[California] The Senate Race

It appears that in the upcoming elections in November, polls show a tie between Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer and Republican Party candidate Carly Fiorina. When I read this, I thought this in and of itself is pretty crazy as I thought California is at least in the 21st century a solidly Democratic state. But, it gets even more unbelievable, so I kept the article in the back of my mind to share.

The Los Angeles Times summarized some "key points" of a debate held on Wednesday between the two.

Los Angeles Times:

Assault weapons ban: Fiorina restated her opposition to the federal assault weapons ban, saying the law is vague and ineffective. "We have loads of laws, and most of the time, criminals are breaking those laws and we are curtailing citizens' lawful rights to carry guns," she said. "The assault weapons ban is extremely arbitrary about what qualifies as an assault weapon."

Now, I've been a registered Republican since I was 18 except in 2008, where I switched to  independent for the presidential primaries in California, but say what? "Assault weapons ban is extremely arbitrary?"

(I very much wanted Obama to win, so much so that I made international friends watch Obama's acceptance speech when he nominally won the general election in 2008... there was a lot of American flags on that broadcast... when you're excited about something you genuinely want those around you to be excited about the same thing as well...)

Anyways, why on earth is there a need to repeal the assault weapons ban or even talk about it. There's no way that the assault weapons ban will be repealed in California and I don't know exactly where this Republican candidate lives, but if I'm in suburban Los Angeles I buy meat at usually Ralphs. If I'm in Northern California, I buy my meat at Safeway (I think Vons bought out all the Safeways in Southern California. I remember seeing them as a kid and I thought they were a relic of the past until, well, I ventured north.) But, anyways, I usually buy my meat at either Safeway or Ralphs, and definitely don't go out and hunt my dinner. So, where is this candidate from?

I also don't worry about bandits coming over from a nearby village and robbing me... In my hometown, I do get uninvited and unwanted door-to-door solicitations once in a while though. I think visitors from the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints stopped by a while back. There's a significant Mormon community in my hometown. On the other hand, girl scout cookies are pretty good. This district, by the way, is also represented by a Republican congressman.

So, what on earth are these candidates talking about? Apparently, the article also covers the politicians' respective positions on some other key issues... global warming (whether one believes it, though Prop 23 does look like a substantial issue), abortion, gays in the military, same-sex marriages, what stem-cells should be used for research... The issue of the economy seemed relegated to the mere parisan litmus test that has become of President Bush's tax cuts, which by the way seems to me at least have been enacted for purely "ideological" reasons and also a little bit out of hubris and spite.  

 

Talk about a disconnect. 

 

Oh and for those that read this. I'm not sure where I stand on the political spectrum anymore, but I do believe more strongly in equality of opportunity and working hard than on equality in outcomes. This extends only to the point where everybody should have the opportunity to say, go to school, but not where there I think there should be rigid quotas along socioeconomic classifications determined by government or by abolishing standardized (and to some degree coachable) test results that studies may suggest show are positively correlated with income.

 

But, on issues, I like the status quo on abortion, think the defense department should have the final say on who they want in the military, same sex marriages are not marriages, all stem cells should be used for research... But, these are purely social issues that don't really affect each and every person in Calfironia.. I guess there is where the disconnect comes in...

 

And, I'm against President Bush's tax cuts which seemed to be an exercise in Republican hubris more so than anything else.

A Disgruntled Republican on Primary Day... in California...

In North Korea, Kim Jong Il seems to be trying to solidify his third son's chances of becoming the next leader of the northern half of the peninsula. However, in California, today is primary day. ...though I will not go out and vote. There is that poll question that asks Americans if they believe that the "Country is headed in the right direction," but there is no such poll that asks if either of the two mainstream political parties are headed in the right direction.

