A few days ago the LA Times had an editorial which supported the release of 17 Uighurs detained at Guantanamo Bay. The Uighurs are Chinese Muslims of Turkic origin from western China. They were detained while they were in Pakistan in 2002 after having received firearm training in Afghanistan. It is obvious that they were not enemy combatants against the U.S. as the Bush administration had claimed. I have advocated from the beginning that we should not detain people who are not our enemy lest they and the family they had left behind will become our enemies in the future. Now the cases are going through the courts with civil rights group demanding that the government let these detainees be released into the U.S. and receive political asylum. I don't think this is a good idea even though I admit that I see no good way of solving this problem myself. I just wished that the Bush administration would not have detained these people in the first place!

The Uighurs would obviously face harsh treatment if they are returned to China. They were training to be potential terrorists in Afghanistan. No other country wants to take them in now because nobody wants to anger China. If we give them political asylum we certainly would anger China. I mean if China had caught someone training to attack the U.S., would we not want to have him extradicted to the U.S.? The fact that the Uighurs are an oppressed minority in China does not excuse them from training to attack China. Someone's freedom fighter is someone else's terrorist.

Besides angering China, which may mean they will not cooperate with us against terrorism in the future, we have to consider whether these Uighurs are dangerous if released into our society. They were obviously ready to use force against China for whatever injustice they faced in China. Were those injustices worse than spending 7 years in jail? They had no reason to attack the U.S. in 2002 but what about now after we deprived them of their freedom for 7 years? So if we release them into our country, we anger China and we have to watch our back for 17 trained foreigners who spent 7 years in our prison. If we sent them back to China they will be punished severely for crimes that they have yet to committ, after we had imprisoned them for 7 years. What a mess!

Two things about racism I found disturbing last week. The first one was not actually racism in itself. It was about lack of discussion about racial relations. Eric Holder, the new attorney general, called the U.S. a nation of cowards. I thought the attorney general is supposed to be an expert on law and not on people's feelings. Calling us the nation of cowards goes way too far. The people who are not afraid to speak their mind about race usually have their own agenda. Some maybe racists, like the KKK. Some maybe extreme liberals, like Al Sharpton, who looks at every perceived injustice through racism. Certainly the majority of the country are not in these two groups. Most people are afraid to offend others and avoid sensitive subjects. This does not make them cowards, just normal people. For example most non-blacks would be afraid to stand up and say that black men need to step up and take care of the children. Can you imagine Bill Clinton, a friend of blacks, saying that? Only a black leader like Obama can say that. This does not mean Clinton is a coward.

The other item was the cartoon of a two policmen shooting a chimp with the inscription: "now they have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill". This was an obvious reference to Obama as a chimp. The writer and the editor tried to deny this saying it was just a parody. They said Obama did not write the stimulus bill so if anything the chimp was Pelosi or Reid, which they claim was not either. That is an absurd explanation. Given the long history of racists referring blacks to monkeys, the inference here is obvious. Nobody would think the cartoonist meant Pelosi or Reid as a monkey. In any case, whoever the chimp is supposed to represent, the cartoonist thinks that the person responsible for the stimulus bill should be shot. Regardless whether you like the stimulus bill or not this crosses the line.

It used to be the hope of baseball fans that Alex Rodriguez would eventually pass Barry Bonds as the homerun king and thus rid of the asterisk on the biggest record in the sport. Now we learn that A-Rod also cheated. I think the problem is way more wide spread than MLB is ready to admit. If the greatest stars of the game such as Bonds, McGwire, Clemens and Rodriguez used steroids to improve their game, would you be surprised if the borderline players use them too? I mean if the superstars are doing it, I would think almost everyone who is trying to get into the Majors or trying to stay in it will do everything he can to improve his odds.

The problem is going to stay with baseball for a long time. One of the great thing about baseball is that it is so statistically oriented. You can compare players even from different generations, fairly or not. But now we may not be able to trust the records for years to come. Can anyone say with certainty that Albert Pujos is not tainted? Or how about young stars like Ryan Howard? For me personally, it is not the records that I care about. It is that steroid use by the pros have and will continue to have influence on high school and college players. They think that they should do what the pros do. Unfortunately very few of them become pros and they are causing great harm to their bodies. To me this the greatest shame of the steroid usage by the stars.

There was a segment on Sat. Night Live's Weekend Update with Seth Meyer and Amy Poehler where the two of them mock certain people's actions with the word "really?". Some of the actions of Obama and the Democrats lately deserve a few "reallys?" Three nominees by Obama had tax problems? Really? His staff couldn't have vetted these people better? Really? Bill Richardson is well known and they couldn't find all the dirt on him before the nomination? Really?

Are the Congressional Democrats really Obama's friends? They come up with a stimulus plan that include things that are easy targets for the GOP. Money for art and STD education in a economic stimulus plan? Really? You don't think the GOP would jump all over these programs? Really? These programs take up less than 1 percent of the package but distract from the whole thing. As I said before, I don't really know what programs will actually stimulate the economy to a great degree. But I know when you propose building bridges and roads and thus creating jobs, it can bring confidence to the country. When you propose programs that seem like pork, you diminish the confidence of the people.

As the leader, the buck stops with Obama. He has acknowledged mistakes with his nominations. Many presidents had nominations that did not get confirmed. This won't hurt him much. He, however, must take control of the stimulus bill. Do not let his "friends" make him a target of the GOP. Tell Pelosi and Reid to cut out the controversial programs and then dare the GOP to filibuster in the Senate. The only idea the GOP has is tax cuts. So tell the members of Congress who only want tax cuts but not spending programs that they won't get any funds from the proposed programs. Then in a few years we can see if the areas in the country that got the spending stimulus is better or worse than those areas that only got tax cuts. No GOP Congressmen will agree to that! I mean, I think every GOP governor and mayor in the country will be upset if they don't get any funds as a result of their Congressional delegation voting against the plans. In summary, Obama should do the right thing by getting rid of some of the things that seem to be pork. After that he should play hard ball with the GOP.