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.

With the election coming up next Tuesday, I am going out on a limb and predict that the Democrats will win control of the House and the Republicans will still retain the control of the Senate by the slimmest of margins, ie one seat. You would think that with the situation in Iraq, the multiple scandals in Congress, the large deficit and poor approval ratings of the President as well as the Congress; that the party in control of Congress would get slammed. In reality, even though the Democrats will gain during this election it would not be as big of a defeat for the Republicans as you would imagine given the problems they have had in the past two years.

The truth is most Congressional seats are in safe districts. While most people believe that the government is doing a poor job, they have better feelings about their own Congressman. With all the pork that the incumbents bring back to their states, it is hard for challengers to unseat them. Add to the polarization between liberals and conservatives who would not vote for the other side even if their own candidate is poor, many seats are safe for both sides. Even the seat vacated by Duke Cunningham in San Diego went back to a Republican after he resigned because of bribes. Even though all 435 seats in the House are up for reelection, less than 10% are competitive. This makes it difficult for the minority party to win back control. In the Senate it is even more difficult because only one third of the seats are up for reelection every two years. It looks like the best the Democrats can hope for is that they end up having to win two out of three between the seats in Missouri, Virginia and Tennessee to get the six turnovers they need to get control of the senate. I don't think they can get two out those three.

If the two houses are split we will have more logjam in Congress. Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker and with her ultra-left credentials, there will be no agreements between the two sides. In the long run it will help the Republicans because the Democrats will have to share more of the blame for the lack of ability of Congress to get anything done. Losing the House will also force the Republicans to work harder for 2008. Basically the Democrats have no good ideas of their own, they are just gaining because the Republican scandals and incompetence of th Bush administration in the Iraq war. Unfortunately I don't see more centrist politicians with common sense taking control of the government no matter which side wins.

Usually I find it refreshing for an immigrant to go into politics. Often he or she brings in different perspectives. It also shows the working of our melting pot. But recent events in Orange County makes me shake my head.

Tan Nguyen is a Vietnamese immigrant who is running for congress in a heavily Hispanic district against incumbent Loretta Sanchez. I don't know why he is running in the first place as he had no chance of winning. Then he decided to mail out a letter to people with Hispanic surnames telling them in Spanish that it is illegal to vote if you are an immigrant and that you can get arrested. The clusmsiness of this attempt to win an election is almost hilarious. It is at least unethical to intimidate people but for an immigrant to try to do that to fellow immigrants is deplorable. I am sure he would be upset if someone does the same thing to the Vietnamese community. He is also an idiot because there was no way he was going to get away with this stupid scheme. I have no idea why he thought he would not be caught.

Of course Nguyen is not the only idiot. Immediately after this came to light people were calling this a hate crime. And these were the Republicans, Nguyen's own party. Angelides, who has no chance of winning the governor's race, goes ballistic and says this is the way the Republican operates. The state attorney general is investigating and officers have searched Nguyen's home and took his computer. While Nguyen's action cannot be defended, this is not the KKK at work here. It is not a sure thing that a crime is committed as I don't see victims here. For illegal immigrants, they shouldn't be voting anyway. And if you are a citizen, why would you be frightened by this nonsense anyway? Having studied for your citizen exam, you would know that you are entitled to vote, so why would you be intimidated?

Yes, Nguyen is a fool and should never hold political office. But all those people who are making a big deal out of it are just as foolish. As the midterm election draws closer there are a lot more important things to debate. This is just about an unethical person doing a foolish thing. Unfortunately it is an embarrassing setback for immigrants trying to enter the politcal mainstream. Well, on second thought may be Nguyen has learned too well from the political mainstream!

Looks like North Korea may be testing a second nuclear device soon. This would be no surprise considering all signs point to a less than overwhelming sucessful first attempt. Even such a feeble effort prompted angry reaction from the U.S. and Japan. This was exactly what Kim wanted. This is an ego maniac who wants attention from the world powers. Of course we already believed that Kim has several nuclear devices before this so why should we show any worry over this. Only the South Koreans should worry because they are so close and can be hit easily. Even Japan is too far for North Korea to hit accurately with the missles they have now. The U.S. is in no danger from this in the near future.