California Republicans called my cellphone and left a message a couple weeks ago asking if I could volunteer in the campagain against California's Proposition 14, which changes election rules to one where it would no longer be the case of first nominating a candidate for a political party and then holding elections, but to one where there would be two general elections with the second being a face-off between the two candidates receiving the most votes. It's not about time or so per se, but rather, I think Proposition 14 might not be a bad idea -- of course, I think it's better to bring about a new constitution in California and eliminate these annoying propositions that while they seem good on paper, they suffer from the Carpool Lane Syndrome. For example, just as people thought term limits would discourage corruption in Sacramento, people found out that term limits led to a more ineffective government and actually ended up hurting California by continually trading experienced legislators for those that have no experience. So, while it may sound good in principle, in practice it just doesn't or won't or hasn't worked -- the proposition system, carpool lanes, the flat tax, repealing the 14th amendment, tea party movement, the reform party, post-World War II Great Britain's nationlization of key industries, the devolution process in Great Britain, etc... well, actually I'd think making changes to the 14th amendment would not be such a bad thing... -- if it were just, well, even only remotely politically possible...

Well, I didn't call back. But, if there was a Gallup Poll done on whether the Republican Party was headed in the right direction, then I would simply answer, "No." What is wrong with this Tea Party Movement? This blog has for the most part strayed away from domestic U.S. politics that do not pertain to international issues, but in general I'm not a big fan of going backwards. It actually seems to be a giant step backwards. I'm not a big fan of a flat tax either -- no matter how fair it might first appear on paper. But, if you think about it for a second, how much more important is an extra $1 to somebody in the top 1% against those in the bottom 1% of the income bracket. Is that really a "fair" tax? Of course, the extent to which a tax should be progressive is a legitimate question, but going to a flat tax sounds, well, outright byzantine.

With respect to amending the constitution so that children of illegal immigrants should not be granted automatic citizenship, I am in favor of, but I don't believe it is the most important issue in the United States right now and I believe North Korea has infinitely better odds of winning the World Cup than an amendment to the Constitution being passed right now.

This reminds of me of the American Enterprise Institute's paper that speaks of a 70-30 divide in a new cultural war in which 30% of the country or a minority are taking the rest of the country towards a Statist, European welfare state. While I have no doubt that President Obama -- such as his formal request for a modified line-item veto -- has tried to strengthen the executive branch of the presidency, it is not at all a new phenomenon. I mean it wasn't until the Civil War until the power of the Federal Government truly superceded that of State Governments and the concept of Nullification was discarded.

It has taken a number of calamities and LBJ's Great Society for the federal government to have grown to be the size it is today -- about a fifth of the economy -- and -- I'm dithering here on exact dates-- and not too long since a rather liberal interpretation of the interstate commerce clause -- such as the end of segregation -- led to even more newly found powers of the federal government. But, importantly, what seems clear is there is a general trend as to the reasons why the federal government has grown to be as large as it is now, such as massive income inequality, low perceived social mobility, and a potentially dangerous concentration of weath in the Gilded Age, unequal treatment on the basis of sex and race, and, of course, the mother of all textbook examples that is the Great Depression.

And, while it might make sense to argue about certain aspects of what legislation should or should not be passed today or the extent to how large the United States government should be and the role it should have -- to look at the federal government and blindly say it's time to head back towards how the U.S. federal government was in the 19th century in a 21st century world seems to be a sheer exercise in stupidity and particularly dangerous for any significant minority in the United States to ascrie to. And, by actually blinding so many in ideology, it hurts the rest of the "70%" of the country by forcing a system that cannot bring about change -- not unlike the far right or the Zionist movement in Israel or Japan's far right with respect to issues pertaining to North Korea. It seems the political party I belong to is being held hostage by a very loud wing of the party -- not unlike Japan's DPJ, which was held hostage to the Okinawa base relocation issue and led to the downfall of yet another Japanese Prime Minister -- to an impractical ideology rather than trying to actually engage Democrats on the relative role that government should actually have on a pragmatic basis.

With that said, I am pleased with President Obama's decision to return to a traditional, realpolitik view of the world. Countries, principally those that are communist in name, have not yet come to respect other countries in the way that people respect each other at the individual and communal level; they only respect hard power and the United States shouldn't handicap herself by blindly following ideology, but should base decisions primarily by following what is in the best interests of the United States and in a fashion that ascribes more to pragmatism than to a John Bolton while trying to abide by principles to the extent to which the United States can afford.

