Newsweek Magazine’s feature article this week is entitled “India Rising” and similar to their article about China last year, describes the political, economic, and cultural emergence of India on the international global stage:

Fascinated by the new growth story, perhaps wary of Asia’s Chinese superpower, searching to hedge some bets, the world has woken up to India’s potential. But does it really know this complex, diverse country? Just as important, does India know what it wants of the world?

The marketing slogans wouldn’t work if there were no substance behind them. Over the past 15 years, India has been the second fastest-growing country in the world—after China—averaging above 6 percent growth per year. Growth accelerated to 7.5 percent last year and will probably hold at the same pace this year. Many observers believe that India could well expand at this higher rate for the next decade. . . .

A much-cited 2003 study by Goldman Sachs projects that over the next 50 years, India will be the fastest-growing of the world’s major economies (largely because its work force will not age as fast as the others). The report calculates that in 10 years India’s economy will be larger than Italy’s and in 15 years will have overtaken Britain’s.

By 2040 it will boast the world’s third largest economy. By 2050 it will be five times the size of Japan’s and its per capita income will have risen to 35 times its current level. Predictions like these are a treacherous business, though it’s worth noting that India’s current growth rate is actually higher than the study assumed.

At the same time, the article also notes that India is not without its problems, specifically poverty, slums, crumbling roads, underdeveloped infrastructure, huge HIV-positive population, etc. The article also notes that India’s growth is qualitatively different from that of China’s, where the central government controls virtually all aspects of economic activity, whereas in India, it’s largely a free market-driven system and the advantages and disadvantages involved therein.

Interestingly, the article also notes that in a recent international survey, Indians had the highest favorable impression of the U.S. of any country (except for the U.S. itself of course). I find this remarkable because if you asked the typical American if s/he has a favorable impression of India, I’m willing to bet that most Americans would answer no.

Why not? Mainly because of the outsourcing phenomenon and sensationalized reports of American workers losing their jobs to lower-paid workers in India. In many American industries, India is portrayed as some kind of depraved scavenger, sneaking up on unsuspecting Americans and waiting to grab whatever it can and run.

How ironic indeed, that Indians apparently admire Americans so much, but not the other way around.

Recent numbers suggest that for the first time since the 1997-1998 academic year, applications to law schools have declined -- 4.6% last year and 9.5% so far this year. There are probably several different potential reasons for this decline:

They suggested that in an improving economy, college students may prefer jobs to law school, or that rising undergraduate debt loads have discouraged some students from borrowing still more to pay for a law degree. It may be that a surge in popularity a few years ago has, perversely, led to the current decline in interest in law schools. . . .

In the 2003-4 admission cycle, the number of applicants hit 100,600, according to the Law School Admission Council. The biggest increase occurred in the 2001-2 admission cycle, in the wake of the dot-com bust. The number of applicants -- 95,800 in the 2004-5 admission cycle -- is still far greater than it was 10 years ago, when about 75,000 people applied. . . .

[F]ewer people may be applying to law school because more are applying to medical school. . . . Medical school applications rose in 2005, to 37,364 from 35,735 the previous year, according to data collected by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Most likely, these trends are part of regular up-and-down cycles of applications that generally coincide with the general state of the economy, as different observers quoted in the article note. Nonetheless, it is food for thought that perhaps the high cost of education, in this case getting a law degree, is shutting out people who would normally have applied.

In other words, is this an emerging shift that primarily serves to benefit the already-rich over the middle class?

Newsweek Magazine has an article describing Jet Li’s latest movie “Fearless,” a bio-pic of Huo Yuanjia, one of China’s most revered kung fu masters. The article notes that this is likely to be Jet Li’s last kung fu movie:

In an age when talented mainstream actors like Chow Yun Fat and Ziyi Zhang can dance their way through spectacular action scenes with the aid of wire work and computer animation, action stars like Li and Jackie Chan -- who made their names through sheer physical prowess -- are being crowded out.

Long interested in Buddhism, he was baptized as a monk in 1998 and says his faith compelled him to end his kung fu career. The desire to retire intensified after the 2004 tsunami. With his wife, the actress Li Chi, and their two daughters, he was vacationing in the Maldives when the giant wave struck. As they rushed from the beach, a piece of furniture injured his foot.

They headed inland to another hotel but had no way to contact anyone for several days. “When we came out from hiding, everywhere we went we saw death,” he says. “I realized that life is unpredictable. I want to spend the time I have on things more meaningful.”

I have to admit that I am a fan of these new “wire-fu” movies, but I think it would be a shame if Jet Li quits making kung fu movies because of them. At the same time, I admire his self-determination and sense of personal priorities. It is certainly true that we should always enjoy life in its current moment, since there is never any guarantee of what the future will bring.

Nonetheless, Jet Li has meant a lot to many Asian Americans. Many of us see him as the only genuine heir to Bruce Lee’s legacy. It would be unfortunate if we were to lose out on his talents and inspiration.

The Deseret Morning News has an article that explores the various impacts that incorporating technology into college courses can have for different professors and different students -- from stifling attendance to enhancing student engagement:

With tests online, video discussions posted on the Internet and, most recently, class lectures via iPods, professors are grappling to counter the boredom of chalkboard lectures while also encouraging students to come to class. . . . But both Wight and Reynolds agree there is a place for technology in the modern university classroom -- there just have to be limits.

For Wight, pulling his lectures from the Internet upped his class attendance. But he continues to post quizzes online and requires students to post entries in an online discussion board. Most homework assignments and handouts also are online. . . .

Cutting-edge technology is also making mundane classes more attractive to students, Duclos said, like a Spanish class that is leading WSU instructional technology. After noticing the iPod earphones hanging around the necks of almost all of his students, professor Tony Spanos decided to use the popular MP3 player to get students listening to Spanish as they walk, exercise and drive.

As the article notes, it’s tough to know what technologies ultimately result in more engagement between professors and students and which ones do the exact opposite and further isolate the two parties. Another factor that complicates the picture further is that the fact that technology is constantly changing, sometimes rather quickly.

A few years ago, PowerPoint slide presentations were all the rage but nowadays, I’m already starting to hear that students are growing bored with them. And finally, we can’t ignore how ubiquitous technologies like wireless Internet access and mobile phones can quickly serve as a point of distraction for students and professors when used inappropriately in class.

In this context, I suppose that we academics will continue to examine the use of technology in our courses the same way we do our research -- through fact-gathering, reliance on established work, and simple trial-and-error.

The following is a “guest post” from Andrew Tsao:

On February 2, I attended Asian Pacific American Legislation Day at the State Capitol in Olympia, Washington. An annual event, it drew a large, organized crowd of Asian Americans from all over Washington. People heard Governor Gregoire give an upbeat speech, and afterwards disbursed in the drizzle to seek out their district representatives. The idea was to put the concerns and interests of a diverse Washington Asian American community into the hands of citizens, and send them to meet face to face with their representatives.

Before attending the event, I studied the APA Legislative Agenda, which outlined issues important to immigrants and minorities across the state. I came across and item called SB 6499, which was sponsored by Pam Roach, the Republican State Senator from the 31st district. It called for new voter identification laws, including birth certificates and proof of citizenship in order to vote.

Then I saw something really interesting. According to the APA schedule, there was no meeting set with Senator Roach to discuss this issue, which is of paramount importance to Asians and other immigrant and minority groups.

On February 1, I called the Senator’s office. A staffer didn’t know what APA Legislation Day was. I asked for clarification. Potentially two thousand Asians from all over Washington, the Governor speaking, Senator Roach sponsored SB 6499, you don’t know what it is?

I was told that no one had asked for a meeting with Senator Roach. I checked with APA. I was told they had requested a meeting, but had not heard back yet. I left my name and number with the staffer. No return call.

The morning of February 2, as I drove down Interstate 5 in the early morning downpour, I called the Senator’s office again. I re-introduced myself. I was told no one had told them about APA Day until someone called yesterday. I explained that someone was I. I was assured no one else had asked for a meeting.

I was told Senator Roach had a very busy schedule. I asked if that meant no meeting would be scheduled. I re-iterated the concerns about the Senator’s bill, and how it would affect thousands of her constituents. I was told to stop by around 1:30PM. It was suggested by the staffer we might catch her between meetings.

Indeed, Senator Roach was gracious enough to meet with members of APA, including Maxine Chan and Kelli Nakayama of International Community Health Services, and Franklin Yi of the Korean American Voters Alliance. After explaining to us that SB 6499 was essentially going nowhere, she assured the group that her concern in such legislation was making sure it was valid citizens who voted in elections. After the 2004 Washington Governor’s race, there was a lot of activity in Olympia involving voter verification.

Maxine Chan explained that there already existed specific social and logistical barriers to immigrant and minority voters, and additional bureaucracy could disproportionately affect that group. She also mentioned the language barrier, which often resulted in discrimination and difficulty at polling places. That was when the whole thing turned into a bad horror film.

Senator Roach responded by saying she was sympathetic with the whole language barrier, and that no one should be discriminated against at the polls. She went on to explain that she was an advocate of early English proficiency education, particularly for immigrant children so that they might grow up accent free. She spoke of a future of no accents, which would alleviate a host of problems.

By shedding foreign sounding accents, she thought people would face less discrimination. It was in their best interest. She then turned to Franklin Yi, a Korean immigrant whom she knew as a constituent, and pointed out his foreign accent. However, she jokingly vouched for Franklin, because she knew him.

I, Maxine and Kelli sat stunned. We thanked her for meeting with us, and she thanked us for coming, saying her door was always open. We went out and stood in the rain, dumbfounded. Had she really said that? Did I just hear what I thought I heard?

Clearly, Maxine, Kelli and I were “okay” with Senator Roach because we had shed our foreign accents. Is that what had earned us the right not to be discriminated against? I began to think back on some of the well meaning, institutionalized racism I had encountered in my life as an “accent free” Chinese American.

“You didn’t sound Asian on the phone.”

“You don’t act like a foreigner.”

“I’m not talking about you, though. You’re different.”

“You’re so Americanized.”

And so on, and so on.

What perhaps is most frightening about this story is that I believe Pam Roach loves her country and loves democracy. What does that say about how far we have come, how far we have to go?

About the author: Andrew Tsao works as a television and theater company director, and a lecturer on film directing and acting. He currently lives in Bellevue, WA. You can also visit his personal website and read his blog.

Can the U.S. trust an Arab company to operate some of this country’s most vulnerable seaports? That’s the question many people are asking after the Bush administration signed a contract with a port management company run out of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and which has led to a storm of controversy with Republicans and Democrats blasting the deal as a threat to national security.

The transaction will allow Dubai Ports World to run major commercial port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. “If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward,” Mr. Bush said.

“I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company,” Mr. Bush said. “I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We’ll treat you fairly."‘

This is one of those rare moments that I happen to agree with Bush. I think it is rather prejudicial to automatically assume that an Arab-owned company constitutes a threat to American security. If the U.S. is ever going to make inroads and improve its image with the Arab and Muslim population around the world, implicitly and explicitly accusing Arab companies of supporting terrorism is not the way to do it.

Just because two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE doesn’t mean that everything associated with the UAE is inherently evil or terroristic. It would be the same as saying just because a few Blacks, or Asians, or gays, etc. are guilty of committing a crime that all Blacks, Asians, or gays are inherently criminal.

If anything, we should give the administration credit for not automatically giving the contract to Haliburton, or some other wealthy U.S. company that has close political ties to the administration. In addition, the UAE company has gone on record saying that it will implement any security measure necessary to put Americans at ease with their operations.

In other words, this kneejerk opposition to an Arab company managing U.S. seaports is nothing more than another example of racial profiling against Arabs and in this case, I find it absolutely shameful that Democrats are leading the charge.

Toyota wants to be just another good ‘ol boy -- they’ve recently announced that they will join Ford, Chevrolet, and Dodge as automobile manufacturers competing in the NASCAR Nextel Cup racing series. You may remember that this is the most popular racing series in the western hemisphere, anchored by the world famous Daytona 500 that took place yesterday.

You may also remember that NASCAR has strong roots in the American South and is generally considered to be a virtually all-White sports environment. As such, as a recent post on AutoBlog notes, the reaction to Toyota’s announcement has been mixed:

“I’m not going to root for the cars,” said fan Al High when asked about Toyota’s entry. “I’m going to root for the drivers.” Another fan, Glen Barber, said “it doesn’t bother me they’re in racing. … It’s just another nose piece (front of car) and a brand name.”

But fan Glen Wilkinson was definitely not accommodating. “It won’t be NASCAR,” he stated. “It will be ‘Japanese car’.” And while he’s aware that Toyota has plants in the U.S. building vehicles (called ‘transplants’) he added, “I know we got a plant up there (in Georgetown), but it’s not American. I think they ought to just ship it out of here, anything that’s not American-made.”

Toyota is apparently aware of the situation and sees participation in NASCAR as a further extension to its American factories, employment, and reputation. Said said Jim Farley, vice president of marketing for Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., “we (Toyota) hope, if we do it right, it’s a way to be seen as a part of America, not just a company with a big check.

In that same AutoBlog post, some of the comments from readers point out that while Toyota’s plants are hiring more American workers and paying out larger bonuses, “American” automakers like Ford, GM, and Chrysler are laying off workers and giving out smaller bonuses. In other words, it all comes back to the question, “What constitutes ‘American’?”

That is, Toyota has several factories in the U.S. that employ thousands of American workers, are profitable, and contribute to the U.S.’s economy. Not to mention that the Toyota Camry has been the best-selling passenger car in the U.S. for the past several years. The only hangup that some people apparently have is that it is not an “American-owned” company, although it doesn’t seem to bother Americans that Chrysler is owned by Mercedes-Benz from Germany.

This episode is still to be played out of course, once Toyota actually starts racing in NASCAR, but alas, it is just another example of the ethnocentric and xenophobic mentality that still prevails too often in the U.S.: only Whites -- and culture predominantly associated with Whites -- deserve to be considered as “real” Americans.

Traditionally, Latinos have not been represented in the military as much as Blacks. However, the military is desperately trying to change that as demonstrated by recent efforts by recruiters to step up their recruitment of Latinos, using bilingual recruiters and paying careful attention at fostering close relationships with the potential enlistee’s family:

In Denver and other cities where the Hispanic population is growing, recruiting Latinos has become one of the Army’s top priorities. From 2001 to 2005, the number of Latino enlistments in the Army rose 26 percent, and in the military as a whole, the increase was 18 percent.

The increase comes at a time when the Army is struggling to recruit new soldiers and when the enlistment of African-Americans, a group particularly disillusioned with the war in Iraq, has dropped off sharply, to 14.5 percent from 22.3 percent over the past four years.

The recruitment campaign has in fact divided the Latino community. Some of the country’s high-profile Latino organizations, like the League of United Latin American Citizens, support the military’s efforts, viewing it as an important path to socioeconomic advancement. . . .

But community activists in places like California and Puerto Rico call that logic wrongheaded. “This is not the time to sign up,” said Sonia Santiago, a psychologist and founder of Mothers Against the War after her son, was sent to Iraq in 2003. Dr. Santiago has routinely confronted recruiters outside schools. “Those benefits don’t mean anything, if they are buried or sick for the rest of their lives,” she said.

It’s interesting to see the U.S. military use racial/ethnic solidarity as a tool to recruit young Latinos in the military. And it’s just as interesting to see how these intensified recruitment efforts have divided the Latino community. It just goes to show that the Latino community does not speak with one voice, nor should we expect them to.