Today the San Gabriel Valley is synonymous with its large Asian communities and the many hundreds of authentic Chinese restaurants representing multiple regional cuisines spanning from Monterey Park to San Gabriel to Rowland Heights. But it wasn't always that way. For over a century, due to the U.S. immigration laws barring most persons of Chinese descent from immigrating to America, the vast majority of Chinese Americans were us Toishanese with our roots in the rural villages outside of Canton. Our food was kind of boring and generally unrepresentative of Chinese food, though that's what America knew as Chinese food. And housing discrimination kept us largely bottled in various enclaves throughout the Los Angeles area, such as South Central Los Angeles and El Sereno on the eastside, with Asians (then called Orientals) not often seen in many suburban and outlying communities. While there was a significant Asian presence in the semi-rural agricultural San Gabriel Valley of the earlier 20th century, when that area urbanized in the mid-20th century there was no particular significant Chinese presence. Indeed, little or no Asian presence in a particular community was often the norm in mid-century Los Angeles. I remember cities such as Inglewood, Glendale and South Pasadena all being unabashedly 100 percent lily white even into the mid-1960s.
So how did the San Gabriel Valley and its wealth of authentic Chinese food come to be such an Asian food mecca? The obvious trigger was the mid-1960s change in immigration laws which began to allow large numbers of people to immigrate to the United States from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and eventually mainland China. And the literature credits visionary Chinese immigrant real estate developers in the 1970s and 1980s with founding the Asian community by selling Monterey Park as the "Chinese Beverly Hills" and using similar marketing slogans in campaigns in Hong Kong and Taiwan. But before these watershed events there was an important initial step in the Asianization of the San Gabriel Valley.
Growing up Chinese in Los Angeles in the early 1960s was a far cry from from today's world, something my children and their generation would not recognize. For one thing there weren't that many of us--we were well under one percent of the population. There was still residual racial discrimination against Asian Americans. I remember going with my parents while they were looking to buy a house in the Viewpark area of central Los Angeles (affectionately referred to by some as "Pill Hill" because of the concentration of Jewish and other Caucasian physicians living in the neighborhood), and hearing my dad being advised by the real estate broker to not even think about making an offer on a particular house, because all of the residents on the block had made a pact to keep their street white only. And there was workplace discrimination in many industries. For example, as my dad found out, certified public accounting firms would did not hire minorities or women. There was also employment discrimination against people who didn't speak unaccented English. That's one reason why I don't speak Chinese, as my parents were afraid that sending me to Chinese school to learn Chinese would affect my ability to speak perfect English and get a job.
Even in the early 1960s most of the Chinese population in Los Angeles was Toishanese in origin and significantly American born, as the initial post-World War II loosening of restrictions on Chinese immigration to America had yet to alter the demographics, with the real change in the mix of the Chinese populace being still a few years off. But it was 1962 and some things were changing on the civil rights front, so my family was able to move into one part of Viewpark. But more importantly, something was happening on the eastside. All of a sudden starting around 1964, a number of our eastside Toishanese family friends moved to Monterey Park, and specifically to the newly built Monterey Highlands community. (Apparently numerous Japanese Americans also moved into the neighborhood from places like Boyle Heights and El Sereno.) We drove up to visit our family friends and saw new houses in a lovely hillside community, not too far from their familiar east L.A. haunts. Based on my vague recollections of the real estate markets at that time, those houses probably were priced in the $20,000 range. This was the perfect place for a Chinese American community to hatch.
However it took a while for real Chinese food to come to the Monterey Park area. Yes, the Los Angeles Chinese population swelled in the late 1960s with an influx of immigrants from Hong Kong, thanks to the 1965 changes to the immigration law, but it's not like these new immigrants immediately made their way to Monterey Park. In the late 1960s and early 1970s you could sample the more modern style of Cantonese food brought by these new immigrants in L.A. Chinatown at places like Phoenix Inn, and find more progressive types of dim sum at Grandview Gardens. Heck, we'd drive to San Francisco to visit the iconic Nam Yuen in Chinatown, which also caught the new wave. But even into the mid-1970s, the primary option for Chinese food in Monterey Park was probably the old style Lum's Cantonese on Atlantic Blvd. Even Paul's Kitchen wouldn't open up its Monterey Park outpost for another few years. Eventually though, the new wave of immigrant Chinese did follow the steps of the Toishanese vanguard and found their way to Monterey Park.
To the best of my recollection, it wasn't until 1976 when Kin Kwok opened up at 500 W. Garvey in Monterey Park, with its thin Chinese egg noodles and other modern Hong Kong style dishes, that the tide of immigration that began a decade earlier would make its culinary mark on the San Gabriel Valley. And it would be almost another decade before the San Gabriel Valley would fully wrest the Chinese food mantel away from Los Angeles Chinatown.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
So How Far Would You Drive For A Meal?
I have a friend who lives in Monterey Park, in the heart of the Chinese food empire, and who is a big fan of Chinese food. She also won't drive more than a mile away from home for food. While that still gives her a decent array of Chinese restaurants to choose from, it also eliminates probably 95 percent of the Chinese restaurants in the San Gabriel Valley, and correspondingly most of the best restaurants there.