Anyways, Joe will not be voting in the primaries today and he is unhappy with the Republican party. Of course, California is a mess, and somebody needs to take on these powerful unions  -- namely those that represent teachers -- and fix schools for one. Also, any talk of whether input based school policies need to be grounded on a budget that does not rank 47th or so out of 50th on a per capita basis in the country. And, this concept of a supermajority needs to, well, go the way of Nullification. Partitioning or gerrymandering needs to be toned down. I'm itching to say other unions as well, but I'd rather not.

In summary, California should not be held hostage to a fickle electorate that can so whimfully change or pass laws or even recall governors through the ballot initiative process, where lawmakers in Sacramento have so little power in the form of discretionary spending and have to pass laws in a hostile climate (as a result of gerrymandering) under an impossible set of rules (supermajority).  Basically, we need a governor that Arnold Schwarzenegger was supposed to be the moment he got elected. And, not this unworkable ideology that is the tea party... It's absolutely amazing how California is home to so many productive industries from Silicon Valley to Hollywood to a transportation industry (40% of American imports go through one of the Los Angeles ports) to an aerospace industry to a fairly large light manufacturing industry (more light manufactoring jobs in Los Angeles than in Michigan), etc etc with this type of government. I do like the talk of a new Pac-16 though. When there are demonstrations all over the state for school budget cuts, I can't believe the tea party is even getting press.

Talk about the disenfrachised 70%...

U.S.Census 2010 and California

I just filled out the U.S. Census form -- took me an entire 30 secs (about 15 secs of that involved whether I should give them my phone number).

Though I believe this will be the first decade in American History that California will not gain any new seats in the House of Representatives regardless of the way they calculate it, I think there's a number of programs, including Pell Grants, that dole out funds according to the way the U.S. Census apportions the population of each state. So, it's probably in your best interset to fill it out...

Of course, with California not gaining any seats new seats for the first time in history this naturally begs the question, "How much of a paycut (not just in terms of money) or how much harder would it have to be open and operate a busineses in California (as opposed to Texas per se) for you to move out?" More specifically, a question that's been on my mind recently is, "How much of a paycut would you take to live in Los Angeles as compared to the Bay Area?"  Though I'm not looking for full-time work at the moment, it's been a topic that's been on my mind a lot recently...

Anyways, that'll be a topic of a future post...  And, on a secondary note, I can't remember a class, where roll is taken at an 8 am morning class, well, since high school... (not that I wouldn't show up... it's just the principle behind it)... :) Anyways, I thought California law forbade university courses outside of language courses for basing grades off of attendance...

Japanese Tourists, California's Higher Education System, & Me

As a result of recent state budget cuts, tuition increases, and proposed increases in the ratio of out-of-state and international students -- who pay higher fees, many in California feel that access to higher education in California is being threatened. Have no fear though, for you see, today, as I was walking through campus I came across two Japanese tourists. They asked me where they can eat. Now, coming across Japanese tourists is not something new, but hey, I came across them not at Disneyland, but in front of Bancroft Library - right smack in the middle of campus. (I recommended "GBC" or Golden Bear Cafe). As I was headed in that general direction, I walked them there. Perhaps, I should've walked them to Northside? Pat Brown's or even the Free Speech Movement Cafe? Anyways...

For one thing, they said they were here sightseeing and that they were students from a university west of Tokyo, but they were sightseeing not Disneyland, but UC Berkeley. I mean you see people take pictures at Berkeley all the time, but I always presumed it was because their son or daughter is studying here and they were very proud that their child has come to study at one of the more well recognized universities in the world. But, would you choose to spend money to visit UC Berkeley? They were second year undergraduate students majoring  in linguistics. Yesterday they were in San Francisco they said and tomorrow they will head down to Los Angeles (a better bet in my opinion). I imagine that while it's spring break here, well technically starting tomorrow morning for me, that it is probably the equivalent of summer break over in Japan -- I believe the school year in Japan starts in the spring.

