In the end, farewell

Published 06-04-2009 in The California Aggie

The columnist is a story of contradiction. At once he must act as the interlocutor of opined reason and customized analysis, yet by the sheer necessity for argument, he must take a stand. At times, these demands conflict; for a columnist, thus, the attainment of a perfect balance is a lasting achievement.

Writing is about eloquence magnified by personal ambition. In the beginning, the columnist sees privilege. Like a child, he’s afforded space and time to write whatever he desires. He is hence impressionable, wondrous, admiring the instant subject-connection he has established. The responsibility liberates as it is large.

At this moment, the world with its inherent flaws seems raw and callow. Viewing this situation, the columnist is heightened with confidence, trusting his instincts, transfixed by the finality of his thoughts. He asserts order to a disordered world, proclaiming certainty to unpredictability. For him, his eyes have been opened by limitless possibilities. He is the master of his own destiny — he passionately knows everything and says anything. The world can be bent to his will.

But then comes recognition. Initially, the columnist found the power refreshing, mutual. Slowly, he realizes that things weren’t as simple as he envisioned. He previously saw the world as a closed system with finite alternatives, but now notices that society, with its quirks and imperfections, is a fragile state of nature. They constantly evolve and revolt, never having any certainty but always having plenty of fluidity. The columnist no longer sees things the same way.

With time comes appreciation. The grandest plays are defined by the smallest details, and as the columnist accepts the circumstances, he now understands how elements combine, transform and reciprocate. He identifies their finer qualities, learns the overarching narrative and the geometric pattern that defines things.

Now, the columnist masters. Through deliberate practice and constant writing, he expands his scope of both idealism and practicality. He learns to integrate the constraints of abstract play to the chaos that envelope the real world. Rather than merely dictating play, he now synchronizes them. Minds and hearts unite — at this moment, they are one.

The columnist is no longer defined by the column, but has elevated it to a performance art. At its essence, the column is the potential for majesty and grandeur. The columnist has synthesized a desire for performance with the practicalities of reality. His goal is accomplished. He has attained the very best.

---

Our ideals are our defining identities. Ideals convey a sense of belonging, a precept and belief in the capacity to achieve something truly meaningful.

In life, sometimes we have no choice. We are often shaped by external circumstances, influenced and affected by what society demands from us. Choice becomes secondary.

Despite these challenges, it is important to remain true to one’s identity, to maintain an unyielding, principled belief in the face of withering criticism, spreading debauchery and uninformed opinion. Remaining true to one’s intrinsic, fundamental principles, that can define the whole world.

---

There is an idealistic benefit of longevity. It is familiarity. With increasing identification comes assimilation, an intrinsic joy to operate within the framework that has been established.

While longevity matters, equally important is the need to outreach. One must reach outside comfort to seek the unseen and to explore the unexpected. Life is a journey often displaced by another challenge, to shatter boundaries, to redefine paradigms. It must be tested again and again.

For the past three years, the experience of writing as a columnist for The California Aggie has at once been exhilarating, unpredictable, joyful and satisfying. Personally, now is the time to finally move on, to try the other vagaries that life has to offer. As Tennyson mentioned, it is the time to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. Farewell, UC Davis. it’s time for a new journey!

It’s been a wonderful and exciting three years — ZACH HAN thanks you all from zklhan@ucdavis.edu for your readership, encouragement and emails; they were greatly motivating and sincerely touching, thank you!

The strange country

Published 05-28-2009 in The California Aggie

America is a strange nation. She is a country that produces the very best and the very worst, whether in political, economic or cultural aspects. Everything and anything happens in America.

Take its politics. America’s politics are bitterly partisan, often divided around staunch, sometimes less-clear, battle lines. Republicans and Democrats represent the dual extremes of two highly polar positions, but swing moderates, special interests groups and think tanks also influence. Thus the process to win votes are frequently organized and mechanized.

Here, everyone argues about equal pay to minority representation to marriage rights to corporate reform to entitlement crises to environmental preservation. The debate is so intense and noisy that at times, America seems incapable of governing or achieving anything at all.

Yet the very fact that we hear so much about the nation’s ills and maladies and doom illustrates the very strength of its democratic vibrancy. There is a desire to constantly change, renew and elevate the nation to something grander. People vote according to their perspectives and context. Hence here dissent is the best form of acceptance.

Then there are America’s laws. The Constitution, with amendments such as gun-bearing rights and the secret deliberative process of the Supreme Court, can often appear antiquated. Yet its very antiquity testifies to its endurance to its very best ideals. Individuals yield to no authority or power, but subscribe to a clear if abstract ideal of justice and independence of thought.

Corruption and authoritarianism are endemic in many nations around the world, for instance, and America is no exception. Yet here none stands above the rule of law and communal moral certitude. Eliott Spitzer and John Edwards, two former successful national politicians, floundered their careers for personal indiscretions. Bernie Madoff is facing trials while Michael Vick was just released. The system allows for self-correction, regeneration and reversals.

And this is a nation of endless products and boundless consumption, products churned constantly one after another. Brands and retailers such as Staples, Quiznos, Target, Microsoft and Ford proliferate. Companies design and cater products for every subcategory, ethnicity, preference: financial and asset management needs, insurance needs, technological efficiency needs, lifestyle home interior needs, business leverage needs. The list is so diverse and plenty that one can feel lost in a world of profuse materialism.

Yet America also delivers the very best, cutting-edge leadership. Apple has conceived some of the finest consumer electronic advancements ever known, its revolutionary designs and powerful functionalities of iPhones, iPods and iMacs spawning imitators everywhere. Barring their questionable bets in risky securities, the investment banks also apply some of the most outstanding theoretical, modern approaches to facilitating business and creating conducive operating environments.

Living in America is at once seeing the world in all its forms and quirks. One tastes Korean BBQs, experience the Irish Catholicism, indulge in French wine, retaliate against Mexican jalapenos, enjoy Cirque du Soleil and watch taiko. Cultures and cuisines come in various forms. The celebrations are diverse as they are astounding.

But the diversity also sometimes creates problems. In studies on race, though narrowing, examination scores still show marked differences. Stereotypes permeate. Urban slums are the consequence of income disparity and class groupings. A class of the very rich versus the stagnant middle class craters from the unequal distribution and remuneration of equity. The juxtaposed show the very best and very worst.

America is a restless soul tempered by a resilient dedication. She exhibits very divergent behaviors and attitudes, demonstrating exceptionalism while desiring a national collectivity. The battle for the heart of America is often fierce, cunning, voracious and incomprehensible. And this weird character is what gives America her defining, unique identity.

ZACH HAN thanks all the diverse people who traversed into his life from zklhan@ucdavis.edu!

The relevant education

Published 05-21-2009 in The California Aggie

There is an increasing clamor for the bureaucratization of college education. For many, globalization reemphasizes the demand for technical expertise. To thrive in the current economic mode is to attain the very specific skill sets employers require — to the extent that “a humanities education,” as the New York Times reports, “may become “a great luxury that many cannot afford.”” The oft-cited resolution is simply to shift the focus of college education to align with global economic patterns.

