nowaday, we have to go back to Medival time...

Islam in essence is never a violent religion. There are also passages in the Koran urging non-aggression toward Jews and Christians. However, politics and human greed intervenes. Muslim terrority expanded, and Christians, definitely, tried to prevent Muslims from ever expanding. The Pope ordered the Crusade. Then tens of thousands of people died. The seed of hatred was planted.

Eventually, Muslims went all the way to the Balkans. then a few centuries passed away. Christians, who had acquired better technology, started to push the Muslims from the Balkans and Africa back to Middle East. The Christians started colonizing the Muslims.... hatred continued.

After World War II, after the Christians from Europe retreated, one new Christian country came in. This is us, the Americans. We went in for Muslims' black gold. yes, the black gold that powers our SUV and our wasteful way of life. Though we the Americans never used military force to extract their resource, we used political and economic means to force them signed contracts with us. While some Muslim countries benefitted. Some didn't, and those who didn't benefit from us instead incited their people to hate us. They accused western way of life while they yearned for having one themselves. Then since they didn't have it, they want us not to have it too. Therefore, they bomb us....

Humans are always involved in competitions for resources. since the U.S. keeps most of the world's resources (yes, money is a form of resource), no wonder some of the world hate us. some yearn for making good relation with the U.S., but some, instead, try to destroy our way of life... the ultimate problem lies in economics, the lack of resources. If we can try to share our resources, this may not a terrible way to solve the problem.

However, we instead invest heavily on military. we build precision missles and stealth bombers so we can "destroy" them more effectively. Can we destroy hatred, or terrorism effectively? probably not. Why don't we try to open diplomatic bridges with them? Because we are arrogant. We think that through force we can conquer them. Yes, we can, but not for a long time. Physics says, "for every action, there is a reaction." If we bomb them, they bomb us back. And it continues for eternity.

Having a friend is always better than having an enemy. I think it is time that we start learning their way of life so we can communicate and resolve our differences, not just learning how to bomb them more effectively..

Physics Book

Woohoo, I am going to college. No more waking early everyday and seven-hour schedule. It also means that I have bigger challenges ahead of me. To make matter worse, I signed up for Calculus-based Physics at orientation.

To alleviate my worry, I went to the public library yesterday in search for a book, a college calc-based physics book. The library is not very big, but not especially small, so finding a book should not be a challenge. I was at the science section and found and found. Do you know what I found, nothing? Frustrated, I took a non-calculus-based physics book home, whose material I have seen multiple times already.

It is a disgrace. Libraries should contain much of the information we need, but there are always something math or science that I cannot find. One time, I was trying to borrow a Linear Algebra book (for my interest) but went home empty. Why is it like that? Does it mean math or science should be neglected? NO, A BIG NO.

We have heard talks about importing scientists and engineers from other countries or exporting engineering and scientific endeavor to other countries. I have always wondered, "Why don't we train our own people?" There are plenty of teenagers out there. If the authority (in this case, school, the government, even parents) provides enough support and encouragement, more teenagers would find math and science interesting and may pursue a career in math and science.

Why doesn't the authority do it? because every part of the soceity tries to push the responsbility to another? Parents don't want to help with their kids' homework and expect the school can take care of their kids. The kids are only under the school's control for eight hours, at most. And normally, kids don't tell their problem to figures like teachers and don't seek help when they need it. School can only push the responsbility to the parent, or the government. For example, the schools and teachers want funding for after-school help. However, the government, alreay in lack of money, pushes the responsbility back to the parents and schools. Kids are just a big volleyball in a brutal game.

Maybe I should give the government a bit more credit, such as its effort to make reform like "the no child left behind." Nope, I decide not to give it any more credit than it deserves. That act only benefits the politicans (bush it is), not the students. Every year, the government reports progress. How to report progress? simple, you lower the standard so students can score higher. Therefore, we have ten-graders taking simple Geometry test and Biology test.

I am just trying to acknowledge the existing problem. If someone wants to offer a solution, please. As far as my frustration goes, it hasn't stopped yet. Today I am at a local community college bookstore to continue the search for a calc-based physics book. (I am taking a speech class at this community college) What did I find? Nothing again. I guess my frustration will continue till I see there is one at a public library or a community college bookstore.