But anyways, the interesting question was, why on earth would Japanese tourists visit UC Berkeley? When I visited Japan, some of the things I did was relax at an outdoor sauna (spa?) or a natural springs located in some mountains somewhere between Osaka and Kyoto and even watching Last Samurai (the movie is still one of my all time favorites). By the way, I feel I spend more time on blogger than on facebook; I should message my old Japanese friend. Other activities included going to Osaka and visiting my friend's university in Kyoto and speaking with an old Japanese man on the J-Line, who said that it was strange that I looked Korean, but I spoke English. Anyways, visiting my friend's university was nice in that I got to see where he studied and how it was (tranquil and peaceful are the adjectives that come to mind here), but if I had planned the trip I definitely would not have placed visiting a Japanese university at the top or anywhere on the list. 

And, I guess this is something that those demonstrating against letting in a higher ratio of international and out-of-state students seem to forget. One of the greatest assets that California has built up by investing so heavily -- perhaps even excessively -- in its higher education system are its internationally recognizable public institutions of higher learning. Consider the size of the UC library (second largest in the world?), there's hydrogen, helium, oxyen, and, of course, Californium, and Berkelium), etc etc. But, perhaps, it's about time to cash in on this. If there are Japanese tourists that willingly come to visit UC Berkeley, then imagine the number of students that would want to study here (though the percentage of alumni that give back seems to be rather tiny). Of course, there's externalities aside from just mere income transfers... Knowledge spillovers, economies of scale come to mind here...

Anyways, the second thing that this brought up, is well, brand names aren't build up by advertising on television (maybe aside from those television advertisements in between college football). They are built after decades and decades of academic accomplishment and, perhaps, an open university that accepts top foreign students. Now, consider the oftenly cited claim of the superiority of Korea's or East Asia's secondary education system. For example, "Oh, the math and science that undergrads learn in America is taught at secondary school." But, I doubt Korea's secondary education system is superior to the United States. Yes, it has been shown (Hanushek and Kimko, in a 2001 paper published in the Journal of American Economic Review ) that higher test scores in science and math translate into higher rates of economic growth -- but, this is through 1990. I believe it won't hold against equally developed economies. Consider Japan and the U.S. post-1995 or so. Would you rather have an innovation based economy or one that survives by making manufacturing electronics (commodities) primarily on the basis of cheap labor (China) or even technology (Japan, Korea, Taiwan) or components for, let's say, Apple. But, anyways, what is not fostered in Korea's secondary schools or its school systems (or Japan's) is the ability to think critically and ask questions. (Disclaimer: By the way, my senior honors thesis is turning out to be on international student flows in higher education, but anyways:)

The United States recent focus on standardized test scores is something I wish the country would stay away from (And, no, I've always done fine on standardized tests), but the Korean or Japanese education system is not something that I believe we should try to emulate. For one thing, consider, what would happen to a secondary school student that constantly challenges a teacher's authority not because he doesn't want to study, but because he questions whether the teacher is right or why it's important to learn exactly what he's learning. That student would either get kicked out of the system -- for questioning the the authority of the teacher and have no chance of getting back in or be forced to take the path of "rote memorization, regurgitating formulas or facts or equations, so that he can score as high as possible on a standardized test." And, well, for all of Korea's higher standardized test scores, they can't win a Nobel Prize (no, Kim Dae Jung does not count).  Or, of course, he would come to the United States, if he had the money. In the U.S., well, conformance is -- upto a certain degree -- not cool. When I was in Seoul, I never once visited Seoul National Universitiy except to stop near the campus for a job interview (at a private English Academy -- that I eventually turned down). For example, I always hear about how Korean students already learned how to do Calculus or Chemistry or something in high school. But, you see, that's when the learning stops. In the United States, the educational system is setup so that you will continually be learning for the rest of your life (Why ask Why?).

In Korea, the system is setup so that the vast majority of "learning" is in high school and learning at the undergraduate level is a joke (I have many, many anecdotal stories here and there are, of course, many empirical studies here done as well, and, of course, there's the fact that South Korea decided to adopt the U.S.' liberal education system (two years of general education before all else). Also, consider what the mandatory military draft does to Korea's undergraduate education system. But one story that comes to mind is an English conversational partner I had that scored above the 99.97% percentile or so on the KSAT and then flunked out of Seoul National University for playing too much Starcraft -- he of course, did end up graduating and is probably making a lot of money now at one of the top multinational firms in Korea. I thought him to be smart, but what if he had grown up in the U.S.? Maybe he would've discovered a cure for cancer... Or not...

