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

Countdown-in-chief

Published 01-15-2009 in The California Aggie

A strange event is happening. The most powerful person on the planet for the last eight years has seemed almost powerless for a while now. President George W. Bush is almost an afterthought. He has been conspicuous by his absence. In truth, he has become irrelevant.

For President Bush, his time in office, from his disputed 2000 electoral victory to the history-altering attack of 9/11, must have at once been equally shocking and surprising. The events that occurred under his watch have been monumental. His responses, however, have not.

To be sure, President Bush wasn’t solely responsible for America’s many predicaments — events are the consequence of confluent, independent motivations, from historical to cultural to accidental — and 9/11 occurred arguably due more to the built-up intellectual and religious antagonisms than any single failure to heed specific warnings. Moreover, the set of challenges he confronted, including global terrorism and climate deterioration are historically and uniquely novel. These factors, allied to the hyper-magnification and instant dissonance that the information age presents, meant that he was a President in an age without precedent.

But the very greatest leaders rise to the grandest occasions. The greatest Presidents adapt to the problems, devise unique responses and implement solutions. Here, President Bush was a disaster. He was rigid as the times demanded flexibility and dynamism. This rigidity has roots in his life experiences.

Bush apologists often cite his embrace of faith and the subsequent born-again moment from serious alcoholism as the defining character behind the man. For many, life-changing events are a deep touch on their deepest vulnerabilities. Some resign and falter; others struggle with recovery. Some embrace faith — often a demand for a personal, complete abdication to a divine inspiration. For Bush, he found solace, strength and salvation in Christianity. He persevered, then ascending to the highest office in the land.

But he practiced his faith in a dangerously monolithic way. He lived a regimented life, subscribed to certain fundamental tenets, stopped doubting himself. Consequently, he ignored scientific reports. He disdained opposition to his authority. He sought constant affirmation; as Richard Cohen suggested, Bush read a lot — contrary to popular caricature — but his range was limited. He was narrow in a realm that was wide. He didn’t want to be challenged.

For some, this unyielding conviction in a world that is often menacing, fluid and contradictory was admirable. But the repercussions of this certitude to the national economy, foreign reputation and military power were negative, lasting and widespread.

Bush, furthermore, was a broader expression of his party. Like an idealism that succeeds and is constantly repeated until it crystallizes into dogma, the Republican Party’s fixity with Reagan’s policies had come to symbolize rigidity. Bush perpetrated it. He was the participant of the Republican Party’s moral and ideological bankruptcy and partisan zealotry, scorning dissent in favor of loyalty.

Politically, as Frank Rich remarked, Bush thrived. His policies weren’t outstanding, but because of the Republican’s strength for identifiable narratives, he managed to tear down opponents. He practiced the politics of personal destruction, winning votes. But he didn’t win minds and hearts.

The media often lambasted him for his inept reactions to events. Many are not justified; as one President once suggested, observers are detached, mere onlookers. They lack the information and intensity of the moment, a situation that frequently demands courage. For a President, knowing that every choice can affect and implicate the lives of billions, the pressure is tremendous. But Bush failed to translate the pressure into incisive decisions.

President Bush will probably be recorded as a historical failure. But for all that we blame him for, he was a man with certain beliefs and flaws who served in the Office of the President. It was just unfortunate he was unprepared for the job.

ZACH HAN is counting down the days… send him your countdown number too to zklhan@ucdavis.edu

The end of convention

Published 01-08-2009 in The California Aggie

Many enter 2009 disheartened by the events of late 2008, and they should prepare for more disappointments or, at the very least, a moment of pessimism. Ushered in is not a new vigor but of uncertainty and unpredictability. We are entering the age of turbulent dissonance, a period without much precedent.

The first change begins at home to our conceptions of the government-individual relationship. Activist government is on the rise, and for good reason. The failure in the housing sector that quickly afflicted and spread in pandemic fashion — illustrating the interdependence among numerous institutions and faculties of power, and the powerlessness of individuals within this framework — shattered the myth of the corrective function of the free-market.

Hence, as a majority of Americans are eager for greater corporate oversight and more individual assistance while maintaining civil liberties, they bestowed a massive mandate for Democrats and elected the temperamentally conservative Obama as president. As David Brooks, the New York Times conservative columnist, echoed, our present challenge demands “epic legislation” and “conservative rule.” This period thus promises to be both the era of tremendous and limited government involvement, a somewhat uncharted novelty.

Our consumption habits and, by implication, our lifestyles, are also under assault. Mutual trust, the lifeblood for credit flow, is broken after continuous financial frauds and malfeasance. Like a newfound attitude, consumers are curtailing spending and expenditure — festivity sales were reportedly one of the poorest in recent memory — an end to an era based on cheap credit. For many, the need to consolidate, live within their means, save, and be prudent will be prominent. Restraint displaces exuberance. The world is getting more productive, but we could be more conservative.

The general attitude towards energy consumption will be seriously altered. As energy depletes alarmingly and the global climate change occurs, our oil addiction faces its challenge. According to an Environmental Protection Agency projection, for instance, currently producing oil reserves meet approximately 70% of the global daily barrels produced. In twenty years, this resource will only accommodate 30%. With prices illusionary — the $100 a barrel last summer was, according to experts, still kept artificially low — discovery of alternative energies and cleaner disposal of carbon-polluting sources are critical. This energy frontier will reshape our ways of living.

Abroad, the rising economic, political and military might of numerous nations means that America’s current hegemonic stature will be diffused instead to a network of important actors. Cities of the world — London, Seoul, Buenos Aires, Madrid — are gaining critical influence, ensuring the easy transference of and access to knowledge, capital, and human flow. Consequently, in a system that favors distributive, not solitary, action, individual nations will exert less control over events. For America, this challenge means a struggle between the pursuit of exceptionalism and the embrace of cooperation.

Meanwhile, the recent Israel-Palestine bombings serve as a reminder of the dangerous and fatal threat that international conflict and terrorism pose. The challenge of confronting extremists and democratic transgressors with differing intentions, however, will not be a solitary American quest. Precisely because America’s reputation is tarnished and its soft power diminished, global security is the provenance of many nations and their active participation. With the European Union reinvigorated under the powerful but previous leadership of the French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and Asia continuing its upward ascent as the middle class grows, unilateralism will become a footnote in history.

2009 marks the beginning of a new year, but it is also an entrance into a new epoch without precedent. We’re in for an interesting time.

The new year felt differently for ZACH HAN, and agree with him at zklhan@ucdavis.edu

The conclusion

Published 12-06-2008 in The California Aggie

As the end of 2008 hovers, we reach the conclusion to a momentous and remarkable year. This year, events occurred and questions were asked, some left unanswered. What is undeniable, however, is their significance. This year can not be ignored.

The election of the first African-American as President

Barack Obama’s election as President of the United States doesn’t just mark the elevation of a biracial American to the highest office. Rather, it represents the fulfillment of many dreams, continuous efforts, and an act.

As Richard Cohen, the Washington Post columnist, remarked, "Obama is a confirmational figure, and this election confirms what has been gradually occurring in American society ever since that July day when Johnson virtually outlawed most forms of racial segregation in America. We've been transforming ever since."

It was forty-four years ago that the Civil Rights Act passed. Since then, while perennial frictions and occasional distrusts have not disappeared completely, the progress has been tremendous. Attitudes have evolved and prejudices deconstructed, displaced by individual acceptance and collective unity. Consequently, America has emerged as a more tolerant, just and equal society.

Obama’s ascension is more than about overcoming our racial conflicts. But acknowledgement of its importance is necessary.

The collapse of America’s financial pride

In the past, the American financial sector towered among its peers, their success inspiring entrepreneurs, investors, and business owners around the world. But the dramatic collapse of America's financial and insurance giants — AIG, Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the buyout of Merrill Lynch reveal fundamental weaknesses the way the industry is organized.

The reasons for the collapse were multiple and interrelated. At a broad level, the unchecked capitalism and continuous derivative speculation led to an era of corporate excess and mismanagement. In the end, these mistakes culminated in the systematic fall of all actors involved — homeowners, subprime lenders, banks, rating agencies — with rapidly dwindling home values and defaults leading to non-payment, credit freezes, and unparalleled waves of layoffs.

For many around the world, the severity and immediacy of the crash corroded international confidence. More importantly, the downfall indicates structural weakness in America’s brand of capitalism.

Many lost savings, and America's financial reputation suffered too.

The loss of the conservative movement

The conservative movement once prided itself on the gravitas and force of their ideas — President Reagan's reactions and policies to the major threats of the 1980s, for instance, helped steer America out of hyperinflation and restored America’s sense of purpose against the communist Soviet. But the conservative ideas outlived their usefulness. As numerous socio-political and intra-national dynamics changed, Republicans clung to the past, continually advocating the same proposals in differing contexts.

Moreover, the movement grew so partisan that it no longer tolerated dissent — often the creative process that engender ideas. Christopher Buckley, son of the venerable National Review’s founder, “resigned” once he voiced support for then general election candidate Obama. Moreover, with the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh becoming the influential voices of the movement, pragmatic solutions were rejected for ideology. These incidents illustrate a party that lost its identity.

Unsurprisingly, voters overwhelmingly voted for a Democratic President and Congressional majority. It is a referendum on the ideals that defined America for generations.

At stake this year was the very core of American exceptionalism and it’s larger experiment. As individuals, we cannot foresee the future, only watch as events unfold. But 2008 has offered us lessons, instructions, and most importantly, hope. We’ll be waiting for a new dawn with renewed promise and confidence.

ZACH HAN wishes everyone a wonderful end to an important year. Wish him back at mailto:zklhan@ucdavis.edu

A new order

Published 11-20-2008 in The California Aggie

There is a profound sense of anticipation, fear even, at the new structure of our world order. This order exhibits a strange, unusual behavior because it has no behavior at all. We have entered a new era and epoch of postmodernism — a narrative defined by its absence of a grand ideal, devoid of an overarching meta-theme. In this construct, our truths are provisional, our comprehension transitory.

The question that must thus be asked is how did postmodernism come to be, and what are its future repercussions?

In his book “Bobos in Paradise,” David Brooks attempts to examine the factors behind this phenomenon. He asserts about how, disheartened by the model of the organization man — the personification of a capitalist servant, leading an ordered, structured, modulated life — certain subsections rebelled. For this subsection, the capitalist lifestyle was disturbingly idle and unsettlingly monotonous.

Thus, they resolved to embrace human’s perceived natural desires. They celebrated human independence by abandoning formality for originality. They became reactionaries, hippies, anti-establishment, anti-status quo. Their key descriptor was “organic.”

Over time, rather than polarizing into two disparate, distinct entities, these two seeming antagonisms merged. These contradictions assimilated into a form that is more indistinguishable, more protean. Their melding shaped popular culture; it now dictates us to be simultaneously creative and organized, hot and cool, traditionalist and avant-garde. We must be the confluence of both traits.

What is at stake? In a sentence, it is life as we know it. We risk entering a world of complete uncertainty.

In daily life, we’re dispersed everywhere. At once we study assiduously, listen to music, chat on AIM. With these acts, we deprive our work the attention they demand, paying only a cursory, fleeting view. We also get interspersed in a diversity of involvements. In a state of constant bombardments, we become entranced. We’re decoupled from permanence or stability. We’re uncertain.

In academia, we learn the classics and alternative inquiries, de-centered from any form of single monolithic thought. Here, we try to internalize a multiplicity of collective knowledge. But in turn, we often pass superficial glances at the main canons of thought, acknowledging their existence without fully understanding them — in the process, bypassing associated contexts, subtleties, nuance. We learn everything without truly learning something.

In the media, we hear the echo of a thousand dissenting noises, never really discovering a sole, authoritative voice. Commentary by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Katie Couric proliferates but none predominates. These are dissents that fit nowhere, testament to their dissonant nature. Consequently, there are no truly defining personalities of our generation who speaks to our conceptions of what is possible and what is probable.

Until Obama came around and triumphed with a promise for unification, politicians sliced and diced the electorate, classifying some into soccer moms and others as security moms. They targeted voters only because it was possible. For them, the electorate had no special clarity, only discord.

Commodities and capital exacerbate this situation. Companies identify niche needs, then accommodate those needs through product design — Gears of War 2, Prius, Safe Food. Marketing and advertising departments seek to convey advertisements that are personal, special, unique. Individual identity displaces the collective. And these identities move in random directions.

Where do all these changes leave us? Our dissimilarities emphasized, we become increasingly detached and different from the person next to us. In a wide-ranging world, we narrow down. We grow, not to a commonality, but to a collection of infinite ideals. Postmodernism lays directions. But we’re complicit in enabling it.

This conception is at once both frightening and assuring. It offers us options while taking away others. Our task, then, is to find a clear one.

ZACH HAN thinks a multiplicity of random thoughts can meet at one point. To prove it, email him at zklhan@ucdavis.edu

A death and a birth

Published 11-13-2008 in The California Aggie

There are two prominent schools of thought in Western philosophy about individual choice and the government’s role. One champions freedom. This ideal indicates that through hard work, talent and motivation, an individual can ascend to the top of the social hierarchy, the master of his own destiny. Here, the government plays very little in the individual’s private life.

While the thought’s approach evolved over time — be it Darwinism, exceptionalism, capitalism — the fundamentals persisted. It forms the basis of modern conservative thought.

The second school emphasizes interdependence. Accordingly, we are social products, the consequence of a vast network of interrelated relationships. In this framework, the notion of fulfilling our ambitions by simply asserting our will isn’t that simple. There are constraints preventing us from doing that.

That constraint is the surroundings that shape us: society. In many ways, social upbringing predicts mobility. For instance, one living in certain conditions presumably often identifies with and adopts from his surrounding, such as mannerisms.

In turn, the individual reacts to the broader society with this internalized behavior. When he meets someone who radically differs, however, the very nature of the differences reduces opportunities for meaningful interaction. The cycle perpetuates, and his behavior locks him in that societal structure.

Thus, even before birth, individuals have their future directions predetermined by the communal constructs they will inhabit. For a large segment of this group, especially the impoverished, the lack of proper education is a hamper.

Some believe that the solution to this is through direct assistance. They advocate government programs to promote self-sufficiency. They also believe that upward mobility for this group doesn’t just lie in helping them, but in changing the overall system.

To them, the structure is flawed — a product of elite thought designed to maintain the preexisting social order. They advocate progressivism, populism, socialism, radicalism. The focus is on the collective.

For the past two decades, the first school of thought often prevailed, despite economic research suggesting the equally vital role of stable societal conditions and institutions, created through government presence (or absence in others). Critical to the first school’s success was its transformational leader — Reagan — who, through the power of his personality and message, fundamentally won over certain segments of the electorate.

In the last eight years, however, the governing party both deviated radically from, and practiced the extreme versions of, the conservative-Reagan principles. It provided tremendous tax breaks for corporations and the affluent and deregulated markets, all in faith of the invisible hand.

As a consequence, corporations thrived, especially at the very top tier. Union bargaining power weakened, executive pay skyrocketed, middle-class pay stagnated. To be a CEO in America at this time was a dream come true.

The problem wouldn’t have been so severe if corporations earned their profits well and distributed them appropriately. Instead, some, especially Wall Street financial companies, gambled massively. Sensing quick opportunism, they hedged bets in financial derivatives — a financial asset whose underlying value is dependent upon the performance of a different asset — leading to unchecked sales of subprime mortgages to borrowers with questionable credit histories.

Moreover, some companies, under pressure to meet industry expectations, inflated earnings (Enron). This led to distrust in corporate accountability. Companies ripped consumers. But the government, the arbiter of rules, disappeared too.

This entire situation is why Obama’s triumph is so interesting. Inheriting a massive Senate and House mandate, he holds the possibility to alter the direction of the nation for the next decade. Should he fulfill his promise and find the best solutions to the most pressing problems, he could realign the nation into a center-left paradigm.

The first school of thought is under assault and in peril. The second one could dominate the next few generations. It has finally earned its due.

Support the second school of thought to ZACH HAN at zklhan@ucdavis.edu

The defining moment

Published 11-06-2008 in The California Aggie

In the end, the conclusion to the election was exhilarating and inspiring in equal measure. For some, euphoria, jubilation, and passion persisted; for others, a sense of redemption, justification, somber reflection, nostalgia and even disappointment prevailed.

But while the results provoked an astonishing range of emotions, what should not be lost and must not be denied is that there has been a tremendous, remarkable, even epic transformation in America.

In this election, many sought a new chapter, leaving the past, embracing the future. Consequently, they voted for change both in leadership and in parties. At once, barriers once considered insurmountable crumbled, previous constructs deconstructed. Change unfolded, marking the passing of a generation, an ideology, and an era.

But while we are in context, we must also look from outside context. The implications have been, and will be, numerous. And there are several overarching themes that have emerged from the narrative of this election.

The emergent politics

Elections are often conducted through a set of predetermined conventions, arbitrary rules designed through prior wisdom and wit. Similarly, this year, the expectations were set, the battle lines, clearly marked.

But a strange event occurred — this framework became irrelevant. Obama didn’t subscribe to the old ideals. He redefined them — typical parameters of campaigning, organizing and fundraising were not just bypassed, they were shifted. Through the employment of novel campaign devices, a function of harnessed innovation and improvisation, outreach evolved. It succeeded.

With this success, under assault are our traditional assumptions of political behavior and our acquaintance with the familiar operational modes. Because of the power of imagination, things will no longer be the same, for the better. Future politicians will learn from the basis of this model.

A new empowerment

The devastating losses of the Republican Party aren’t just an overwhelming referendum on the disastrous rule of the last eight years or the end of the destructive, superficial-emphasis era of Rovian-style politics.

More significantly, it’s about the empowerment of an electorate who became politically active and voted for the first time, a segment that previously had been disenfranchised by apathy or alienated by distrust in the brokenness of the system. Realignments occurred — it was touchingly moving.

Not lest, this shift was indicative of a confluence of dissension and of newfound conviction. As a candidate, Obama didn’t win merely on sheer political talent. His candidacy was the expression borne out of a collective desire for forward-progress. It’s about hope. And this empowerment provides a crucial template for future political strategies.

A leadership reassertion

Another major emergence was the reassertion of leadership. In a postmodern era proliferating with contrasts and contradictions of unpredictability, in a nation devoid of an authoritative figure and beset by discordance, Obama provided assurance and a sense of control.

Coupling strategic vision with a focused inquiry, he probed America to re-attain her belief in the spirit of positivism. Through conviction and certainty, he appealed to diverse voting blocs and disparate groups, uniting them with a common purpose and common belief. They reacted to his message, and he won in a landslide. This exemplifies leadership.

The phenomenal political bar Obama set for future leaders — charisma, profile, wit, temperance — will be defining. It will be a difficult class act to emulate.

Finally, Obama’s ascension doesn’t just illustrate the death of the old politics. It symbolizes the rebirth of an older one — one that emphasizes participatory democracy, a rejuvenation of intellectual engagement, an initiation of active discourse.

Most importantly, Obama’s triumph is not merely a victory for the Democratic Party, but a reaffirmation of the promise of the American Dream. Regardless of skin color, beliefs or upbringing, his victory proves that the combination of talent and hard work can reward dreams.

That this moment is breathtaking both in magnitude and in nature is not just testament to the extraordinary election. Perilous times mandate the elevation of the greatest acts. This is one such moment. America responded to this challenge, making history and preparing to continually remake it. It was rich in meaning, a historic achievement in many proportions.

Something has occurred. A change happened. For many reasons, it will endure.

America, this is your defining moment in history.

Democrats of the world, unite! Celebrate the new beginning with ZACH HAN at zklhan@ucdavis.edu

The closing arguments

Published 10-30-2008 in The California Aggie

For an election season that has lasted for almost over two years — with candidates firstly and formally entering the race, then campaigning and fundraising, persisting through the primaries, accepting party nominations and now, reaching the final stages of the general election — the experience is presumably a draining one.

But this is a special election, and not just because of the possible election of the first African-American President. Instead, there is the sense that America is at a defining moment, one of tremendous historic opportunity. The end is as exhilarating as its beginning ever was.

So to the final contenders: Senator Obama against Senator McCain for President. At once, this is a clash between two personalities, ideology and parties. Most prominently, it is a battle for the fundamental direction, heart and soul of the country — at stake are the past, the present and the future.

Much of the media’s recent focus has been on McCain’s strategic missteps. But there’s something profound about the way Obama’s poll numbers have been steadily increasing. What the media is underreporting are the numerous brilliant moves of the Obama campaign, coupled with a shifting, seismic paradigm. A new reality dawns, perhaps.

From the beginning, Obama’s campaign approached tasks from a novel perspective. If previous presidential candidates won by identifying, narrowing then focusing on a slice of the electorate — soccer moms, security moms, religious groups — Obama expanded them, during the primary and now in the general election. He conducted the most efficient ground operations in history, empowering constituents to play an active role in the political process, and, in tandem with Howard Dean’s visionary 50-state strategy, dramatically increased the number of registered Democrats.

Furthermore, the media’s continued emphasis on the Red-and-Blue polarization neglected the emergent new electoral majority — the ascension of the increasingly influential Hispanics, Asians, and a reinvigorated African-American electorate. Early voting patterns across numerous states indicate a broadening electorate, each with their own political motivations, values and behaviors. The traditional state constructs are evolving.

Yet while there are fundamental changes, there are also news cycles and daily polling. How did Obama react and respond to these political battles in a fierce partisan climate? He responded by not responding. As Stanley Fish, the prominent literary theorist, contended, “[Obama] didn’t do much and he said less … and his poll numbers went up.” McCain suspended his campaign to take action, yet polls suggest that this move conveyed a lack of control. Politics is often about strategic and tactical moves. Sometimes, however, it’s about inaction, knowing when to remain poised and when to act authoritatively.

Most importantly, we’re witnessing the public’s reaction against Capitol’s inaction. Characterizing Washington for the past few years were bitter partisanships, antagonisms born out of a refusal to engage intellectually and cooperate appropriately. Yet ideology only works with context, not against it. Consequent of this subscription to official party lines was a legislature that was often dysfunctional. In the end, Republicans controlled the Houses, but it was more correct to say that nobody controlled it. Republicans did not assert leadership because leadership was lacking.

This is where the next President comes in. It is imperative that the next President would cajole the legislature to end their infantile clinging to ideology and finally start acting on the most pressing issues, united by a common purpose and common sense. When Obama remarked “we are one nation, one people,” he wasn’t just audibly stating his personal belief. He was echoing what many of us possibly felt.

We are close to the end of the election. But we’re also witnessing the opportunity for a new beginning. At this moment, we can play our respective role to shape and define the direction of the nation.

Do not miss this chance.

It’s been almost a year since ZACH HAN began with “The Obama Revolution.” Send your final thoughts on this exciting, unpredictable, and most importantly, important election to zklhan@ucdavis.edu

The end of 1964

Published 10-23-2008 in The California Aggie

In a perverse way, that the most serious economic recession since the Great Depression occurs at the end of President Bush’s second term has a sense of poetic justice to it. After eight years of unchecked government and corporate excess, neglect of the most fundamental issues, and a subscription to outmoded ideas, we witness their ultimate consequences — and failings.

But this unprecedented financial disaster in modern times is not merely a referendum on the Bush administration. It is a reassessment of the Republican Party, and conservatism, as a whole.

In a way, the emergence of the modern conservative movement begun in 1964, when Barry Goldwater’s ascension personified the framework that defined the Republican Party’s direction. Already, there were the indicators of the soon-to-be encompassing goals — the emphasis on individual self-sufficiency, the combat for government’s reduced role. Goldwater lost, but he set the tenor and endurability for modern conservatism.

But if Goldwater helped organize the conservative base, Reagan crystallized the ideas. On many issues, Reagan committed dubious choices — creating the largest national budget deficits then while simultaneously engaging in war and reducing taxes.

Yet in the most pressing problems of the day — the battle of individual liberty against communist, government-mandated regulation, as well as the function of government — he, and conservatism, were right. He reasserted American military strength and confidence and reduced the government’s role, empowering individual choices. In turn, these victories didn’t just alter the domestic and foreign policies of the next decade. They shaped them.

That his achievements are still constantly celebrated today is not only testament to Reagan’s abilities, but an echo of the power of the conservative ideas.

But the world has changed since then. Today is not 1964 or 1980, but the era of global interconnectivity. Globalization — precipitated by the fall of the Berlin Wall, improved bilateral trade, the invention of the Internet — altered the underlying dynamics. This structural order, rather than championing sole power hegemony, primes integration. Multiculturalism permeates, pluralism grows. Our interactions are not confined within national borders, but expand outside of them. This is the world we inhabit, one of shared kinship and common ideals.

Thus, conservatism’s problems today are, firstly, denial. Despite overwhelming evidence of how minimal government oversight over markets of the last eight years is disastrous, conservatives are still focused on the same ideas. They are still championing tax cuts to the wealthiest as the solution for all societal ills, still warning about bailouts as steps to socialism. These methods ignore context.

And the context is this: At a time when home values are dramatically dwindling, when income distributions have become so widely skewed, when millions of Americans lack basic healthcare, when the economy is recessing, when lifetime savings are disappearing, when the world’s confidence in America is shaken — the government needs to lead the way. This is not an issue about big government, advanced socialism or abandonment of the free-market. It’s about a government that can restore faith in the markets, guarantee every Americans with their basic rights and liberties.

Conservatism’s second problem is irrelevance. For instance, the neoconservative idea of unilateral military response is an indictment to a field where other major actors possess stakes, one that bypasses cooperation and ignores interdependence. This response needs changing.

That the Republican Party still holds steadfastly to the brand of old ideas is symptomatic of a party in decline, bereft of ideas and devoid of content, constructs that have outlived its usefulness. The party is in a dire need for a period of sustained remake and reinvention not out of choice, but of necessity. Until they become the party of ideas once again, they must change.

From the direction of 1964, for the better.

Change begins at the grassroots level, so start that by emailing ZACH HAN at zklhan@ucdavis.edu

An open letter

Published 10-16-2008 in The California Aggie

Dear Americans,

You have a tremendous stake in this election. Our nation has reached a pivotal moment, a time that should not and must not be ignored, in her history. We face an imminent choice, and we have to make a decision — soundly, carefully, deliberatively and with haste.

The challenges our nation faces are manifold. At home, we confront a recessing economy, dysfunctional administration, gridlocked legislature, tarnished reputation and declining values. Abroad, regimes with skewed interests are proliferating, petro-authoritarian governments are gaining influence, democracy is under assault. These are not trivial.

Most of all, the confidence and energy that once characterized our national character seems to be ebbing away, displaced by a sense of insecurity and hesitation. The world’s trust in America has been shaken. But it seems that ours has been too.

Those are the problems, and Washington is where the problem starts. The problem with Washington is not just excess. It is irrelevance. Take the most recent financial meltdown. At the moment when American financial markets — as well as credit, the lifeblood of capitalism — stumbled and froze, the conspicuous missing element was not only confidence, but leadership. Washington couldn’t exercise authority or influence, hampered by a staggering distrust in the President and exacerbated by a deadlocked legislature.

Why is this? Because some leaders we elected primed politics over mutual resolutions, favored certain special interests, ignored global problems and missed new opportunities for growth and unity. As a nation, we lost collectively.

How do we confront, even resolve, this problem? By taking action. There are certain times when the costs and calculus of inaction outweighs action, and inaction is a luxury we cannot afford and a theme we should not subscribe to right now. To succeed is the need to maintain a keen vigilance. At both an individual and collective level, we must participate and engage actively in the public discourse and the electoral process.

And this begins by demanding Washington to start paying attention to the most pressing issues in the country, including healthcare reform, stricter corporate oversight, alternative energy exploration and immigration review. At a community level, we also can play our respective roles — in classrooms, in schools, in churches, all for the betterment of our nation.

Our roads and buildings are similarly in serious need for repair and for upgrades. But investing capital into our infrastructure isn’t enough; our strongest asset, the capacity for innovation, needs to be reprioritized. Exploration of the next scientific frontier — biotechnology — is crucial, as well as our refocus and re-emphasis of math. Education — and a good fundamental education, at that — has to take ultimate precedence over short-term gains. These are the primary arenas that define the new world order, a field we must master to compete in the global economy.

2008 will be remembered as the precise moment when America confronted her cathartic moment, when the very ideals that made her great — an unyielding belief in the power of ideas, a firm commitment to democratic virtues, an undoubted dedication to inspire — came under threat. Will 2008 go down in the annals of history as the moment when a nation regressed and faltered, lost in hubris, or the moment when she reinvented herself and rediscovered her capacity for leadership? Will this moment define her, or will she define this moment?

That choice is yours.

Yours concerned.

Same place, same time, same person, same email! ZACH HAN waits again for your email at zklhan@ucdavis.edu

In eternal memory

Published 06-05-2008 in The California Aggie

There is something profoundly human about a dramatic sporting loss, particularly when it befalls a team on the brink of victory that you wholeheartedly support. After an initial shock, a secretive wish that you are merely having a horrible dream follows, begging to be awakened to reality. But you wait, and keep waiting. The waiting never ends. The nightmare persists.

And slowly, it finally dawns on you that you can’t change the past. With recognition comes numbness, a sense of simultaneous denial and acceptance. The feeling is not how real the loss appears, but how surreal it feels.

But let us look at an actual event. The date: 21 May 2008. The location: the Luzhinski Stadium. The characters: an incredibly successful manager against another criticized for his perceived dourness, and the backdrop pitting opposing owners from America and Russia, a specter of the Cold War. The event, meanwhile, was the biggest match of all club competitions: the final of the Champions League. The match was monumental, not only in the magnitude of the occasion, but also for the stature of the clubs: Manchester United FC and Chelsea FC.

A club, in many ways, is only a club; it truly becomes an institution through its people. For the players, this was the very stage where careers are defined, the very realm in which legends are born. It is the ultimate date with destiny.

Great matches are often the function of context and of talent. And so an astonishing match it proved to be — two goals, an absorbing intensity, goalpost rebounds, extra-time, a sending-off, penalty misses, sobs of despair, tears of joy, sorrow, triumph.

In the end, Manchester won. But it is more accurate to say that Chelsea lost it. For the Chelsea players and fans, their dramatic loss was compounded when their talisman and captain — John Terry — fluffed the winning penalty.

Loss is a self-absorbing moment punctuated by abrupt spasms of hopelessness. Upon defeat, a fleeting, transient evocation of withdrawal occurs. We have suffered. Nobody wants to experience the feeling of the loser; a loss places our ability in question, scars our pride. Our talents have been disproved, and we bear collective shame.

But in the midst of it all, the match reminded us something very redeeming about sport.

For sportspeople, sporting excellence is the exercise of a deliberate practice. It is about the meticulous preparation, the pattern that has been perfected on the training ground. After much effort, this training internalizes into an instinct, players preparing to perform when it really matters.

And during the match, against the constraints the moment imposes, players battle through improvisation. It is about mastering their fears, transforming the chorus of support into strength. With all these endeavors, they perform with simplicity what for us often appears phenomenal.

Meanwhile, for the fan, a soccer match in itself is not an attraction. Instead, it is the moments when the team has defeated overwhelming odds, the time when the players’ unyielding spirit defied reality. To these moments, we attach a special significance, etching within our minds the feelings they provoked. For their passion, we stand together in affirming applause, our minds united in a common purpose. At this moment, we are one.

Ultimately, it is about the human connection that we make with the players. We attain a sense of belonging, unhindered by criticisms, a rock against the injustices the world commits upon us.

And we often desire to relive this moment. We repeat the same story at dinner tables, beaming proudly as we recollect that swift, graceful acceleration. Delightfully, we sometimes imitate a favorite move, because in the imperfection of our own skills, we remember the relationship. Our lives have been visited, touched by the knowledge that such a moment is possible. We are transported to another time when impossible is nothing.

In retrospect, there is no doubt what I wish had happened. But for all the disappointments the loss created, Chelsea’s close date with destiny will remain in eternal memory. The wish lives on. The hope strives. They will last.

ZACH HAN thanks all of you for the emails throughout the year! Just as Chelsea remains in memory, you will be too, but nudge him one final time at mailto:zklhan@ucdavis.edu

A life on the board

Published 05-29-2008 in The California Aggie

When Bobby Fischer, arguably the greatest chess player ever, passed away this year, many lamented the end of an institution and of an era. But they should have rejoiced. Not at his death, but at how chess reminds us about the glorious forces that create and affect life. Because, indeed, the real surprise about chess is how closely it echoes life.

Often, people assume that chess is a war between minds, as players exercise control over the forking Knight and the menacing Pawn, their interaction producing immediate and latent threats. But it is not only about individual pieces and the manner players legislates them. Chess is also a meeting of science, art and sport.

On the one sense, chess is a science because it enforces certain inviolable rules and subscribes to an underlying construct. Despite the pieces’ individual dynamism, there is a logical coherence between moves, a deep-seated pattern of linear continuity. Science is not to be denied; denying them would be denying the laws of nature.

But chess is also an art because of its infinite permutations. Inherently abstract, chess provides a platform for, dependent upon the players’ skill and will, the execution of multiple possibilities. In his pursuit of painting his art, each different player couples his soul and heart to performing different plays. There are no wrongs, only unique rights.

Sometimes, winning in chess is a function of a preplanned ruse or a strategic ploy. But despite all the possible preparation before the game, triumph is often achieved in the midst of sporting unpredictability. The time pressure, the psychological intensity, the temperament, the sense of the occasion — all these coalesce to burden a player with a feeling of constraint. The true champion, unsurprisingly, masters over these constraints. He might even create new limits for others.

For all the promise of chess, at stake is individual choice, the expression of a free will against competing, discordant ideologies. On many occasions, the opening variations or level of aggression a player practices can be reflective of the philosophies he adopts in life. Chess, as a microcosm, becomes a players’ projection of his inner self. In this respect, he is not merely bestowed with the privilege of planning destiny, he controls his own destiny.

But chess is also a construct of collective endeavor. The very nature of chess demands a certain degree of clairvoyance, a peek into the future, whereby players act as voyeurs spying upon the secrets that have yet to unfold. Yet it is also a reaffirmation of the past. The energy and history of our predecessors coexist within the current, refined traditions, a wisdom players utilize in the modern context. Thus, when we look upon the grace that defines present theory, we are not just looking at layer upon layer of human imagination, but looking into the future through the eyes of the past.

Exclusive among all forms of sport, chess may be one where honesty is critical. On the board, all pretenses are abandoned, displaced by a truth to oneself. To win, a chess player substitutes external distractions with his inner instincts and intellect. He is honest to himself, analyzing his flaws and admitting his mistakes, then seeking to correct them. In listening to the voices within, he is engaged not only in a battle of minds versus his fellow humans, but involved in a larger quest to discover truth.

What do all these principles and characters ultimately mean? Well, everything. Because chess, like life, is about perception and perspective: one anticipates, predicts and envisions how the forces on the chessboard will conflict and complement, how the world will be when he is given the opportunity to change it. He could enthusiastically perform or stoically calibrate, but in making this choice, individualism is projected, reactions are personified, expectations are violated. In this framework, chess is an indictment of life.

Some once remarked that a part of chess died with Fischer. Perhaps. But amongst the many powers that Fischer brought, a rule of chess never changed. It embodied life, and continued despite his death.

ZACH HAN anticipates his receipt of a Queen, a Bishop and a Knight. Send them to zklhan@ucdavis.edu.

Two stories remembered

Published 05-22-2008 in The California Aggie

In literature, many narratives begin with the incident of a protagonist suffering a loss, then battling back against all odds to build lasting legacies. Based upon the events of the past few days, these narratives could have been easily suggestive of two real-life personalities.

For Robert Mondavi, it was his ceding the family business to his brother, then later elevating his wine company into one of the world’s premier producers. For Senator Ted Kennedy, despite losing two brothers to assassinations, he tirelessly performed legislative work that he has become the most accomplished senator in recent history. For both, the commonalities that unite their stories are ultimately similar: death and brushes with death.

There is something fleeting about the abrupt manner death occurs. Without warning, it steals something dear away from us, instantly enveloping around us a sense of disbelief and denial. Our ordered lives are suddenly ravaged by turmoil, a chaos that disturbs our perception of place and time relative to the world. Now marred by confusion, the previous certitude we tightly held now lies in tatters.

In turn, we are forced and kindled to react with urgency. We search for work, and do so, because we don’t want to deal with the mortifying feelings of death. We desire normalcy.

With the passing of time, we start to see things anew. The recognition that life is never going to be the same anymore — after an irreversible loss — dawns. We move on, the shock and fear ebbing away.

But death and the forces beyond our control pales in comparison to the forces that are in our control. The beauty of life lies not in the tasks that we cannot do, but the endeavors we can accomplish. Against the corruption and ills and errors of mankind and nature, we command the strength to right the wrongs and summon the hope to solve the unsolvable.

We are not arbiters of morality or legislators over the lives of others, but through outreach we abandon the impulse of confining ourselves. Instead, we reach deeply within our mind and rejoice in sharing the powerful idealism of imagination because we want to inspire others.

We are doing this for something larger than ourselves. It is for our principles. It is the ideals we stand up for, the resilience we muster to achieve our goals because we believe we can create a better world. We believe that through strides, we can improve the lives of those close to and far from us. So, when our principles are challenged, we do not yield, but we resist in defiance.

And we touch others in ways we might not realize — that compromise we agreed after a monumental quarrel, our article about the imperiled environment that provoked engagement, the advice we offered that helped a peer graduate within four years, that Brahms piece we played in harmony that had the audiences hollering for encores — all these achieved against the forces of mortality.

Sometimes, in the blurry quest for material wealth and social status, we forget that life is at times meant simply to be lived as it can be lived. Our fixation with what we want prevents us from realizing that there is a society and community we’re connected to, shrouding our temperance and clouding our judgment. We lose focus. Death brings us back to reality.

So, in death, like in life, we are touching something that is essentially human: the celebration of unpredictability. When a death occurs, our innermost senses are poignantly alerted, a reminder that in the daily grind of life, there are the special moments — the simple pleasures, the laughter of a loved one — we should appreciate.

In death, what seemed present just a moment ago is no longer real to us.

But we remember. Memories are etched, lived, and re-lived.

For Mr. Mondavi and Senator Kennedy, we are not just applauding the larger-than-life personas that they are, but acknowledging the service they performed with absolute distinction and humility. In a way, they wrote, and are writing, real human stories. For the very human qualities they displayed, their stories will live longer than literature.

ZACH HAN believes in the longevity of their stories. Agree with him at zklhan@ucdavis.edu