There is the argument that North Korea can sell its weapons to terrorists which can then be used against us by way of a dirty bomb. This is possible but not likely. As I said before, Kim is a secular dictator who wants to stay in power and live. He maybe crazy but he is not stupid. Going to bed will Muslim terrorists will mean death to him. The most likely place where terrorists can get nuclear material is still from the former USSR countries and Pakistan. Nothing has changed in these few weeks.

One problem that arise from North Korea thumbing its nose at the world is that Iran will be encouraged to continue its nuclear program. Bush made a terrible mistake by lumping Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the axis of evil and then invaded Iraq. Turns out as expected Hussein had no nuclear weapons and was taken out of power. North Korea has nuclear weapon for sure and there is nothing the U.S. can do about it. Bush had said the world will not tolerate a nuclear North Korea. But all Bush call for now is sanctions. There is no talk of invading North Korea. Iran sees this and figures that the best defense is offense and that having nuclear weapons maybe a deterrent against attack. Since nothing happened to India, Pakistan and now North Korea after they tested nuclear weapons, why wouldn't Iran pursue its program? There is no turning back now. Preemptive strikes and threats that cannot be back up will leave a more unstable world in the future.

Chalk up another public official in California we need to get rid of. Attorney General Bill Lockyer either has no common sense or is courting leftist votes for a run at governor a few year after Arnold defeats his incompetent Democratic challenger Angelides. Lockyer has filed a suit against the largest automobile manufacturers seeking money for environmental damage caused by tailpipe emissions. I think the only people who agree that this lawsuit has merit are the extreme environmentalists and the trial lawyers. I do believe that fossil fuels is a major cause of environmental damage. But to blame the automakers is like blaming McDonalds for causing you to get fat. Obviously, there are people who are actually suing McDonalds also. It is another example of people won't take responsibilities for their own actions but blame others. Nobody forces you to eat a hamburger and the automakers are not forcing anyone to buy a car. Certainly the popularity of gas guzzlers like suvs are what is driving Detroit to produce poor mileage autos. If we actully demand cars that get high mileage, those cars will be produced.

Automakers only produce the cars. If nobody drives them, the cars don't pollute. So it is not the automakers who foul up the environment but each 0f us. I think Lockyer does drive a car himself so he is also responsible for fouling the environment. It would make more sense to penalize the actual polluters, which is all of us, by increasing the taxes of gasoline as I have suggested before. (See blog dated 4/26/06) Of course that would be immensely unpopular and Lockyer would not be elected to office again. By trying to stick it to companies with deep pocket, Lockyer thinks that he will increase his popularity. Ultimately, it is us who pay for this foolishness. The state has already lost a nuisance suit against electric power plant operators but is appealing. All these nuisance lawsuits cause the taxpayers money and will result in no benefit to us. It will cause the automakers money to defend the suits and the expenses will be passed to consumers in higher prices for cars. If this lawsuit is somehow successful, I am going to sue the government for buying buses and actually run them.

Watched the show "Path to 9/11" on ABC last week. I guess a lot more people preferred to watch football instead of learning from the lessons of 9/11. The rating was way low compared to Sunday and Monday night football games. The show generated a lot of controversy because the Democrats felt that it was biased against them. Among the criticism was that it showed Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright making decisions that prevented the capture or killing of bin Laden before the Bush administration took over. I am maybe biased because I am a friend of the writer of the show but I thought it was fair for the most part. Whether Berger or Albright were the ones that made the mistakes or not, there is no question that mistakes were made during the Clinton administration. The film also showed people in the Bush administration in poor lights, including Condi Rice. If less mistakes were made by the Bush administration in this film, it was only because they were in power less time before 9/11 occurred. I don't think the film changed anyone's mind. As an independent I thought both administrations made mistakes that led to this tragedy. The film did not change my mind.