This approach ignores the fundamental premise of a college education.

Education is the empowerment of minds allied to active emotional maturation. At its essence, learning isn’t merely about the absorption of information. Instead, it is acquiring the ability to understand complexity, to map the details and networks in the grand scheme of order, and articulate the resulting conclusions with flourish. It helps one think and reason through ambiguity.

In this respect, a diverse college education expands, not narrows, intellectual horizons. Utilized beneficially, individuals grow. Through an exposure not to a specific technical vocation, one gains the essential analytical skills and appreciative fervor for the canon of established knowledge — from Nietzsche’s existential nihilism to Chaos theory to Modigliani-Miller’s powerful model of financial leverage. This diversity provides a perspective of independence.

One prevalent problem with this goal, including at UC Davis, is the tendency for students to skip the personal inquiry step for top grades. At college, one’s understanding is evaluated through the assignment of grades. Grades illustrate one’s ability to thrive in challenging subject materials while balancing the demands of professional growth, healthy emotional lives, personal relationships and continuous leadership opportunities. They indicate one’s ability to multitask under intense time pressure.

But too often students cram at the expense of focused and dedicated learning. Cramming is short-term, instant memorization frequently consequent of poor time management. At times, in the busy, distractive pacing of today’s society, cramming is unavoidable as it is necessary. But the potential for abuse is high, and frequenting this behavior as a general form of study misses the endeavor that goes into actual learning. This prevents active intellectual curiosity.

In this context, one’s focus is on the solutions, not the thought-process. This is a problem that must be resolved.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the second premise of a diverse college education is to help one integrate into institutionalized communal structures. As the New York Times columnist David Brooks describes the situation, “we are not defined by what we ask of life. We are defined by what life asks of us.” Precisely because society is organized around certain requisite norms and commonly agreed behavioral principles, one’s comprehension and practice of certain attitudes are essential. To succeed in society, one must acclimatize to the preset rules and precepts. Certain patterns of actions must be adhered to.

In this sense, college, by its very function of instruction, is responsible to provide a platform for the cultivation of mannerisms, etiquette, ethics and grace. Through a setting for character growth, one develops the ability to emote, to project passion and to express convictions. These skills are what define connections. A diverse education helps one train these soft skills.

A diverse college education, rather than specific technical development, helps one attain the height of human consciousness while adapting to the needs of society. It is to make or bring meaning to what can seem meaningless. The diversity promotes creativity, a willingness to look beyond the obvious, harnesses the power of imagination. In the end, thus, the clamor to design education to train specific technical skills comes at the great expense of many essential life skills.

ZACH HAN thinks college is the best experience to happen… agree at zklhan@ucdavis.edu

The Edwards predicament

Published 05-14-2009 in The California Aggie

Even in political asylum John Edwards cannot stop stealing the limelight. Earlier last week a federal investigation was launched against him for the potential abuse of public funds during his presidential election. His wife Elizabeth is currently promoting her book “Resilience” about the personal travails she undergone while her husband committed infidelity. For the man who seems almost politically irrelevant, the image of the smiling politician seems pretty alive in public consciousness.

But perhaps the most surprising reaction to his infidelity is their very ferocity.

John Edwards always framed his life story as a battle against difficult circumstances and debilitating adversity. Son of a mill worker, he rose to prominence as a leading senator and vice-presidential candidate. As a lawyer, he describes his goals as a crusade for the poor workers against large, exploitative corporations. For many, he appeared a model of strength, directed in resolve against the many injustices life offers. His success was an inspiring American Dream tale come true — many could have subconsciously wanted his ascension as President to make it complete.

But like all stories of overindulgence in the height of successes, he eventually dismissed his very values and succumbed to temptation.

The public office contains a special aura because its inhabitants are a reflection of the constitutional character of our values. For those seeking to assume leadership here, there is an established moral conduct and construct of behavior and engagement that must be fulfilled. The standards are exacting and rigorous.

The demands of the public office can seem exorbitant at times. Yet these demands are necessary as they can be overwhelming. The public office is an incubator of public trust. As much as officials are merely individuals prone to errors, they are volunteers of tremendous responsibility. Placed in their trust are enormous public resources, the authority for power and the privilege of public resource — they yield the power to affect billions of lives.

And while individuals and society has many imperfections, the community expects their leaders to exhibit sound judgment and stable ethical purpose. This includes the ability to resist temptation, be filial, maintain faith in God, organize family values, connect with the community and pay attention to the greater good. Thus they are there to only serve the people, independent from personal interests.

For that reason, the public official’s life is a public record. When one decides to run for public office, their lives are no longer theirs, but subject to the close examination of the public. To commit into public office is to abandon any opportunity at privacy.

For Edwards, his mistakes were twofold. The first mistake was to engage in a consensual illicit relationship with Rielle Hunter, a lady who also produced his campaign videos.

Perhaps more importantly, and what truly infuriates, is his compounding his error by continuing the affair. Despite, as Elizabeth testifies in “Resilience”, his admission that he committed personal foresight, even as she “cried and screamed,” he subsequently continued the relationship. And he did this all while continuing to contest the Democratic primary nomination, refusing to abandon his affair. Absent was any thought of public admission, apology and recrimination. Instead, Edwards quietly hid knowledge of the relationship from the public.

In this respect, Edwards was irresponsible as he was unqualified.

In many ways, John Edwards submitted in a moment of personal weakness. He lost control of his moral judgment despite his responsibilities as a public official. That doesn’t diminish his accomplishments as a crusader for justice or as an individual, loving family person. But the environment for public office just dictates that such a behavior and attitude isn’t tolerated.

As much as “Resilience” is the other side of the story, ZACH HAN still thinks its somewhat a last-attempt at publicity… concur at zklhan@ucdavis.edu

The individual war

Published 05-07-2009 in The California Aggie

A recent invention is threatening to become even more personal than Google. As The Independent reported, Wolfram Alpha promises access to a world designed uniquely to oneself: it “will understand questions and give specific, tailored answers in a way that the web has never managed before.” Alpha, in other words, delivers what humans always sought: immediate, accurate answers.

This era is an era of looping, endless mass production and mass consumption. Products proliferate and advertisements abound. For many, this can be jarring as it can be disorienting — too much is also too little. Which precisely is why the future is increasingly shaping to be a war to reclaim individual identity. The strides for individuality brims like never before.

Take workplace changes. For companies, formal titles and dressing often convey professionalism and unity of purpose. These promote a sense of togetherness and focus toward corporate objectives. It is collective and distinctive by its sameness.

Yet that culture is evolving. In industries reliant on creative impulses especially, adopted are more casual dress codes; some tech companies even allow employees to name their own titles. For one reason, hierarchies seemingly impose levels and corporatism; these fail to humanize. By forsaking these attitudes, subordination is displaced by independent and organic values. They glorify individualism.

Popular culture is also affected. Marketers are appealing to the desire for individualism by discarding utility for prestige and purpose. Rather than portraying products as attractive commodities, they advertise emergent external product experiences: the iconic Haagen Daaz ad of a lady sumptuously enjoying a slice, the Toyota ad illustrating a commitment to environment. Absent in these are any mentions of business transactions. Instead, present is impressions of pleasure.

