In fairness, comparisons between the L.P.G.A., an independent organization not affiliated with the PGA Tour, and other sports bodies are imprecise. The L.P.G.A., much like the PGA Tour, is a group of individual players from diverse backgrounds whose success as an organization depends on its ability to attract sponsorships from companies looking to use the tour for corporate entertainment and advertisement.

Rarely are N.B.A. players called upon to play one-on-one with a corporate executive whose decision to write a sponsorship check is predicated on whether one had a good time shooting free throws with Kobe Bryant.

In other words, the LPGA needs these international players not only for their ability to excel at golf but also for their ability to excel at drawing in the sponsorship dollars by actively mingling and schmoozing with corporate executives.

But if the LPGA’s claim is actually credible, all I’d like to ask them is this:  Even with the years of English training, have you ever tried to carry on a meaningful English-only conversation with a FOB???

Now, if you’re a FOB and you’re reading this, please don’t be offended.  I don’t mean to belittle you in any way.  I love FOBs.  Some of my best friends are FOBs.  Even my parents are FOBs.  But, let’s face it, your guys’ grasp of the English language and American social phenomena is somewhat limited.

Granted that the current international players on the Tour are of varying English proficiency, for the LPGA to demand within four months, without warning that these players acquire not only the English proficiency but also the American cultural and social proficiency to induce these stodgy, white, male corporate execs (generally speaking) to open up their checkbooks in the style of a hobnobbing session with Kobe Bryant is not only unreasonable, it’s darn near impossible. 

I’m sorry, but you’re setting these players up for failure by setting the bar so high that failure is nearly assured.  And perhaps, that is their intent, as golf, it seems, is probably the only remaining mainstream sport out there that still has yet to fully break from its bigoted and aristocratic past.  As an example, I remember the stories my father, who is a golfing fanatic, used to tell me about country clubs in the South that remain even to this day “Whites Only”.  And who can’t forget the fried chicken comment directed towards Tiger Woods by Fuzzy Zoeller in the 1997 Masters tournament? 

At a time like this, it’s hard not to be reminded of those comedy films we all watched growing up, where a cabal of cool, jock fraternities, in being so threatened by one particular nerdy/uncool/outcast fraternity, take it upon themselves to have the misfits revoked from the Greek system by instituting a new accrediting process that only they-–the cool ones--can pass. 

And when taking into consideration the fact that the LPGA has yet to even come up with a process or standards to even measure the English ability of these international players, the analogy and the hidden dynamics at play become that much clearer and ridiculous.

I read this interesting article recently, titled Koreans Have Beef with Korean Americans. It was about how South Korea recently resumed the importation of American beef after a moratorium placed a halt on all U.S. beef imports due to mad cow fears. Over the past few weeks, however, there has been a furor of public protest in South Korea, decrying the resumption of the imports, calling into question the actual safety of American beef. The contentiousness was further fueled by the backstabbing many South Koreans alleged of their Korean brethren in the U.S., as the majority of Korean Americans chose to side with America over the issue.

One part of the article that made me somewhat reevaluate my dual identity as an Asian and an American was this one:

“Proving its position as the most wired country in the world, Korean cyberspace has crackled with South Koreans’ disappointment towards the immigrants. They accuse Korean Americans for not standing up for Korea, or worse – of being a lapdog of the American government. One reader of JoongAng Ilbo, a major daily newspaper in South Korea, wrote in the comment section, ‘Korean Americans are those who would aim guns at us if Korea goes to war against the United States.’”

Pause.

Though I am not a U.S. citizen, I feel as though I am one, as I’ve called America home from the time I was barely a one year-old. And for any 1.5 and 2^nd generation Asian American who grew up under the roof of those “traditional Asian parents,” who were fanatical about preserving the traditions of the old country in you by sending you back to the motherland every summer vacation for as far back as you could remember during your K-10 years will know what I’m talking about here. There is a tension inside all those like me, where it is nearly impossible to choose sides in situations like the one above. How does one choose between their birth mother and their adoptive mother? And even if you knew your “mother” was in the wrong, how could you not stand by her? God-forbid, if America ever went to war with your respective country of origin like the one reader eludes to above, who’s side would you choose? It is during times like these—as silly (as a beef ban) or as serious (as actual war) as it may be--that bring to the surface and really test perhaps a no greater defining characteristic of one’s loyalty and identity than to and of country.

For as long as I was old enough to know about the role race played in my identity, I have always felt this way: During the times I am in America, I am ultra-patriotic of my Asian motherland. And during the times I am visiting my motherland, I somehow, very naturally, switch sides to become ultra-patriotic of America.

What do you think? For any Asian American who’s lived in America long enough, do you see yourself as more Asian or more American?

I recently read this strange but true story about these black students who were unable to get a summer job at a local Mcdonald’s in a Latino enclave of the U.S. The reason why? Because they were unable to speak Spanish. In other words, the only language they were able to speak was English.

The somewhat unfortunate nature surrounding the circumstances of these black students in this story was reminiscent of a low-grade Twilight Zone episode: An American not being able to get a job in America, because s/he speaks English?? And only English???

Which brings me to the overarching theme of the article:

Should those who immigrate to the U.S. be required to know how to speak English?

Or, at the very least…

Speak English well enough to manage their way through a Mcdonald’s restaurant transaction?