There are several lessons one can learn from this film:

1. It is not easy to play defense. You have to be right all the time while the terrorists only have to be right or lucky one time.

2. Fortunatly it is not that easy for the bad guys to pull off a big one. While they can commit a crime easy enough, to do something that will get world wide attention successfully is difficult. That is one reason there was 8 years between the 2 attacks on the WTC. The larger the project the more people are involved and the easier it is to be detected.

3. Of course while the bad guys are making mistakes we have to catch their mistakes. This was the main theme in the film. There were many times the terrorists left clues that should have been picked up. The most galling thing to me was that our law enforcement agencies would not pass information to each other and thus connecting the dots. The alarming thing is that even though this was stressed in the 9/11 commission report, a followup review at end of last year gave the government a D mark in fixing this area. This is incredible to me!

4. The film also showed the conditions of some third world country. The poverty of places like Pakistan, Yemen and Africa are breeding grounds for religious extremists and terrorism. It is a monumental if not impossible job but decreasing poverty will decrease terrorism.

5. The best defense against terrorism is not high technology or force. Terrorists were stopped by ordinary policeman or border agents because these heroes and heroines were alert and took their jobs seriously. The bomb maker Ramsi Yousef was captured because a courageous man in Pakistan, who despite hating the policies of the U.S., decided to come forward because he did not want innocent people die. So there are people out there who are willing to do the right thing but we must do our part and be sure our policies are fair and right.

These are some of the intersting points I got from the film. While one can argue that the film is biased against the Democrats, I don't think it portrayed the Democrats as badly as Michael Moore's film portrayed the Republicans. In any case, I don't think if the two administrations were reversed in order of controlling the White House, the result of 9/11 would have been much different. This is a wake up call to all of America, not just to any one party. I would suggest that if you have not watch it to rent it when it comes out on DVD. It is not great entertainment but it is a lot more educational than Monday Night Football.

Been away for awhile and have not been keeping up with what is happening in current events. While looking through Sports illustrated recently I came across a columan by Rick Reilly which I find interesting. Reilly wrote about a boy who had survived cancer and was playing on a little league baseball team. They were in the championship game with the tying and winning run on base in the last inning and the best hitter on the boy's team was up. The cancer survivor was the worst hitter on the team and he was to follow the best hitter. The manager on the other team decided to walk the best hitter. The boy then struck out to end the game. Reilly thought that was a lousy thing for the manager to do and that a strategy that is normally used in higher level of baseball should not be used here. He asked what the readers think and that they can vote on his website. I looked it up and the majority agreed with him and that it was a lousy thing for the manager to "pick on the poor kid". I couldn't disagree more.

If this league was meant to be non-competitve then they should not keep scores. They certainly should not have a championship game. When you have an outcome of winners and losers, 50% of the kids are going to be disappointed. If the manager had pitched to the best hitter and he knocks in two run then the manager would have failed his team. During that game, I am sure, many kids struck out or made an error and felt bad. This is part of playing the game and learning from adversity. The cancer survivor did cry after the game but a few days later he said he would practice harder so that the next time they would walk him and pitch to someone else. This is the spirit that would make our society better. We should not protect our kids from failures even if they are handicapped. When the boy signed up to play little league he must have wanted to be treated like everyone else. I don't think he would have liked to get intentional walks just so that he won't strike out. Compare to cancer winning a baseball championship doesn't seem all that important. Having survived cancer, I don't think this kid needs to be protected by the politically correct squad.

I feel bad for the manager who was villified for giving the intentional walk. The other manager said that he would not do the same thing in the same situation. But I find it curious that he would put his worst hitter after his best hitter. Did he make out his lineup card randomly or did he feel the other team would be too embarrassed to walk his best hitter with the cancer survivor up next? Anyways, life is never going to be fair and our society is better off if our children are taught to try to overcome their disadvantages rather than given a free pass. What do you think? Please write in a comment if you have an opinion.