Now that I am bloated from eating too much on Christmas I will just write about something light: sports. Of course sports may create more arguments than politics or religion so I may be making a big mistake here. I am going to go over 3 controversies in sports this year and give my 2 cents worth and then I will make some bowl predictions.

The first controversy is about Serena Williams in the U.S. Open. I thought I wrote about it already but I don't see it in my archive. I must be getting senile. Anyway there are still some sports talk shows where her behavior is debated. There are some who said her behavior was justified due to the fact that the call should not have been made at the end of a close match. That is absurd. I understand that fouls are not called at end of close NBA games and penalties are not called at end of close NHL games. But those calls are subjective and can go either way most of the time. A line call is not subjective even though the referee can make a mistake. If Michael Jordan charges into a defender, the ref can call foul either way or not at all. But if he sees Jordan steps on the end line with the ball in his hand, he has to call it out. If the lineswoman saw Williams step on the line before hitting the serve, she is obligated to call it. I would agree her behavior up to the point where she threaten the lineswoman was no where as bad as McEnroe or Connors in the past. But I don't think McEnroe or Connors ever threatened bodily harm to officials. So I think Williams deserve to be fine more heavily. As far as supensions go, I don't think there was ever a consideration to supsend a star player so forget about that.

Some sports writer with the help of Mathematicians are defending Bill Belichick's decision to go on 4th down against the Colts. Well, I have not seen their formula for this decision so I can't say if it is mathematically sound. But I do know this: No football coach, including Belichick, is smart enough to have done that calculation in his head! He made the decision simply because he had no faith in his defense. Whether he went for it or punted, the odds were in his favor as even the mathematical formula showed the the Patriots had a greater than 70% chance of winning either way. But now his defensive players know that their coach has no confidence in them and that is bad coaching.

I like Many Pacquiao way more than Floyd Mayweather so my opinion is biased. But I think all this talk about Olympic style doping test is nonsense. You don't change the rule for a sport for one event just because one competitor demands it. If this is the case, then every sprinter will demand testing be increased for Usain Bolt, even just to hassle him. I have a friend whose son was on the U.S. field hockey team. He said he would get randomly tested 1 or 2 times a year. So if we go by Olympic rules in 3 months, by random chance Pacquiao may not get tested at all until the urine test after the fight. If Mayweather calls for boxing to change its rule so that testing is more strict for everyone, I am all for that. But to demand the rule be changed suddenly for his opponent because he say so, is arrogant.

Finally I want to point out that the college football reporter for LA Times have predicted that the Big Ten will lose every bowl game this year. I am going out on a limb to say that they will win at least one! O.K I will be more brave and say they will win 4 out of 7. The Big Ten is down (again), so everyone will take them too lightly and on any given day the weaker team, if motivated by slight from others, can pull off the upset. Witness Utah over Alabama, and Boise State over Oklahoma in BCS bowls! The four I think will win for Big Ten? Minnesota over Iowa State is easy. Penn State over LSU. Joe Paterno is a better coach than Les Miles. Witness Miles losing a game this year because he forgot to call timeout. OSU beating Oregon because OSU is improving at end of the season and Oregon does not have the home field advantage like USC had at the Rose Bowl. MSU over Texas Tech. I am not impressed with Tech's defense and I think MSU can slow down their offense. I am afraid Wisconsin, Northwestern and Iowa are overmatched although Georgia Tech may overlook Iowa and they are not that good themselves.

Have a happy holiday, everyone.

I am not surprised the climate meeting in Copenhagen failed to come up with a comprehensive agreement. The deal that Obama brokered with China is just a way to save face for all the powers. Of course there was no way that they were going to get a binding agreement that activists like Al Gore will accept. If we can't even pass a water down energy bill in our Congress, why would anyone think that the countries of the world, all with different ideas and needs, will come to a consensus? The U.S. wants China and India to cut down their emissions as they develop. India, China and others do not want a tough limit their energy use as they try to catch up with the west.

My feeling is that basically the developing nations have a better argument. To tell them that they have to cut back after we have increased our standard of living with our factories, automobiles and high energy use is hypocritical. Of course if India and China ever use as much energy per capita as we do now, we might as well say good-bye to earth. So we need to do better ourselves and at the same time convince the developing nations that to improve emission is to their own best interest.

I think despite the fact the Copenhagen agreement is not very good, it is a step in the right direction. I think China, for example, understands that if pollution is not controlled, their economic growth will come to a halt. There will be a high cost to the health of its population as well. I am causiously optimistic that there will be cooperation between the U.S., China and India in green energy in the future. Our survival on this planet depends on it.

Predictably Obama was hit from the left and right after his announcement of the surge in Afghanistan. I think it is the right decision although I think he took too long to make it and the setting of a time line for exit is a bad idea. I know this sounds like Dick Cheney. But I am not part of the stupid administration who abandoned Afghanistan and lied their way into an unjust war in Iraq. And forget about the crazy left wingers like Kucinich and Moore. They don't live in the real world. I don't like wars but Afghanistan is a necessary war. If we run like the Soviets did the Taliban and al Qaeda will not only run Afghanistan again but will inspire others to join them. Kabul will become the capital of terrorism. Pakistan, a nuclear power, will be in danger of falling to Muslim extremists.

Look at things from the perspective of a moderate Muslim. I believe that this Muslim felt we had a right to invade Afghanistan after 9/11. He knows that he would do the same if his country was attacked by terrorists. However, he would likely be persuaded by extremists that the U.S. is the great Satan when we invaded Iraq. To him there was no reason to invade a country that has not attacked us. Now if we pull out of Afghanistan, he will view us as a country of of no heart. We can flex our muscles all over the world, with 60,000 troops in Germany, more than that in Korea, a large base in Japan, aircraft carriers patroling all the oceans. But when the going gets tough we bail out. Maybe we should bring all those troops home from Germany and Korea etc. and save our resources and people to fight wars we needed to win? Why do we have all these troops all over the world but when we are faced with maybe 25,000 hard core Talibans we bail? This moderate Muslim will be convinced that we are a nation of lazy, materialistic people as the extremists claim. I think the Iraq war had converted many moderates into extremists. Only by helping Afganistan become a nation free of the Talibans can we recover our reputation.


It is going to be a difficult task, no doubt about it. But I think it is still a winnable situation if we are together on this. This is where I think Obama has not done as well as he should. I think he understands that this war needs to be won but he is trying not to alienate his liberal base. He will need to convince the American people that victory is necessary. Then he needs to follow yhe advice of generals McCrystal and Petreus. These guys understand that you don't win with forces alone. The added troops buy us more time but we must work with the tribal leaders to provide jobs and security. It can be done because most Afghans don't like the Taliban and they don't think of the U.S. as an occupying force. They will turn against us, however, if we are not helping them and if it appears that the Taliban will take over their villages. So we have a small window of opportunity to turn things in our favor. We must do it now!