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