On Asian-Americans, the new Jew...

We live in a fairly well-to-do, diverse neighborhood, with a number of renown universities and teaching hospitals close-by. The neighborhood is pretty vibrant, with good schools and alot of family-friendly activities for kids.

A few months back, I got an email rousing interests of all Asian parents to a gathering to discuss the future of Asian-Americans, in our neighborhood and in America as a whole. It piqued my interest, and off I went. There, I learnt that the only non-white Chinese-American just got voted off from the School Board, after having been serving for years, leaving no representation of minority interests on the Board at all. It's quite obvious that the few organizers did not know what the next steps might be, or what the larger Asian community has wanted to do (with no representation on the School Board), or whether the Asian community cares about this at all.

I also learnt a few things:

• The Asian community (and it's not just Chinese-Americans, but other Asian ethnicity like Japanese, Korean, and Indian) does care about this. They don't like this, because given their relative big clout in academic sector and all, it's almost outrageous that the only Asian rep did not get enough votes to stay on.
• But most everyone seems ambivalent about being too vocal, lest the comparison with stereotypes like "the angry black man." Chinese and Indians seem to be more forceful, but Japanese and Koreans are normally more reserved and deferential to opinions of the local Americans.
• There were discussions on Asian-Americans, as a more generic group, being over-achievers. Interestingly, the son of one of the organizers (who is college age) made the remark to gently remind all the parents that the mental health issue of Asian-American kids should not be neglected. That's perhaps one of the epiphany to me from that meeting, because this is perhaps one of the issues I tend to overlook when I'm dealing with my kids. (I have come to secretly remind myself, time and again, after that meeting, to not overlook this issue on my kids.)
• When it comes to discussions of the next-steps and what to do next, there's almost a paralysis since there's no consensus on what should be done.

Since that meeting, I've come across this article on colleges redlining Asian-American kids, so much so that they are now the "new Jew." I was pretty peeved when I read it. For all the talk of meritocracy in America, the bar is artificially set higher on a particular group, all in the name of maintaining diversity? Do we tell our kids, they have to be at least 30-40% better than the next black or hispanic kid in order to get in the college that they want? How, as a parent, do I explain that and expect the kids to understand what fairness means?

But then, I look at the mix of ethnic groups in the kids' school, and realize that more than 40% of them are Asians, with the rest coming from various European countries, leaving maybe less than 20% of them who are truly "local" Americans (including African-American). If this is the mix of America, going forward, why is it that we're forcefully and artificially changing that mix in colleges? Afterall, more than 60% of graduate students in America are Asians too (locals and foreign). It just doesn't make sense to me.

I know this will not sit well with alot of people, seeing a very real possibility that over-achieving and smart Asian-Americans taking over America. In a diverse, immigrant driven society like America, that kind of dynamics will always be a constant push-and-pull, much the same way the growing population of hispanics is taking hold in some of the southern states.

I can only hope that the melting pot in America will work its magic again, in assimilating not only the Europeans of old (eg. Irish, Italians), but newcomers like Asians and Hispanics. But if, in the name of maintaining diversity, we lower our standards and expectations of our kids, all hope will be lost, because then, the Asians in Asia (who excel, with no holding back) are going to step in and take over the world leadership.

On the vanity of Valentine's Day...

I meant to write this thought in my journal on Valentine's Day, but couldn't find the time. Well, at least I'm getting to it...

It's an interesting coincidence this year, in which Valentine's Day falls on the same day as Chinese New Year's Day. For ethnic Chinese, that's a big deal, when the old meets the new.

It's a big deal because the very artificial and commercialized Valentine's Day has worked into the psyche of the younger generations in Asia, so much so that it's become almost an arms race to be seen as doing something with the loved ones. In fact, this is worse in Asia compared to the western countries, because in Asia, Valentine's Day is synonymous to pouring your guts out to your lover. No one in Asia is going to tell you that they would contemplate sending any Valentine's Day gift to other loved ones like parents or relatives. So, if you're my Valentine, you must be my bf/gf.

Sometimes, just observing the arms race, is an fun enough thing to do. You'll see all these flower delivery to offices, and all the oooh's and aaaah's are enough to send those vain girls over the moon. I remember one time, a friend of mine, who was "attach-less" and was a secretary at the time in a big corporate firm, resorted to ordering flowers to be delivered to herself on a Valentine's Day, just so that the other secretaries in the office would think that she has a boyfriend spending big bucks buying flowers for her. It's pretty pathetic, but that kind of vanity is very real.

Chinese New Year (CNY), on the other hand, is THE ultimate traditional festival that all Chinese would celebrate among families and close relatives. This has been so for a few thousand years.

With the date clash this year, those in the younger generations find that they have to choose, between spending time with lover only, or with the families as traditional obligation demands them to. Some women are also peeved by the fact that, not only are their boyfriends having to spend time with their families, rather than with them alone for some over-priced "romantic" dinner with roses in hand, but the CNY holiday also robs them of the opportunity of showboating the flowers in office.