On the other hand, there are virtually no limits on where I travel in search of food, which led me to wonder how exactly what was the furthest I've driven for food and how far other people might be willing to drive. Now I don't mean vacations that are devoted to or inspired by food, such as travelling to New Orleans or New York to sample various examples of the cuisine there.. Rather how far would you drive from a fixed point in search of a single meal? In my case it was 150 miles one way, 300 miles round trip.
As far as a single meal is considered, the furthest I travelled was 150 miles from Naples, Florida to St. Petersburg, Florida, plus the 150 miles back. And this doesn't count the 110 miles I drove from Miami to Naples earlier the same day. Here's what happened. A few years ago we had a firm meeting in Naples, FL, but the closest airport I could fly to was Miami. After landing in Miami I headed to a Chinese restaurant for dinner, where I grabbed a copy of the local Chinese newspaper which apparently covered all of Florida. Even though I don't read Chinese, I find that Chinese language newspapers are a great source for finding authentic Chinese restaurants in strange cities, and the ads always include the English name and street address. Anyway as I went through the Miami newspaper an advertisement for a Hong Kong style Chinese restaurant in St. Petersburg caught my eye. I had previously visited the adjoining city of Tampa where at the time I had great difficulty locating any Chinese restaurants at all, let alone anything good or authentic, so I was totally intrigued by the prospect of something authentic in St. Pete. So the next morning I drove from Miami to my hotel in Naples, checked in, and then immediately dashed out to drive to St. Petersburg and back. By California standards, the food at Lucky Star Hong Kong wasn't particularly good, but it was surely much better than anything I ate while I was in Naples.
Honorable mention for my longest drive goes to the time when I was attending a meeting in Monterey, California. Having a long lunch break I decided to drive to Silicon Valley for lunch. Yeah, that was only 75 miles one way and a 150 mile round trip. But I enjoyed the lunch adventure so much that I also drove back from Monterey to Silicon Valley that same night for dinner, which matches the same 300 daily mileage on the Florida trip. And not quite as ambitious was the 90 miles drive from Chicago to West Allis, Wisconsin, to eat at Fortune Chinese Restaurant (which incidentally was quite good). This was a perplexing one in that I had assumed some kind of suburban Chinese community must have developed in this Milwaukee suburb, akin to Monterey Park in California, to be able to support an authentic Chinese restaurant. However, when I got there and chatted up the owner, I asked how many Chinese lived in the Milwaukee area. He said about a hundred. Is that enough to justify an authentic Chinese restaurant?
Now if you count same day driving trips for multiple meals, my driving range is further. For example, a few weeks before 9/11, I flew from Los Angeles to Washington D.C., landing after 4pm eastern time. I immediately hopped in my rental car and headed to Philadelphia, where I hit up Philadelphia Chinatown. (You have to do things like that to reach 6,000 Chinese restaurants.) I finally got to my D.C. hotel a little before midnight. But my longest driving adventure was flying from Los Angeles to Dallas, landing around noontime, getting my rental car and driving to Houston, a one way drive of over 250 miles. I then headed to Houston's "Chinatown" on Bellaire Blvd., made the rounds, and drove back to Dallas, arriving back sometime after midnight. This time I almost bit off more than I could chew because I didn't account for arriving in Houston at the start of rush hour. For those of you not familiar with that city, they have traffic congestion which can hold its own with Los Angeles, so arriving there at the beginning of rush hour and leaving before rush hour ended led to an unplanned and frustrating encounter with traffic on top of a 500 mile plus round trip after a three hour airplane flight.
On the other hand, there are virtually no limits on where I travel in search of food, which led me to wonder how exactly what was the furthest I've driven for food and how far other people might be willing to drive. Now I don't mean vacations that are devoted to or inspired by food, such as travelling to New Orleans or New York to sample various examples of the cuisine there.. Rather how far would you drive from a fixed point in search of a single meal? In my case it was 150 miles one way, 300 miles round trip.
As far as a single meal is considered, the furthest I travelled was 150 miles from Naples, Florida to St. Petersburg, Florida, plus the 150 miles back. And this doesn't count the 110 miles I drove from Miami to Naples earlier the same day. Here's what happened. A few years ago we had a firm meeting in Naples, FL, but the closest airport I could fly to was Miami. After landing in Miami I headed to a Chinese restaurant for dinner, where I grabbed a copy of the local Chinese newspaper which apparently covered all of Florida. Even though I don't read Chinese, I find that Chinese language newspapers are a great source for finding authentic Chinese restaurants in strange cities, and the ads always include the English name and street address. Anyway as I went through the Miami newspaper an advertisement for a Hong Kong style Chinese restaurant in St. Petersburg caught my eye. I had previously visited the adjoining city of Tampa where at the time I had great difficulty locating any Chinese restaurants at all, let alone anything good or authentic, so I was totally intrigued by the prospect of something authentic in St. Pete. So the next morning I drove from Miami to my hotel in Naples, checked in, and then immediately dashed out to drive to St. Petersburg and back. By California standards, the food at Lucky Star Hong Kong wasn't particularly good, but it was surely much better than anything I ate while I was in Naples.