Similarly, Internet 2.0 is not about the dissemination of information. Instead they strive to empower users. New business models such as FML, Twitter, Facebook and digg.com thrive exactly because users can control their direction. Users discuss their daily lives and others respond. They post and calibrate individual information, others observing and listening. It is all for the individual feeling

What are the consequences? Manifold.

The first noticeable change is the way of interaction. Efficiency is now king. In cable news and papers, presentations must be condensed into immediate, comprehensible fragments. Complex sentence infrastructures are curtailed. Speed of understanding trumps artistry. Everything must be fast. Individuals, not issues, take priority.

Pleasure has also become mechanized. Theme parks imitate real beaches and forests while gaming is becoming Wii-fied. Actual substantive experiences are transformed into replicated similar experiences. Technology mimics traditionalism, the surreal becomes the reality and the artificial becomes the authentic. Everything is geared towards individual pleasure.

At a time when prior institutions and ways of life are under assault, one sees what one had previously with a special clarity and realizes the expensive price of modernization. And it is steep: the loss of meaning creates disillusionment and existential crises at the endless, same products. But humanity is retaliating in attempt to regain individual freedom and identity, which is why Wolfram Alpha is probably going to be the next dominant thing.

ZACH HAN is excited about Wolfram Alpha, expecting to instantly find a delivered email at zklhan@ucdavis.edu when he submits a query. Prove him wrong!

The 100-day context

Published 04-30-2009 in The California Aggie

The 100-day mark is an exercise in futility. It neither provides any defining, authoritative conclusions, nor does it lay sufficient evidence for future successes. But the mark, however flawed a construct it is, is not just an indicator and predictor of performance. Rather, it conveys a perspective of context.

And the perspective of context matters, as it then emerges as a template from where we can evaluate the short-term projects that have been implemented. And sometimes, early successes or failures can define a presidency.

The past few years witnessed a successive failure of American leadership. This incident was at once a function of Boomer quarrels, cultural misalignment, racial fragments and technological distraction. Mired in internal conflict, America consequently and consistently ignored the most pressing problems she faced. It threatened the very values and essence of America.

It is this framework of failure that President Obama is cast into. The presidency is not a tale about Obama, but by virtue of his role, his identity and actions are central to it. Subsequently, he has come to illustrate that substantially, while his success in setting and driving the agenda for legislation has yet to truly manifest its projected long-term impact, he has changed something fundamental in us. And that something is perception, at domestic, foreign and local levels.

The domestic perceptions are our conceptions of the role of government in the public sphere. If Reagan thought the solution to societal ills was to remove government from the equation, Obama proposes to re-center government to the very heart of problems. He has almost nationalized banks, dramatically increased the influence of the government for the next decade, proposed activism. It is almost a story of continuous government stewardship in a more fragile, interdependent world.

Then there is America’s tarnished international reputation. After years of dwindling American moral stature — culminating in the shoe-throwing incident of President Bush — Obama has reoriented our image through choice and circumstance.

Choice by his decision to embrace hostile regimes, including negotiating with socialist dictators and releasing torture memos, while circumstance by his apologetic remarks during the European summit. At once, Obama has reshaped the contours of America to a more tolerant, open nation, a claim of the moral high ground.

Finally, the most palpable change Obama has delivered is elevating a sense of national purpose. After years of fractious contentions created a legacy of disorientation with the government, applications for public service is on the rise, while as the New York Times reported, “two-thirds of Americans now say race relations are generally good.” Meanwhile, incendiary Republican rhetoric increasingly appear extremist and vacuous. The optimism that America, at its core, is capable for dedicating service is finally returning.

Sometimes, there are aspects in life and in society that cannot be merely reduced to statistics and numbers. Instead, by its arbitrary, transient nature, these are categories that defy measurements and quantification.

Similarly, we cannot judge Obama’s 100 days by merely ranking the state of the economy or the legislation he passed. But we can try to understand the quiet and implicit transformations he brings: the sense that something grand is occurring, the anticipation that at a critical moment in our history, we are finally moving past our old battles and confronting our new ones.

For that reason, the 100-day mark is instructive as it is pointless.

Astounding feats of leadership are often demonstrated during moments of gravest dangers. Obama has shown us glimpses of what he can achieve — demonstrating, through a sincerity to resolve, a willingness to listen, and political poise, that America can assert its authority as the force of democratic good that it has often been.

ZACH HAN demands a 100-day evaluation for everything in life. Propose a different solution at zklhan@ucdavis.edu

The international problem

Published 04-23-2009 in The California Aggie

One of the least discussed problems at UC Davis is the under representation, both politically and in popular awareness, of the international student population.

They currently represent around 2,500 students or almost 10 percent of the student population, yet at times they seem almost non-represented. More should be done.

For the international students, there are multiple, significant barriers to integration. At once there are linguistic, lifestyle and cultural challenges.

The language problem consists of the difficulty comprehending the unique style and reaction of a native speaker. For locals, phrases like “hella,” “tight,” and “what’s up?” permeate daily speech. To the international, schooled and versed more in the academic art of English conversation, this novelty can be as disorienting as it can be disheartening.

Then there are lifestyle issues. The average UC Davis student’s immediate interest lies at their place in and contributions to society. Hence what motivate them are the events that directly affect their lives — the success of the local Sharks team, Colbert’s latest parody, the policy suggestions of President Obama. Their activities also differ fundamentally: alcohol and outdoor hikes are local ways of life. Even in sports — the great equalizer of human aspirations — the most universally popular sport of all, soccer, is relegated to a position behind the Red Sox, the Lakers and the Raiders.

For the foreigner, the differences in shared experiences often prevent active emotional connection. Mutual engagement is undoubtedly possible, but it requires great effort to learning. For some, the demands of adapting an entirely new lifestyle can be hugely demoralizing.

The final challenge is cultural. America’s openness to intimate human relations and contact is commonplace, and rightly so. Thanks to the 1970s sexual revolution and subsequent liberal attitudes towards natural human desires, gender separation is virtually nonexistent. For those from more conservative nations, this can be shocking and daunting. It challenges a lifetime’s conception of morality and tradition.

The confluence of these factors, to an international student, often hinders individual growth and professional development. In a way, this consequence is somewhat inevitable as it is natural.

And in the long-term, the broader, underlying problem can manifest both voluntary and involuntary segregation. Failure to become involved locally pushes some to support groups, including peer counseling, nationality-based networks and CAPS. An inability to integrate can also lead to loneliness, depression, withdrawal and, in extreme cases, suicide. For many, this experience then emerges as a story of unfulfilled potential and missed opportunity.

What can be done? Presently, the Services for International Students and Scholars, with their numerous cultural events, functions and workshops, attempts to assist with the international students’ numerous needs and integration.

But more can be done at a local level to provide the integral emotional and linguistic support. For the international student, reaching out is both a function of individual resilience and external approval. Individual resilience entails a personal willingness to learn and a dedication to thrive in a culture that is foreign and alien. Meanwhile, external approval embodies our collective responses to those who, at times, are confounded by what for us seems natural. A patient understanding and acceptance of those unfamiliar with localities can greatly inspire.

