Category Archives: blog

Politicians bail on effort to revive affirmative action in California; As predicted SCA5 was DOA

There will be no referendum in California this year, after all, as a conservative group of Chinese Americans have scared off legislative support for a move to put race back in public admissions and hiring—at least for now.

Senate Constitution Act 5, or SCA5, was sent back by Democratic leaders to the senate, and a new call was issued to start up a bi-cameral commission to discuss how to solve the state’s diversity issue in college admissions and public hiring.

Starting up a commission to look into a problem is always safer than actually working to solve the problem. Normally it’s a bogus thing. But there needs to be a way to get people out of the polarized debate that usually occurs when the topic of race comes up.

>See my piece: http://diverseeducation.com/article/61218/ <

Last week, an organized group of conservative Chinese Americans gloated that their intimidation tactics had killed SCA5.

Apparently, the heavy handed tactics of targeting Asian American elected and politicians, as well as calling outspoken advocates racists and engaging in nasty name-calling debates, was enough to make some key Asian American politicians withdraw support for the measure as it exists.

Plain and simple, they caved. Not just the Asian Americans, all of the Dems.

Maybe a commission can help build a consensus that can revive the revival effort, and bring a referendum before California voters. 

But it still won’t happen before 2016. 

By then, it should be clear just how far back a generation of Prop.209 has set back this great state’s diversity efforts. And voters should be ready to act. Or not.

CHECK OUT THE NEW HOME FOR THE AMOK COLUMN: www.aaldef.org/blog

LIKE  and FOLLOW us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/emilguillermo.media

And FOLLOW  on  Twitter     http://www.twitter.com/emilamok

Arthur Chu zeroes out on “Jeopardy,” leaves with just under $300,000 for 11 days, but still Asian America’s champ

If you look at my tweets along the right panel of this blog, you know I was stunned to hear that there would be no topping $300,000, no 12th victory, no on-going Chu dynasty on “Jeopardy.”

It was sad following the roll-out of the pre-recorded game. Arthur Chu was live tweeting from 7pm EDT,  and though  I couldn’t see the show,  I could sense from the tweets something was going wrong. Very wrong.

From the start of the week, I knew something was a bit askew. Arthur just seemed off his game on Monday and Tuesday. He won handily,yes. But he got some easy answers wrong. Fortunately, he was not up against  very savvy  opponents.

But on Wednesday, he was up against two tough women, Julia and Diana, who both played aggressively and knew their stuff. Diana started strong with literary questions on Willa Cather and David Copperfield and when Arthur answered one with “Two Penny Opera,” I knew he would be at least a penny short today.

By the first break, Diana was leading $5400 to Arthur’s $3,200, and Julia’s $2600.

The pattern only continued.

When Arthur couldn’t get a Native American question, and Diana got “Hopi,” that’s when I sensed hope was lost on this night.

There also seemed to be a few  glitches worthy of competitions like Olympic figure skating. In Double Jeopardy, even as she was getting all the Daily Doubles, Diana seemed to answer a question twice, changing from “Peptic” to “Peptide.”

 It would only make Arthur fans dyspeptic. Foul? It would get fouler.

There were at least two more  irregularities, like on the Monty Python question, whereby Arthur got a CREDIT before Final Jeopardy. And according  to Arthur’s wife, there was much discussion off camera that all came out in the edit.

But even with all that,  Diana was  still way ahead. Even with a double, Diana would have had to fail and bet illogically.

She didn’t.

And so with British Royalty, and the wrong question, “Who is George II,” King Arthur zeroed out.

Still a good run.

The negative sentiment about how he played the game, seemed to have died. And many of his detractors admitted to liking him now that he was a loveable loser.

It was just exciting to see a regular Asian American guy get on a show for 3 weeks or so and get exposed to an average audience of 10 million people a week.

He should run for something.

In the era of social media, Arthur is the image of the Asian American male. For the moment.

CHECK OUT THE NEW HOME FOR THE AMOK COLUMN: www.aaldef.org/blog

LIKE  and FOLLOW us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/emilguillermo.media

And FOLLOW  on  Twitter     http://www.twitter.com/emilamok

 

 

“Jeopardy” champ continues roll: Arthur Chu’s generational vulnerability as he approaches $300,000 (Tuesday update)

After a week off, Arthur Chu’s “Jeopardy” run continued this week.