Honorable mention for my longest drive goes to the time when I was attending a meeting in Monterey, California. Having a long lunch break I decided to drive to Silicon Valley for lunch. Yeah, that was only 75 miles one way and a 150 mile round trip. But I enjoyed the lunch adventure so much that I also drove back from Monterey to Silicon Valley that same night for dinner, which matches the same 300 daily mileage on the Florida trip. And not quite as ambitious was the 90 miles drive from Chicago to West Allis, Wisconsin, to eat at Fortune Chinese Restaurant (which incidentally was quite good). This was a perplexing one in that I had assumed some kind of suburban Chinese community must have developed in this Milwaukee suburb, akin to Monterey Park in California, to be able to support an authentic Chinese restaurant. However, when I got there and chatted up the owner, I asked how many Chinese lived in the Milwaukee area. He said about a hundred. Is that enough to justify an authentic Chinese restaurant?
Now if you count same day driving trips for multiple meals, my driving range is further. For example, a few weeks before 9/11, I flew from Los Angeles to Washington D.C., landing after 4pm eastern time. I immediately hopped in my rental car and headed to Philadelphia, where I hit up Philadelphia Chinatown. (You have to do things like that to reach 6,000 Chinese restaurants.) I finally got to my D.C. hotel a little before midnight. But my longest driving adventure was flying from Los Angeles to Dallas, landing around noontime, getting my rental car and driving to Houston, a one way drive of over 250 miles. I then headed to Houston's "Chinatown" on Bellaire Blvd., made the rounds, and drove back to Dallas, arriving back sometime after midnight. This time I almost bit off more than I could chew because I didn't account for arriving in Houston at the start of rush hour. For those of you not familiar with that city, they have traffic congestion which can hold its own with Los Angeles, so arriving there at the beginning of rush hour and leaving before rush hour ended led to an unplanned and frustrating encounter with traffic on top of a 500 mile plus round trip after a three hour airplane flight.
Friday, August 3, 2012
The Fundamentals of Investments
The most insane piece of investment advice I've ever heard was relayed by a friend who was taking an investments class at the local adult school. The instructor's key to investments and stock selection was to pick the stock of solid companies with which you dealt and trusted. The insane part of this advice is that it totally ignores valuation. Yes, Google may be a great company, but before you buy it shouldn't you ask whether it's currently selling for $50 a share or $1,000? And even if it's a good idea to buy stock in "good" companies, wouldn't it make sense that the current price already reflects the value that you have perceived?
Now this is not to say that people haven't made a lot of money in some stocks using this approach. and indeed this approach is so common to have a name--fundamental analysis. For example, fanatics of Apple products who backed up their product devotion with a financial investment have done well. On the other hand you could have paid $644 for Apple stock a few weeks ago and be down $27 a share. After all, no stock always trades at an all time high. And what about the devoted followers of Blackberry, or Palm Pilot or the Windows operating system or Farmville? You
would have lost big bucks if you backed up your fundamental analysis with cash.
Generally speaking, a stock's current price reflects what the investing public knows and expects about a company. (The term "investing public" does not refer to the man-on-the street public, but rather professional investors, and what you or I think about a stock's valuation doesn't matter.) Subsequent changes in value reflect how revised knowledge and expectations differ from the past. I'd say that many investors have owned Apple stock at some point in time in the past, but when their primary product was the MacIntosh computer, and it seemed to be losing ground to Windows based computers such that it would become extinct, a lot of people bailed out. Like me.
With all this in mind, it turns out that the recent public offering of Facebook capsulizes this discussion very well. There was a frenzy in the IPO as public demand under the fundamentalist approach (plus greed on the part of the issuer) sent the offering price way above the original expectation. While there was pro forma financial information issued, since Facebook had not been publicly traded there wasn't the history of company commentary and investment adviser analysis to determine if the $38 IPO price was realistic or not. As post-IPO trading first showed, and the first public quarterly earnings release emphasized, it was not by a long shot.
On the other hand, since future stock price movements are caused by subsequent changes in facts and expectations, who's to say that despite the negative fundamental news about Facebook that its current price of $20 might be an undervaluation? Only time will tell whether this fundamentally unsound stock is now actually a good buy.
And since I've brought up the subject of Facebook, I'll close with another dig at the way the state of California balanced its budget for the fiscal year that just started. It projected $1.8 billion in revenue from taxes paid by original Facebook shareholders who could monetize their investments once the company went public. At a sales price of $38 per share, that might have been a realistic number. But due to the lock up period, those insiders were not immediately permitted to sell their shares, and will have to wait until the upcoming weeks and months. So at $20 per share, the actual California budget deficit just got larger as California is not going to realize $1.8 billion. This also reinforces the underlying weakness of California's income tax system which disproportionately (much more than the federal government) relies on taxing the rich. While that strategy may work in good times, it's toxic when things don't go well since the income of wealthier taxpayers is much more adversely affected when times are bad, and makes forecasting revenues highly unpredictable.