Why is this relevant to us Asians? Well, because I think the existence of such exclusively ethnocentric cities or sections-of-cities is a fact of life for all immigrants, whereby the prevailing language (in all its forms) within the borders of these so-called “[Blank]-Towns” or “Little [Blanks]” would make any observer wonder if the town in question was even an American town at all. Furthermore, I know at least from my own experience that a lot of immigrants who inhabit these towns intentionally choose to live in them, because it affords them the convenience of never having to learn or speak a single English word.

This issue is very personal to me, as, of course, my parents were immigrants. And while my father spoke English well enough, my mother did not. So, I find myself in a strange middle-ground, where I can neither oppose nor support any legislation requiring immigrants to know English well enough to at least conduct day-to-day American life. However, by all logical and practical accounts, it does stand to reason that the government should impose such legislation.

What do you think? Should those who immigrate to America be required to at least know English well enough to navigate day-to-day American life?

Vote in the poll to the left!

Of the three families featured, the one that surprised me the most (not surprisingly) was the Oh family—but not for the reasons you might think, which I presume would’ve been for their “Asian-ness.” But, no, it was because the parents were an interracial couple. Yet, still, this alone would not have really provoked my immediate double-take. The real shock came, because, in the Oh family, the Asian person was the husband and white person was the wife.

For the uninformed, Jack Cafferty said recently that the U.S. imported Chinese “junk with lead paint on them” and continued his tirade by calling the Chinese “basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they’ve been for the last 50 years.”

There seems to be a lot of China-bashing in the news lately by Western media outlets, including reporting on the turmoil in Tibet and botched Beijing Olympic torch relays.  This latest comment by Cafferty has fanned the growing ire of many Chinese, including 14 lawyers who are filing a similar suit against CNN.

Do you think suing CNN for $1.3 billion is going a bit overboard?  And what are your thoughts about the recent bad press China has been getting here in the U.S.?

I was reading this Washington Post article about a restaurant owner named Joseph Groh. The décor of his Philadelphia restaurant is all 1950s vintage—from the booths to the original soda fountain to the same sparse menu. Mr. Groh was adamant about maintaining the traditional look and feel of his blue-collar eatery, to the inclusion of even its name, harkening back to not just a more innocent era, but also to a more bigoted one.

What is its name, you ask?

Well, how about Chink’s Steak?

That’s right. Pause to do your double-take.

So uncompromising is Mr. Groh about maintaining the original specs of the eatery that he refuses to change the name amid a wave of protests and outrage from the Asian American community in response to his efforts to open up a second Chink’s Steak.

Mr. Groh is actually not the original owner of the restaurant; he bought it from Samuel Sherman, the restaurant’s namesake, after his death. Sherman was supposedly nicknamed “Chink” as a child due to his unusually slanted eyes.

Great.

What do you think? Should Mr. Groh be forced to change his restaurant’s name?

April 16 marked the one year anniversary of the Virgina Tech Massacre, perpetrated by Seung-Hui Cho, a mentally disturbed Korean American attending the school. News of this horrific tragedy was inescapable to us one year ago--graphic images of the killer's video manifesto still haunt the victims and Asian America today. But, have you ever heard of Daniel Kim?

Last weekend, I was watching a CNN investigative piece on campus rampage killings. In it was featured Daniel Kim, whose story I incidentally never heard of on the news during the time of occurrence.

Like Cho, Daniel was Korean American. Like Cho, Daniel was a student at Virginia Tech. Like Cho, Daniel was mentally ill. Like Cho, Daniel purchased a pistol—from the same pawn shop Cho did. But unlike Cho, Daniel only ended up taking his own life eight months following the V-Tech Massacre.

Now, there’s a lot of controversy surrounding this event, pertaining mostly to how responsibly the university might have acted in trying to prevent Daniel’s suicide from occurring.

But I’d like to touch upon something that may run deeper--something that may strike more along cultural lines. A while back, I read an alarming statistic that Asian American women between the ages of 15-24 have the highest suicide rate among women in any race or ethnic group in that age group. This, along with taking into account the prevalence of Internet suicide chat rooms in Asia (particularly Japan), devoted to bringing together the likeminded to commit group suicide, begins to all beg the question of what is going on with Asians?

Does the Asian population simply have more of those people with the right combination of character traits that lead more of them to suicide, or is it more about misguided individuals who find they have no better alternative to life’s problems in a culture that fosters such tendencies through its own ignorance or neglect?

What do you think?

No market is immune to the current credit crunch.

At a U.S. Senate hearing today, John Remondi, chief financial officer of SLM Corp, said that the market would notice the shortage of student loans next month as demand increases from new students.

I get a mixed bag of feelings from this. First, I am really happy for future college students who will probably have lower college tuitions as the U.S. becomes less able to subsidize student loans. Since students were able to borrow so much money from government funding, colleges were able to exploit this cash influx by charging higher tuitions. Now with all the credit markets strapped for cash, there is no more easy money for student lenders and hopefully we will see more affordable tuitions very soon.

But I also have great pity for the current students who probably won’t benefit from lowered tuitions yet and/or cannot go to the school of their choice because money is no longer abundant.

With more and more students unable to secure school loans, you may find it a bit easier to get into Harvard in the near future.