Monday’s  show put him at nearly $280,000. (More on Tuesday’s show below).

I’d like to think the racism toward him has died down, but I’m sure there’s still some resentment out there.

But it’s likely less about Chu’s race or his aggressive style of play, and more due to outright jealousy.

The guy has pulled in more than a quarter mill and makes “Jeopardy” more interesting than it deserves to be.

What surprised me this week, however, is that Arthur is not nearly as formidable as one might think.

In the first round Monday , he was aggressive right away, starting with “Potent Potables” for $1000. But then he missed the clue “Black Bush” and couldn’t come up with “What is Bushmills?”

Maybe he’ll have a shot on St.Patrick’s Day. Or maybe he just likes Cleveland craft beer?

Then there was the Faulkner answer in a literary category, “1929 title…”

And he came up with “What is Franny and Zooey”?  How do you mix up J.D. Salinger and William Faulkner?

Arthur has some weak spots. But never mind. The technique of playing the high ticket answers first does two things. If you answer them right, you build a big lead while your opponents become even more nervous than normal. If you don’t answer and no one else does, you take the biggest threats off the board. 

He’s not cheating. He’s just adding a level of strategy that makes the game more interesting.

You still have to get the answers right. And when he does, Arthur builds almost an insurmountable lead as he did on Monday. By the start of Double Jeopardy, Arthur was at $6,000 to his opponents $200 and minus $200.

The game was virtually over.

By Final Jeopardy, his lead was $18,200 to his oponents’  $200 and  $7,800.

The only way to lose was by betting wrong. (You double your closest opponent, assuming he’s smart enough to double up in FJ, and come up with $15,600).

That means Arthur only needed to bet anything up to $2,600 to finish ahead of his closest opponent.

Even if Arthur didn’t know the answer, he’d still win.

And that’s what happened. He didn’t know the correct question to the Broadway composer answer, picking Alan Menken and not Stephen Sondheim (showing his obvious generational weakness).

But it didn’t matter. He bet a conservative $2,000 and still finished with $16,200– well ahead of his nearest opponent.

I haven’t watched “Jeopardy” in ages. But now that Arthur’s made me watch it,  I appreciate it a lot more.

I still don’t get the racism people have displayed toward him. Arthur actually makes the game less boring. In fact, Arthur’s style could be a losing strategy if you don’t get the answers right. That’s the real risk. The key is not to  guess.  If you’re wrong and put yourself in a hole, you can’t easily get back in the black without a big run among the easier answers.

But if you do know the answers, and land a Daily Double, you can sprint ahead of your opponents  and go wire-to-wire.

Still, you have to get the answers right.

I hope Arthur wins. I like to see an Asian American with bangs go on “Jeopardy” and talk about things like how he’s  promised his mother he will take care of her the rest of her life. That’s good old Asian American family values for you.

So much for the “Jeopardy” villain. There’s not a ruthless bone in this kid’s body.

But he’s shown some vulnerability on some of these “generational” questions.

He has a good chance to continue his “Jeopardy” buzz saw. He just  needs to avoid his weak topics and smarter, older players.

Let’s see if he gets to $300,000 tonight.