Now this is not to say that people haven't made a lot of money in some stocks using this approach. and indeed this approach is so common to have a name--fundamental analysis. For example, fanatics of Apple products who backed up their product devotion with a financial investment have done well. On the other hand you could have paid $644 for Apple stock a few weeks ago and be down $27 a share. After all, no stock always trades at an all time high. And what about the devoted followers of Blackberry, or Palm Pilot or the Windows operating system or Farmville? You
would have lost big bucks if you backed up your fundamental analysis with cash.
Generally speaking, a stock's current price reflects what the investing public knows and expects about a company. (The term "investing public" does not refer to the man-on-the street public, but rather professional investors, and what you or I think about a stock's valuation doesn't matter.) Subsequent changes in value reflect how revised knowledge and expectations differ from the past. I'd say that many investors have owned Apple stock at some point in time in the past, but when their primary product was the MacIntosh computer, and it seemed to be losing ground to Windows based computers such that it would become extinct, a lot of people bailed out. Like me.
With all this in mind, it turns out that the recent public offering of Facebook capsulizes this discussion very well. There was a frenzy in the IPO as public demand under the fundamentalist approach (plus greed on the part of the issuer) sent the offering price way above the original expectation. While there was pro forma financial information issued, since Facebook had not been publicly traded there wasn't the history of company commentary and investment adviser analysis to determine if the $38 IPO price was realistic or not. As post-IPO trading first showed, and the first public quarterly earnings release emphasized, it was not by a long shot.
On the other hand, since future stock price movements are caused by subsequent changes in facts and expectations, who's to say that despite the negative fundamental news about Facebook that its current price of $20 might be an undervaluation? Only time will tell whether this fundamentally unsound stock is now actually a good buy.
And since I've brought up the subject of Facebook, I'll close with another dig at the way the state of California balanced its budget for the fiscal year that just started. It projected $1.8 billion in revenue from taxes paid by original Facebook shareholders who could monetize their investments once the company went public. At a sales price of $38 per share, that might have been a realistic number. But due to the lock up period, those insiders were not immediately permitted to sell their shares, and will have to wait until the upcoming weeks and months. So at $20 per share, the actual California budget deficit just got larger as California is not going to realize $1.8 billion. This also reinforces the underlying weakness of California's income tax system which disproportionately (much more than the federal government) relies on taxing the rich. While that strategy may work in good times, it's toxic when things don't go well since the income of wealthier taxpayers is much more adversely affected when times are bad, and makes forecasting revenues highly unpredictable.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Recommended Dishes--Full List
Thanks to Evan Kleiman for having me on her Good Food show on KCRW and having me put together a Google spotting map with recommended dishes from various Chinese restaurants on the KCRW website. Unfortunately not all of my picks made it on to the website map, probably because the restaurants were all bunched up in a tiny corner of the LA-OC metro area map (i.e., the San Gabriel Valley). So as to not slight the other fine restaurants, here is the complete listing.
101 Noodle Express (Alhambra) - Shandong beef roll
85°C Café (Irvine) - Taro bun
888 Seafood (Rosemead) - Four layer vegetables
Beijing Pie House (Monterey Park) - Beef xian bing
Beijing Restaurant (San Gabriel) - Fried ge da
Boiling Point (Hacienda Heights) - Taiwanese hotpot
Cafe Spot (Alhambra) - Hong Kong pancakes
Capital Seafood (Monterey Park) - Seafood egg white fried rice
Chef Hung (Irvine) - Beef noodle soup
Chung King (San Gabriel - Water boiled fish
Class 302 (Rowland Heights) - Taiwanese shave ice
Dean Sin World (Monterey Park) - Crab roe xiao long bao
Din Tai Fung (Arcadia) - Crab and pork xiao long bao
Duck House (Monterey Park) - Beijing duck
Earthen Restaurant (Hacienda Heights) - Onion pancake
Elite (Monterey Park)- Shark fin dumpling in broth
Embassy Kitchen (San Gabriel) - Egg white with imitation shark fin
Four Sea (Hacienda Heights) - Taiwanese breakfast
Golden Spoon (Rowland Heights) - Cats ears noodles
Happy Harbor (Rowland Heights) - Sweet and sour fish
Hunan Chili King (San Gabriel) - Steamed fish head
J T Y H Restaurant (Rosemead) - Knife shaved noodles
King Hua (Alhambra) -Egg tofu
Lunasia (Alhambra) - Foie gras dumpling
Ma's Islamic (Anaheim) - Sesame bread ring
Mama's Lu Dumpling House (Monterey Park) - Stir fried pancake strips
Mei Long Village (San Gabriel) - Shanghai rice cakes
Mission 261 (San Gabriel) - Deep fried fish balls
N B C Seafood (Monterey Park) - Lemon chicken
