The LA Times had an article recently talking about the increase in political officeholders among Asian Americans after this election. There are 20 statewide elected officials that are Asian Americans versus 16 before this election. I don't know if that translates into a high percentage as I don't know how many elected positions there are in the state government and the Times did not give any info regarding that in the article. An increase from 16 to 20 does translate into a 25% increase so that is not bad. There are not many Asians in high profile positions though. And no, Tan Nguyen, did not win his Congressional race.

The article talked about there may be a mistrust of Asians after the scandal involving money from China being donated to Al Gore a few years back. The Democrats refunded that money and most donations from legitimate Asian American sources. It was as if all Asians were considered same as people from communist China trying to buy influence. This in turn soured many Asian Americans from participating in politics. I don't know if this is all true like the Times said but I do think there is a reluctance of Asians to enter politics and there is a general reluctance of Americans to vote for an Asian American. How big are these two reluctances are subject to debate. Also Asian Americans are divided almost equally between Republicans and Democrats so an Asian candidate may not even get much more than 50% of the Asian votes even if he or she is well qualified.

One area that Californians seem to like see Asians in office is related to finances. In California we have three separate departments to waste, er, control our taxes. There is the treasurer, the controller, and the Board of Equalization. It is not clear to me the exact role of each of these and I don't know why we need all three. Even the federal government just has the dept. of the Treasury. Anyway John Chiang won the election for controller this year. As controller he will also serve on the Board of Equalization. There are 4 other spots of the Board and three of these were won by Asian American women. It seems to me Californians are reluctant to elect Asians in most positions except when it comes to controlling the money. Could it be that stereotype of Asians being good at math and saving money be a factor here?

I was wrong about the Democrats coming up short of gaining control of the Senate. But then again I didn't think that Joe Lieberman still counts as a Democrat. It will be kind of awkward at the party conferences! I noticed that Lynn Swan lost his governor's race and Jim Ryun lost his seat in Congress. Both are Republicans. Heath Shuler was smart enough to run as a Democrat even though he was a Republican before and won with the momentum of the Democrats. This got me thinking about athletes as politicians. Here are some of my ranking of athlete politicians.

The three I like the best:
1. Bill Bradly. The ex-senator was All-American basketball player and played in the NBA. He was also a Rhodes Scholar. He was on a New York Knicks team that had such smart people as Dave DeBusherre, Jerry Lucas, Willis Reed and Walt the Clyde Frazier that the current Zen Master of basketball coaches, Phil Jackson, had to come off the bench not only during the game but during quiz contests as well.

2. Tom McMillen. The basketball star at Maryland was a pre-med student and valedictorian. But he was smart enough to forget about medicine and became a Rhodes Scholar. He played decently in the NBA and then became a Congressman. He is now a venture capitalist.

3. Gerald Ford. Of course I have to pick someone from U. of Michigan. Some would argue that President Ford was not too coordinated, having tripped getting off Air Force One and almost killed people with his golf shots . He was a great center at Michigan and graduated from Yale Law school. He only got 4 A's though at Michigan. This either means that athletic ability counts a lot at Yale Law or grades meant differently back then.

Three terrible politicians.
1. Jim Bunning. A Hall of Fame pitcher who threw no-hitters in both major leagues strikes out as a politician. Named one of the five worst people in Congress by Time magazine, Bunning is a confused old man. He squeaked out his last election win only because his original opponent was involved in a sex scandal and the replacement only had 600,000 to spent. Nevertheless, Bunning demanded that he conduct the debate by video feed with the questions given to him ahead of time. Then it was discovered he read the answers from a teleprompter. Despite his mental incapacity, Kentucky relected him.

2. Fidel Castro. It is unclear how good Castro is actually at baseball. Some have suggested that he tried out for the majors but I don't think that has been proven. But I guess he may have more influence on more people than any other former athlete. Unfortunately it is bad influence as his policies have hurt the lives of many cubans.