UPDATE: 11:43 p.m. PDT — Just saw the replay  of Tuesday’s show and was surprised that the Chu-train stumbled a bit early. On the very first question he aggressively went with the “Reddit-Ask Me Anything”  category for $1,000 and then couldn’t convert the Mookie clue into “Who is Spike Lee?”  Into the first break, the champ was trailing with $1,200 to his opponents’ $2,600 and $1,800. He didn’t know much about walrus teeth either and sunk to a low of  $200 vs. his opponents at $3,000 and $1,600. But his strategy begets volatility, and sure enough in no time he got a question right on Pringles, Dublin, and the Black Forest to get him back to $2,000. A Daily Double on Best Sellers got him the clue “1972 Diet Revolution…” Who is Dr. Atkins, of course. That got him to $4,000 and the champ was back on track. Double Jeopardy saw two incidents worth comment. One a mispronounce of actress Frances McDormand. Arthur said “McDiarmand.” It was Arthur’s “travoltifying” moment (See “Adele Dazeem.”) But it didn’t hurt him. Arthur was already at $14,400, more than double his closest rival. Another speed bump occurred on the question “In 1814, this VP from Mass. for whom a political term is named died in office having served less than 2 years.”  “Who is Gerry,”  said Arthur, with a soft G, because of the term “gerrymandering.” But host and arbiter Alex T. said it was Elbridge Gerry with a hard G. (BTW, Old Elb was Harvard, ’62…as in 1762). Once again, it didn’t hurt Arthur who was so far ahead, the game was over. Into Final J., the game recycled a subject from the previous day, with a clue on a 1951 novel about a hero who rescues children falling from a cliff. Good thing Arthur, who confused Faulkner and Salinger on a previous show, got it right this time. Catcher in the Rye. Arthur bet just enough to hit $20,000 giving him an 11 day total of $297,200. Once again his style helps him to overcome some wrong answers early in topics where he’s shaky. But the champ is showing some weakness. In some ways, these lesser conventional contestants play right into Arthur’s game plan. Playing the big numbers first helps him. And it’s kind of fun to see his score bounce all around the board. But If he ever catches another smart, aggressive player in a volatile matchup, now that would be a thrilling show.

CHECK OUT THE NEW HOME FOR THE AMOK COLUMN: www.aaldef.org/blog

LIKE  and FOLLOW us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/emilguillermo.media

And FOLLOW  on  Twitter     http://www.twitter.com/emilamok

 

 

Oscars 2014: A turning point for diversity in the industry?

Like Hostess Ellen said, either “12 Years a slave” wins or we’re all racists. 

Good thing it won. But I don’t know if we’ve really turned a corner on diversity.  Under-representation and stereotypes still exist in Hollywood.  Asians are few and far between, and Native Americans?  In these times, Johnny Depp can still play Tonto.

But my goodness, the list of winners in the top categories this year is still  impressive:

Asian American of Filipino descent: Robert Lopez, composer, Best Original Song, “Let it Go,” from “Frozen.”

Mexican American: Alfonso Cuaron, “Gravity.”

African American: John Ridley, Best Screenplay adaption, “12 Years a Slave.”

Mexican Kenyan: Lupita Nyong’o, Best Supporting Actress, “12 Years a Slave.”

Brit director Steve McQueen’s brutally honest telling of the Solomon Northup story is so disturbing, it’s hard to take.

But it needed to be told finally. Doesn’t put closure on the race issue by a long-shot. Don’t talk about post-racial America after a “Best Picture” Oscar.

But I think the industry is beginning to change as far as recognizing diverse audiences.

You can’t deny the winner’s list tonight.

I pretty much predicted how it would go.

“Gravity” was such a technical marvel, but didn’t quite get out of the planetarium for me.

I loved Amy Adams but knew she wouldn’t win. “American Hustle” was good but ABSCAM isn’t Watergate.  And for New Jersey folks, it’s not even Bridgegate.

So Cate Blanchett wins as she has most of the pre-shows.

Same with Jared Leto and Matthew McConaughey in the  male actor categories.

Both of them gave great speeches.

I thought Leto’s mention of Ukraine and Venezuela, and AIDS victims brought things a little closer to reality. And McConaughey’s mention of God, was “all right, all right.”

But given the diversity wins of the night, Oscar folks still like things more  tactful than I would have wanted.

Never mind, Lupita Nyong’o’s acceptance speech struck the right chord. She recognized that her success was based on the pain of the past.(A show of humility there). And then after thanking colleagues, she chose to inspire:

“When I look down at this golden statue, may it remind me and every little child that no matter where you’re from, your dreams are valid. Thank you.”

This was not a night or the time to beat anyone over the head apparently. Not with Ellen playing silly, ordering pizzas and doing selfies.  It was a fun, guilt free Oscars.

And the winners were among the most I can ever remember.

Leave it to Lupita Nyong’o  to help validate the night.

 

CHECK OUT THE NEW HOME FOR THE AMOK COLUMN: www.aaldef.org/blog

LIKE  and FOLLOW us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/emilguillermo.media

And FOLLOW  on  Twitter     http://www.twitter.com/emilamok