This week Seattle had a snow storm. Well, by the standards of other parts of the country, the storm was actually quite mild. However, since snow up here is sporadic and relatively infrequent, people up here aren't really accustomed to snow commuting. Traffic is already bad in Seattle. With narrow driving lanes, and illogical exit/entrance ramps, I intentionally deferred living in Seattle to escape the commute. Why waste an extra 45 minutes out of your day just to get home the next morning and do the same thing over again. I'm recycling the time into more productive things-- namely sleeping more in the morning and going to the gym at night.The communities up here have limited "snow-storm" services. Yes on the busy local-roads there is salting and snow plowing. However, on many other roads there's just ice. And Seattle drivers aren't the best drivers in normal conditions.

I guess Microsoft doesn't want to take any chances that employees will spin out. So, M$ encourages us to tele-commute from home during these conditions. To be more precise, anyone can tele-commute during any weather condition. It can be considered one of the "perks". I is great for families with small kinds because you basically have a flexible schedule at anytime to accommodate the random errands of parenthood.

This morning only a handful of people went to work. I was one of the dutiful few. I live only 10 min away from campus, so it's not that I went out of my way to trek into work. Rather, the term "work from home" does not apply to me. Simply put-- I can not do any work from home. I've tried and I fail. Even during school, I would deluded myself to think I could actually accomplish anything productive when I visited the folks. Every time I went home, I took along a book back filled with, well, books. Each and every time I did not touch the bag. I took the bag, dropped it on the floor in my room, left it there to sit, and then only picked it up when I had to return to school. So this brings up today's situation.

I had the choice to "work from home". But If I did, I would be dishonest and I tend to think I am an honest person. So did I actually do any work while I was at work. Well......

I love reading articles about CAL. As the cornerstone of public education, Berkeley has the heavy burden of bringing attention to hotly contentious issues regarding education in society. This week there is a very interesting article in the NY Times about Berkeley:

"Little Asia on the Hill": http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/education/edlife/07asian.html?pagewanted=1

 Here is a refresher course for those of you not familiar with the twilight zone of politics in California. Not too long ago, Californian voters passed Proposition 209 which decoupled Affirmative Action from being used as a guideline for undergraduate admissions to any of the University of California campuses. Since the Prop 209, Hispanic and African American enrollment has steadily declines, while the Asian population continues to soar. This trend is exhibited across many university institutions across the country, not only those in the University of California system. As the article states, Asian-Americans comprise 41% of the total undergraduate population.

It brings about the issue of whether Asian-Americans should be considered a "minority" as defined when you think about Affirmative Action. Under a strict definition of "minority", yes Asian-Americans are a definite minority ethnic group. But the word "minority" as implications of socio-economic conditions that affect the education opportunities available for young students. The educational opportunities for Black and Hispanic students contrast greatly to the conditions present for Asian-American students.

I have personally wrestled with whether to support Affirmative Action or not. The neo-classical liberal side of me says that Affirmative Action is inherently unfair and decimator. Access to educational opportunities should be a meritocracy with no biases favored for arbitrarily belonging to a racial group. It is a travesty to impose separate higher admissions standards to Asian-Americans just because this ethnic group has on average been more successful than other ethnic groups.

The San-Francisco liberal in me screams that there is no such thing as a meritocracy in admissions because the admissions policies emphasize criteria that are biased toward the economically advantaged. The most notable example is the emphasis on Advanced Placement preparatory classes and SAT scores. A student hailing from a school with a mediocre selection of Advanced Placement classes is already disadvantaged when compared to a student attending a magnet school in the suburbs.

After careful thought, this is the best compromise I could reach. I still think that socio-economic factors do determine the likelihood of education success. However, I think that ethnic categories are a poor proxy for identifying these socio-economic factors. Is there a difference between a lower income Asian-American, African-American, or Caucasian student? I think school district and income bracket are better indicators to identify students who face the extra burdens not faced by upper-middle class suburban Americans. If a student faces extra hurdles such as crowded class rooms, single-parent families, gang/drug influenced areas, etc. racial indicators seem less influential. With that said, I do not support Affirmative Action in its current incarnation because I think its use of race as a correlative factor for socio-economic conditions is poor. Making Affirmative Action factor in income bracket, class, geography, etc. would be a better step towards addressing inequalities in education access.

 They did include this great photo... I miss Berkeley

Long ago I decided to turn away from a life of wearing the suit, tie and briefcase on Wall Street. Here is the best investment advice anyone has ever given me and it has been reinforced by almost every personal finance expert I read. My investments teacher in college told us this advice during the first day of class. His intention was to make sure that everyone in the room, even people who would later drop the class,  would have piece of wisdom that would be easy to understand and easy to execute for everyone.

Paraphrasing: "The best investment advice is to put money in the market all the time". Here is some clarification: by "market" he meant the broadest portfolio of stocks. "All the time" refers to saving, investing, and doing so for a long period of time. This length of time is crucial because the market will always have ups and downs. But averaged over a long time horizon, it generally provides a good return.

Another addendum is this: Be wise to control the two things you really have control 1)Asset Allocation and 2) Costs. You can never control what the performances is in the market, but controlling the top two things will help extend your returns.

Here is a simple article that can explains this advice more eloquently than I could: http://www.slate.com/id/2155871/entry/2156039/

It is written by Henry Blodget-- a crook who made shady stock promoting deals during the dotcom high and who is permanently barred from Wall Street. Nonetheless, it is still good advice and a definite read for all young people. Oh, and he writes one of the most scathing blasts against hedge funds I have read.

Who would have ever thought: A woman speaker of the House of Representatives. Even still, a tree-hugging libreral from San Francisco!

I remember the night in Nov 1994 when the tide shifted. And I thought it would take much longer to get back power. I have my doubts about what the Dems can actually do in the next two years. But, all I have to say is things change is good.

 Complacency is dangerous. The Republicans should take this as a hard lesson. GM and Ford should learn from the soon to be top car maker Toyota. Sony should take a lesson from Apple. The U.S. in general....... because there are other nations in the world too.
Being #1 is never an excuse for not adapting and not learning.