An establishment of a position in the student government, specifically focusing on certain aspects, is also necessary and pivotal. This guarantees an opportunity for active political representation, especially with regards to numerous welfare and personal needs.

The challenges confronting an international student are diverse and, at times, dispiriting. More can and should be done to address this.

After all, living far away from home is both an opportunity for crisis or achievement.

ZACH HAN salutes those who come from afar to learn and achieve, and sends his regards from zklhan@ucdavis.edu

The Inward America

Published 04-16-2009 in The California Aggie

America has become introspective. She is reexamining her mistakes and myopia, symbols of a deep crisis of identity. And the problem is this: her values have, for a while now, been altered by heightened expectations and excess of modernity. America, here, desires to re-embrace her past and her classical values.

For America, these classical values are the strange confluence of optimism and prudence, a consequence of her historical nature. When her Puritan founders arrived at this land, they came armed with a fierce but focused purpose. Back home, they had retaliated against the Church of England’s hierarchy and bureaucracy because they desired a relationship with God that was unique and personal, absent from a structured intermediary.

Hence they sought to create a state unblemished by past injustices, a classless society that could engage in individual and divine inspiration free from constraints. America filled that vacuum: unadorned, it was a New World brimming with potential and possibility.

The Puritans voyage to America is where her values were founded. As travelers to a land that was foreign, they cultivated a capacity for great risk-taking. Yet they maintained their European traditions: industry, perseverance, sobriety. They were brave yet measured.

Over time, despite assaults on these values, America always maintained her equilibrium. Hippies ascended to be evened out by the traditionalists. Moralists waged war against the licentious. Excess spending was curbed by thrifty savings. Cultures and countercultures rose and crumbled, but the fundamental balance remained the same. This combination — hope and quiet resilience — is what shaped the American success of today.

What happened during our era was an extreme tilt towards lavishness. America forsook caution for abandon, disposing prudence and living beyond her means with money she never had. And compounding her problem were the arbitrary rules of international trade and investment — America thought she was rich when she really was in an illusion of richness. She engaged in reckless behavior in the financial markets, when “making money as an end in itself boomed as a calling,” declared the New York Times columnist Frank Rich.

Now, America attempts to restore her normal. But the challenges are threefold: structural, fundamental, and implicit.

Structural in the preexisting architectural organization of her institutions. Her infrastructure and public works systems are antiquated. Her buildings and bridges are old, while others are building new magnificent monuments and constructing high-speed, efficient rails at accelerating speed. Dubai boasts the tallest towers in the world while China still basks in her spectacular and majestic Olympics. Others are advancing.

Fundamental in her mindset. With the exception of Silicon Valley and, in a way, Wall Street, America lags behind her international peers in embracing new technologies and innovation. She depends upon misguided short-term policies: Japanese and German cars are outwitting Ford, GM, and Chrysler. The energy in Asia, where the most exciting opportunities lie, is immediate and intense. A flippant peer remark that “in the past, America was the place to be. Now that is no longer the case” might have been casual and callous, but it perfectly epitomizes the reality and sentiment of a less exceptional America and a more distributed power nucleus.

Finally, implicit in her national cohesion. Modern America is less uniracial and more multicultural, its diversity a potential source of great strength or fragmented discord. But America seems to be conflicted; her identity isn’t clearly defined and she seems troubled in moving forward with her immigration and integrative policies. Uniting the nation to a shared collective purpose is the difficulty.

America today veers toward an inward looking nation, scrutinizing every past sin. Her legacy is under threat. But she is recognizing her mistakes, rallying as a nation to correct them, and save herself from descending into irrelevance by summoning her defining values: optimism allied to prudence.

ZACH HAN is turning inward too during the midterm week—help him turn outward by hollering to zklhan@ucdavis.edu

The Extinction of A History

Published 04-09-2009 in The California Aggie

The recent World Chess Championship loss of American Grandmaster Gata Kamsky to the current world number one Veselin Topalov was, in many ways, a setback to the forward development of American chess and, in particular, a disappointment to Kamsky’s fans. Yet what should have truly been disappointing was how inconsequential the match seemed.

In the past, as much as chess demanded individual intellect, it was also a competition between overarching national ideologies and cultural philosophies. For the observer, all the emergent dramas — the human emotion, national pride, absorbing intensity, trauma of unpredictability — those were majestic feelings as they were spectacles. At times, then, chess appeared to be less about two people competing than it was about the story of two conscripts battling for larger, underlying meaning.

And that is the problem: the very values that characterized the greatest chess matches are increasingly dislodged in the age of mechanical computation. With the invention and improvisation of chess programs, chess as a sport is in danger of losing its fundamental qualities. For a game that has persisted and lasted for centuries, a critical part of human history is under the threat of extinction. Chess risks becoming inconsequential.

Often, chess is about hierarchy and class. The Rooks and Bishops can seem impersonal, bastions of high privilege available to the very few, their rank condescending and their stature intimidating. For the learner, this order is menacing and distant.

But chess is also about redeeming human qualities. Through a focused resolve and unrelenting search for answers, chess can be bent to one’s will and skill. The greatest competitors internalize and master their fears, then transform their nervousness into vigorous moves; in turn, the pieces energize and influence. At it essence, thus, chess contains the intrinsic potential to emerge as a harmonic interplay of pawns and pieces, their inter-structural seamlessness acting and reacting with swift coordination. The play emerges as an art form.

Furthermore, for the chess player, life is embodied and captured in this interaction. The dynamism of chess offers a glorious permanence against the postmodern world that frequently seems more provisional. In the minds of some, the finality of the pieces’ linear relationships can even be preferable to the more arbitrary vagaries that shape human relationships.

Computers have now displaced these human qualities. Through absolute precision, the element of unpredictability has been digitally removed. Instead, with the clarity of a perfect oracle, every move is now engineered towards exaction and perfection. The intangible factors that belie the grandest historical chess matches — the magnitude of the occasion, the sense that something critical is happening, the confluent conditions that provoke action — are surreally disposed by a machine that recognizes no human qualities.

History is a transcript of significant human meaning, its annotation often the consequence of important events allied to defining acts. For many, insight into chess is a venture into a realm that seems forbidden, secretive and transitory. One peeks into the future, seeing what has yet to transpose, envisioning what has yet to happen. That clairvoyance is exciting and exhilarating; this creates meaning, as players get to shape their own personal destinies. Chess players become masters of their own directions.

For chess to come under assault, that is frightening — it endangers not only a game that is valued, but also a way of life that people utilize to construct their own histories and imprint their identity. The invention of chess-playing programs has ultimately emerged as a battle for the soul of chess — and of national identities, cultural phenomena, and individual worth.

Preserve chess by supporting National Master (NM) James Heiserman’s lecture on “Middlegame Strategy” at the Chess Club tomorrow! Contact ZACH HAN at zklhan@ucdavis.edu for more information.

An institution’s death

Published 04-02-2009 in The California Aggie

Newspapers as we know them are dying. Print media outlets are decreasing production, declaring bankruptcy and retrenching — the New York Times is the latest among many to announce layoffs. Last month, TIME even published a case for rescuing newspapers, so severe has the crisis become.

In many ways, the potential death of the newspaper signifies not only the death of a source of information, but the collapse of rational, refined thought. Without newspapers and journalistic reporting, society is in danger of atrophying. The cessation of newspapers is thus a threat to the very existence of America.

Newspapers are under assault because the Internet has reoriented our conventional conceptions about the access to content. Here, macro-forces and micro-details converge.

The macro-forces are the emergence of a serious competing alternative: the democratizing qualities of the Internet and the blogosphere, allied somewhat to visual television, have discouraged readers from paid print subscription.

The micro changes, meanwhile, involve a strategic failure to plan: the print media’s inability to find and develop profitable business models in the changing circumstances.

To be sure, the liberating values of the Internet and, in particular, the blogosphere, aren’t negatives in themselves. What is at stake, however, is quality writing and reporting. Quality writing is sustained clarity of mind coupled to eloquence of speech, while quality reporting is the presentation of events from perspectives that are novel, multiple, independent, and rich. Both offer focus and vision; most importantly, together, they offer coherence. From these, readers make reasoned judgments, calibrating their choices and decisions using the best available information.

Newspapers are about informing, but it also is a function of influence. Information is not merely about transmission. It’s about deep emotional engagement. Newspapers report absent of emotion, but by the nature of their reporting, great emotions are often aroused. They report about human acts and, by extension, humanity. For the reader, hearing about fellow people’s heroic deeds, this inspires civic duty. It reminds one to remain vigilant at times of grave danger. Newspapers therefore shape attitudes and behavior.

The blogosphere is similarly about ambition; it demands intense, personal engagements that are visceral and real. But by virtue of its fundamental character — personal interpretation allied to profound emotions — it fails to capture the complexities and orthodoxies of events in their entirety. Instead, the blog is an acquaintance with bits and fragments of news. On the contrary, by their strides for balance, newspapers provide the entire view.

And newspapers, through editorial commentaries and columns, offer authenticity and authority. Like the blog, a column is also about opinion, but it is opinion customized from particular attention to detail and from deep, objective analysis. They seem radical and reactionary at times, yet their honesty and immediacy is what shapes mindsets. At their very best, great columns flatter hearts, deliver devastating verdicts, beg further questions, move people to action. By these virtues, columns are an institution.

Most critically, newspapers are the incubators of reactionary democratic ideals. They fundamentally check and balance society’s greatest sin — excess. Through vigorous reporting, newspapers can shame offenders, provoke outrages, correct behaviors. Newspapers enact justice and preserve the constitutional character of our behavior. They are the upholders of our liberty.

At times of crisis, we sometimes realize what is truly meaningful to us, what we have been taking for granted but magnifies in importance when under danger. The threat to newspapers, where they could cease to exist in relevance, is one of these moments. The newspaper is America’s unsung institution, exposing what is inefficient and glorifying what is redeeming. Most importantly, newspapers regenerate our minds, soul, and spirits — it is the essence of our identity.

Thankfully, the Aggie is still publishing… express your gratitude the editors through ZACH HAN at zklhan@ucdavis.edu

Dead American Heroes

Published 03-12-2009 in The California Aggie

Warning: Potential Watchmen Spoilers

For awhile now, the anti-hero phenomenon has been permeating. During the last decade, our superheroes increasingly exhibited fallibilities often associated with regular people, such as pathological inconsistencies (Batman), general clumsiness (Superman), addiction to alcohol (Hellboy), and extreme temperance (the Hulk). Yet they would still recover; despite suffering setbacks and wounds, they will summon valiant courage and unconquerable strength to defeat the evil Soviet empire and plotters threatening the world.

But the American superhero is finally dead. The superhero as we know it is no longer existent. Optimism will now be a word from the past. We have reached a tipping point, one where the moral authority and ethical correctness of the superhero have finally become irrelevant.

How do we know this? Because in Watchmen, the protagonist makes a statement for peace and good by killing millions of innocent people. They are good by being evil.

Watchmen is at once stylistically accomplished and aesthetically rewarding. But the true strength of the movie lies in its plot. The plot focuses on the histories and narratives of the Watchmen, guardians and protectors of the city. Here, each member has individual, broken pasts. But they gain resolve through their histories, and unite to stop similar injustices from occurring.

When the Comedian, a Watchmen member, is assassinated, they are roused from their collective hibernation. An assault on one is an assault on all. They are confused as they are attacked. Many undergo numerous trials; but they soon realize that the killing is an act planned and executed by one of their members. He seeks to annihilate each.

And this is the irony. The entire story is a joke in destiny. To save billions, millions are killed. By sacrificing innocents in the New York City, the protagonist-antagonist is attempting to save the world from a broader nuclear war between the Soviet Union and America. When his ploy succeeds, the American and Soviet governments declare truce to combat the common perceived hero-turned-enemy, Mr. Manhattan. This is killing to prevent killing.

At its essence, thus, Watchmen is a morality tale. The protagonists discover that they’re not fighting for their personal existence, but for the soul of America. The masked heroes were previously the guardians of society. But they can’t keep saving America now because they are faceless, without identity. They need to cease to exist. The true heroes must instead be the police force, the firefighters, the politicians, and the teachers. America needs a real face to it. Superheroes can’t accomplish this.

In some ways, this paradox harks utilitarianism, where one’s action, however seemingly wrong, is done for the greater good. What seems unreasonable is done for a reason. Sacrifices are necessary.

More broadly, this is recognition that we are finally acknowledging truth for what it really is: Masked superheroes are figments of our imagination. They are unraveled for who they truly are. The reality is that the American superhero never truly existed. It was a concoction of fantasy, a superhero created to provide a sense of security and safety. They existed insofar as we gave them life.

What caused us to realize and admit this truth? It is this: the nation has both lost faith in the power of her ideals, as well as accepting the qualities of an integrated postmodern world. On the one hand, she is wearied from wars, her financial system is crumbling and her beliefs are shaken. At the same time, America has come to view the world as one where events are the consequence of interdependent, random confluences. America is not a sole city on a hill, but only a city among many.

Superhero movies are a reflection of the way a nation sees itself. Watchmen showed us that America has finally accepted the reality that an American superhero never existed. March 6^th was the day the American superhero died.

ZACH HAN absolutely loved Watchmen; he thinks the faceless Rorschach is pretty maniacal. Agree with him at zklhan@ucdavis.edu

The American schizophrenia

Published 03-05-2009 in The California Aggie

A quiet endemic has been spreading around for awhile now. It is stealthy yet lasting. It affects every facet of our lives, impacting the way we behave, act, expect and communicate. And the endemic is this: Americans are facing a crisis of identity — we create then deny what we create.

The prominent conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, in an insightful 2006 The Times article, termed this phenomenon “schizophrenia.” For him, the problem with America is that we glorify and elevate certain figures and attitudes, then strangely seek to destroy them. We want but we do not want. And this paradox occurs because it gives meaning to our culture. At its essence, this schizophrenia is necessary as it is polarizing.

This schizophrenia manifests itself in many aspects of our lives. Take our food. We have become, by choice and circumstance, a nation of instant, fast food. We eat what is immediately producible: microwavable ramen, pre-packaged tri-tip steaks, instant spaghetti, Diet Coke. In a life of fast paces, our food has become fast too.

Yet we then react against the unhealthiness of this consumption. Healthy living organizations sprout up, promoting the slow preparation and organization that goes into making meals. Anti-cholesterol supporters crusade in a ferocious quest to eliminate trans-fatty acids from foods, lobbying government officials and advertising their adversaries as vested interests with skewed intentions. There is a real, substantial disdain for the deterioration of our food production and quality as much as consumers love them. And for the consumer, there is a knowable guilt to eating these, yet the behavior persists.

This phenomenon is especially evident in the entertainment industry. We endow our celebrities with the highest possible recognition. They constantly grace the front pages of our magazines and emerge as the subject of late-night talk shows. We ravish and celebrate their beauty, talent and charisma. Celebrities, in our world, are ascended to the highest echelons.

Yet we also bemoan their individual failings. We criticize Gwyneth Paltrow for being underweight, analyze Lindsay Lohan’s romantic tendencies and arguments with her partner, scrutinize Angelina Jolie’s and Jennifer Anniston’s ongoing “feud.” We question the morality of their actions and the sanity of their doings. The conversation then emerges as a battle between tradition and ethics and modernization and liberation. We admire and disdain them simultaneously, without truly being sure what we actually feel about them.

And the entire point is that this schizophrenia is necessary for the collective function of numerous parties and industries. This is a cyclical endeavor that rewards everyone. As Sullivan remarked, commentators critique and lambast, entertainers receive publicity, media managers get a job, newspaper ratings increase, consumers delight. In this circle, everyone gains a voice, all winning in the game of rise-and-blame. This process demands the participation of a leader, followers, reactionaries, anti-reactionaries. It requires proponents and opponents in equal intensity and measure.

Hence what America crystallizes it seeks to destroy. And this is the paradox: the artificiality and authenticity of each action is true. Both are legitimate and authoritative. There is hypocrisy in one seeking collective approval. Yet there are also true believers, soothsayers who strive for the individual, redeeming qualities.

This schizophrenia is the uncompromising reality and quality that defines postmodern America. And it is necessary to view this entire proceeding from a lens that is detached, removed and far. Because, like always, a schizophrenia is bewildering.

Adhering to the spirit of schizophrenia, ZACH HAN welcomes both your congratulatory messages and demeaning criticisms to zklhan@ucdavis.edu

A changed college education

Published 02-26-2009 in The California Aggie

In Rick Perlstein’s 2007 essay “What’s the Matter with College?” he laments the death of college as a catalyst for radical social change. For him, the increasing pre-professional bureaucratization of college deprives students of the creative intellectual impetus they need to renew national culture and idealism. What he didn’t predict was that the end of college as we know it was indeed not brought by intellectual changes, but by economic changes — because college students are now entering an era of curtailed expectations, and living with less is becoming the way.

For the past several years, the average college student has had a clear path towards success. At college, one developed character by participating in social organizations, volunteering in charities, leading student governments. At the same time, one was expected to consistently maintain outstanding grades, attend office hours, demonstrate enthusiasm for learning. Not less were the demands to socialize and to party. Success in these — and, by extension, acquiring the necessary skills — meant that one was ready to graduate.

And the subsequent rewards were multiple. Fresh graduates expected a minimum starting salary of $40,000. Assured by the security of lucrative income, one could purchase an Acura, repay student loans, buy designer Armanis, marry college sweethearts. College payoffs were satisfying.

But the premise and promise that defined college are now withering and crumbling. That dream is under threat, brought about by a seismic economic downturn. The jobless rate is steadily increasing. Competition for jobs is fierce, pitting one not just against fellow graduates but to former managers and senior specialists. Financial reports continuously deliver gloomy forecasts. Fear is coursing and uncertainty is permeating. For many, this is the future disappearing.

Thus, expectations in college will no longer be the same. But what has changed?

Firstly, our entire orientation with wealth. We were living previously in an inflated setting, spending with money borrowed from the future. And unlike past crises, which were the product of business cycles — periods of economic fluctuations due to the imbalance of supply and demand — this crisis is real, so widespread, so integrated between numerous actors, a consequence of so many bad decisions by so many people all at the same time. College graduates must recognize and adapt to the unforgiving nature of this downturn.

It is also not just about reduced expectations, but our very conceptions of the way traditional businesses operate. Several industries are undergoing transformational, systemic changes. Traditional print journalism is entering into a crisis of identity, struggling to promote a viable business model against the growth of blogs and free content. The financial industry’s reputation and function is in shambles, the public’s faith distorted after all the perceived corporate greed and scandalous disregard. And the government’s nationalization of the banks ensures that corporate operations will never remain the same. Our professional education has to be realigned to this new reality.

Additionally, the fight for resources is increasingly diverse. As nations ascend in political influence, economic might, and military sophistication, the bidding for energy and capital occur in a realm where demand greatly outstrips supply. Resources are dwindling. Thus, for the college graduate, prior expectations of affluent lifestyles and extravagant spending are no longer realistic.

When Perlstein envisioned the death of college in America as we know it, he was imagining its death by a lack of intellectual radicalism. It would be interesting to know that its change was brought instead by an economic crisis.

ZACH HAN is also searching for a job; interested employers can email him at zklhan@ucdavis.edu

The obsolete education

Published 02-19-2009 in The California Aggie.

In the classic 1989 movie “Dead Poets Society,” Robin Williams’ portrayal of a poetry professor inspiring his students to love poetry for its intrinsic qualities — as opposed to a singular focus on grades — is at once touching and haunting. Touching because he genuinely pursues his belief that individuals must be motivated to discover true loves by themselves; haunting because the school administration’s reaction against the perceived casualness and nonchalance of his methodical madness is empathic.

For the school, learning is about tradition. Through hard work, prudence, an enduring commitment, a careful attention to detail, one masters the fundamentals. Consequently, this translates into grades and admission into top universities. By adhering to a formulaic, tried-and-tested strategy to success, students meet that goal. In this context, radical and independent thought are scorned.

In contemporary society, this approach most closely resembles the pre-professional culture attached to higher learning. In this structure, there is a bureaucratization of education. Emphasis is placed on inculcating students with certain branches of knowledge, with their replication of ensuing steps a measure of success. The goal is to enrich students with the necessary skills to perform a specialized task.

What this methodology of learning truly illustrates, however, is an ideology of a bygone era. This is not to say that industry, effort and grades are irrelevant. They are. But in its essence, learning is about the ability to reason what seems unreasonable. To impose a structured learning order as the school and professional courses do are to deny that learning, at its heart, is about confusion, conflict, and disorder. The values that the school preaches, simply said, are antiquated as it is obsolete.

Learning is concentrated attention aroused by a profound awakening. In this sense, knowledge is not a canon of fixed percepts to be internalized, but rather a theory of human constructs. One’s objective is to discover from this knowledge.

And learning necessitates adaption. It demands that one can reorient their pre-existing conceptions of the world around novel, unique patterns. It requires that one views education through a willingness to improvise knowledge in novel situations and creations. Versatility is necessary.

The value-added benefits of academic inquiry are multiple. It equips one with the eloquence to convey messages, to express clear thoughts using precise words, to write with flourish and finality. It imbues the desire to challenge parameters, deconstruct complexities, impose meaning, create new conventions. It empowers one to transfer the spirit of innovation across interdisciplinary breadths.

But the purpose of education is not only to enrich the mind. It is to provide the vital skills one needs to thrive in this world. That includes the patience to empathize with cultures and behaviors that are different, the grace to conduct oneself in unique situations and the confidence to lead fellow men against the unpredictability that life offers.

Also, in the simple pleasures of life such as watching a movie, learning doesn’t just help us celebrate the visceral nature of fast-paced actions. It is also about the capacity to appreciate the intensity of the moment, knowing that the challenges in life are real, lasting and menacing. It reassures.

And the benefits of learning are not provisional; they are permanent. Their redeeming qualities lie in its endowment of a fertile mind. It allows us to analyze, to reason, to reconcile structures and systems. Ultimately, it helps us make sense of the world, experience its complexities and examine its travails, challenge its conventions and make meaning out of it.

The next movies on ZACH HAN’s list are W., Watchmen, Wanted, and the International. Email an alternative list to zklhan@ucdavis.edu

How the economy died

Published 02-12-2009 in The California Aggie

Wall Street’s predicament is a lesson in overstretching limits. This is an institution that prides itself in creating wealth, moving and shaking markets, empowering people. At its very best traditions, Wall Street is a worldview — a belief that at its height, the possibilities of the human imagination is limitless.

But, in the pursuit of the prospect and promise of riches, they tested the parameters of what is possible and what is probable.

The first lesson in Finance 101 states that money, coupled with prudence, contains enormous potential for growth. It’s simple: investing grows money. Fundamentally, balancing one’s cash flow — between income and expenditure — with a positive net flow, then reinvesting the money, is the means to achieve this goal.

For many individuals, one common and primary method is through direct investment, the way students deposit money into a savings account. As the aggregate function of accrued, compounded interest over a period of time earns returns tailored to the investor’s objective, value is created.

Others invest in stocks and bonds — respective equity and debt instruments conceptually designed to guarantee phenomenal growth, a constant income stream, or both. These stocks and bonds are created to profit both the investor and the company. Then, using modern, sophisticated functions such as technical and fundamental analyses, they predict market movements and forecast earnings. All these acts are designed to gain maximal returns.

For companies, the investments from individual investors, in turn, are loans that provide necessary funds for financing profitable ventures. They subsequently identify and invest in projects yielding positive net returns using capital budgeting analysis. The entire process transfers and circulates money between individuals and corporations — earning individuals money and companies equity for investment.

Wall Street, however, took this philosophy and practice of investments to the extreme. In many ways, they engaged in, and perhaps underestimated, overwhelming risk. By creating a class of exotic financial derivatives called the collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) — derivatives dependent upon valuation of other assets — their intention was to make profit by lending loans to homeowners, recouping these through the balance from interest payments.

In doing so, they simultaneously assumed that interest rates — the cost of lending — would remain artificially low—hence taking on more risks by lending to borrowers even with poor credit history. It didn’t help that individual investors were attracted by the immediacy of borrowing and credit rating agencies gave high ratings to the investors.

Precisely because these loans were attached with variable rates, when those unable to pay defaulted and foreclosed, a cyclical interaction of fear and panic permeated, increasing rates and, subsequently, increasing defaults. In turn, this collective increment affected all participants.

The crime here is not the innovation of the derivatives itself, but Wall Street’s reckless acceptance of the associated risks. In lending, they were implicitly remarking a belief that loaners with questionable credit history would somehow originate funds to pay their debt. When this didn’t materialize, leading to a cascade of interlinked failures in several industries, the impact was severe.

What Wall Street demonstrated is myopia, an ignorance of the strategic focus of long-term planning. The derivatives they created were illusions of intangibles, imagined value. Lacking was substantive, actual value. Present was not wealth but a sentiment of wealth.

The fall of Wall Street reminds us that financial transactions are actual processes that implicate the livelihoods of many. Real people lost homes, jobs, and savings — violating the entire percept of trust and reinvestments.

Wall Street succumbed to the reality of hubris and excess. It broke its proudest traditions — that while innovation is necessary, pushing the boundaries of imagination too far is dangerous.

Having said this, now is the time to invest in the market. Email ZACH HAN at zklhan@ucdavis.edu for investment tips.

How capitalism didn’t fail

Published 02-05-2009 in The California Aggie

Something has been lost. Populist sentiment is on the rise. The public’s confidence in America’s leaders and her businesses is broken. The world’s admiration for America’s financial prowess is fading. American capitalism is under assault.

This frustration is evident most clearly in the recent backlash to the Wall Street’s reward of a lavish $18 billion bonus after receiving taxpayer bailouts. For certain segments such as college students, this is the future disappearing; for others, this indicates the loss of a moral compass and ethical consciousness. The rebukes, indeed, signify a broader desire for greater government regulation — capitalist greed here appears the antithesis to the values that defined previous generations.

But what this incident truly illustrates is that the very fundamentals of capitalism haven’t changed. The conception behind the free market and its corrective powers remain the same. Its goals relative to the broader community stay the same — earning profit. What has changed is our conception towards capitalists and capitalism.

America has always prided herself on the strength of her capitalist ideals. Capitalism, broadly defined, is the economic practice where privately owned and produced goods are traded for an equal valuation — most commonly, money. Based on mutual agreement, it transfers property from one party to another, independent of government intervention.

In many ways, capitalism mandates the optimal meeting of minds. A producer makes a good, values it, and markets it to a potential buyer. The buyer, assigning his own valuation of the good, then proceeds to either accept or reject it. There is typically no external interference in this pricing process.

This liberty to choose and dispose is the quality that makes capitalism so attractive. Should the seller’s relative valuation be too high, the buyer can choose a competitor’s product. Recognizing this cost, sellers price products depending on confluent factors. For economists, this system allows the optimal pricing of goods and subsequently, broad economic efficiency.

And this is precisely what happened in the real estate industry, the source of our current economic malaise. They marketed mortgages with variable payments, and people bought it because the interest rate, or payment on loans, was very low. These mortgages — a variation of the exotic derivates, where an asset’s values change depending upon that of another asset — are the products sellers originated. Buyers bought it. Government oversight was absent. Capitalism worked perfectly fine.

Thus, what really failed here was not capitalism, but a collective failure to understand the way capitalism works. The blame is not squarely on the Wall Street capitalists — as much as they have shown contempt and an attitude bordering on the arrogant to the national plight — but rather on a network of multiple interlinks, including banks, credit rating agencies, loaners, investors, regulators, the government. The mortgage loaners created very poor products — financial instruments no one really understood; or, if some did, chose to ignore the risks — but consumers bought it nevertheless.

Capitalist companies are not responsible for the welfare of Americans. A company is only interested in maximal profit, in its sole perseverance. Wall Street behaved like this because we enabled it. They thrived because we perpetrated it through numerous individual and broader decisions.

The cost of our failures are staggering and potentially, lasting. So, what should truly be reexamined is not just capitalism. It is the relationship and attitudes we have towards products and commodities. As college students, acting carefully, deliberately, and prudently might help, as well as not buying products we don’t have the credit for. Practicing sound financial investments and spending behavior are positive approaches.

Capitalism isn’t to be solely blamed. It is a time for personal reflection.

ZACH HAN thinks that the populist anger is a nice bandwagon to jump upon. Follow his lead at zklhan@ucdavis.edu

What Detroit must do

Published 01-29-2009 in The California Aggie

President Obama has begun our first sustained effort to rescue our automobile industry. As the New York Times reported, his recent signature of a law that allows certain states to “begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard” is a step to reshape the contour of our national automobile industry.

This change has been long overdue, but the impact will be positive. In the short-term, higher mileage standards in new automobiles guarantee less fuel consumption and hence greater efficiency. For users such as college students, this implies greater affordability and overall, better economic value. In the long term, it might revitalize the Big Three automakers. And that is exactly what this law, in part, intends: to solve a crisis of identity and lost direction that has plagued the automakers, and, by extension, Detroit.

Detroit is in a transitional period. Its sales are dwindling, its reputation crumbling and its products unsold. At this moment, acceptance is necessary — they need to recognize the unforgiving realities of competition. To survive, even thrive, Detroit ultimately needs reinvention.

The Big Three must reorient its production model. For years, while its rivals developed more efficient, streamlined cars, Detroit ignored calls for improving performance. Instead, it persisted with creating large, gas-guzzling cars and trucks. Not only were these models more costly, it was logically counterintuitive and counterproductive. In a world where efficiency is power, sales unsurprisingly suffered.

To re-elevate Detroit, moreover, creating revolutionary business models is necessary. For too long, Detroit was a story about a series of missed opportunities. In the early 90s, Ford’s research team originated the hybrid concept and prototype before it became popular. But, concerned more with earning maximal short-term returns, they didn’t pursue the presumably lower-margin hybrid. They chose to concentrate on the bottom line when they had the opportunity to reshape the industry and change history.

Thus, Detroit makers need to realign their corporate culture. They must pioneer and unearth the next frontier rather than continually persisting with old models. As the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman suggested, incorporation of the Better Place model — a system that models upon Apple’s iTunes — enables users to lease electric cars then replenish it from the battery-exchange stations. “The whole system is then coordinated by a service control center that integrates and does the billing.” Nobody knows the success potential of this model — but changes are occurring. Detroit must adapt and find the ultimate cost-efficient, environment-friendly balance.

While Detroit must remain true to its essential values — its philosophy mirrors America’s, that of creative destruction, the displacement and dismantlement of worn-out, unconvincing ideas by superior ideas — it must also learn from the best. And that means studying the traits of the current Japanese automobiles.

For Toyota, currently the largest automobile seller in the world, the employee-focus perspective, commitment to employee welfare and continuous leadership development has lifted them to the very top. Furthermore, in the Toyota Way, for instance, their introduction of the just-in-time practice — the process of maintaining almost no final products, but instead executing the process once orders are received, all with systematic coordination — significantly cut down costs. This lesson is one Detroit must learn from.

Cars began in the imagination — when visionaries dared to accept radical challenges, to invent and to innovate, to conceive what was previously unconceivable. With the proliferation of automobiles today, imagination is more critical than ever. If Detroit wants to succeed again, it must improve. Most importantly, it must renew its imagination.

ZACH HAN welcomes a brand-new or used Toyota Camry. All gifts can be sent to zklhan@ucdavis.edu

President Obama’s America

Published 01-22-2009 in The California Aggie

President Obama at times appears less a person than a phenomenon — through a unity of acuity, poise and elegance, he captivates and inspires. For all his skills, accepting the Presidency of the United States is not just accepting the toughest job in the world, but the collective weight of history and the aspirations of the world all at once. And, in reality, he couldn’t have been more prepared, because Obama embodies the character and spirit of modern America.

In many ways, present-day America has increasingly been defined by numerous internal contradictions and external persuasions, with her burgeoning cultures, races, religions, products, ideas. For many, this discordance and capriciousness are overwhelming. But Obama is the perfect expression of this state. At once he transcends the resplendent mosaic of class, race and ideology. He is part Hawaiian, Indonesian, Kenyan, black, white, Harvard, inner-city Chicago. He is America’s first true postmodern President.

Yet he thrives in America’s sometimes difficult politics not merely because of what his life narrative is — he succeeds also because of what his life narrative isn’t. In many ways, Obama is the antithesis of the qualities that characterized the last eight years — the Bush administration’s juvenile nihilism and the Congress’ gross incompetence. For many, conditions and circumstances demanded a genuine leader. Obama was one.

In politics, the smallest details define the biggest moments. For Obama, he chose to meet his most dangerous challenges with the finest responses. When his political candidacy previously threatened to implode, he didn’t shy away from the novelty that challenge presents. Instead, reassured with remarkable courage, he delivered a speech on race in Philadelphia, now universally acclaimed for it’s honest, vivid examination of the complexities of racial relations. He transformed a moment that could evoke hurt and pain into leadership, not denying and abdicating responsibility but providing us all a moment for reflection and discussion.

America tomorrow is also a time when traditional political labels will matter less, displaced by common sense pragmatism and mutual resolutions. The public’s faith in the government has dramatically crumbled — in his last year Bush often had an approval rating hovering around 20% — thus electing a man who built his reputation as a conciliator. For many, blind subscriptions to political constructs damaged our capacity for reason and tolerance. They worried that excessive partisanship harmed the country, and, wanting to reclaim the promise and power of the American Dream, united behind Obama.

Most importantly, America appears to have regained her desire for renewal and reinvention at a moment when she is facing her greatest crisis in identity. Present-day America confronts her greatest challenges in decades — the multi-polar world, the crumbling financial system, the Constitutional violation, the climate change, global terrorism. These tasks are extremely daunting.

So, when America’s status is in deep peril, when the world no longer views America in the same way, when America’s promise has been distorted and her ideals besmirched, Americans collectively chose action over inaction, electing Obama and, by implication, dismissing the endless political gridlock and Boomer-Vietnam-60s infatuation. In record numbers, Americans turned out to elect a candidate who is post-Boomer, post-civil rights, post-Vietnam. They wanted an America premised not on the past, but on the future. This is modern America.

At a time when the qualities and reality of modern-day America appears confused, fraught, fragmented, divergent, Americans decided to unite and save our nation. They engaged actively, and, in the end, channeled their hopes and worked to elect our new president — President Barack Obama.

ZACH HAN is watching the Inauguration replays, and will share some with you from zklhan@ucdavis.edu