Korea is not as cool as Japan.

So, in the summer of 2007, I took an intensive 10-week "intermediate Korean" language course at UC Berkeley -- why I just didn't go to Yonsei University through the study abroad program I have no idea (It's cheaper to study at Yonsei University and financial aid covers the program no differently than if students were to have taken it here). By the way, despite the fact that California is what the Economist calls “The ungovernable state,” California offers her students so many opportunities to receive higher education that I am oh so, very proud to be a "native Californian" and attend a university known as "Cal." More so, after glimpsing overseas into a life as an illegal without a high school diploma in a country that values higher education religiously to the point where on College Entrace Exam Day,

"...while students are taking the listening portions of the tests, planes can't land or take off at the nation's airports" (Wall Street Journal).

I think the system here at California is incredible with its three tier, community college system, California State University system, and, of course, the University of California system, where pretty much, anybody that wants to learn could. By the way, this for me is basically the single best argument against those that argue for a minimum wage that is also a "liveable wage." I'd think raising incentives to go back to school or providing more financial support to those would provide much, more tangible benefits (I'd like to have a link here, but I don't).

Rather than raising minimum wages (and in exchange ensuring that a select few will lose their jobs -- again, akin to what I call the "carpool-lane-syndrome"), make it easier for people to go back to school and give them the financial support necessary to do so. While I am a recipient of much financial support from both government and family, I know a lot of others aren't. I think I will be living proof of that as I obtained my diploma from an adult school at twenty-five and am about to graduate from the University of California, Berkeley at twenty-eight. After that, I hope to be a very productive and contributive member of society.

More so, since as they say Cal is the flagship university of the University of California system (though I think UCLA has a slightly bigger endowment and a better basketball team, which, of course, will and should change over the long run), there are a lot of other schools to choose from in between... And, there's the private schools as well -- which brings up another point about how public universities need to get more financial support from alumni(a parallel argument about Korea follows).

But, anyways, while I was taking that Korean language course at Berkeley, there was only one "American" student in the class with American being used here in what I believe to be a very historical sense of the word, where being "American" meant white and male. Once a week, we'd watch movies or media in a different classroom, where a Japanese language course preceded our course at times -- I noticed that almost the entire Japanese language class was white.

So, I see a problem.

Why is it that there isn't more interest in Korea ? I mean, I understand. Mandarin Chinese is understood to be useful for business since after all China within the next couple decades will boast the largest economy (at least along a PPP measure, number of automobiles sold, internet users, etc). Japanese could also thought to be useful for business as Japanese savings makes up for roughly half the world's savings (I wish I had this link as well). But, more over, I get this feeling that Japanese is seen as cool and, me being, you know, Korean-American feel that it isn't. Some of this I blame on Koreans and their lack of confidence in their own country so far as I doubt those of Japanese descent reading this would take what I just wrote very seriously and would probably take what I just said to be a compliment (Consider South Korean reaction to Korean culture getting some good, quality exposure when Rain (비) was mentioned in the Colbert Report). To those Koreans that still don't agree or haven't seen it yet, watch the video and then read this.

And, then there's Korean, which I feel provokes, a "Ehhh...." feeling. Japanese, you understand, was an enemy of this country not too long ago and even in sixth grade I remember widespread distrust and angst against the Japanese in popular American culture. Remember the movie/book, Rising Sun? Well, it was about the Japanese trying to take over the United States by economic means (Although, Sony does own a chunk of Hollywood and Japanese investors did purchase the Rockafeller Center in New York at point. Not sure if that's really taking over the country. I would think this trade imbalance - minus the angle from Americans losing jobs on a large scale - is more of a neo-colonial system where Americans get to enjoy all these great products from all over the world at dirt cheap prices).

Anyways, I think those of Korean heritage that have grown to be rich or influential, such as actors, scholars, and owners of giant conglomerates, such as Samsung, have a duty to advertise the country or at the very least make sure that public univerisities have the funding to provide classes on the Korean language. University of California was about to cut Korean language courses last year at Los Angeles and Berkeley and was also about to eliminate the Korean Studies minor at Berkeley.