Couple of things:

1. The last time when CNY coincides with Valentine's Day was 1953, and the next time it'll happen again is 2048. In between years, these lovers can have all their vanity fulfilled. Why these women have to mandate their boyfriends to "make a statement" to choose between their girlfriends and mothers (as representative to all the idea of the family), is somewhat bizarre to me. I can only attribute that to yet another vanity of these women.
2. Why do the men feel so torn, to begin with? To be sure, the lover is almost the one "in the moment," but there will always be just one family and one mother. There's just no way around it. To me, families should always come first.
   

Granted, my husband took side with me and break from his mother when she did not give her blessing to our marriage, all because she does not like anyone who originates from Hong Kong (she thinks everyone in Hong Kong is materialistic), and she never really knows my name or my face or utter a word with me. Oh well, maybe I shouldn't be the one to cast the first stone. :)

On the idiocy of Google Buzz...

I've been using gmail for quite some time now. It's service has been mostly good, convenient enough, and what's more, it's free. That's the email service I sign up for.

Normally, when Google comes up with new service or features, it lets users sign-up. That way, we know what we're dealing with; in particular, any private details that might get circled on the web (which is something that I hate). Even for this private blog journal of mine, everything stays anonymous. I've always intended it to stay that way.

So then, when Google came out with this Google Buzz thingy, I didn't pay much attention to it. And why should I, since I didn't sign up for it, right? Wrong. This evening, I just realized that I've got some followers, and I've also been "inadvertently" following others, both consequences I strongly do NOT want.

How did that happen? For one, I thought Facebook's Beacon was idiotic enough to try to cash in on its user base, thereby unleashing huge backlash, but now Google has succeeded in one-up'ping Facebook in idiocy, by opting in everyone in its gmail user base. Steve Jobs has it absolutely right: Google's "Don't Do Evil" mantra is all bullshit. They all want to get big and big gobs of money along the way. At least Jobs' Apple never has any pretense for it. Google and other social networking sites like Facebook are just the same bunch of hypocrites.

I was reading online about how to disable Google Buzz completely, but apparently Google has made it so convoluted that hardly anyone can figure out how many more steps (after the 10th step we took) we have to take and places we have to dig through, in order to truly turn off Buzz or unlink gmail from Buzz. Can it ever be done???

It gives me pause, looking at all the other initiatives of Google (eg. Google Books, and its green tech initiative), Buzz leads me to doubt every damn initiative of Google. How much deeply does Google want its tentacles to probe into our private and daily lives? Do I really want Google to be in my private life? While I don't jump up and down easily over privacy concerns, I absolutely hate this heavy-handed approach of Buzz.

I think I'm going to join the camp to oppose Google Books.

On the hypocrisy over Fannie and Freddie...

Sometimes, I don't understand. Sometimes, I'm totally baffled. But mostly, I know it's just hypocrisy.

I'm talking about the capitalism practiced in America and the head-in-the-sand approach by everyone involved (particularly GOP) that we're anything but a capitalist society. Just look at the ridiculous situation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It buys nine out of ten mortgages in the market in US. It used to get implicit, and now gets explicit, backing and guarantee from Washington, thereby providing cheap credits for them to fund the capitalist systems we called "banking and mortgage industry." But executives get paid like they're private, Wall Street firms. When the times were good, everyone drinks cool-aid, as if the industry is really sustaining on its own. Everyone conveniently forgets (or looks the other way) about the "invisible hand" of Washington.

Now, the music stops. Housing market bubble bursts. And, Fannie and Freddie become state wards of Washington. Alas, at least it's coming out in the open, that they are now doing the biddings of Washington. The loan modification program championed by Obama is nothing more than instructions to tell them not to collect debts from deadbeats mortgagees, all in the name of helping the deadbeats stay in their homes. While I have sympathy for those who can't keep up with their mortgages due to loss of jobs, mostly these people are the same people who have been taking out (successive) loans on mortgage refi, as if their properties are ATM's. If Fannie and Freddie are private companies, they should act like one. At least the GOP has this right.

But then, the same GOP are also calling for help to the markets and all. I don't hear them yell that loud either, when Bush was still in office, who started all these deficit building/spending programs. Such are a bunch of pathetic hypocrits.

Why don't we come clean with Fannie and Freddie? Why don't we term them the way they actually are, which is a federal agency? That way, taxpayers would have saved tens of millions in ridiculous compensation to those bozo executives in the management ranks of Fannie/Freddie. And we know for sure that the federal government is standing behind the housing mortgage market. And we'll also know that, now ten out of ten mortgages will surely be backed and bought by the government, subprime or prime.

Oh, but wait, Americans want free market. They (particularly GOP) don't want governments in their life, even though they want government help in their mortgages. And if Fannie/Freddie become federal agencies, then I can bug my state senators to help me reduce my mortgage payments too, even though I'm in the highest tax bracket (?!).

In that sense, at least totalitarian governments like China don't even try to pretend to be something they're not. They operate with a very "visible hand." When the government moves, market responds. If that's the kind of certainty that the markets (like Wall Street) want, maybe they shouldn't lobby so hard to fight government regulations.

Aren't all these confusing to you? To say the least, it's disingenuous. But it's totally hypocritical.