New Capital Seafood (San Gabriel) - Taro noodles with mushrooms
Newport Seafood (San Gabriel - House special lobster
Noodle Boy (Rosemead) - Fish ball noodle soup
Old Country Cafe (Alhambra) - Taiwanese pork chop
Omar Xinjiang Halal (San Gabriel) - Foot and a half long hand made noodles
Qingdao Bread Food (Monterey Park) - Fish with parsley dumplings
Savoy (Alhambra) - Hainan chicken
Sea Harbour Seafood- (Rosemead) French style baked bbq pork buns
Seafood Village (Monterey Park) - Chiu chow fish pot
Shaanxi Gourmet (Rosemead) - Lamb with Chinese pita bread
Sinbala (Rowland Heights) - Taiwanese sausage
Southern Mini Town (San Gabriel) - Bean starch sheets
Steam Queen Rice Noodle (San Gabriel) - Guilin rice noodle soup
Tasty Garden (Monterey Park) - Dry scallop egg white fried rice
Tasty Station (Rowland Heights) - French style fish fillet/French style filet mignon
Xi Guan Noodle House (Rosemead) - Fish fillet in corn sauce
Yunkun Garden (Monterey Park) - Crossing The Bridge Noodles
101 Noodle Express (Alhambra) - Shandong beef roll
85°C Café (Irvine) - Taro bun
888 Seafood (Rosemead) - Four layer vegetables
Beijing Pie House (Monterey Park) - Beef xian bing
Beijing Restaurant (San Gabriel) - Fried ge da
Boiling Point (Hacienda Heights) - Taiwanese hotpot
Cafe Spot (Alhambra) - Hong Kong pancakes
Capital Seafood (Monterey Park) - Seafood egg white fried rice
Chef Hung (Irvine) - Beef noodle soup
Chung King (San Gabriel - Water boiled fish
Class 302 (Rowland Heights) - Taiwanese shave ice
Dean Sin World (Monterey Park) - Crab roe xiao long bao
Din Tai Fung (Arcadia) - Crab and pork xiao long bao
Duck House (Monterey Park) - Beijing duck
Earthen Restaurant (Hacienda Heights) - Onion pancake
Elite (Monterey Park)- Shark fin dumpling in broth
Embassy Kitchen (San Gabriel) - Egg white with imitation shark fin
Four Sea (Hacienda Heights) - Taiwanese breakfast
Golden Spoon (Rowland Heights) - Cats ears noodles
Happy Harbor (Rowland Heights) - Sweet and sour fish
Hunan Chili King (San Gabriel) - Steamed fish head
J T Y H Restaurant (Rosemead) - Knife shaved noodles
King Hua (Alhambra) -Egg tofu
Lunasia (Alhambra) - Foie gras dumpling
Ma's Islamic (Anaheim) - Sesame bread ring
Mama's Lu Dumpling House (Monterey Park) - Stir fried pancake strips
Mei Long Village (San Gabriel) - Shanghai rice cakes
Mission 261 (San Gabriel) - Deep fried fish balls
N B C Seafood (Monterey Park) - Lemon chicken
New Capital Seafood (San Gabriel) - Taro noodles with mushrooms
Newport Seafood (San Gabriel - House special lobster
Noodle Boy (Rosemead) - Fish ball noodle soup
Old Country Cafe (Alhambra) - Taiwanese pork chop
Omar Xinjiang Halal (San Gabriel) - Foot and a half long hand made noodles
Qingdao Bread Food (Monterey Park) - Fish with parsley dumplings
Savoy (Alhambra) - Hainan chicken
Sea Harbour Seafood- (Rosemead) French style baked bbq pork buns
Seafood Village (Monterey Park) - Chiu chow fish pot
Shaanxi Gourmet (Rosemead) - Lamb with Chinese pita bread
Sinbala (Rowland Heights) - Taiwanese sausage
Southern Mini Town (San Gabriel) - Bean starch sheets
Steam Queen Rice Noodle (San Gabriel) - Guilin rice noodle soup
Tasty Garden (Monterey Park) - Dry scallop egg white fried rice
Tasty Station (Rowland Heights) - French style fish fillet/French style filet mignon
Xi Guan Noodle House (Rosemead) - Fish fillet in corn sauce
Yunkun Garden (Monterey Park) - Crossing The Bridge Noodles
It's Not Neck and Neck
If you follow the national media, they would have you believe that this fall's presidential race between President Obama and Mitt Romney is currently neck and neck. All of the stories talk about the polls being a tossup, with either Obama or Romney with a small lead such that when taking into account polling error, results in a statistical dead heat. The problem is that at this point the race is not neck and neck, nor has it been so for quite a few months. The reason is that the media only focuses on national polls of the general electorate, where in fact the presidency is decided by the electoral college and who wins what states.
As previously mentioned, there are futures trading markets dealing in political, sporting and economic events which give a much truer picture of the probability of future events. And in this regard the Intrade futures markets shows that President Obama is at this point a heavy favorite for re-election. At this writing, futures trading for Obama's re-election are at 57 percent, while trading for Romney is at 40 percent. Note that these do not add up to 100 percent, as there are traders in any kind of market who will take a flyer on a remote probability event, be it a bankrupt corporation coming out of bankruptcy having positive equity for the old shareholders, that a third party candidate will win the election, or that somebody other than Obama or Romney will be the Democratic or Republican nominee. Note that President Obama was trading around 50 percent for most of last year, giving strong hope to the Republicans that they could take the presidency. However when the economic picture began to brighten this year, Obama's percentage rose to 60 percent, dropping to around 54 percent upon signs of the recovery slowing down, but more recently turning up again with Romney having to go on the defensive on his days with Bain.
Confirming this viewpoint of the presidential race are comments I heard on the radio from a Republican political strategist. Rather than being enthusiastic about the national polls reflecting a close race, he instead lamented the inability of the media to focus on the fact that how the candidates will do in the battleground states is the only thing that is important. Without coming out and saying it, he was telling us at this point things don't look that great for Romney in the battleground states.
One might speculate why the media only focuses on the national polls without addressing the reality that at this point in time President Obama is in fact a heavy favorite to be re-elected. My guess is that the national polls are safe to report on because they are verifiable, whereas documenting the actualities of the electoral picture would be more difficult. As noted before, the press seems to take the same tact in its unwillingness to make a call on upcoming Congressional votes, even where futures trading indicate that it's relatively clear what the ultimate outcome is going to be.
Of course it's a long time between now and November and anything might happen. But at this point, most Americans are misinformed as to the current state of the presidential race, thanks entirely to the inability or unwillingness of the media to go beyond the national polls.
As previously mentioned, there are futures trading markets dealing in political, sporting and economic events which give a much truer picture of the probability of future events. And in this regard the Intrade futures markets shows that President Obama is at this point a heavy favorite for re-election. At this writing, futures trading for Obama's re-election are at 57 percent, while trading for Romney is at 40 percent. Note that these do not add up to 100 percent, as there are traders in any kind of market who will take a flyer on a remote probability event, be it a bankrupt corporation coming out of bankruptcy having positive equity for the old shareholders, that a third party candidate will win the election, or that somebody other than Obama or Romney will be the Democratic or Republican nominee. Note that President Obama was trading around 50 percent for most of last year, giving strong hope to the Republicans that they could take the presidency. However when the economic picture began to brighten this year, Obama's percentage rose to 60 percent, dropping to around 54 percent upon signs of the recovery slowing down, but more recently turning up again with Romney having to go on the defensive on his days with Bain.
Confirming this viewpoint of the presidential race are comments I heard on the radio from a Republican political strategist. Rather than being enthusiastic about the national polls reflecting a close race, he instead lamented the inability of the media to focus on the fact that how the candidates will do in the battleground states is the only thing that is important. Without coming out and saying it, he was telling us at this point things don't look that great for Romney in the battleground states.
One might speculate why the media only focuses on the national polls without addressing the reality that at this point in time President Obama is in fact a heavy favorite to be re-elected. My guess is that the national polls are safe to report on because they are verifiable, whereas documenting the actualities of the electoral picture would be more difficult. As noted before, the press seems to take the same tact in its unwillingness to make a call on upcoming Congressional votes, even where futures trading indicate that it's relatively clear what the ultimate outcome is going to be.
Of course it's a long time between now and November and anything might happen. But at this point, most Americans are misinformed as to the current state of the presidential race, thanks entirely to the inability or unwillingness of the media to go beyond the national polls.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
NCAA Slaps Penalties on....Caltech?
There's probably no organization this side of the Syrian government that is more reviled than the NCAA. Supposedly entrusted with safeguarding the purity of amatuerism in college sports, the NCAA has established a reputation for punishing jaywalkers while letting axe murderers go free. Here in Los Angeles the greatest venom against the NCAA comes from USC fans, incensed over the harsh penalties levied against their football program in connection with the Reggie Bush scandal. While not particularly sympathetic to USC's plight since there was a clear issue of institutional control, I do see an injustice when looking at the NCAA's treatment of Auburn in the Cam Newton affair and the $200,000 payoff to Newton's dad, though I hope that the NCAA will eventually levy sanctions there. Of course, USC may have gotten away with something with the Joe McKnight situation and who knows what else might be out there at USC, or for that matter, any other school.
What clearly is ludicrous is the fact that the NCAA has penalized Caltech for using "ineligible" athletes on its sports teams. Now Caltech is the epitome of amateurism in college athletics. Not only are there no scholarship athletes at Caltech, but many of its sports teams have participants who did not compete in sports at the high school level. Or putting it another way, Caltech's teams are inferior to many high school teams, or even intramural teams at large universities like UCLA and USC. When Caltech's basketball team broke a 26 year conference losing streak, it made national news. This is truly an amateur college sports program.
So what is the specific violation of NCAA rules by Caltech that led the NCAA to put Caltech on three year probation? Well the NCAA requires that to participate in intercollegiate sports, team members must be enrolled in a minimum number of units and be on track to make minimum progress towards their degree. This requirement is fair enough, as it prevents schools from "hiring" paid athletes who really aren't students to participate on their teams. So what is Caltech's transgression? Well, Caltech has a policy of permitting its students to audit a class for up to three weeks at the start of the school term before actually registering for the class. Clearly, this is not part of a plot to beef up its sport teams with ringers, but to give its students flexibility in deciding what classes to take. Well this results in some student athletes in failing to meet the NCAA minimum credit requirement, so Caltech goes to NCAA jail for three years. The fact that enrolling in 8 units at Caltech is probably multiple times more demanding than taking 15 units at Auburn is totally irrelevant to the NCAA.
Of course in this case, NCAA sanctions against Caltech might be a badge of honor for a school whose previous top athletic highlight was probably messing up the card stunts and scoreboard at the January 1 Rose Bowl game. Also the NCAA recruiting sanctions don't affect Caltech, which doesn't recruit athletes, and it has no wins to forfeit. But still, Caltech self-reported these "violations", an act which often is sufficient for the NCAA not to impose sanctions. So the NCAA seems to have gone out of its way to levy three years worth of irrelevant sanctions against the Beavers, for reasons known only to that Byzantine body.
And while we're on the subject of the NCAA, it will be interesting to see what comes of the NCAA investigation of the football program at Penn State in light of the Sandusky scandal. On the one hand a good case can be made for severe sanctions against Penn State given the concealment by the top levels of Penn State's school and athletic administration. On the other hand, with the NCAA's reputation for at times being a big bully, do college sport fans really want to see the NCAA expand the list of things they might get you for?
What clearly is ludicrous is the fact that the NCAA has penalized Caltech for using "ineligible" athletes on its sports teams. Now Caltech is the epitome of amateurism in college athletics. Not only are there no scholarship athletes at Caltech, but many of its sports teams have participants who did not compete in sports at the high school level. Or putting it another way, Caltech's teams are inferior to many high school teams, or even intramural teams at large universities like UCLA and USC. When Caltech's basketball team broke a 26 year conference losing streak, it made national news. This is truly an amateur college sports program.
So what is the specific violation of NCAA rules by Caltech that led the NCAA to put Caltech on three year probation? Well the NCAA requires that to participate in intercollegiate sports, team members must be enrolled in a minimum number of units and be on track to make minimum progress towards their degree. This requirement is fair enough, as it prevents schools from "hiring" paid athletes who really aren't students to participate on their teams. So what is Caltech's transgression? Well, Caltech has a policy of permitting its students to audit a class for up to three weeks at the start of the school term before actually registering for the class. Clearly, this is not part of a plot to beef up its sport teams with ringers, but to give its students flexibility in deciding what classes to take. Well this results in some student athletes in failing to meet the NCAA minimum credit requirement, so Caltech goes to NCAA jail for three years. The fact that enrolling in 8 units at Caltech is probably multiple times more demanding than taking 15 units at Auburn is totally irrelevant to the NCAA.
Of course in this case, NCAA sanctions against Caltech might be a badge of honor for a school whose previous top athletic highlight was probably messing up the card stunts and scoreboard at the January 1 Rose Bowl game. Also the NCAA recruiting sanctions don't affect Caltech, which doesn't recruit athletes, and it has no wins to forfeit. But still, Caltech self-reported these "violations", an act which often is sufficient for the NCAA not to impose sanctions. So the NCAA seems to have gone out of its way to levy three years worth of irrelevant sanctions against the Beavers, for reasons known only to that Byzantine body.
And while we're on the subject of the NCAA, it will be interesting to see what comes of the NCAA investigation of the football program at Penn State in light of the Sandusky scandal. On the one hand a good case can be made for severe sanctions against Penn State given the concealment by the top levels of Penn State's school and athletic administration. On the other hand, with the NCAA's reputation for at times being a big bully, do college sport fans really want to see the NCAA expand the list of things they might get you for?
Friday, July 13, 2012
California vs. New York Chinese Food Gap—The Gap Widens as 3 Of New York’s Leading Chinese Restaurants Close
It appears that the comment in my 10 Best Chinese Restaurants article (which actually wasn't written for publication, but was a prefatory aside accompanying the article submission) that New York Chinese food is mired in the 1990s has rankled a lot of observers on the East Coast. But as I have subsequently explained, anybody familiar with the San Gabriel Valley will understand the breadth and depth of Chinese food here, and in contrast anyone who hasn't been to the San Gabriel Valley cannot imagine what it's like. But it's not like 1990s Chinese food in the U.S. was bad. It was quite good, just not as good as what you can get in California these days. So my comment was not meant to say that New York Chinese food isn't any good.
Actually I have been waiting, indeed expecting for quite a few years, for something like Koi Palace or Sea Harbour or Elite, or heck even Happy Harbor or Mission 261 to open up in New York. And perhaps it did. A few years ago a heralded restaurant called World Tong opened up in Brooklyn, and reports indicate that it was of the same ilk as the top Chinese restaurants in California and perhaps worthy of a Top 10 berth. However, by the time I made it to World Tong, chef Joe Ng was gone to Chinatown Brasserie in SoHo, and it certainly could not maintain Joe Ng's magic. And now World Tong is gone altogether. Chinatown Brasserie did turn out to be the best Chinese restaurant I had eaten at in New York City, but its split clientele seems to have prevented it from achieving true greatness.
But while Chinatown Brasserie at least gave New York a contender for a destination Chinese restaurant, I learn that it has closed down as of a couple of weeks ago, replaced at its Lafayette St. location by a non-Chinese eatery. It is supposed to re-open in the near future at another location, but such a proclamation, like the statement that a Chinese restaurant "is closed for remodeling" often turns out to mask a fatal condition. And Chinatown Brasserie's closing isn't the only blow to the standing of New York Chinese food. Earlier this year, Manhattan Chinatown's South China Garden, fka Cantoon Garden, fka New Pearl River, closed down because it lost its lease. South China Garden was truly a San Gabriel Valley quality restaurant, one which Mrs. Chandavkl looked forward to eating at multiple times every time we visited New York. (And even in the San Gabriel Valley, Mrs. Chandavkl finds relatively few restaurants to her liking.) And oh yeah, my next favorite Chinese restaurant in New York, Yogee on Chrystie St., also closed down recently due to a rent hike. So with my personal top three rated Chinese restaurants in New York all having closed this year, the gap between California and New York has grown, even though one would otherwise expect the gap to narrow.
At this point, if you asked me to recommend one or two Chinese restaurants in New York, I'm not sure if I could single any out. Perhaps Szechwan Gourmet in Midtown, as it does surpass any Sichuan style food in California. Maybe Hunan Manor, but I am highly skeptical of the combination of “Hunan” and “New York” for a couple of reasons. First of all, New York unleashed the faux “Hunan” style food in the 1970s, which is something that continues to plague Americanized Chinese food throughout the United States to this day. Secondly, authentic Hunan style food is such a new concept in New York, having been present for just a couple of years, compared the 20 years’ experience for that cuisine in Los Angeles where it is currently served in 10 or more locations, such that I’m not sure it has had time to season. (Pun intended.) And possibly Red Farm, with the Joe Ng tradition, though the only time I made it to their location they were closed.
And it's possible that things will get worse. The food blog Lauhound has recently identified Danny Ng's Restaurant in the 50 Bowery building as a possible successor to South China Garden as a go to destination in New York Chinatown. However it turns out that Danny Ng's sits on the same parcel of land as was occupied by South China Garden on Elizabeth Street. And that site is where a 27 story hotel and condominium complex is being readied for development starting next year. Not only would that also take Danny Ng's with it, but possibly some other fairly decent Chinese eateries along Bowery and Elizabeth. Also, with what strikes me as a Fujianese dominance of a good portion of the Chinese restaurant industry in New York, perhaps that breakthrough in Chinese cuisine might not be forthcoming after all.
Actually I have been waiting, indeed expecting for quite a few years, for something like Koi Palace or Sea Harbour or Elite, or heck even Happy Harbor or Mission 261 to open up in New York. And perhaps it did. A few years ago a heralded restaurant called World Tong opened up in Brooklyn, and reports indicate that it was of the same ilk as the top Chinese restaurants in California and perhaps worthy of a Top 10 berth. However, by the time I made it to World Tong, chef Joe Ng was gone to Chinatown Brasserie in SoHo, and it certainly could not maintain Joe Ng's magic. And now World Tong is gone altogether. Chinatown Brasserie did turn out to be the best Chinese restaurant I had eaten at in New York City, but its split clientele seems to have prevented it from achieving true greatness.
But while Chinatown Brasserie at least gave New York a contender for a destination Chinese restaurant, I learn that it has closed down as of a couple of weeks ago, replaced at its Lafayette St. location by a non-Chinese eatery. It is supposed to re-open in the near future at another location, but such a proclamation, like the statement that a Chinese restaurant "is closed for remodeling" often turns out to mask a fatal condition. And Chinatown Brasserie's closing isn't the only blow to the standing of New York Chinese food. Earlier this year, Manhattan Chinatown's South China Garden, fka Cantoon Garden, fka New Pearl River, closed down because it lost its lease. South China Garden was truly a San Gabriel Valley quality restaurant, one which Mrs. Chandavkl looked forward to eating at multiple times every time we visited New York. (And even in the San Gabriel Valley, Mrs. Chandavkl finds relatively few restaurants to her liking.) And oh yeah, my next favorite Chinese restaurant in New York, Yogee on Chrystie St., also closed down recently due to a rent hike. So with my personal top three rated Chinese restaurants in New York all having closed this year, the gap between California and New York has grown, even though one would otherwise expect the gap to narrow.
At this point, if you asked me to recommend one or two Chinese restaurants in New York, I'm not sure if I could single any out. Perhaps Szechwan Gourmet in Midtown, as it does surpass any Sichuan style food in California. Maybe Hunan Manor, but I am highly skeptical of the combination of “Hunan” and “New York” for a couple of reasons. First of all, New York unleashed the faux “Hunan” style food in the 1970s, which is something that continues to plague Americanized Chinese food throughout the United States to this day. Secondly, authentic Hunan style food is such a new concept in New York, having been present for just a couple of years, compared the 20 years’ experience for that cuisine in Los Angeles where it is currently served in 10 or more locations, such that I’m not sure it has had time to season. (Pun intended.) And possibly Red Farm, with the Joe Ng tradition, though the only time I made it to their location they were closed.
And it's possible that things will get worse. The food blog Lauhound has recently identified Danny Ng's Restaurant in the 50 Bowery building as a possible successor to South China Garden as a go to destination in New York Chinatown. However it turns out that Danny Ng's sits on the same parcel of land as was occupied by South China Garden on Elizabeth Street. And that site is where a 27 story hotel and condominium complex is being readied for development starting next year. Not only would that also take Danny Ng's with it, but possibly some other fairly decent Chinese eateries along Bowery and Elizabeth. Also, with what strikes me as a Fujianese dominance of a good portion of the Chinese restaurant industry in New York, perhaps that breakthrough in Chinese cuisine might not be forthcoming after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)