The retirement of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George reminded me of how difficult it is to be a centrist in government these days. George is a Republican who was appointed chief justice by a Republican governor. He is considered a centrist, however, and often was the swing vote on the court. To many people, usually those on the extreme right or extreme left, a centrist is wishy-washy and don't have convictions. In fact, a centrist do have convictions but he would look at each issue and judge its merit objectively. So sometimes a centrist would side with the liberals and sometimes he would side with conservatives. Of course the side he does not agree with may criticisize him. Add to that problem is the fact that 2 centrists may not agree on a particular issue. I consider myself a centrist and I disagree with George frequently. I do respect the fact that George looks at each issue carefully and rule according how he interprets the law. This is unlike conservatives and liberals whose decision on most issues are known to everybody before the argument begins.

Couple of examples of what a centrist may do. George was the deciding vote in California approving same-sex marriage in 2008. This infuriated conservatives. Subsequently propositon 8 overturned same-sex marriage and when the constitutionality of Prop. 8 came before the Supreme Court in 2009, George voted to uphold it. This infuriated the liberals even though 2 others who voted for same-sex marriage in 2008 also voted to upheld Prop. 8. He was the tie-breaking vote to overturn a state law requiring girls under 18 to obtain consent from a parent or a judge to have an abortion. This infuriated not only conservatives but also a centrist like me. While I think women have the right to abortion, I don't think a girl under 18 should make that decision herself. Right now a girl under 18 can't come to my office to get a pregnancy test without parent approval. I can't give her a shot without notifying a parent or guardian. So why would it be lawful for someone to give her an abortion without parental notification? This is surgery where there can be complications or even death of the girl. So I disagree with George on that. But I do respect George for his overall work and I would much rather have him deciding cases than someone like Clarence Thomas or Ruth Ginsburg because I know how they are going to vote before the case starts.

Obama finished the year with some much needed victories. Sure, he is still very vulnerable in 2012 especially if the economy does not keep improving and if the Republicans nominate a moderate. But if the economy improves significantly in the next two years (a big if), then he can point to the legislations that he pushed through in the past two years as the key. As I have said before, the next two years with the Congress split, nothing will get done. So the Republicans cannot claim that they did anything if things improve. Of course, if thing go bad, then they can and will blame Obama.

Let's face it, Obama has not shown great leadership. Not the Magic Negro some had coined him during 2008. He is at least partially responsible for the Democrats getting slaughtered in the election this year. But his fault is not able to communicate his stragies and ideas to the people, not lack of understanding of what needs to be done. The stimulus program and TARP were forced moves. If he had not done them, even if the economy is exactly the same today without them, he would be roundly criticized for not doing enough. Ironically some who say that the stimulus was socialist also say that his handling of the stimulus was too slow. You know what? China's stimulus plan worked much quicker because they don't have to worry about bureaucracy of a democracy. If they want to build a road, they just do it. No legislation to pass, no arguments. His foreign policies such as the Middle East negotiations and the START treaty are all supported by experienced diplomats including former Republican Secrataries of States. Getting rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" , increased college financial aid, financial service reforms, consumer credit card protection laws are all Democratic agenda so a lot of people may not like them. But most people would understand that it is a job of a Democratic president to push them through and he did that.

Two legislations that hurt him was Healtcare reform and the extension of Bush tax cut. Healtcare reform gives his opponents an opportunity to call him a socialist. Healthcare is not an immediate crisis for overwhelming majority of the people so reform in a bad economy is going to be unpoplar. But Obama knew that we have to tackle it. My own insurance has doubled in four years and has increased again this month and I have not had a significant illness (knock on wood). So eventually the majority will feel the pain that a small minority feel today. Skyrocketing healthcare cost will also make our businesses less competitive. So Obama was right to tackle it. I don't like parts of the reform but it is a start. The problem for Obama is that both the right and left don't like parts of it and blame him, which I don't think it is fair.

The Bush tax cut extension with extending unemployment benefits and decreasing estate taxes is another legislation that both the left and right blame Obama. But again if he does not compromise then both sides will yell at him also. So it is a no win but I don't blame Obama. By the way if tax cuts are so essential for the economy, how come the economy went down after we had the tax cut? The truth is, nobody knows how a tax cut or increase will ultimately affect the economy. It doesn't matter who is the president, they use the same economists and Federal Reserve Chairman anyway.

Which brings the conclusion. Obama has not shown great leadership so far. But he has tried to do what he can. He is not better than Bush when it comes to the economy. But he has not make the horrible mistake of sending troops to Iraq. He got a lot of what he wanted to do done in the first two years. He will not get much done in the next two years with the new Congress. Whether he will be re-elected depends on the economy and if there is any more terrorist attacks, two thing probably beyond his control.

There was an article in the LA Times today about Newt Gingrich's possible run for the presidency in 2012. You have got to be kidding. This is the guy who is on his third marriage, having got rid of his first wife while she was very ill in the hospital. And of course he claims to be for family value! He was known for leading the Republicans to victory in the Congressional election of 1994. But he had to leave after the Republicans suffered big setbacks in 1998. I think with all the problems Obama is having, he would welcome Gingrich to be the Republican nominee. Frankly I think Romney has the best chance to beat Obama in a general election. I think Obama would like the Tea Party people to run Palin in opposition, split the party and maybe end up with Palin or Gingrich as the nominee. Also since Michael Steele wants another term as the head of the Republican party, this will be also split the party. So unless the Republicans can get their act together or the economy gets worse, I like Obama's chances despite his weakness in this year's election.

What is with all the crying from John Boehner? I am not against man crying. I cry if I get emotional. But why does he cry so often? He cried when he talked about his poor upbringing. A lot of people grew up poor and did great things and they don't get all emotional about it. Can you imagine if Obama cries on stage talking about growing up without a father and being a minority wherever he lived? The Republicans would call him weak and unfit to be president. Remember Saturday Night Live made fun of Pat Shroeder when she cried? I am waiting for the skit of John Boehner soon.

As all you faithful readers may remember, last year I amazingly predicted that Big Ten teams would go 4-3 in the bowl season. This easily defeated the LA Times college reporter who predicted that the Big Ten would go 0-7. While one of you thought that I should have gotten all the games correctly, I say that it is the total number of wins that matter. So I am back to do the 4 F's, ie the fantastic, fearless football forecast.

Before I start, I must mention that Mich State got robbed by not getting to the Rose Bowl. I understand the voters and computers may think that Wisconsin and Ohio State are better, but in head to head to head competition, MSU wins 1-0 vs 1-1 for Wisconsin and 0-1 for Ohio State. It is not MSU's fault that they don't play Ohio State, so I think using the BCS to decide is unfair.

This year I am pessimistic about the Big Ten's chances. I don't like most of the matchups and I think they can easily go 0-7. Of course with parity now, they can also go 7-0. I will predict that they will go 3-4 with a lot of close game. Here are the individual game predictions:

1. Missouri over Iowa. Iowa collapsed at the end so I will give MO a slight edge.
2. Illinois over Baylor. Illinois is no good and they are playing in Texas, but Baylor hasn't gone a bowl game in 1000 years I think, so they will choke.
3. Texas Tech over Northwestern. The real prediction here is that the total number of points of the game will be over 80, over 100 if they go into OT.
4. Alabama over MSU. MSU should have been in the Rose Bowl but they actually got the toughest opponent for all the Big Ten teams. Alabama should have beat Auburn so I don't think MSU has much of a chance here.
5. Florida over Penn State. Florida missed Tebow badly but they don't need a good qb against Penn State. Paterno is over the hill.
6. Miss. State over Michigan. Michigan can't beat any good team with the defense they got. At least this will give their 3 freshmen dbs a chance to play more.
7. Wisconsin over TCU. Wisconsin is on a roll and I don't think that TCU is as good as Boise State although that does not matter.
8. Ohio State over Arkansas. Ohio State already faced Ryan Mallet before when he was at Michigan so they won't be afraid of him.

So I will comment on the results after the Sugar Bowl.

The WikiLeaks memos is not a disaster. In fact I think it strengthens the U.S. positions in many international issues. It is true that the memos may put some people in danger, like freedom fighters in Iran. It is also incredible that a pfc can have access to so many secret information. We have to do a much better job of keeping information out of people who have no business having access to them. But so far the leaks are not so damaging overall.

For example it is now revealed that Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries are frightened by Iran. So they don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons either. So there will be no consequences in the Arab world if the U.S. or Israel decide to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. It may also give Iran pause to know how isolated they are in the world. The revelation that China may not be upset if North Korea is absorbed by South Korea may not be the whole truth. But the fact that China has not gone out of its way to deny it, shows that there is a grain of truth in it. This should also give Kim Jong Il pause.

Julian Assange claims that Hillary Clinton should resign because State department employees had been ordered to gather confidential information on foreign dignitaries. This is the worst indictment of our diplomats? The fact that our diplomats had unkind words about foreign leaders comes as no surprise. I am sure they say the same thing about our leaders. Imagine what they say about Bush and Cheney! Spying on each other is part of the diplomatic game. What these leaks have not shown, as least so far, is that the U.S. has engaged in double talks with allies and enemies. There is no evidence of the U.S. planning to use force to get what we want. So to me these leaks won't hurt, and possibly help, our image on the international stage. The only thing that we need to demonstrate is improving our ability to prevent leaks!

Most people want to wipe out deficits in both federal and state governments by making budget cuts rather than raising taxes. I want to make cuts and not raise taxes also, but is it a realistic goal? The co-chairmen of Obama's bipartisan deficit reduction commission offered a draft blueprint for wiping out some of the deficits last week. Among the spending cuts proposed and the savings by 2015 as reported by LA Times: 20.4 billion by freezing federal employees' salary for 3 years; 13.2 billion by cutting federal workforce by 10%; 4.6 billion by slowing the growth of foreign aid; 16 billion by eliminating all earmarks; 9.2 billion by freezing noncombat military pay for 3 years; 20 billion by cutting military procuremnt by 15%.

I would go along with all those above. But even the easiest one of them all, earmarks, have defenders in Congress. Obviously lobbysts and unions will be up at arms and people will complain that it will hurt our defense etc. Obama can help himself among independents by supporting these cuts, putting himself more toward the center. But the job cuts will not help him in the near term because unemployment is his achilles heel right now. The report also wants to eliminate all tax deductions and lower the tax rate and thus simplified the tax code. I am for that also. There is an increase in Medicare payments by the bendficiaries in the proposal. There is also a suggestion to increase the age at which retirees can start drawing social security. Again I agree with these. Again these will be met with stiff opposition and unlikely to pass Congress after all the lobbying are done.

It is the same situation in the state level. Everybody wants spending cuts but when surveyed the majority do not want cuts to schools, transportation, medicaid. These are the biggest parts of the state budget. So if you don't want to cut them, where are you going to cut enough to make a difference? In the long term we do have to decrease government workforce, salaries, and especially pensions. It used to be that you take a government job at a lower salary than in the private sector and get better pensions and benefits. But now the salaries negotiated by the unions (which contributes to campaign of politicians who vote on salary spending) have made public work much better than similar positions in private sector. So we have to change that but there is not enough political will to do so now. It will take years, if ever, to make the changes.

Last week on 60 Minutes there was a segment about a small town in Iowa where Maytag was located. When the Maytag factory shut down there was widespread unemployment and extreme financial hard times. This is played throughout the country and there isn't anything that the president can do about it. Manufacturing is going away because there is no way that we can compete with China if their wages are 0ne-tenth of those here, no matter what government polices we put in. On the other hand there was report from Silicon Valley that companies like Face Book and Google are raiding each others' intellectual talent. This raises the earnings of engineers and computer scientists dramatically. No government policies made a difference here either except maybe the freedom for entrepriuneers and venture capitalists to pursue their dreams.

This trend shows one reason why the Democrats got slaughtered in the heartland but did ok in the the coasts. Areas that depend on old industries are going to be in trouble just as people who do not have a good education. We must encourage better education especially in math and sciences if we are to compete in the future.

Obama' s trip to economic summits in Asia illustrate the weak position we are in. When we try to tell other country to change their economy from export driven to consumption driven like us, they laugh at us. They feel that we have no discipline and disapprove of the Fed's 600 billion dollar stimulus. I think in the long term we have to tighten our belt like not only China and India but Germany as well. Of course Obama can't do that because it will hurt in the short term and will doom his re-election bid for sure.

Spent most of last evening watching the CMA. This is due to the fact that it preempted Modern Family and my wife and I want to see if Gwyneth Paltrow can actually sing country. She did ok except we had to wait through almost the entire show to see her. I wonder why they want her play a country singer in a movie. Wouldn't it be easier to use Ashley Judd? This is the first time I actually watch this award show and here are the observations from a non-country music fan:

1. There are higher percentage of white people here than at hockey games, NASCAR races and Tea Party gatherings. In fact I didn't see one black person on the show or in the audience. I think they need to bring Charley Pride back, from wherever he is, to get some diversity. Charley is not only a country singer but likes baseball better than basketball. So he should be invited to many more white events even if he can't sing anymore.

2. Taylor Swift didn't win vocalist of the year. But if she won there would be zero chance that Kanye West would have interrupted her acceptance. (See #1 above)

3. After the Dixie Chicks bashed Bush a few years back, I was not surprised that they were not at the awards. But of course a group called Lady Antebellum won big. This sounds like a nod to pre-Civil War era but I don't know for sure. I also don't know why there are two men in the band since they are no lady.

4. Dolly Parton wasn't there but I am sure she kept abreast of what went on. I understand she was mad a somebody. She should have showed up and get it off her chest.

5. When I heard that Detroit was represented, I thought Eminem had changed his style. It turned out to be Kid Rock. So even in country music, Detroit rocks on.

Well, that is all I have to say about a show where I don't know most of the people and know none of the songs. I wish John Denver was still alive.

The voting must have been rigged. The Republicans must have stuffed the ballot or Sarah Palin convinced the Tea party to vote her way. How else do you explain that Rick Fox was voted out of Dancing With The Stars while Bristol Palin is still alive. Fox had the highest point total given by the judges on Monday night while Palin had the lowest so there must have been millions more votes for Palin than Fox. And those people who voted for Palin can't possibly be objective. Fox was way better in not only my opinion but the three judges. So if I am in charge of the Democrats I would protest the elections tonight given this irregularity in DWTS!

No surprise that the Republicans won big tonight although the Democrats manage to salvage the senate majority. As I predicted before there will gridlock no matter what happens tonight. I understand the majority of the people are upset by the state of the economy and they will blame the incumbents. But the idea that the Republicans or Tea Party people are going to do better is absurd. For example, one of the reason that people are unhappy with Obama is that they don't like the stimulus and the deficit increase because of it. The truth is without the stimulus the situation today would not be better and probably worse and the people would complain why he didn't do anything. If Obama had done nothing and somehow we have improvement in the economy, people would then complain that if he had done more, the recovery would have been sooner. I can guarantee you that if the republicans and McCain had won in 2008, we would be talking about a landslide for the Democrats tonight. The Republicans have absolutely no idea what to do.

On CNN tonight the Republican whip Eric Cantor was asked what big program he would cut to decrease the deficit. He was asked three times and he did not answer the question. He only said that the Republicans want the deficit to go back to the level of 2008. Gee, we still had a big deficit then and the economy was collapsing at that time under Bush. How about we go back to 2002 before we send troops to Iraq which certainly increase our deficit. Or how about we go back to before Bush when we had a surplus. Yes, the Democrats like to spend but if you think the Republicans are better, you are delusional because while the Democrats are in the pockets of the unions, the Republicans are in the pockets of corporations like Enron, AIG and Goldman Sachs.

The pundits are all talking about whether the control of Congress will change hands with this coming election. Everybody is making predictions about the outcome. I am going to make the prediction that the result won't matter. Whether the Republicans win one, none or both chambers, we will have complete gridlock over the next two years. Every politician says that he/she will create jobs, change Washington etc. But nothing important will happen no matter who wins.

Things are so partisan now that even with overwhelming majority in both chambers by the Democrats plus Obama in the White House, it was difficult to pass any significant bill. Even if the Republicans win both chambers, they won't have much of a majority, certainly nowhere near able to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. Even if they pass a bill, say repealing the Healthcare bill, Obama will just veto it. So the Republicans won't be able to do anything. Even if the Democrats retain majority in both chambers, they are going to be a lot weaker than before and they certainly are not able to bring out any big bill that will get any Republcian support. So I predict that the next two years we will have a do nothing but bickering Congress. There is nothing legislative wise that Obama can do. He will get re-elected if the economy makes a spectacular recovery. Short of that unlikely scenario, he will need either a big improvement in Afghanistan and/or some progress in the Israel-Palestinian negotiation. Even if he has a great economic stimulus plan that he just thought of, there is no way it can pass Congress and will not have worked in two years anyway. So Obama's fate will basically depend on luck, just as any other president.

I think Juan Williams was just being honest, saying what a lot of people are thinking in private. He said that he is afraid when he sees people wearing Muslim clothes on the plane with him. I believe that he understands that this is an irrational fear because most Muslims are not terrorists and for those that are, they are not going to wear clothes that will bring attention to themselves. I believe that the 9/11 hijackers were not wearing Muslim clothes. Nor were the shoe bomber or the underwear guy. So he has an irrational fear which I don't think is a cause for getting fired. His firing is another example of political correctness which plays into the hands of organizations like Fox News which will use Williams as a victim.

I believe we are so polarized and self-centered that we can't accept other people's right to opinion. Bill O'Reilly's comment about Muslims killed us as oppose to adding the word extremist before the word Muslim, was insensitive. But I don't think Whoopi Goldberg and (I think it was) Joy Behear walking out was appropriate. If you disagree with another person's opinion or facts, debate him, not walk away or calling that person a racist, a socialist, or unpatriotic. This is a problem on both the right and left and if continue, will divide our country more and more.

Sharon Angle, who is running for the Senate against Harry Reid in Nevada, said recently that Dearborn Mich. is under Sharia law. I am pretty sure that if that was really the case, it would be all over the news nationally and my relatives in Michigan would have called me about it. So for her to make up something like that shows not only dishonesty but also stupidity. I don't like Harry Reid but it is mind boggling that she is ahead in Nevada.

The idea that a religion is going to take over this country is actually not new. Early in the last century it was thought that Catholics were not patriotic and that they answered to the Pope, not to our government. Even when John Kennedy ran for president decades later, he had to proclaim that he was American first and that his religion would not determine how he would govern. Obviously those fears were unfounded. I think the more people who subscribe to Angle's view, the easier it will be for the extremists to recruit for their cause and thus make us all less safe.

Being a head football coach is similar to being the president in certain respects. You work very hard and you hire the best people you can think of and hope for the best. If things go well, everybody thinks you are a genius. If things go badly, everyone thinks that you are an idiot. The same with the assistants that you hire. They were considered very bright in their previous employment, but will be bumps if things get worse even if you have worse players now.

I am thinking of Norm Chow who is the offensive coordinator for UCLA and Monte Kiffin, the defensive coordinator of USC. They both have been around for a long time and previously have been considered geniuses in their professions. I am sure they have not become stupid all of a sudden. But now that UCLA can't move the ball against high grass and USC have holes that a truck can drive through, the blame is on them. If this continue then it is not only their jobs are in jeopardy but those of their head coaches as well. Of course, when Chow and Kiffin were successful, they got too much credit. It is unlikely that Chow made Carson Palmer and Ty Detmer great quarterbacks by himself. Most likely the QBs abilities and other players around them made Chow looked great, even though he is a very good coach. Now with more difficult situations, Chow and Kiffin look very mediocre.

The same with Obama. He can't possibly know more about economics than the economic experts that he hired. No president is an expert on everything. He depends on assistants to guide him. When the economy is going well, he and his advisors are geniues. When things are going badly, they are idiots. Economics, like football strategy, is not an exact science. That is why there are completely opposite strategies coming from very smart people. Alan Greenspan was considered a genius by both Republican and Democratic presidents. But I watched a PBS documentary recently where it showed that Greenspan and others completely disregarded the dangers of derivatives. What president would have heed the warnings of lower rank economists over the opinion of Greenspan? The economy will determine the fate of the president. He depends on his advisors. He must hope that they don't make any mistake. The advisors, in turn, need to be very lucky.

Rutger student Tyler Clementi's suicide is certainly a tragedy. His roommate Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei, by posting of Clementi's sexual acts on the web, are certainly guilty of invasion of privacy. But this is not a hate crime, as liberal groups are saying. This is something stupid that 18 years old do in this age of the internet. Kids send embarrassing pictures and information about themselves thru the internet all the time without thinking about any consequences. If kids don't even worry about consequences to themselves, why would they think of others? Liberals have complained that young people sextexting should not be charged with pornagraphy. I agree with that. So I don't understand why this case would even be considered a hate crime.

Many lessons can be learned from this. Obviously people should learn about the consequences of posting things. Once it is done, it can't be erased. (Maybe I should think before I write any more!). Second, we must figure out how to tell kids that if something bad happenes, it is not the end of the world. While this invasion of privacy is horrible, it did not kill Clementi. I don't know if Clementi reached out for help but if someone he trusted could have tell him that this would not ruin his life, maybe he woud have chosen to live. The same with the girl who was fooled by an adult woman into thinking that a boy had dumped her over the internet.

One more thing that I thought of. That is, all this worry about Big Brother. Well, we are the Big Brother. Our privacy and freedom may be less restricted by the government than by ourselves! Technology gives, technology takes!

A few days ago the GOP voted against a defense bill with 2 significant bills attached to it. While I am for the defense bill and the two riders, I agree that it is wrong to attach laws that may not pass on their own into bills that would pass for certain.

The original defense bill is a no brainer. It raises the pay of the soldiers slightly and provide additional money for the wars. Both parties would have voted for this. The Democrats attached two bills to this. One is to give legal status for children of illegal immigrants who are going to college or are joining the military. This makes sense to me since we don't punish children for what their parents had done. These young people who are bright enough to go to college or brave enough to fight for us, are exactly what we need. The second one is to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell law of the military". I always say that if anyone is willing to fight for us, I don't see why we would want to discriminate against them.

Having said all that, I still don't think that laws that are totally unrelated to each other should be in the same bill just because the majority thinks that it is easier than to pass them individually. I know the GOP did the same in the past when they were in power. I am sure the Democrats complained bitterly then. Each bill should pass on its own merit. There are many times one will see bills that are distasteful passed because they are riding on a bill that both party want to pass as quickly as possible. This is not right. So while the GOP are hypocrits because they had done this before, the Democrats are wrong by trying to pass two bils on the back of a popular bill this time.

I don't have any problem with the Tea party trying to win seats in Congress. Some of the candidates like Rand Paul are not bad. But some are just awful. Take this Christine O'Donnell who has won the GOP nomination for senator out of Delaware. I don't really have problems with her so called dabbling in witchcraft as she put it in Bill Maher's show 11 years ago. She didn't really claim she was a witch and this happened many years ago. No witch hunt needed here. But the fact that she has not had a real job in several years and living on money from previous campaign donations surely should not give anyone confidence that she is capable of being a senator. I understand there is a backlash against incumbents and "inside" politicians but it is obvious that this person is not qualified. All she says are pedestrian things like "restoring America". What the hell does that mean? She doesn't give any idea what we are restoring or how. She refuses to answer any charges against her and only says that she has not done anything wrong. How can anyone vote for someone like that?

I am not saying that the GOP mainstream or the Democrats don't have their unethical people. Charles Rangel won his primary and will be reelected even though he is under ethical charges. But I mean if you are against government crooks, why are you so easily pursuaded by crooks outside the government trying to get in. I mean I can say all those rhetorics such as smaller government, lower taxes, restoring America, bring back morality to the country etc. You should all send me money so that I can run for office and spend the money afterward for myself.

Israel and the Palestinians are finally back to the peace table. The odds of success, of course, are slim. But that is no excuse for not really trying in the past several years. As I have said before, unless there is peace in the Middle East, we will NEVER be free of terrorism no matter what else we do. The continuation of this conflict is the most important avenue for extremists to recruit terrorists. Without peace, Israel will never be safe and the Palestinians will always live in inhumane conditions.

Despite the long odds, there are some reasons for optimism. Namely the 3 people that are most important in these negotiations. Netanyahu is a conservative. He may lose his right wing supporters if he makes concessions. But he must realize that he is in an unique position to do something historic. Whatever peace agreement he makes will have more legitimacy than one made by say, Simon Perez. This is like Nixon going to China, or closer to his home, Begin making peace with Egypt. Will Netanyahu do it? Well, even Ariel Sharon was changing right before he got a stroke. So hopefully Netanyahu will make a transformation also.

Will Abbas be braver than Arafat and make peace? He is a moderate and so whatever he does will be attacked by Hamas anyway. So he may as well ignore them and take a plunge toward history. He may lose his life if he makes peace. But he will be a legend in history if does.

Then there is Hilary Clinton. She is untested in these type of negotiations. But she has the advantage of being there when Bill Clinton almost got a deal done. She must have learned from his successes and failures. This is also her chance to make history and I got feeling she will go all out for it.

There are bound to be road blocks all over the place. Hamas already started the attack. As I said, the odds are still long. But there are a lot at stakes here both for the world in general and the 3 participants in particular. Hopefully they can come through.

Obama was right about Muslims having the right to build a mosque near ground zero. He is also right in questioning the wisdom of doing so. What was wrong is that he didn't say both of these comments at the same time. By saying one thing to a Muslim audience and another thing when people attacked him makes him look wishy-washy. It was a no win situation for him politically and he could not have kept silenced on the subject forever. So he should have just say the right things at the same time. It is absolutely true that religious freedom means that Muslims have the right to build anywhere they please as long as they follow the usual zoning laws. It is also true that given the emotional situation, it is extremely insensitive to do so. If Obama had said both of these to the Muslim audience, he may still be attacked from both sides, but he would have been right and also courageous.

I don't know why anyone would listen to an idiot like Newt Gringich. He is immoral, given his treatment of his wives. Now he comes up with statements such as a mosque near ground zero is like Nazis building next to synagogues or Japanese building at Pearl Harbor. I am quite sure there are Japanese buildings at Pearl Harbor. Every Nazi group would be a threat to Jews while most Muslims are not a threat to America. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but not freedom of hate groups.

Obama should have told his Muslim audience that instead of building a mosque, which they can build anywhere else in New York, they should build a center for peace at this property near ground zero. The center should denounce violence and reach out to other religions. This will help the image of Muslims immensely. He may get a negative response. But so what? It would have been the right thing to say. People say that we can't build a church at Mecca. It is true. But are we not suppose to be a better nation than Saudi Arabia? Muslims say that there would be no controversy for a church to be built at the site. It is true. But shouldn't believers of a great religion be sensitive to feelings of others and reach out to them? So why isn't there anyone taking the high road?

An article in the Illinois Statehouse news recently reported that the Asian carp, which supposedly is threatening the ecosystem of the Great Lakes, is now being caught by fisherman and to be sold to China. This is what I had advocated all along. Why were we thinking of spending millions to put electronic "fences" in rivers to prevent the carps from migrating into the Great Lakes? If these carps did come from China, I would bet the Chinese had been eating them all along. The Chinese are known to eat anything that moves. There must be a market for the carps. The only thing that I worry about is that we are too good in fishing them and they become almost extinct. Then some group will argue to put them on the endangered species list. Then what are we going to do? Right now with this deal with China we stop the carps from spreading and employ some fishermen and workers in processing plants. It is a win-win. Why wasn't this thought of before by the Illinois government?

Of course anything that is bad from nature, we seem to blame it on Asia. I mean, how did the carps get here in the first place? Are they really from Asia? Where I live, citrus agriculture is very important. Now there is a warning about an insect known as Asian citrus psyllid invading. Are we so sure that this is from Asia? How many times have we heard of a flu coming from Asia? Remember the Hong Kong flu? I don't remember anyone in Hong Kong proclaiming that we invented a flu and it is spreading to the rest of the world. Of course, it maybe that people in Hong Kong do blame themselves too much. Take athlete's feet. It is caused by fungi that are all over the world. But you know what the people of Hong Kong call it? Hong Kong feet! So I will blame my inability to dance on the disease "Hong Kong Two Left Feet".

The whole Shirley Sherrod affair may be a poor reflection of the Obama White House. Andrew Breitbart is obviously the original villain but people like him are all around. It is not unreasonable for government officials to not fall in such a lousy trap by this dishonest person. Would it took that much effort for Tom Vilsack to look at the whole video and listen to what Sherrod had to say before making up his mind to fire her? Or was the order coming directly from the White House? Either way it is not good for Obama for his administration to act so impulsively.

The NAACP doesn't look very good either. I mean they should have known about Sherrod's speech better than anyone. Why did the NACCP attack Sherrod in the first place. Is it because they feel the heat after calling the Tea Party racist? I am sure there are racists in the Tea Party, just as there are racists in the NAACP and any large organization. Andrew Breitbart looked stupid in saying that he showed the clip to show racism in the NAACP. So both sides are playing the race card without any intelligent and fair discussion about policies. It is sad that this is typical of the political divide we have today.

I think Miami has become the most hated team in the NBA, replacing either the Celtics or the Lakers. That crass ESPN show by Lebron I think will hurt his legacy unless he win 3-4 championships in a row. Even then many people will feel that he couldn't have done it without Wade who already has a ring. If somehow they don't win, which is very possible (remember the Lakers with Chamberlain, West and Baylor?), then his commercial value will plummet. I think this move to Miami just made Kobe Bryant more popular!

Having said that, Cleveland's owner Dan Gilbert's open letter was way too much. James has a right to make a business decision, just as Gilbert can get rid of any player he doesn't think is doing the job. James made a lot of money for the Cavaliers and Gilbert in the past few years. So this rant just makes Gilbert look as bad as James. Yes, I feel for the fans of Cleveland, but I don't feel for the owner.

If controversy kept people focused on the NBA in the summer, controversies made the World Cup more interesting this year. But the final was a yawner. The Netherland and Spain are two of the most artistic teams in the world. But today's game was terrible. It seems that the finals are almost always bad, just like the Super Bowl. The third place game is always better. Maybe they should tell the finalists that they are actually playing the third place game and see if that makes the game better!

Spain has become the Miami of the sports world. They just won the most important trophy in sports, they are the second best to the U.S. in basketball, Pau Gasol won two titles after somehow ended up with the Lakers, Rafael Nadal is dominating tennis, a Spaniard may well win the Tour de France. It is time to root against Spain! Well, at least they don't have a guy like Rooney or James that people like root against.

Well, there goes my theory of South American soccer superiority over Europe. The only team left from S.A. is Uruguay. And they should have lost. Brazil and Argentina showed a lack of discipline once they got behind. Ultimately what I like about Brazil and Argentina is what cost them. They try to attack first and defend second. So on a given day with the attack stalled, they are vulnerable from counterattacks. The 3 European teams deserve to be in the semi-final but overall I still think South America outperformed Europe.

In an attempt to save face, I will predict the winners of the semi-final. The Netherlands have the best record in World Cup history without winning. And having beaten Brazil, I think they deserve to win this time. While I like the way Germany has played (except against Serbia), I will take Spain over them because I don't think the young German team can sustain 3 impressive games in a row. The Netherlands, I predict, will win the championship. Europe will get its first champion in a World Cup played outside of Europe!

Couple days ago I had a most interesting day watching sports. I am currently in Hawaii for a wedding. So on Wednesday morning when I tried to watch the U.S. soccer game, I had to get up at 4 a.m. I found that my two sons and brother in law were also up. We watched Landon Donovan scored the winning goal in stoppage time and then we jumped up, screaming in celebration. We are staying at this magnificent villa by the ocean ( the groom has a very rich friend), and we woke everybody up despite the vastness of this place.

After half hour of celebration, I went back to my room and turned on Wimbledon. I saw 4 sets of score and a score of 30-30. I figure then they are in the first game of the 5th set and are tied 30-30 in points. It took me awhile, seeing that after points were played that the score was still 30-30 that I realized that was the game score, not the point score. Thus continued a day of watch tennis till 59-59! So I was exhausted from watching sport while vacationing in paradise!

The group round of the world cup having been completed, I make the following observation. South Americans play the best soccer, by far. The European players are way overrated. They are way overpaid. Christian Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney? I think South America should get one of Europe's spots for the World Cup next time.

Have not had much time to write lately even though many things been going through my mind. Will restart with a brief commentary on the gulf oil spill. I understand that BP may have been negligent so that this disaster happened. But once it happened I don't think that there is any reason why they would not want to stop the oil flow ASAP. If they know how to do it quickly there is no advantage for them to hold back. So there is no reason to demand that BP fix this mess as the Obama administration and others are doing except to deflect any blame. And as for the government, it is liable for the lack of oversight but again once the spill started you can't blame it for not stopping the spill because I am sure that would the first thing the government wants to do.

I think the only thing that Obama could have done in the beginning, other than going to the Gulf more frequently for photo-ops, was to convene the top engineers in the country to come up with ideas how to stop the spill and clean up the mess. If he had called on brainiacs from MIT, Cal Tech, and U. of Texas (I assume there would be a petroleum engineering program there) from day 1, then I don't think you can ask for more. If those guys can't come up with the answer then why do you expect that Obama can come up with the answer?

By they way, why can't they just land a submarine on top of the gush and stop the flow until the relief well is drilled?

While the investigation of Goldman Sachs is all over front page of newspapers, in one of the back pages of LA Times today is an article about CalPERS, the California government employees pension fund, making a new deal with one of its management firm. This is hailed by lawyers as a 125 million dollar savings for the pension fund over the next 5 years. Of course the management firm was found to be paying middlemen about 125 million in recent years which of course came out of the pension fund's money. And if they saved 125 million, how much are they paying them in the first place? I think you can put all the money in a mutual fund that matches the SP500 and forget about any of these investment expenses of hundreds of millions and you would have made more money in the long run.

The SEC is, of course, trying to get some reputation back by going after Goldman Sachs after they failed to catch anyone, including Bernie Madoff. The truth is hedge funds, futures and options all should be outlawed. They are just same as gambling. They do not create value. The only people who always make money are the brokers and those with inside information or can manipulate the market. Unlike stocks which help companies expand and thus eventually enlarge the economy, hedge funds and options are zero sum games. One side makes a bet and the other side accepts the bet, and if a stock or commodity goes up, one side wins and the other sides loses. In order for hedge fund managers to make money they have to find someone who will bet with them and can afford to lose. Who are these people? Well, pension fund managers come to to mind. These people get a base percentage of assets to manage them and then gets a percentage of returns also. So since if they lose their shirts they still get a base percentage, they may as well gamble and hope to hit a homerun and get a percentage of higher profit as well. That's not managing. That is gambling with other people's money. At the end of the day, no value in the economy is added, just money exchanging hands. But in many cases the hedge funds make money and a public pension fund (ie taxpayers' money) loses money.

Tiger Woods is coming back to golf competition tomorrow at the Masters. I don't know what kind of shape he is in but I think he will be in contention. I won't be rooting for him due to his poor behavior but I won't bet against him either. Obviously he is not likely to win since even at his best he "only" wins about 20% of the time. But the pressure from the media will not affect him. If anything he is under less pressure now since he does not have to hide everything like before. In fact I think the energy drink that abandoned him made a big mistake. I mean what better advertisement than to say that due to the energy drink, he is able to run around outside the golf course and still play great inside it?

The terrorist attack in Russia shows that curtailing the rights of the people does not prevent terrorism. Since 9/11 Russia has been attacked several times by terrorists. It was only Nov. last year that a train was bombed between St. Petersburg and Moscow. What do you think the Russian government do after each attack? It takes away more democratic rights of the people for sure. You don't think they torture suspects to try to get information? Court order before wire-tapping? You got to be kidding. All these things and more that we argue about in this country are in full use in Russia. And in China too, I may add. But obviously it is not keeping the Russian people any safer. This is something we have to remember when the next time the government asks us to give up rights in order, as it says, to protect us from evil.

Some thoughts on the healthcare bill that was passed yesterday. It is not a very good bill, it will not make a big difference in our healthcare system in the next few years, and it certainly will not cut the deficit as predicted by the nonpartisan Congressional budget office. It is, however, the only bill that can be passed given the polarity of the country. I have some ideas about what our health system should be like, but my ideas will NEVER be adopted. Whatever you feel about Obama and Pelosi, you have to say they are tough politicians. Of course Pelosi will never lose in her district of San Francisco where a Republican candidate will often finish 3rd in a 2 persons race. Obama, as I have said all along, will be re-elected if the economy turns around by 2012. So his neck is not out at this time. For the Congressional Democrats in conservative districts, this will not be a good time to celebrate. For the Republicans, they may win some seats and may even become the majority in the House. But I have no respect for them. They are only interested in obstruction and putting out false information to scare people.

Good things about the bill: Eliminate preexisting condition exclusions, ends lifetime limits on benefits, and bans recission. These are unfair practices by insurance companies. Of course the insurance companies will charge more because now it is harder to deny coverage on people who are sick. Which brings to one of the bad point of the bill: it does not bring down cost. If my premium has gone by 70% in the past 3 years even though I have not been sick, can you imagine what the cost will be for someone with a pre-existing condition? These folks will still have to buy from private insurance companies who will claim that by taking on all comers they will have to increase the premium. Without a public option to compete with the private companies, how will the cost go down?

One of the things I find laughable is some people say that now that 30 million more people are going to have insurance, there will be problem with access because we don't have enough hospitals and doctors. Where did these 30 million people came from, Mars? The fact they do not have insurance does not mean they don't seek healthcare. It is just that they wait till they are very sick and end up in ERs. Then the outcome may be worse because they waited too long. With insurance coverage, maybe primary care physicians like me will be more busy. But maybe the ERs will be less overwhelm. Anyway, too many things to discuss about this topic. If anyone have any questions or want my view on a particular subject, please write in.

Berkeley law school associate dean Goodwin Liu has been nominated to the 9th circuit court of appeal. If confirmed, which is no easy thing given the Republican attempts to block Obama's nominations, Liu will become the first Asian American among the nation's 175 federal appellate judges. The first one? That is a travesty. I know that not as many Asians go into law as in medicine or science fields. But the first appellate judge with so many academically qualified Asian Americans? This is hard to believe.

I like most of Liu's views. He leans to the left as expected from a Democratic nominee. But he considers conservative positions as well. He has defended the No Child Left Behind policy put out by the Bush administration. He agrees with school vouchers. These are two positions that I also believe in. California's proposition 8 which outlawed gay marriages was challenged on constitutional grounds. While Liu probably supports gay marriages, he predicted that the proposition was on good constitutional grounds. I have written before that while I disagree with Berkeley law professor John Yoo's memos on torture, I do not feel that he should be fired from the school. Liu also supports Yoo despite his disagreement with Yoo's view. So, yes I think Liu is an excellent choice and a choice that is well overdue.

Another Chinese American that has been in the news lately is Harvard basketball player Jeremy Lin. I saw Lin a few years ago on tv when his high school team, Palo Alto High, won the state championship over national power Mater Dei which had several future d-1 players. Lin was the best player on the court that day and I wondered if he would be recruited by a big basketball school. The answer was no. Stanford is next door and it didn't recruit Lin. Nor did his other favorite, UCLA. The truth is that he would be the starting point guard for either of this team now if they had recruited him. So he ends up at Harvard which isn't too bad of a fall back. I am sure if Lin was black or even white the coaches would have felt he could have played at high d-1 level. I guess that is one reason there are more students name Lin at Harvard than there are d-1 Asian American players in the country!

Well, now that Lin has shown that he is an elite college player, he has been featured in Sports Illustrated, Time and ABC etc. Of course every article or show has to mention how underrated he is. But as the great Joe Dumars of the Detroit Pisitons once said: "I have been called underrated so often, I have become overrated." That maybe the case with Lin now. What has the world come to? An overrated Chinese basketball player? Almost as surprising as no Asian American appellate judge.

Last Sunday 6o Minutes ran a story about this Chinese American who spied for China and got some information about U.S. strategy in selling arms to Taiwan from a government worker. It is not the biggest secret info in the world. I don't think selling arms to Taiwan is anything top secret. But these two guys deserved to be punished. What I don't understand is that the guy who gave the info got 5 years while the Chinese guy got 15 years. It seems to me they are at least equally guilty and if anything the guy that was entrusted with the info is more of a traitor because he had to get clearance and pledge not to sell out.

This is similar to my complaint from 2005 when a FBI agent James Smith gave sensitive info to his lover katrina Leung. The government gave him immunity to testify against Leung. This is outrageous because he is the one who gave away the secrets and he got off totally except for losing his job, I think! As I said before, jailing Chinese or any foreign spy would not stop other countries from spying us. China would be more interested in their own people who would give away its secrets to other countries. By giving our own traitors shorter sentences or no sentence will not deter other people in the future from succumbing to greed.

While Obama and the Republicans square off on healthcare today, a process that will not change anything, an interesting news came up. The premier of Newfoundland is coming to the U.S. to get heart valve surgery. Immediately the people who are critics of government run insurance points to the fact that the premier does not want to get treated under his own government's health system. The truth is many rich foreigners come here to get medical treatment. We do have the best medical technology in the world. It is also true that Canada does not have anywhere the number of CT scans, MRIs and other technology that we have. They do have to wait for certain procedures. But they and most western countries have better infant mortality rates and life expectancy than we have. Those numbers are more important than the numbers of CT scans available. Rich folks, Americans or foreigners, will always want to get the most advanced treatments here. But that is not great news for the average American who can't get insurance because he got lay off or has a pre-existing condition.

The Canadian system is far from perfect. They don't allow private medical care. So if I have the money and want to cut in line, I can't. While that sounds fair, it slows down everyone else also. If the people who can afford to pay for a CT scan but can't or won't go to the U.S., then the line for the rest of the people will stay longer. Without private competition, the government also does not have the incentive to make the system more efficient. But the opposite is the so-called health reform in the U.S. without the public option. If you subsidize people who can't afford insurance and force people who can afford it to buy it, then the insurance companies will make a killing without lowering the costs. It is only when you have both public and private competition that you can have a chance to bring down cost.

Mitt Romney recently said that he is proud of his government insurance plan in Mass. He says it is much better than the Obama plan. He also does not think there should be a public option. Of course then he says the Mass plan is not perfect and that while it does a good job of covering people, it has not decrease cost. Dah! Let me see: No public option, no decrease cost. Shocking!

News last week of Greece needing a bailout from the EU reinforces what may happen in our country in the future. It is already happening in our cities (see Detroit in the previous comment) and our states (right here in Calif.). If we keep running our national deficit higher and higher, someday we will be like Greece. The big problem in Greece is that the politicians handed out jobs and benefits way beyond their means. Now one out of six is a government job and attempts to cut them are met with riots from the unions. Sound familiar, Mayor Bing and Gov. Arnold?

I had an argument with my wife the other day. She said that unions are always bad. Everyone should be paid according to his worth, not because unions negotiate higher wages for him. My feeling is that if there was no unions we would still be living like back in the industrial revolution days when a few barons became very rich on the back of laborers who barely survived. No big middle class would have developed. So I don't have trouble with private unions. They don't hold a gun to the head of corporations to give them a contract. If the auto companies gave too much to the UAW in the past, that is their own fault. The lobbying by the unions in government is offset by the lobbying by the corporations. If the company is not doing well, unions have to give up some of the wages or benefits or they will go down with the company.

Unions for government employees, however, is another story. Their employer is the government which means they negotiate with politicians. The politicians are not using their own money to pay the workers. They cannot go bankrupt, like a company. The unions also contribute to the politicians and so politicians are beholden to them. So if people like Bing tries to save taxpayer money, you can bet the unions will try to get him out the next election. There are no corporate lobbyists going against the union lobbyists. So to me government employees should not be allowed to have unions. The wage and benefits should be set by an independent agency. If you don't like it, find a job in the private sector! Or go to Greece.

You may have heard of Anh "Joseph" Cao. He is a Congressman from Louisiana. His story is an example of the great opportunity of this country and also the problems with our political system. Cao was a Vietnamese refugee who through hard work earned a degree in physics and then a law degree. His election to Congress was the result of a series of unusual circumstances. He is a Vietnamese-American Republican from a district that is overwhelmingly Democrat and black. He faced a black, nine term Congressman. He should not have even tried to run. No other Republican tried. But the incumbent, William Jefferson, was indicted for bribery. Even then Jefferson should have beaten Cao. But Jefferson had to fight 2 primary rounds for the Democratic nomination which eliminated his money advantage by the general election. Then due to a hurricane, the election was postponed which led to a much smaller black turnout. If the election had been in November, Jefferson would have won with the heavy black turnout for Obama. As a result, this unknown immigrant won in a squeaker and headed to Washington. What a country!

Now the bad part. Cao is now the most likely person to be voted out. Obviously the Democrats feel they should take this seat back easily. This district was carved out to insure a black person would be elected. Cao, who almost became a Catholic priest, is against abortion. He voted against the stimulus bill. So the Democrats want to get rid of him in the worst way. Ironically, the Republicans are not happy with him either. He voted for the Democrats' healthcare bill. While he agrees with many of the Republican party's positions, Cao says he will vote his conscience. He promises honesty and do his best for his district and country. Unfortunately for him, these qualities will not be enough. He will be voted out in November.

This is an example of how difficult it is to get people with integrity and intelligence into politics and keep them the same once they get there. Many districts are carved so that the incumbents can win election easily. By staying with the party line, accepting contribution from lobbysts, and bringing pork to the district, a Congressman can stay in power forever. You can be an extremist, but as long as you do those three things above, you will get re-elected year after year. If you are an independent thinker, you are gone. I don't agree with many things that Cao believe in. But he is at least looking at the issue and decide according to merits of the case and his own conscience. We need more people like him in government and it is a failing of our system that someone like him cannot get in or stay in Washington.

As expected Obama spoke eloquently last night but without changing one vote in Congress. There were no really surprises. I mean everyone says that they want to improve education, increase production of clean energy, cut the deficit, defend the country and even reform healthcare. But it is impossible to get even everyone in his party to agree on any of these issues. So it is like talking to the wall. Most of the voters don't really understand these issues. Ultimately they are going to vote base on how the economy is doing.

Basically Obama will have to pretend he has the answers and keep telling the people that. Just like FDR and Reagan. I think he is trying too hard to get a consensus so liberal and conservatives in his party are able to push him around. Healthcare may be dead no matter what he does. And I have said he should forget it with this bill. But if he insists on moving forward, he should just tell his party what he wants in the final bill now and let the Republicans filibuster it. And I mean REAL filibuster. Make them stand up there and talk without food, drinks or bathroom break as in the past. No more telling the umpire we are walking this guy and no pitch is thrown. Make them actually throw the pitches. It may be a waste of time but so what? Then go out and tell everyone he is in charge and the economy will be better soon. As I said if the economy turns around and he appears to be in charge, he will be a hero. If things get worse, he will get the blame. But he would have gotten the blame anyway if he tries to get a consensus, so he may as well act like he has better ideas and is the one totally in charge.

With Scott Brown's victory in Mass. it is time for Obama to pull the plug on healthcare reform. Any attempt to prevent a filibuster by having the House allowing the Senate bill to be the final bill without any changes will be seen as an underhanded move by the Democrats and will lead to more voter revolt in November. The inability for an overwhelming Congressional majority and a president of the same party to pass this legislation shows what a gridlock and ineffective government we have. Basically the Republicans are worthless as they don't want to do anything except cut taxes for the rich, protect people with guns, glorify religion even as most of them are total hyprocrits when it comes to moral value. The Democrats are the pawns of the unions, they use white guilt to promote minority causes even when those causes are wrong. What started as an overwhelming majority wanting healthcare reform ended with a bill that is not really worth having. The republicans complain that they were not being heard. But in truth they had no ideas that were worth anything. They really only wanted to stop the Democrats from passing a bill. Their spread of rumors about death panels was unconsciousnable. The Democrats had people like Ben Nelson which fought against the public option which was the only thing in the bill that would likely bring down cost. People like him held the bill hostage for things that would only benefit their states. So with people like that no wonder we will continue to have rising cost in health insurance with more and more people becoming uninsured in the years ahead.

What has happened at USC in the past week is an indictment of big time NCAA sports. USC put its own basketball team on probation due to the investigation of O.J. Mayo who is in the NBA now. To me, if the NCAA is set up so that people would comply with the rules and punish those that don't, then why are the current team and current coach the only ones being punished when they have nothing to do with the wrong doing? Mayo is earning millions in the NBA and his coach Tim Floyd can apply for any coaching job. The current players are being sanctioned. It is totally unfair.

Of course the basketball team is being offered up as a sacrificial lamb by USC to prevent or decrease the punishment by the NCAA to the football team. It is interesting that the Reggie Bush case has been going on for 3 years and the NCAA and USC have not finished the investigation. Yet the Mayo case is resolved so fast. Meanwhile Bush is making millions in the NFL and Joe McNight, another footballer under investigation, has declared for the NFL draft. If they are found guilty, there is nothing the NCAA can do to them as they don't care about their eligibility.

Now Pete Carroll is going to the NFL. Again the NCAA can't do anything if Carroll had known about Bush and McNight. The new coach and current players are the ones who will get the penalty, if there are any. The NCAA has to make a deal with the NBA and NFL such that they would suspend the players and coaches involved if they turn pro. It is unlikely that the NBA and NFL will go along with this. Given that, why do we need the NCAA at all? We should just declare big time college teams semi-pros. We should just declare the champion of the Ivy League, where there are no athletic scolarships and the players are qualified students, the real college champions.

Well, my prediction of 4 wins for the Big Ten came true as Iowa defeated Georgia Tech tonight. So what a couple of the game prediction were wrong, the total was correct which is the most important.

I don't understand how stopping people from going to the bathroom the last hour of a flight is going to make us safer. Why can't the terrorists attack before that time? Why he has to watch the in-flight movie before he tries to blow himself up? All this is just going to make whole bunch people get up just before the last hour and create chaos. It will also make people who needs to go anxious, especially old people like me and kids. Who thought of this idea?

Frankly I am surprised they are not banning people from wearing underwear on the plane. After all when someone had a shoe bomb, we all had to take our shoes off. When someone tried to use liquid to detonate, we are not allowed to carry more than 4 oz of fluid on board. So now this guy tried to hide power in his underwear I thought logically, at least logically in the government sense, would mean at least everyone has to show their underwear before boarding. If they come up with a hair bomb, we would all have to be bald. What's next?