3. Fang Fengdi. Better known as Yao Ming's mother. You would not know it judging by the mild manners of Mrs. Yao today. This is a woman beloved by Yao Ming's teammates and some rivals such as Shaq. But at one time this 6 foot 2 former top notch player on the Chinese national team was a Red Guard official. She was responsible for chastising and sending many Chinese peasants into hard labor camps. Obviously, reflecting on what she did today, she would not repeat those actions. But an impressionable young person, even one with intelligence, can be manipulated into doing the unthinkable.

Three tough and weird guys.
1. Jesse "the body" Ventura. Comes from the fake sport of pro wrestling to the office of the governor of Minnesota. Actually had some good ideas but never really learned to compromise and could not stomach a re-election bid.

2. Our own Arnold Schwarzennegger. Shows the nation that a moderate Republican in a blue state can win in 2006. Of course he didn't have much competition. He stumbled quite a bit last year but has made a nice recovery. Unlike Ventura, Arnold learned how to compromise. Still, given how much money he is worth, I would hope he stops taking money from special interests as he had promised. Since he can't run for president, is he through after the next 4 years? I look for him to go against Barbara Boxer for her senate seat next.

3. Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Former Judo Olympian is the only pony-tailed, Native American senator from Colorado who can probably outlift Arnold and Ventura. Instead of war, we should sent these three to arm wrestle the leaders of other countries!

Three future politicians.
1. David Beckham. The British soccer star is on the down side of his career. He is wildly popular still in England and in the rest of the soccer-mad world. With his wife Victoria (Posh Spice) at his side, who would not vote for him?

2. Gary Kasparov. The former world chess champion is considered the greatest player ever so his intellect is not questioned. He is very critical of the government of Russia and is trying to find backing to go up against Putin. He has also spoken out against organized crime in Russia. He would make a great leader but his chances of success is nil because he is going up against communists and the Russian mafia. Plus he is Jewish!

3. Yao Ming. It will be 20 years from now but I think Yao can make atone for his mother's past. Despite not having received much formal education as he was trained to play basketball by the time he learned to walk; Yao is an intelligent, funny and thoughtful man. Having spend the last 4 years in the U.S. has enabled him to take an interest in the AIDs epidemic and various environmental issues. Obviously he has learned a lot about western capitalism. With his popularity in China it would hard for the communist party to deny him a spot in the government if he chooses to go into politics after he retires.

Last week on Nightline there was a story about the admission process at elite universities. In particular it focused on Duke where Keith Brodie, a former president of the university, said that there are three ways a student may be admitted. One is through pure merit, a second way is through legacy where family members had graduated from Duke and have contributed to it, and a third way is what he called "development admit" where a rich and or famous person's son or daughter is admitted with the good possiblity that a donation will be forthcoming. In the past I have heard that legacy is very important, seeing how Bush got into Yale that way as did Gore's children got into Harvard, for example. This so called development admit, which I had not heard of, is even more odious as this is simply buying a spot. Several years ago, in response to protest from Asian Americans regarding their need to have higher grades and SAT scores than whites to get in, Harvard actually came out and said legacy admits and the lack of athletes among Asians were the reason for the higher scores and grades of admitted Asian students than white students. I guess Harvard and other schools feel that is a fair way of doing admission because several years later the policies have not changed. I wonder if develeopment admits are also present at Ivy League schools?

I think most of us would agree that we should have a total meritocracy. Legacy and development admits are bad words to me in the process of admissions. We should have more outcry to get rid of them. There is also the so-called "holistic" approach to admission among the elite universities today. Of course everybody knows that is just euphemism for trying get underrepresented minorities into the schools. And the real reason why these schools try so hard to recruit these minority students is just to make the numbers look better so that the university is not charged with racism. (as they have been at UCLA and Berkeley) Many Asian Americans, despite being well-represented at elite universities, feel that they are being discriminated against as a result of "legacy"and "holistic" admissions. Daniel Golden, who wrote "Price of Admission" was also on the Nightline story. He agrees with these Asian Americans that if merit was the only consideration, Asian Americans would be even more represented in the elite schools.

While I personally would agree that legacy, development, sports and holistic are all bad words and ideas that should be rid of in the admission process, I feel that Asians should not feel too bad about this. The Jews were discriminated at the universities in the past and yet they came to dominate at every elite university. Many Jews who were denied admissions to certain schools in the past have became tremendously successful after going to some lesser known school. The truth is you can do quite well by going to a less prestigious school. This is particularly true if you plan on going to graduate or professional schools. A cousin of my wife went to Boston University after not getting into Ivy League schools. Upon graduating with a chemistry degree she was overwhelmed with offers to prestigious graduate programs. So it is not so much where you go to school but how you use the opportunities that were given to you. In the long run those who have to run uphill will be stronger than those who can coast downhill.

Couple of observation about the blood sport we call election campaigning. Here in California we are inundated by the large number of proposals on the ballot. I thought we have a representative democracy where the people we elected are suppose to make tough decisions on our behalf. Ideas that cannot pass through the legislature and the governor are put on these ballots by people often with narrow agenda. One type of proposals that gets support of the politicians frequently is the ones that raise money for a specific purpose by selling bonds. In this election there are 5 bond proposals on the ballot. They are all endorsed by the legislature and the governor. The reason is that they can raise money without telling the public they are raising taxes. In fact the supporters of all the proposals claim that no new taxes are needed. Of course by selling bonds we have to repay the principle plus interests. I have calculated the total payment of these 5 bond proposals each year to be 2.8 billion. This is per year for 30 years. Somewhere down the line, unless our economy expand to such a degree that tax revenue will cover this cost, or we will have to increase our taxes. Supporters of bonds say that this is like a mortgage where you pay gradually while enjoying the house you need right now. This is true but would you buy 5 houses at a time if you have not pay off your previous houses and you don't have the income to cover the new mortgage payments? So vote for only the bonds that you feel passionate about otherwise think about what it will cause your children over the next 30 years.

The whole thing with the John Kerry debacle is making me more angry against the Bush administration, even though I have been angry ever since the invasion of Iraq. It is obvious to me that Kerry was attempting humor at the expense of Bush. He failed but that in no way make him someone who disrespects the troops. It is despicable that Bush would try to make a big deal out of this. Remeber the time Bush said "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country"? I am sure nobody believed that Bush think OB-GYN doctors are perverts. I would have more respect for him if he took the high road and say something like: "I guess there are people who speak English worse than me!" (should be "worse than I do, not worse than me") Before anyone says that Kerry is the typical elitist liberal who always attack Bush as being unintelligent, I would remind them Bush used his history as a poor student in many of his own jokes. The truth is even most conservative Republican friends of mine have expressed the feeling that Bush is a lightweight when it comes to intellectual pursuits. I think his lack of understanding of history and the world have really hurt his leadership of this country.

I claim to be an independent but I admit I will vote for Democrats almost exclusively this year. The Republicans with their support for Bush (unless one is in a close election then he would criticize Bush) and numerous scandals have turn me off completely. The one big exception is the California governor's race where Phil Angelides is so bad that I will stick with Arnold. Does this mean that I think the Democrats are better? NO! I do believe that power breeds corruption and arrogance. When the Democrats were in control of Congress, there were numerous scandals. Remember the powerful Dan Rostankowski? He got a pardon from Clinton. So don't tell me the Democrats are for the poor. They like to get rich just like the Republicans. And don't tell me the Republicans are for family value. I would not want Foley anywhere near my family. The Republicans are suppose to be against big government but they have increased the size of the government and increased pork since they came to power. So we need a balance of power and until a centrist party comes along, I will hope that the Democrats can win at least one house back this year. Even if this means Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker.