Obamas Watching Parade

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A Fiscal Cliff Explainer

           [This is the unedited version of an article for The Sixth Wall.  The documentary is currently airing on PBS.]

           President Herbert Hoover once said, “Blessed are the young for they shall inherit the national debt.”  With President Barack Obama’s reelection behind us, concerns over America’s federal budget and the so-called fiscal cliff have come to fore.  The excitement will continue until at least January 1, the date on which mandatory spending cuts and tax increases are triggered, and the date by which experts predict at least a token agreement between policymakers will be forged.  Yet, for most of us, the intricacies of dealing with the federal budget are mind-boggling, and unfortunately, with spectacle supplanting substance, watching cable news leaves us more confused and discouraged than informed.  This is why Koldcast is particularly pleased to be airing a lucid and substantive feature-length documentary on federal debt and the budget, Overdraft. 

            I had the opportunity to speak at length with the film’s producer and director, Scott Galloway.  His documentary gives us a clear, politically neutral look at the facts behind all the hubbub, featuring interviews with Bill Clinton, former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, Newark mayor Cory Booker, and Clinton’s former Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles.  “I wanted to be as politically agnostic as possible,” said Galloway, “I wanted to present it from a position above the fray.  If you start talking about cutting programs you’re deemed to be too conservative. If you start talking about raising revenues and taxes, then you’re considered to be too progressive.  You really need to look at the issues from 50,000 feet and in the weeds.  You’ve got to do a little bit of both.”

What is the Fiscal Cliff?

            While Overdraft focuses on the wider issue of America’s federal debt crisis, it is especially apropos with the impending fiscal cliff.  But, first, where exactly did this fiscal cliff come from?  On February 29, 2012, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee, answering a standard array of questions on monetary policy and the state of the American economy.  We can trace the now pervasive phrase “fiscal cliff” to Bernanke’s testimony that day: “Under current law, on January 1, 2013, there’s going to be a massive fiscal cliff of large spending cuts and tax increases. I hope that Congress will look at that and figure out ways to achieve the same long-run fiscal improvement without having it all happen at one date.”  Galloway believes that the first step to understanding the fiscal cliff is to know that “it’s been manufactured by the media.” The phrase is rampantly regurgitated on the 24/7 news cycles – treated now as a self-evident reference – but you’d be forgiven for not knowing precisely what it means. 

            Have faith. It does exist.  A package of mandatory spending cuts and tax increases is set to kick in on January 1.  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that the dual stressors – more taxes and less federal spending – will catalyze a recession in the first half of 2013.  The fiscal cliff consists of three separate things: the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, the Budget Control Act, and the imposition of the Alternative Minimum Tax.  In 2001, President George W. Bush enacted tax cuts that were extended twice by President Obama.  These tax cuts are slated to expire, amounting to a $225 billion increase in taxes due in 2013.  Second, the Budget Control Act came about after the debt ceiling fight in 2011.  Republicans agreed to raise the debt ceiling, but only in exchange for an agreement on trillions in future spending cuts, which was codified in this law.  $65 billion of those spending cuts are scheduled for 2013; the other $1.1 trillion in cuts will take place over the following nine years.  Third, 29 million middle-income families will end up paying a collective $92 billion in additional taxes through the mandatory restructuring of the Alternative Minimum Tax.

            Yet, the ephemeral phrase “fiscal cliff” that’s been disseminated over and over through the ether by pundits and policymakers has assumed a spectral presence among us, affecting us well ahead of the actual deadline.  What’s the consequence of this topological account of the U.S. budget?  Over half of U.S. adults and job creators say the fear over the looming ‘fall’ is impacting their spending decisions.  However, some have questioned the accuracy of the metaphor.  Will we really enter fiscal free-fall on January 1?  Derek Thompson of The Atlantic aptly describes it as a fiscal slope — a long, rolling hill.  Thompson correctly points out that while January 1 is the hard deadline that triggers the spending cuts and tax increases, the effects will ultimately play out over the course of 2013.  While "cable news will get super-jittery," we won't wake up to a monetary apocalypse on New Year's Day. 

            Along the same lines, Galloway thinks it is folly to assume that "we can look at this specific event and say if we get past this one hurdle we'll all be fine."  While the fiscal cliff is momentarily salient, Galloway points out that when he was filming interviews in early 2012, it wasn't even on the radar.  He saw Overdraft as a project that could live on past the looming deadline.  The metaphor has us enraptured now, but he says, "it's thinking that works well in the media but is too finite."  He notes, "there are structural issues at play that have to be addressed with solutions that can be implemented long-term.  Nothing will happen on January 1st that will be the right or wrong answer.  What are we going to do for the next 2, 5, 10, or 20 years?"

What will happen if we fall off the cliff - or roll down the slope?

            While Galloway rightly urges us to focus on long-term structural reforms, there will be very real impacts to Americans if an agreement is not reached in the near-term to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, modify the now crudely assembled package of federal spending cuts, or otherwise avert our falling or rolling down the fiscal topology of your choosing.  A household with an average income, around $50,000, would pay approximately $2,000 — or $166 per month — in additional taxes in 2013.  For struggling families, that’s hardly insubstantial. You might also be wondering about the effect on that pesky and parasitic 47 percent of Americans who, according to Governor Mitt Romney, pay no federal income taxes. First, the vast majority actually does pay federal taxes in the form of the regressive Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes — regressive meaning the tax rate is the same regardless of income, plus any income over $110,000 per year is not subject to these payroll taxes. Second, it is worth mentioning that many of these poorest Americans don’t owe federal income tax because of two social programs widely championed by Messrs Reagan and Bush, Jr., the child tax credit and the earned-income tax credit.    So, these poorest Americans will still feel the fall in the form of higher payroll taxes and the expiration of various tax credits from President Obama’s stimulus package.  For a family in the top one percent, the average added tax bill in 2013 amounts to around $120,000. 

            On the other side of the coin, the automatic spending cuts that will kick in — officially the sequestration provision of the Budget Control Act — are designed to take place equally across the board, so legislators have no discretion as to where the cuts will be applied.  According to the White House report that details how the sequestration will take place, it will result in “a 9.4 percent reduction in defense discretionary funding and an 8.2 percent reduction in nondefense discretionary funding” plus cuts of “2 percent to Medicare, 7.6 percent to nondefense mandatory programs, and 10.0 percent to defense mandatory programs.”  This gives you a glimpse into what is ultimately 394-pages on the budgetary effects, but it can be neatly summarized with this nugget nestled in the document: “this report leaves no question that the sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments, and core government functions. . . . It would undermine investments vital to economic growth, threaten the safety and security of the American people, and cause severe harm to programs that benefit the middle-class, seniors, and children.”  The report lists among other vital functions reducing the number of FBI agents, correctional officers, Border Patrol agents, and federal prosecutors, eliminating education grants for local school districts, reducing the ability of the FAA to oversee and manage air traffic, curtailing the Department of Agriculture’s inspections of food processing plants and other foodborne illness prevention programs, degrading the EPA’s ability to protect the water we drink and the air we breathe, halting scientific research into cancer and childhood diseases, undermining FEMA’s ability to respond to catastrophes and incidents of terrorism, and massively cutting critical housing programs and food assistance for low-income families.

            So, this is a big scary, nasty thing that President Obama signed into law in August 2011, but keep in mind that we’re talking gradual slope, not cliff.  The cuts will take place over the course of the year, not all at once on January 1.  The taxes will also be collected throughout the year.  Thus, politicians on both sides of the aisle are well aware of a fact many of us aren’t privy to: there is no need to reach a hasty deal by December 31.  Yet this still has to be dealt with, and neither side wants to let the country roll too far down the slippery slope we’ve constructed for ourselves. 

What Can We Do About It?

            Unfortunately, it's not just a question of what ought to be done, but what can be done.  And, that implicates questions of political tractability.  While China enjoys the ability to autocratically mandate structural changes to the economy, we're beholden to the bicameral system and all the concomitant pressures by constituencies, lobbyists, and industry on policymakers. See, for instance, how much begging and pleading and kowtowing to big pharmaceuticals and big business that President Obama had to do to eek out the woefully compromised Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

            What solutions to the fiscal cliff might be politically feasible?  To understand the current political infighting, we'll need to go back to 1986, when Grover Norquist — colorfully described by Huffington Post as the bearded, Harvard-trained ayatollah of the anti-tax movement — founded Americans for Tax Reform and started roaming the halls of Congress demanding that legislators sign his "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," an agreement to oppose any and all tax increases.  In the 112th Congress, 236 of 242 Republicans and two Democrats in the House of Representatives signed the pledge.  However, in the pressurized environment of the looming January 1 deadline, some Representatives have stepped forward to disavow their commitment to the pledge.  Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said he'd break the pledge, so long as Democrats brought entitlement reform to the table.  Many others, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, have also expressed ambivalence towards the pledge.  However, the common thread among Republican defectors is the contingency that we deal with "entitlements" — by which they mean Medicare and Social Security, and other "hand-outs" by the federal government. 

Dealing with Entitlement Reform

            Entitlement reform features prominently in Overdraft.  Bill Clinton argues in the documentary that while Democrats have been upset at Republicans for cutting taxes and increasing spending, which has largely been true for the last 30 years, the problem is that for the next 10 years most of the spending will be caused by stuff that "Democrats care about" like healthcare and the social net. Galloway notes that, "when they started Social Security life expectancy was 64 years, and now it is 79."  Yet, he believes that "even the most ardent Republican will agree that Social Security is fixable.  You can make adjustments for the next 100 years to make Social Security solvent."  For instance, he suggests making income above $110,000 per year taxable, as it is now exempt from Social Security payroll taxes.

            However, I pushed back with Galloway on the pervasive idea that entitlement reform needs to be a part of the fiscal cliff compromise.  We can trace the punditry's focus on entitlement reform back to Joshua Bolten, George W. Bush's budget director.  In 2006, he wrote that, "in the longer run, no plausible amount of tax increases could possibly close the enormous gap that will be created by the unsustainable growth in entitlement programs." Bolten's argument has become, in the words of Harper's 'anti-economist' Jeff Madrick, gospel among the mainstream press and both political parties.  Yet, the idea that Social Security and Medicare are America's biggest fiscal problems is largely unsubstantiated.  Even the right-wing Heritage Foundation acknowledges that entitlement spending won't substantially harm the U.S. federal budget until 2045, a projection that itself relies on the assumption that there will be no increases in tax revenue or decreases in health care spending over the next three decades. 

            Former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels argues in Overdraft that, even if entitlement reform isn't key to the fiscal cliff compromise, the country has to address now the changes to Social Security and Medicare that will take place years down the line.  "Daniels was spot on," Galloway says, "If you want to make it more tolerable, everyone has to bear some responsibility to get the issue resolved.  It's easier to do it over time."  It would simply be too jarring to take away Social Security payments from elderly people who are expecting them in the short-term. On this idea of shared sacrifice, Galloway points out that it's tremendously difficult to get people to come together.  "The only thing people will agree to cut is foreign aid," says Galloway.  And, that comprises only about one percent of the federal budget.  "When it comes to Medicare and Social Security, it's almost impossible to find someone who doesn't have a family member that wouldn't be directly affected." 

Getting Past the Anti-Tax Ideology

            On November 27, 2012, Representative Eric Cantor appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe to rehash the Norquist ideology that "we weren't elected to raise taxes. We want to go help people get back to work."  The hidden premise here is that any increase in taxes will destroy jobs and harm the middle-class.  Perhaps Cantor is simply tossing some red meat to his constituents, but the argument for small government and low taxes shouldn’t be taken as absolute truth.  Eric Bartlett, a former adviser to Ronald Reagan and Bush, Sr. — in no sense a fluffy liberal —pointed out that "almost every country in Europe has a tax/GDP ratio high enough to cover all of the projected increase in spending in the United States through higher revenues alone."  On average, Americans see about 26 percent of their income collected as taxes, while amongst the coalition of wealthy countries, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the average is 38 percent.  Consider, as Jeff Madrick points out, that a 10 percent increase in taxes for Americans would collect an additional $1.5 trillion dollars per year.  That's substantial, given that the 10-year savings called for in the Budget Control Act amount to the same number, $1.5 trillion. 

We're Looking at You, Greece.  Why Austerity Will Fail.

            Of course, now is not the time to implement austerity measures, a lesson learned from Europe's failed attempts at budget reform.  Galloway argues that, "the economy isn't stable enough to handle significant cuts in the next year or two." Yet, "it seems counter-intuitive," he acknowledges, "to say to people: 'We're in debt so let's spend more money so that we're not as in debt.'  I can see how that would confuse people."  Galloway continued, "Economists will say that the 2010 stimulus worked, but that it would've worked a lot better if it had been bigger.  You can't cut too much when the economy is really delicate." 

            Part of the trick is understanding the ways in which federal revenue increases.  While tax increases and spending cuts have been toted as the way towards fiscal solvency, the third rail is the tax revenue base itself.  When Fortune 500 companies aren't posting profits, they aren't paying taxes to the federal government.  "Unemployment is a tick below 8 percent," says Halloway, "but that doesn't even include early retirement and people forced into part-time jobs.  That's a lot of tax revenue that is lost.  When you're not working, you're accessing government programs that cost money and you're not buying things. The big question is: How are we going to get people working again?" 

Informing and Inspiring the American Public

            Galloway fears that the long-term systemic issues won't be properly addressed and that policymakers will once again kick the can down the road in reaching a token compromise on the fiscal cliff.  "I'm worried today," he says, "but I'll be much more alarmed in 10 or 20 years if people don't step up. The Simpson-Bowles Commission report was presented and filed away; nothing came of it.  My fear is that that's only going to continue.  It's difficult to say to people: 'Here's the dilemma.  We'll have to take some of your programs that you've enjoyed or some of your money through an increase in taxes.  Nobody wants to give you either of those.'"

            The American public will wait and see as our newly elected Congress attempts to tackle, or avoid, important decisions about the role of government.  "My hope for the film is that it informs people and also inspires them," says Galloway.  On the dry issue of debt, this isn't a particularly easy aspiration to fulfill.  Yet, Galloway has created a compelling and substantive documentary that will help inform us about the compromises and sacrifices that will drastically affect each and every American. 

            We need to look closely at our social safety net, the responsibilities we have to our poorest citizens, our crumbling national infrastructure, our flailing uncompetitive schools, the ability to protect the environment and keep our food and water and air safe, our police officers and prosecutors and keepers of the rule of law, our competitiveness in a global economy, and the role we will play and the obligations we have to citizens of other countries.  All this is bound up in our government and how it spends and taxes its citizens.  It should not be taken lightly, and Overdraft comes highly recommended as a way to cut through the rhetoric and begin to understand the immensely complex task ahead of us.

Praying

What does it mean to be inside or outside a person? If we keep our emotions bottled up, we should seek therapy, open up, release our pent up feelings. What could possibly demarcate the boundary between that which is contained or pent up and that which is released? Disclosure to another. We disclose our feelings to release our feelings. Why such reliance on others? Without others, there is no release. Socialization is a prerequisite condition of healthy living. If disclosure perhaps represents some admirable higher self-awareness, then we shall admire it. But, the locus of disclosure need not be the other! Prayer is perhaps a close approximation of self-disclosure, only then with an alternatively feigned or genuine belief that the true platform of disclosure is some providential Higher Platform that you most certainly cannot understand. This imagined wireless connection with God disillusions the faithful, by placating them with the idea that their disclosure is indeed social. The release takes place. Amen. Prayer is self-disclosure masquerading as real socialization. A true palliative for a true man of God.

Delusions on China

In June, China agreed to lessen control over the exchange rate value of the Renminbi in part due to pressure from the United States amidst concerns over the burgeoning trade deficit. American economists and politicians (including Obama) have postulated that China purposefully suppresses the value of their currency in order to stimulate exports by making them comparatively cheaper in overseas markets. Thus, when China allows the Renminbi to appreciate without exchange rate intervention, Chinese goods in America will be costlier relative to domestically produced goods. Americans will buy more US goods and less Chinese goods. This will purportedly assuage the growing import-export gap between China and the United States, and also stimulate domestic consumption within China. Currently, the ratio of domestic private consumption (spending by private citizens) to GDP is less than half of that in the US. China's exploding economic growth is comprised mostly of government spending, state-owned enterprises, and export growth. "Common" knowledge amongst economists is that spurring domestic consumption in China will lead to drastic increases in quality of life for Chinese citizens and instill stability in China's continuing economic growth, which needs to maintain annual gains of 8% simply to keep pace with the increasing population. Pressuring China into allowing their currency to appreciate, then, is a high priority in America.

However, this analysis, that Chinese currency revaluation is key to US and Chinese economic stability, unfortunately reflects a crass understanding of their economy. A recent WSJ op-ed, "Bashing Beijing Will Not Help Our Trade Deficit," argues that "the value of the yuan is not the main driver of the U.S. trade deficit. The wages and social safety net of Chinese workers are more important." This is on the right track, but the belief that increased wages for Chinese citizens are tenable is a pipe dream. China remains, more than most contemporary Sinologists are willing to admit, a largely state-run economy. Wage growth will come exclusively at the will of Beijing bureaucrats, not from the idealism and hopefulness of US policy-makers. To charge that we simply must increase wages in China to solve the U.S. trade deficit is akin to asserting that we should just start providing more healthcare to North Koreans in order to improve their quality of life. It's a wonderful aspiration, but pragmatically unattainable.

Pozen writes in the op-ed that "if wages rise in China, its workers would have more money to spend." And, "if wages go up in China, then the prices of its exports will rise." So, Pozen, a senior lecturer at Harvard business school, has solved all our problems: "[American politicians] should support higher wages and a stronger safety net for Chinese workers. These measures would not only help reduce the U.S. trade deficit but also would be consistent with recent efforts of China's officials to improve the living standard of its workers." And we thought cold-blooded capitalists lacked that twinkling idealism. This grand conclusion to his piece begs a question I would've hoped WSJ's editors would've demanded an answer to within the incomplete musings of the article: How do we support higher wages and a stronger safety net for Chinese workers? Perhaps a spirited letter writing campaign to Hu Jintao will do the trick.

Under the Clinton administration, we attempted to "support Chinese workers" by demanding wage increases, strengthened workers' rights, and crackdowns on human rights abuses as precursors to our approving China's admission to the WTO. Ultimately, though, we agreed to forego annual evaluations of our trading relationship with China, relinquish bargaining power over human rights abuses, and adopted China as a permanent trading partner. This gave China free reign over the US economy, as we substantially reduced tariffs and allowed Chinese companies, fueled by low-wage, indentured servitude cost advantages, to flood the US market with abundant, inexpensive goods.

Unfortunately, this favor wasn't reciprocated. US companies wishing to enter the Chinese market face stringent controls over how their business can be operated. China's most effective means of exerting influence over American companies in China is selective enforcement of the law. The way in which Chinese business law is written means that, essentially, in order to do business in China, a company will be violating a whole host of regulations. Companies that follow the Beijing dictums find themselves free from enforcement of China's amorphous blob of business regulations. However, when Beijing is displeased with a company, they swoop in with a variety of fines and punitive measures. China even went so far as to arrest four Australian executives working in Beijing. When US and Chinese values clash, American companies wishing to remain in the Chinese marketplace must placate China. In China, American companies operate entirely within the confines of the interests of Beijing.

For example, Cisco "is the worldwide leader in networking that transforms how people connect, communicate and collaborate." How did they make their money in China? By designing and implementing the firewalls that restrict Chinese citizens' access to information, censor dissidents, and provide Beijing with the intelligence to find and make disappear those who disagree with the party line. Many internet writers and bloggers in China have found themselves placed under house arrest, banned from the Internet, and detained for years without charges.

American banks also face severe restrictions. Most are allowed only one or two branches in the country. And, there are only two foreign-owned ATMs in China. 85% of Chinese citizens don't have access to credit cards. Most have no access to mortgages or other loans. And, the property market in China is so tightly controlled alongside access to mortgages that most Chinese people have to save for 20 years, without the ability to invest or earn interest, in order to purchase a modest apartment at an exorbitant price.

My point is that China's economy is structured to extend state influence, restrict the autonomy of private enterprises, bolster state-run export industries, and force the average Chinese citizen to save an enormous portion of their savings simply to obtain lower-middle class luxuries such as home ownership, reasonable access to health care, and sufficient money for retirement. In fact, China has the world's highest private savings rate. Consider that the ubiquitous American loan: car, house, second mortgage, credit cards, and student loans. They constitute negative savings. As Chinese people have significantly limited access to loans of any kind, they are structurally forced to save more.

Back to my initial point, American policy-makers believe that supporting modest wage growth will spur domestic demand and economic freedom. However, it is clear that despite the influx of McDonald's, KFC, and other bastions of "freedom," China maintains unflinching influence over its economy, wage growth, property prices, access to loans, and business development. That wage growth, globalization, and American companies will lead China to more and more economic and political freedoms is an unfortunate delusion.

Crack and Kong

The final assignment for my journalism class was a feature article. I wanted to profile a rich, successful, normal marijuana user as an alternative to the catch-all "Drugs Are BAD!" policies of Hong Kong. However, since I waited until three days before this journalism assignment was due, I had to piece together a somewhat lacking and certainly broader piece on drug usage and drug policy. Surprisingly, wealthy investment bankers don't want to talk about their drug habits to students with voice recorders... After agonizing over what clever, insightful words I wanted to use to entitle this piece, I landed on "Hong Kong's Drug Policy." So, enjoy.

The Beauty of the Game, a new show on TVB Jade Channel in Hong Kong, plays like a Chinese version of the American HBO hit Entourage, a show that depicts a young superstar actor and his buddies from New York navigating the quintessential Hollywood lifestyle: attending movie premiers, partying with all the big names of Los Angeles, and basking in fame and fortune. In a similar fashion, The Beauty of the Game is a drama about young actresses grappling with their careers in the Hong Kong entertainment industry. But, unlike Entourage, this show isn’t just trying to entertain. Hong Kong’s newest television drama is funded and produced by the Hong Kong Narcotics Division of the Security Bureau and the Action Committee Against Narcotics. It is one of the government’s latest moves in a series of initiatives designed to address rising youth drug use in Hong Kong. And, just as every television series begets devoted fans and adamant critics, the anti-drug initiatives are drawing both praise and skepticism.

Depicting the demise of seemingly normal young adults at the hands of drug use on broadcast television is just the latest in a breadth of actions by the Hong Kong government targeting a reduction in drug abuse, especially among youths. “Juvenile drug abuse has become serious in Hong Kong,” Chief Executive Donald Tsang said in a recent address to local parents. A report by the Central Registry of Drug Abuse (CRDA) states that the makeup of drug users is becoming younger. According to the CRDA’s report, the proportion of under-21 drug users has increased by 24% between 2004 and 2008. Further, schools are becoming the locale of drug use, with usage at schools increasing by 135% across the same cited time period.

Hong Kong clearly hasn’t been ignoring the latest statistics. “The Government has geared up law enforcement activities to curb the supply of drugs,” Mr. Tsang said. Alongside more banal measures like an anti-drug music video and anti-drug text messaging competition at a recent concert, one of the most contentious programs being implemented in Hong Kong is a voluntary “Trial Scheme on School Drug Testing” in the Tai Po school district to “tackle the problem of hidden drug use,” according to Mr. Tsang.

Contrary to Mr. Tsang’s suggestions, the seriousness and frequency of youth drug use in Hong Kong is not a recently developed problem, nor is the idea of drug testing Hong Kong students a recently developed solution, according to twenty-seven-year-old Amanda Chen, whose name has been altered at her request. International schools were implementing random, mandatory drug tests during her days of attendance, although she was never tested personally. And, the program didn’t have the desired impact. “I didn’t care that there was mandatory drug testing at school. The kids that wanted to use drugs used them,” she said.

Ms. Chen worked in marketing for a prominent Hong Kong magazine until she was laid off in February. I met her at a local hair salon, where her hairdresser does double-duty as her drug dealer. “Marijuana is my drug of choice. I can’t handle ecstasy anymore, that used to be my favorite. I’m too old now, my body can’t handle it.” Although Ms. Chen said she was a “late-bloomer” when it came to using drugs (she didn’t start until the age of 17), she found herself immersed in a culture of drug use since secondary school. “When I was sixteen, my aunt asked me if I knew anyone who didn’t use drugs. My honest answer was none,” she said.

Although Ms. Chen uses drugs, she thinks “the age at which children are beginning to experiment with drugs is definitely a problem.” She added, “I used to go raving. I would take “E” (ecstasy) and go to giant parties. Some of the girls there couldn’t have been older than twelve or thirteen. It was shocking, but what can you do?”

Later, she noted that she wasn’t opposed to voluntary drug testing initiatives. But, her and many others have concerns over the potential effectiveness of the government’s policies. Her hairdresser cum dealer James, who requested that his last name be withheld, chimed in that “the program is useless! Unless students are compelled to test, there is no point in spending money on this.”

The program also drew the attention of a prominent professional organization. The Hong Kong College of Psychiatrists issued a strident criticism of the proposed voluntary drug-testing campaign. In a written statement, Dr Lam Cheung said, “There is a dearth of data on the effectiveness of school-based drug testing as a means of combating psychoactive substance abuse and its potential harm.” Concerns range from privacy and confidentiality to cost and effectiveness. Dr Lam Cheung goes on to say that “because it is a voluntary program, active drug users may simply refuse to be tested.” He added, “It is well established that the window for detecting most drugs of abuse is 72 hours or less.” As a result, a student can temporarily delay a drug test in order to ensure a negative test result, before resuming drug use. So far, the government has reported that 61 percent of eligible students have enrolled in the testing program. “That leaves 40% of the population that may be active drug users who will never be tested,” wrote Dr Lam Cheung.

Another concern with the government’s policies arises from the one-size-fits-all approach to drug abuse. Nicole Fung, a professional piano teacher, used to sell marijuana with her ex-boyfriend. She spent her days teaching piano and her nights driving across the city delivering to customers. She likens marijuana usage to legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol and believes there should be a distinction in public policy between marijuana and harder drugs. “The people who we sold to all had jobs. They were normal, working people, not scary, not addicts. But, marijuana and heroine are both treated as the same thing,” she said, adding, “I don’t think it is fair to punish and treat possession of marijuana the same as harder drugs.”

Ms. Fung touches on a point that resonates with many critics of drug policies. Reports on the harmfulness or addictiveness of marijuana are hard to come by. Alcohol is reported as having a higher rate of addiction than marijuana. Yet, Hong Kong remains adamant in refusing to parse drugs into categories. At the premiere for The Beauty of the Game, Principal Assistant Secretary for Security, Eric Lee, said, “There is still misunderstanding about drugs despite concern from all sectors of the community. Some people think drugs can be categorized as ”soft” and “hard.” … It is necessary to enhance our publicity and preventive education efforts so that the public will understand there is no distinction between “soft” and “hard” drugs. They should never try!”

Hong Kong’s catchall, abstinence-based approach to drug use is reminiscent of United States President Ronald Reagan’s infamous “Just Say No!” anti-drug education program. Started in the 1980s, Reagan’s program funded billions in educational programming and literature, spanning from car bumper stickers to posters to guest speakers in schools. Unfortunately, the program quickly became synonymous with wasteful spending and lacking results, rather than declining youth drug usage. In fact, a study by the University of Michigan to track the success of the program found marked increases in youth drug use over a ten-year period. The failure in President Reagan’s ambitious program was attributable to the very same concerns being raised about Hong Kong’s anti-drug campaign.

The absence of nuance in the government’s approach to drug enforcement and education percolates into related sectors of public policy such as rehabilitation and treatment. Hong Kong publishes myriad literature on drug use. One bright green leaflet implores: “Be free. Illicit drugs are all addictive. It is extremely difficult to quit drugs. Be free. Don’t even try drugs for once.” Obvious issues in syntax aside, Ms. Chen expressed concern over the nature of the dialogue. “I think it is important to bring drug use and addiction into the open, and I’m okay with public service announcements,” Ms. Chen said, but added, “Something like this reflects poorly upon the government. Any student with exposure to drugs isn’t going to take this seriously. … Not all drugs are addictive.” Ms. Chen asked, “How can the students trust the government’s message when it is so uneducated?”

Those who work in the treatment community have also expressed concern over their preparation and ability to provide adequate care to addicts and drug abusers. Herman Chung-Shing, a member of the Social Welfare committee, expressed concern that “the amount and type of preparation amongst the medical community responsible for providing youth drug abuse treatment is not enough.” He added, “We need to train more doctors on how to treat children struggling with drugs.”

Chief Executive Tsang acknowledged a need for dialogue, saying, “Prevention of drug abuse begins at home.” But the “Not Once. Not Ever.” educational program leaves little room for a productive exchange between students and their parents, teachers, and social workers. Ms. Fung is concerned over a lack of addiction and counseling services for existing drug users, and feels the policies address prevention, but not treatment. “The program might work for someone who has never tried drugs,” Ms. Fung said, but added, “What about all of us who have already started? I don’t feel there is anyone students can turn to to ask for help.” Hong Kong’s motives are admirable. But, if you find yourself addicted to watching all the latest episodes of The Beauty of the Game, consider the many other addicts who aren’t watching.

Profiling a Former Hong Kong Investment Banker

Things are winding down for my stint in Asia. This is the last week of classes. I have finals and projects over the next two weeks, and then will spend a week in Beijing, a week in Colorado for Christmas, a week in New York City for New Year's Eve, a week in Minneapolis/Sioux Falls, and then back to WashU for classes in mid-January.

Looking back at this experience, it has been tremendously informative as a cultural endeavor. However, academically, CUHK didn't leave me satisfied. Aside from my Chinese language courses, which were developed through a partnership with Yale University, my classes were neither engaging nor particularly instructive. I believe that is primarily the symptom of the classes being taught by non-native English speakers to classrooms of non-native English speakers. Everything felt distilled, and there was absolutely no student-teacher dialogues or interaction. Further, it is difficult to take a class seriously when the exam is rife with glaring grammatical errors. This was especially frustrating on True/False questions, where poor syntax made interpreting the precise meaning of the sentence guesswork.

I have been taking a graduate journalism workshop, and recently completed a profile of a former investment banker who switched jobs to work at a school. Here's my article:

With the highest density of skyscrapers in the world and one of the longest average workweeks, Hong Kong isn’t known as a Mecca for leisure and relaxation. In a recent struggle within Hong Kong’s legislative council over what sorts of democratic initiatives should be advanced, the pro-Beijing camp argued that Hong Kong, as an economic city, was full of profit-hungry go-getters that could care less about democratic reforms or, more largely, politics in general. As long as taxes are kept low and controls on the capital market are limited, the politicians argued, the citizens of Hong Kong would be satisfied. On the basis of Hong Kong’s global reputation, it is easy to take these sweeping generalizations at face value. However, glossing over Hong Kong as a city of dollars and cents belies the deeper struggles and triumphs of its citizens.

With such great emphasis on accruing wealth, an oft-encountered dilemma found within Hong Kong’s 7,000-plus high-rise buildings is striking a proper work-life balance. Lawyers, investment bankers, and businesspeople face ultra-competitive colleagues, and many times sacrifice any semblance of free-time, family, or friends in order to advance their careers.

Wayne Yuan, a fit thirty-something who lives in Po Lam and worked for Bank of New York for the last sixteen years is all too familiar with the heavy demands of a professional career. Mr. Yuan worked in trade finance and relationship management and says, “the top management only cared about profits and cost-cutting.” He added that the corporate atmosphere “put me under tremendous pressure to sell more, sell more, sell more.” Frequently, he would be asked to stay until midnight to complete a conference call with his New York associates, only to be asked to return at 8am the next morning.

We meet in his apartment, nicely appointed, but also, like most public housing in Hong Kong, excessively cozy. He sits on a piano bench in a small bedroom shared by his housekeeper and seven-year-old daughter Angel. He married his wife, a physical education teacher and librarian, in 1996. His other daughter, Annie, is twelve, and actively involved in pre-teen pursuits: texting and Facebooking.

Up until May, Wayne Yuan could have been described as just another suit, a hard-working, moderately wealthy executive biding his time in the office. Unlike many in Hong Kong, though, Wayne was unwilling to give up his health and family as payments towards advancing his career. After sixteen years of high-pressure sales, Wayne found a job at his wife’s secondary school, and now works as their accountant. “In Hong Kong, most people work their entire lives for a nice flat,” Wayne says. “But you have to find a balance between your job and your life,” he adds as he leans back against his daughter’s piano, still wearing his workout clothes from a game of racquetball with a colleague.

This philosophy put him at odds with the heavy demands of his banking career. For Wayne, the decision to change jobs was far from a knee-jerk reaction to a stint of unhappiness at work. In order to qualify himself for the accounting position, Wayne enrolled in City University of Hong Kong and took classes at night for the last few years. It seems, at first, counterintuitive for a man who values time with his family to commit himself to even more hours away from home. But, it becomes clear that his discontentment stems not from the number of hours worked, but the corporate culture to which he was subjected. After a number of mergers a few years ago, Wayne notes that “the old-style management, which focused on making customers happy, changed dramatically when the bank was taken over by a foreign firm.” He adds, “Later [post-merger], the top management no longer cared about making our clients happy. We were to push for more business, more money, before our clients began to trust us.” He adds, “The money might have been lower before, but at least our clients trusted us, and I enjoyed my job.”

The push for account growth became so fervent that Wayne felt his clients were becoming annoyed with how often he was required to call them. “If they need something, they will call me. Now, I have to call them twenty times a month, just to satisfy my managers,” he says.

There was no end to the calls for higher revenues, in Wayne’s eyes. “Top management demands five percent growth, so the lower management wants to impress them and demands ten percent,” he says. With a hint of desperation in his voice, he adds, “There is no need to maximize the profit. How do you maximize the profit? One million? Ten million? One billion?”

Working at the school couldn’t be farther from the intense ends-justify-the-means environment at the investment bank. Wayne doesn’t miss much from his old career. “My school does not have profit goals, daily meetings, or overbearing managers,” Wayne says. However, there is one aspect of his former life that was harder to give up. “The money is much, much worse now. I make less than half what I made at the bank,” he says. Wayne is saving far less now than in his previous career, but surprisingly, he doesn’t feel he has had to make drastic changes to his lifestyle. The family retained their live-in housekeeper, and they still manage to pay for private English lessons, piano lessons, and weekend trips to China.

So far, Wayne seems happy with his career change. “I am happy now. I feel better. At Bank of New York, I couldn’t escape the high stress,” he says, adding, “I have time to exercise. And, I have more time to communicate with my wife and kids. Although, my oldest daughter has started to outgrow her daddy.”

Wayne says that many of his colleagues at the bank want to leave, but find a career change financially unviable. “They can’t afford to leave, even though they are unhappy,” he says.

Under the shining veneer of gleaming skyscrapers and well-dressed executives, there lies in Hong Kong a sense of unease among some people unable to escape from the fast-paced structural pressures of their careers. Wayne represents, for Hong Kong, a seemingly rare success in managing the demands of a career without abandoning family, friends, and health.

“When you become a top manager,” Wayne cautions me, “please remember that it is not all about the money.” Perhaps Wayne doesn’t care about politics or democratic initiatives, but the members of the legislative council would be deeply mistaken in pegging him as just another profit-hungry go-getter.

Bill O'Reilly Does Something Good?

In this clip, you'll see O'Reilly initially making a bet that Lou Dobbs would not be fired from CNN. Somehow, the 24-7 media machine has simultaneously offered up two good things: Lou Dobbs leaving CNN and Bill O'Reilly, in a moment not unlike the Grinch suddenly relenting, donating $10,000 to Habitat for Humanity. Would it be too much to ask for Glenn Beck's resignation for Christmas?

I'll Save The Pecan Pie For Later

I'm pretty sure that I'd like to have chocolate-chip cookie dough ice cream in my last meal if I were on death row. Virginia executed John Allen Mohammed today, the infamous DC sniper. He kept his last meal request secret.

However, this website chronicles the final meal requests of all of the inmates executed by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Some of my favorites are:

Stacey Lawton, a former carpenter, who requested one jar of dill pickles.

Gerald Lee Mitchell, also a carpenter, who at the age of 17 shot his brother-in-law with a sawed-off shotgun, requested one bag of assorted Jolly Ranchers.

Cornelius Goss, who shares my birthdate of May 24th, requested one apple, one orange, one banana, a coconut, and some peaches.

James Smith requested yogurt.

James Powell, an electrician, requested one pot of coffee.

Poor Ruben Cantu did not have his final request entirely filled. He requested barbecue chicken, refried beans, brown rice, sweet tea and bubble gum. Unfortunately, bubble gum is not permitted in Texas prisons.

Ricky Ray Rector, suffering from severe brain damage after shooting himself, apparently couldn't comprehend his final sentence. After finishing most of his meal, he set aside his pecan pie and told the guards he wanted to save it for later as he was lead away to the execution chamber.

Finally, Odell Barnes, Jr., who sexually assaulted, stabbed, and shot a woman, requested Justice, Equality, and World Peace as his last meal.

My New Friend Mukesh

I think that it is important to notice people. New-age Evangelical proselytizing strategists suggest using this tactic as a means of forging new relationships. The old school bible-thumping involved bait-and-switch sales techniques. For example, in Florida on spring break, they tasked bikini-clad women (drunk with the love of Jesus H. Christ) to hand out fliers for a Luau Party! with "live music and drinks." When the hormonally-induced attendees arrive, they discover Diet Coke, skits about God, and literature on Christianity in place of Captain Morgan and wet t-shirt contests. This kind of bait-and-switch approach failed, though, to produce results, meaning converts. We capitalist humans are good at smelling a sale coming from a mile away.

The new strategy, as I mentioned, involves "all bait and no switch" in the words of Ira Glass. Disciples are trained to avoid the misdirection and overt persuasions and instead sit in malls and coffee shops and simply notice people. Not surprisingly, when someone asks "How are you?" and then actually lets a person finish a few sentences without interjecting about themselves, they are taken aback by the genuine show of interest. So, that is step one. Step two is build friendships, gain proximity to new groups of people, and exert Godly influence through assimilation, leading by example.

Back to my original thought: I think it is important to notice people. Case in point, I spent this whole weekend with people whom I had met in completely random settings. I hung out with an Indian multi-millionaire property mogul named Mukesh after chatting with him in an Indian restaurant a few weeks ago. I joined his brother and some of his close friends for dinner, got driven around in a chauffeured Mercedes, chatted with the CEO of Air India, sat in on meetings with Uzbek diamond traders, sang Hindi karaoke, and got served breakfast by servants in a penthouse...all because I was willing to chat with a stranger in an Indian restaurant.

I am not sure if I engaged other people this openly while I was Back In The USSA. I am partially motivated by the fact that, halfway around the world, I don't have a circle of friends and family to fall back on. So, perhaps I am more open and more likely to show an interest in others. It has lead me to meet some great people. The people with whom I have spent the most time with in Hong Kong are two locals, Nicole and Lillian. One I met on an elevator, the other in a train station. They've invited me into their homes, shown me the non-touristy side of Hong Kong, and introduced me to their friends. I sat down and had dinner with Nicole's family on her birthday, and it was the first time they'd ever had a white person in their home.

My most poignant experiences in Hong Kong have come from the friendships I have forged through happenstance encounters with complete strangers. Upon returning to the USA, I'm going to behave like a tactically-minded Evangelical and spend more time noticing people.

On An Aeroplane Over The Sea

From Studying Abroad in Hong Kong

This was a roller coaster at Ocean Park, a theme park in Hong Kong. Very, very tame rides. Asians frighten easily. It's science. But, the views were incredible.

This weekend I went to my first horse racetrack. The stadium is 1/4th mile long; the seats were at least half-filled the entire length. It reminded me of a casino because everyone was there to gamble and it reeked of desperation and empty hopes. There were losing betting slips scattered everywhere, and at the end of the night they came out with leaf blowers to blow them away. Many of the "professional" horse-race gamblers use hyper-obsessive techniques like monitoring the weights of the jockeys, examining how the horses walked before the race, and perusing extensive publications devoted entirely to predicting the winners of the races. From my short stay at the track, I found that there was no correlation between the favorites to win and the actual winners. But, the professionals would dismiss this as purely anecdotal.

One interesting thing is that Chinese people are afraid of the number four. If they paid attention, they should be afraid of seven, because seven eight nine. Nonetheless, there is a going theory that the number four horse enjoys abnormally good odds because even if it is a favorite to win, no one wants to bet on it.

I went to my first movie in Hong Kong. Despite the fact that people rarely hang out in their apartments and are always out shopping and eating, cinema is not a popular past-time in Hong Kong. I wouldn't be surprised if Sioux Falls, South Dakota had more theatres than Hong Kong. Anyways, one cool thing about the movies in Hong Kong is that you get to pick your seats, like you're on an airplane. I requested a window seat.

Also, they serve chocolate popcorn and fish meat balls. The chocolate popcorn is very similar to the 'Kettle Korn' they serve at fairs, in that it is sweet and salty at the same time. Pretty delicious, but I prefer salt and butter.

In other news, I changed my flights and will be spending Christmas in Colorado with my family and New Year's Eve in New York City.

On Second Thought...

A contrary view to the Slate article I linked to in my last post, which discussed the scourge of constant distraction and our mind's fixation on "seeking" appears in a Wired Magazine article.

"Most jobs don’t allow that [daydreaming on a three-hour walk], of course. That’s why I’ve begun to think that the “social” Internet has become a rough substitute. If your boss is trying to force you to focus on PowerPoint and Word documents, you might gravitate to mentally discursive, floaty experiences — the idle surfing of Facebook updates, Wikipedia entries, YouTube videos, casual games like Bejeweled. Maybe these things aren’t so much time sucks as desperate attempts by our brains to decouple from the go-go-go machine and head off on its own."

Mid-Life Crisis

I am thinking about buying a Corvette; I am halfway done with my semester in Hong Kong. Time has been passing much more quickly as I've settled into a routine with class, gotten used to campus, and am no longer continually buffeted by random Asian novelties.

I went to Taiwan a few weekends ago. My extreme nerdiness shone through on the flight back from Taipei, as I was excited about it being my first time on a Boeing 747, which is the airplane with two stories and a big hump at the front. I took a video of myself walking onto the airplane, which I don't really recommend watching, except for the ambient Chinese voices and funny stares from people realizing I'm videotaping them.

Taiwan was pretty cool. People are aggressively friendly. That is, they will come up to you, without provocation, and try to help you find something or get somewhere. Perhaps their behavior stems from their fixation with white people/English speakers/rugged good looks? For some reason, and I don't remember doing this, I ordered Kosher meals for the flights to and from Taipei. As an aside, Asian airlines are far more enjoyable than American ones. They gave me copies of the International Herald Tribune and Financial Times, served me a full meal, and checked back with me at least three times to see if I wanted more coffee, all during a one-hour flight. So, they came up to me with this Kosher certificate and asked me to inspect my meal as we were waiting to push back from the gate. Then, amidst a sea of Chinese/Taiwanese people, the lone six-foot (okay, 5'11") white dude, moi, gets served fifteen minutes before everyone else. And, everything was individually wrapped, so it was a noisy, messy ordeal getting everything open. I'm putting my best foot forward to assimilate fully into the Asian culture. That's why I buy Starbucks in the airports.

A highlight from Taiwan was visiting a tea house at a tea plantation in the foothills outside of Taipei. It was very foggy and wet, and it made the whole experience of drinking tea on a patio overlooking the lush hills of the plantation very surreal.

I got a job as an English tutor for a private family. Each week, they have me over for dinner, which their domestic helper cooks, and then I tutor their daughter for an hour. It is fun to hang out with the family in their home, which is much different than interacting with locals in restaurants or on campus. Last week, the daugher and I played piano, and the cousins were all pretty excited to have me around and had lots of questions for me. It is the most welcomed I have felt so far in Hong Kong.

The family I tutor for is relatively wealthy. However, for the two parents, two kids, and their live-in domestic helper, they have a mere 700 square feet in their apartment. The home is comfortable and well-decorated, but I don't know if I could adapt to such a cramped living arrangement.

We have a long weekend coming up. I don't have class Friday or Monday. Many people are traveling to Tokyo, Cambodia, Thailand, mainland China, and Taiwan. Unfortunately, I have to teach English on Saturday, and try to finish all of my law school applications. Having it as a nagging obligation while being over here in Hong Kong, along with my research paper, has been pretty frustrating. I hope that I will be able to relax after finishing them, but recognizing my own neurotic inclinations, I will more likely consume myself obsessing over potential acceptances/rejections.

Finally, some unsolicited psychoanalysis. Sometimes, I feel as though I am in a continuous state of restlessness and distraction. It is difficult for me to maintain focus on one activity for a long period of time. While trying to focus on something like studying Chinese, I'll feel an overwhelming urge to check my email or go get a drink or engage in any other inane distraction. After coming upon this surprisingly relevant article (which I likely read while distracting myself from whatever task I was supposed to be accomplishing), I decided to divert my fleeting attention into a necessarily longer-term activity: reading books. So, I still pull myself away from studying and other obligations just as readily, but I make an effort to avoid checking Facebook or surfing Digg, and instead try to read. I'm not sure if it is at all helpful, but I have gotten way more discretionary reading done in the last few weeks than what I'd normally accomplish in a year. I read "Brave New World," "The Stranger," and an eerie, very entertaining book, which I just finished, "Dangerous Laughter."

Post Cereal in Asia...

I worked for Ralcorp Holdings this summer and Post Cereal is one of their recent acquisitions. It is fun to see my summer office's address (800 Market Street, Saint Louis, MO) on cereal boxes in random Chinese grocery stores.

Today, I encountered what I consider to be an egregious failure in custom-tailoring cereal boxes to the region in which they are sold. They are pulling at the heart strings of the burgeoning wealthy at the local discount grocery stores by imploring: Let's Feed America Together!

Not Sleeping When I Need It

It is 4:45am and I cannot manage to fall asleep. I need to "wake" up in about two hours to take the circuitous bus, train, and then bus route to the airport for my flight to Taiwan. My flight leaves way earlier than everyone else's, so I'll have the day to sleeplessly wonder around Taipei and I'll meet everyone else tonight at the Chocolate Box Hostel.

I got a research fellowship through the Center for Research in Economics and Strategy at WashU, and have been supposedly working on a research paper on franchise regulations all summer. The final deadline is tomorrow, and predictably, I still have quite a bit of ironing out to do before I can turn it in. Thus, I am bringing my laptop to Taipei as a sad consequence of my procrastination, and will be hanging out in a coffee shop for part of tomorrow in order to finish the paper. I am actually quite excited about handing it in, though, as it will be the longest paper I've ever completed at around 40-45 pages. If you require some light reading to put you to sleep at night, let me know and I'll send you a copy.

As I was restlessly daydreaming, I reflected on the fact that other than purchasing my airline tickets for Taipei, I have gone the whole month of September without making a purchase with a credit or debit card. I've been using cash for everything, as Visa levies a heavy fee on individual foreign currency transactions. This exclusive use of cash contrasts sharply with my normal spending, which takes place almost entirely through my credit or debit cards. I am curious what psychological effect this has been having on my spending, to part with cold-hard cash rather than swiping a card. I recently heard on a Marketplace podcast that when it comes to discretionary spending, people tend to spend over twice as much with a credit/debit card than with cash. However, perhaps this is negated by my spending in psychologically dissonant Hong Kong Dollars, where a $15 coffee is actually only around two US dollars.

In other news, I watched the very first episode of Mad Men (my procrastination knows no bounds) and am really excited about watching the rest of the series. I especially enjoyed the Bob Dylan song that concluded the episode.

Happy Birthday, People's Republic of China!

It is a very exciting time for the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China. On Thursday, they celebrate sixty years in power. The government has organized a massive celebration to take place in Beijing. There will be a military parade showcasing the best of China's new military technology and arms, involving 5,000 personnel and 150 aircraft. Also, there will be a 200,000-person parade with bands, dancers, and floats. They've been holding rehearsals for the last four months, and the grand finale is a 34-minute fireworks display in Tiananmen Square.

One Chinese man casually expressed his feelings for the upcoming celebration, saying "We just wanted to show our affection to our motherland and deliver the message that solidarity is power." Simple, but so eloquent.

This all sounded pretty exciting to me, especially because they only throw these giant birthday bashes once every ten years. I looked into arranging a trip to Beijing to experience the parade first-hand, only to find that I had underestimated the absurdity of the Chinese government.

Sure, they're closing down airports, streets, and businesses, hiring hundreds of thousands of extra security forces, preparing for four months, and setting up random ID checkpoints throughout the city for the month leading up to October 1st. Local businesses are losing money from random closures and street blockades,citizens are being constantly disrupted by parade rehearsals, and even kites have been banned during the celebration. But, it's all worth it, as the people of China get to come together and celebrate their love for their country in a massive display of pride. Right?

Oh, actually, no one is allowed to attend the parade. All of the hotels with views of the parade route are not allowed to rent out their rooms. Only a select few government officials and VIPs have been invited to watch the parade in person. The thousands of local university students that are marching in the parade are participating because it is mandatory. And, everyone in Beijing will be forced to stay at home and watch the celebration from China's TV network.

So, my plans to go to Beijing were thwarted. What could be a more fitting and symbolic way for the Communist Party to celebrate its sixty years of success in maintaining power in China?

Congratulations, Beijing...

My singular act of rebellion:

Why Sleeping Was Troublesome & English Debate

Probably in a fitful rage of pro-environmentalism, the Chinese University of Hong Kong has installed timers on all the air conditioning switches in the dormitory rooms. In order to turn on my air conditioning and insulate myself from the 90-degree heat, I must put money on my student card and load hours onto the timer.

Last weekend, at around 12:30am, I noticed that I had only 01:30:00 of remaining air, sort of like Apollo 13. My student card was depleted, the office was closed, and after donning my robe and going downstairs, I found that the add-value machine wasn't working. Luckily for the environment, my A/C remained off that night, saving hundreds of watt-hours for Mother Nature!

Also, I went to the information session for the English Debate Team, where "silence ISN'T golden." Yes, that's their actual slogan. In order to whet the appetite of the audience members, they staged a mock debate on the following resolution: The House supports that schools should mandate compulsory drug tests for its students.

The English Debate Team takes itself a bit more seriously than WashU's team. For example, I had to fill out an information sheet detailing my past debate experience and personal information to "apply" for the team. Tomorrow, to try-out for the team, I will give a speech for a panel of judges and then debate with the collective panel on random topics.

Despite how seriously they take themselves, they are still inherently and noticeably disadvantaged by debating in a second language. None of the speakers in the mock debate were particularly charming or persuasive, and much of their language and speaking is over-formalized and forced.

I also wasn't impressed with the scope of the debate. One side argued that catching kids was the only way to bring the "terrible moral dilemma of drugs" to the surface, while the other side noted that the "terrible moral dilemma of drugs" needed to be solved at its roots: parents, teachers, and drug smugglers. They all agreed positive results should be promptly investigated by the police. Neither side parsed the term drugs into anything more specific, nor did they question relevant issues like privacy, the efficacy of the war on drugs, logistics of enforcement, or protectionism.

I look forward to wooing them with my first language tomorrow. And, my favorite picture of the week:

Imitation Las Vegas

I think that I have finally figured out my classes. At this point, I'm registered for: Intermediate Financial Accounting, International Finance, a graduate journalism class called 'feature writing,' and two Mandarin Chinese (Putonghua) classes. After one week I have learned how to say I love you (wo ai ni), you are my friend (ni she wo de peng you), and my favorite: do you love me? (ni ai wo ma). I have been practicing this last sentence in public places, such as the subway, much to the chagrin of my Mandarin-speaking friends.

The first week in my Putonghua classes was spent mostly practicing all the strange noises that my American mouth is not trained to create. Making nonsensical sounds over and over again as a class with a slightly over-enthusiastic teacher made me feel like I was in a rehabilitation class after a massive stroke or horrifying car accident. (Think "fee fi fo fum" x100)

In other news, I traveled to China's cheap attempt at Las Vegas this weekend, a city on the south coast of China called Macau. We took the TurboJet ferry there on Saturday morning, which took about an hour. Macau was a Portuguese settlement and was controlled by Portugal until ten years ago, when it was handed over to the Chinese government. Like Hong Kong, though, Macau maintains an independent currency, legal system, and basic government structure.

There is beautiful Portuguese architecture, such as churches, statues, and museums, interspersed among a relatively dirty and busy Chinese city. Macau feels like an underdeveloped Las Vegas. Just like Las Vegas was grimy and unpolished fifteen years ago, Macau is still undergoing growing pains. There are giant new casinos, cranes, and construction projects all over the city, but the current offerings of casinos feel empty and soulless. I've never been to Las Vegas, but I feel like there are things to appreciate aside from gambling: world-class restaurants, art museums, Cirque de Soleil, Broadway productions, the Bellagio fountain, and lots of other entertainment. In Macau, it just feels like they transplanted a bunch of glitzy buildings from Las Vegas, but only brought the slot machines and gaming tables.

Also, everything seems unpolished. The one museum we visited was empty, un-air conditioned (it was 95 outside), and staffed by Filipinos that knew nothing about what was inside.

On a more positive note, a dude from Miami and I went to the MGM Grand, which felt much more legitimate, and used the concierge service to get recommendations for a good Portuguese restaurant. They made reservations for us, booked us a taxi, and we spent our hour and a half of free time with our feet in the water at the beautiful infinity pool which looked out on the Friendship Bridge and the South China Sea. When we returned, the women was standing in the lobby waiting for us, greeted me as Mr. Fancher, and they escorted us to our taxi, which cost us $2 US each.

It was my first time trying Portuguese food. I had African Chicken, which is supposedly a renowned Portuguese dish. The origin of the name baffles me. My friend had octopus rice, which was also quite delicious. A big benefit to living in Southeast Asia is that my money takes me a very, very long way.

Before we caught the ferry back to Hong Kong, we saw Taiwan's display for the international fireworks competition.

I'll end this post with a little gem I found in the middle of Macau. Perhaps this sign means something completely innocuous, but those symbols look vaguely familiar... Notice my utter disgust: