Having discussed the Republican candidates, I want to discuss about the performance of Obama during these 3 years. Obviously no president is liked by all people. If you get 55% of the votes in an reelection then things really had gone well for you. Obama has been criticized by the right and the left. He is not so popular with the independents either. I don't agree with a lot of things he has done. But I would not be so critical of him until I have examined how he compared with other recent presidents. So I will go over the presidents from the time I was in college to the present and see how Obama stacks up with them.

Gerald Ford was a Michigan man so obviously he was a very smart and great man. Of course he was not elected to office and sort of fell into the job. I think this helped his legacy and hurt his chance to get elected against Carter. By replacing Nixon, Ford helped the country get back to normalcy. But by pardoning Nixon, many people were upset and him. They felt he must had a deal with Nixon and that's how he got the job in the first place. So he lost to Carter. Since his stay in office was so short, he basically got an incomplete grade from me.

In many ways Obama is more like Jimmy Carter than others. Of course, Obama would not want the same fate as Carter; an unpopular one termer. Both Carter and Obama are intellectuals, Carter having graduated high in his Naval Academy class. But both tend to over think things. Instead of like Reagan, who acted with confidence, Carter and Obama may seem indecisive at times. Both were dealt bad hands to begin with. Carter faced an energy crisis that hurt the nation's confidence. Obviously Carter did not create the oil crisis. But long gas lines and inflation drove Carter out of office. He also had to face the Iran hostage crisis. When he sent in a rescue mission, it failed miserably. At least Obama killed bin Laden. The one big accomplishment of Carter was bringing Egypt and Israel together. But that was not enough, economy will trump foreign policy any time. By the time Carter left office his approval rating was in the 30s. But as a private citizen, he did great things. This is because as a private person, he can just do what he thinks is good for other people and the world. In retrospect Carter was ahead of his time. When the energy crisis occurred, Carter said that our future depends on NOT depending on foreign oil. He installed solar panels on the White House roof and wore sweaters and turn down the heat. All these things we should have followed up on from the 1970s. As president, the decisions are more complicated, and as I said, Carter over thought.

The opposite may be true of Ronald Reagan. He knew he wanted to defeat the communists and restore American's image as the most powerful. To that end he built up the military. He believed in trickle down economics and to that end he cut taxes. He did not over think, he just acted. He was not a hard sell to Americans in the 80s. Doing opposite of Carter seemed like the right thing to do. Solar panels were taken down from the White House to show that America still has the oil. Taxes were cut since the economy was doing poorly with high taxes. Things did turn around. But was it due to Reagan's policy or just the cycle of the economy? Unemployment was over 10% in 82 and 83, higher than the 7.1% when he took office in 1980. By 1984 election, it had gone down to 7.5% and so with the improvement, Reagan was reelected. There was the stock market crash in 1987 which was attributed to computer trading, forerunner of derivatives today. There was the savings and loan scandal that required a big taxpayer bailout. So two lessons we never learned from the 1980s-poor regulations of securities trading and poor oversight of loans by institutions. As the old saying goes, history does repeat itself. But to the Republicans, Reagan is their god. Every candidate uses his name today. But was it all good back then?

Certainly it was not all good for the elder George Bush. While one may argue that the tax cut helped the economy in the early and mid 80s, it eventually led to huge budget deficit in the Bush years. This forced Bush to go back to his promise of no new taxes. Once again this demonstrates how economics trump foreign policy. Bush had just win the first Gulf war and people expected him to win reelection easily. But the deficit and the eventual broken promise on taxes killed Bush's chance for a second term.

If Reagan is the Republican's god, then Clinton is the Democrat's god. In many ways Clinton was very lucky. Bush having to raise taxes opened a door for Clinton to step in. Over zealous effort by Gingrich led Republicans led to a government shut down helped Clinton with reelection. It is also true that the rise of the computer technology and the internet started a whole slate of profitable businesses helped the economy immensely while Clinton was in office. So Clinton was very lucky. But he was also very talented. When his health initiative did not work, he dumped it. When the Republicans won big in the midterm election of 94, he became much more moderate in his policies, even reforming welfare with the Republicans. In a word, Clinton was nimble. He had his failings, like Somalia. He certainly had personal failings but he managed to get out of jam. People say that when he talks to you, he makes you feel that you are the most important person in the room. It is a great person skill even though it is fake.

The young Bush was in over his head. That is why he had Cheney as his mentor. He really had no understanding of the world and history and he took most of his advice from neocons like Wolfowitz who advocated regime change in Iraq and building democracy in the Middle East. They achieved regime change at a cost of thousands of American lives plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. It took our eyes off bin Laden and Afghanistan. The war cost us 800 billion dollars. A nice sum for the deficit, don't you think? Speaking of deficit, the Bush tax cut didn't help it, did it? I don't blame the depression on Bush. This was mostly the doing of Wall Streets, banks and insurance companies. But certainly his regulations and economic plans did not help.

So how does Obama rate in comparison to these people. As I said he over thinks. For example, I applaud his health plan effort. He believed that Clinton's plan failed because Clinton got no support from the insurance industry and Republicans. Obama tried to get them on board. But ultimately they have no interest in helping him. His concessions like no public option only angered his base. The truth is most economic issues are beyond his control. I think most economists agree that he had to follow Bush's plan and stimulate the economy. He had to save General Motors and the big banks. For the most part he succeeded but the economy is still in bad shape. But is it worse than 3 years into Reagan's presidency? From what I remember, no. The difference is that Reagan did opposite of Carter whereas Obama did pretty much the same as Bush. Even his treasury secretary Geithner is a protege of O'Neil, the treasury secretary under Bush. So to the public Reagan was making improvements like FDR whereas Obama was floundering. As good as an orator as Obama is, he has not given the public a clear vision of what he is trying to do. Reagan told us he was going to beat the Russians. He said the trickle down effect will raise all of us. Whether any of these were true or not, it inspired the public. Obama has not done that.

I think foreign policies wise, Obama has done pretty much what I expected him to do. Having lived abroad, he understands that we can no longer just throw our power around. We have to show others that we are a benign world leader. We are not out to get Muslims nor are we trying to stop China from rising. This does not mean he is going around apologizing for the U.S. as his critics have pointed out. He is in fact helping the U.S. win more friends abroad and this will be vital for our security in the future.

It is too early to know if Obama will be considered a good president. It is too early to tell if he will get a second term. But comparing him with the recent presidents, I see him stronger than others in certain areas and weaker in others. As I mentioned one of his weakness is over thinking. That does not bother me much since I tend to be that way. Perhaps you can tell that is the case after reading this lengthy blog.

There are many people, including people in government, who thought Kim Jong Il was a stupid mad man. Eccentric and ruthless, yes. But stupid, no. Sure, he inherited power from his father. Sure, he was not as charismatic as his father was. Usually sons of politicians are not as capable as the father. But many of his actions that are deemed crazy in the west are in most cases shrewd moves. By playing up his mad man character, it scares the west into thinking that he may use nuclear weapons and thus they are more likely to negotiate with him and give him aid. As I have written before, dictators like Kim and Hussein are not going to use weapons of mass destruction against the west because they know they would not survive the retaliation. Just like Hussein's chemical and biological weapons, Kim's nukes are just for show and as a means of extortion to get concessions.

Now what is next? Well, nobody knows much about his son Kim Jong Un. Supposedly he was educated outside of the country but I don't know where. But in any case I doubt that he would open up the country. I had high hopes for Assad in Syria when he took over for his father because he was a British trained physician. Surely he would be less despotic than his father. But that turned out not to be true. So it is likely the young Kim will not be much different than his father in term of policies. Even if he is different, I think the old generals in the military would control him, maybe use him as a puppet. But one thing for sure, after a transition period, we should try to engage the North Koreans as quickly as possible. I think trying to isolate them would be a mistake. You always try to keep your enemies close to you so you understand them better. We should try to understand the young Kim as soon as possible. I know China will be trying to do this because the last thing they want is for the regime to collapse, spilling millions of refugees into China.

Finally, I think we really have no great reason to keep thousands of troops in South Korea. The South Koreans are perfectly capable of fighting off a convention attack from the north. And if the north use nukes, we would have to respond with nukes. We can do this from anywhere, including the Pacific fleet. We don't have to have soldiers at the DMZ to use nukes. In fact if the north is crazy enough to use nukes, then having our soldiers there would just add to our casualties. So, we don't need a big base in Korea. Ron Paul is right on about this, we don't have to spread our military all over the world to protect us and our allies.

Parade magazine had an article on Romney last week. A few weeks earlier it had an article about Rick Perry. Given Perry's fall since then, I wonder if this would jinx Romney. With the Iowa caucus coming up soon, I have decided to put my 2 cents worth out there about the Republican candidates. If none of them win the nomination and somebody like Donald Trump wins then I know I have jinx power and I promise I will write about Trump then.

Mitt Romney has been the front runner from the beginning. He is the Republican establishment's candidate because they believe that he has the best chance to defeat Obama. I would agree with that. He has not been able to get more than 25% of the Republicans to support him because the conservatives have a deep mistrust of him. Frankly I don't understand. This man has been married to the same woman about 40 years. He is by all account a good husband and father and is a christian who has helped many people in his church. Maybe his policies were not always conservative in the past but he has live a life of conservative values, much more so than many others who claim to have strong morals.

I will agree that Romney is probably among the most moderate, along with Paul and Huntsman. I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think he will repeal Obamacare and I don't think he will try to make abortion illegal. I don't think his credential as a businessman is necessary a positive. He made a lot of money but he had money to begin with. His company made money by downsizing companies and get rid of jobs. He went to France for his Mormon mission and I think that is a positive. He has been a hawk on the campaign trail which means I don't agree with him. But I think part of that is to attack Obama, I don't think he will be so hawkish if he is elected. Overall, Romney is a guy that I can be friend with. I would not vote for him but I would not be devastated if he is elected.

Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, is someone I loath. Talking about hypocrisy! Cheating on your wife while she is dying? The only other person in that same level is John Edwards. I don't consider adultery a game breaker because otherwise we would have eliminated 50% of the population right off the bat. But people like Gingrich, Edwards and those guys that are closet homosexuals who rail against gays should be disqualified on moral grounds.

With Gingrich, adultery is not the only moral issue. He had been censored by his fellow Congressmen in the past. Yet he has made millions lobbying for Freddie Mac. Republicans such as Tom Coburn, Peter King and Guy Molinari have come out against Gingrich. He says Obama has "Kenyan anti-colonial views" I guess Gingrich thinks that having African ancestry and being anti-colonialism is bad. I don't know if Obama actually has those views but the comment makes Gingrich seem very narrow minded to me. Gingrich also makes statement like "If Iran gets nuclear weapons then we should consider regime change." That sounds like war to me. This shows how dangerous a Gingrich presidency would be. Gingrich, to me, is unqualified to be president and would be a dangerous choice.

Ron Paul is not going to win. He may run as a third party candidate which would ensure Obama's reelection. I like Paul. I think he is sincere in his beliefs. While I don't agree with him on many policies, especially in foreign affairs, I respect his thinking. For example, I disagree with him on getting out of UN and NATO because I think isolationism will be detrimental to our security. I don't agree with him about stopping all foreign aid. But I agree with him in that a lot of the aid goes to rich people in poor countries and do not get to the people that we are trying to help. He is the only candidate who says Israel should not get aid because it can take care of itself. Overall, I can be friend with Paul and would be acceptable to me if gets elected.

Jon Huntsman would be my choice for the Republican nomination. He is obviously not going to win. He is basically Romney light to most Republicans. I don't know why he is even running. But his credential as a moderate is solid. He was a decent governor of Utah. He was ambassador to China, appointed by Obama. He speaks fluent Chinese and was not afraid to speak out against China when appropriate. But he understands, unlike most of other candidates, that bullying China is not going to work. Having travel around the world as a Mormon missionary and as a diplomat means that he has more foreign experience than others and I think a better understanding of the world.

I don't want to waste more time on the other three. Michelle Bachmann is Sarah Palin light. I would give her some credit of her work as a foster parent. Rick Perry is way out of his league when he leaves Texas. Rick Santorum? He is Michelle Bachmann light.

So basically my three choices in order are Huntsman, Paul and Romney. I can live with one of these three getting elected. God help us if Gingrich sneaks in. Ultimately I think Romney will win the nomination and is 50-50 against Obama with the state of the economy determining the general election.

It is the bowl season and once again I am giving you my AAAAA ie the Angry Asian American Accurate Assessment. In addition to my usual predictions on Big Ten teams, I will rename the bowls these teams play in. I will also rename a few of the other bowls because it seems like the matchups were done on purpose by the NCAA to be funny or ironic. So here we go:

Nevada and Soutern Mississippi will play in the Gambling Bowl as there are casinos along the Mississippi River.

Texas vs Cal in the Shamless Begging Bowl. Remember a few years ago Texas begged voters who put them into the Rose Bowl ahead of Cal. Cal will look to revenge this.

FSU vs. Notre Dame in Not Able to Live up to Potential Bowl #1. Both teams were expected to be at or near the Top Ten this year.

Oklahoma vs Iowa in Not Able to Live up to Potential Bowl #2. This is the first game for a Big Ten team so my prediction is Oklahoma wins.

Texas A@M vs Northwestern in the Compass Bowl as A@M is now in the Southeastern Conference. A@M wins.

UCLA vs Illinois in the Back In Bowl. Neither team deserves to be in a bowl game. Illinois wins this ugly contest.

Penn State vs Houston in We've got a problem Bowl. PSU has more problems but I am picking PSU because Houston barely beat UCLA at home.

Nebraska vs South Carolina in the Also Ran Bowl. Both are mediocre in their conference. How did they end up in the Capitol Bowl? I pick Nebraska since I don't like Spurrier.

Georgia vs MSU in the Playoff Bowl. In the old NFL the runnerup in each conference played in the Playoff Bowl. I pick MSU. Georgia couldn't beat Boise State.

Florida vs OSU in the Urban Bowl. Wonder who is he rooting for? I pick OSU as I think Broxton Miller is getting better with each game.

Oregon vs Wisconsin in the Previous Loser Bowl. They are the last 2 losers of the Rose Bowl. I pick Oregon. They are just too fast.

Stanford vs Oklahoma State is the Consolation Bowl. Either one could have been in the championship game instead of this one.

Michigan vs Virginia Tech in the Undeserve Bowl. Kansas State and Boise State are better qualified. I pick Michigan. VT lost to Clemson who has a mobile qb. Denard is much faster that Clemson's qb.

So tally shows Big Ten going 6-3.

I see that all the Republican candidates other that Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman are giving Obama grief about not saying that the U.S. is an exception nation. Refusing to say that the U.S. is exceptional would mean that Obama is unpatriotic, according these republicans. I take EXCEPTION to this because I think people who blindly believe that the U.S. is exceptional will be the people who lead us to disaster. I think THAT would be unpatriotic.

When has an empire ever NOT believe that it is exceptional, that its culture and morals are superior to those nations, tribes or ethnic groups who are less powerful than it is? I think Obama is right when he pointed out that the Greeks, Egyptians and Romans all thought that they were exceptional. I know the Chinese did. Who would call themselves the Middle Kingdom if they were not egocentric? What do all these once powerful nations have in common? They turned out NOT to be exceptional and are no longer powerful.

Yes, we are a better people than those of the previous great empires. For one, we stopped slavery after about a hundred years. Our women can vote, unlike those of other empires. We had civil right movements in the 1960s, less than 200 years after our founding. I would think that if we are really exceptional, we would be farther ahead given that we could have learned from thousands of years of world history. Some say that our constitution and our freedom is what set us apart from these old empires. But didn't the British have their Magna Carta? Were they not a freed people in the 19th and 20th century? It can be argued that the British empire in its heydays was more dominant than we are today. I am sure the British felt that they were exceptional and look where they are at today.

If there is an advantage for the U.S. over other empires of the past, it is that we get more immigrants than all those other empires. Immigration brings in fresh talent and immigrants push the native born to do better. Can you imagine if we did not have Jewish, Italian, Irish, German, Indian and Chinese immigrants? I do not think that we could have maintained our status for so long. As long as we continue to welcome immigrants, our chance of remaining a great country will be good.

Yes, we are a great country. The best in the world today. Otherwise, immigrants would not be flocking over here. But we are not exceptional. We will not stay great unless we become greater. Instead of patting ourselves in the back, we should try to improve ourselves. We have a high infant mortality rate compare with other rich nations. Our life expectancy is lower than most of the rich nations. We have poor public high schools. We have a rich-poor gap that is widening. We have a high murder rate, especially with guns. We have a huge drug problem. There is a lot of work to be done. I think the politicians who think that we are exception will not lead us to improvement but will lead us down the road to mediocrity as previous great empires have gone.

I hear that Obama was being criticized by conservative Republicans for not thanking God during his Thanksgiving speech. I am sure it was an oversight because no president would intentionally forget to mention God in one of his speeches even though there is suppose to be separation of church and state. Does it not seem that every presidential speech ends with "May God bless the United States of America."? I think that Obama simply forgot to thank God because he has so many other people to thank but cannot thank them during his speech. Couple of examples:

Obama wants to thank 7 Republican candidates who have no chance of winning but stay in the race to give Romney trouble and force him to act more conservative than he really is.

Actually Obama does want to thank God for telling the Republican candidates to run. Several of them have claimed that he or she is running because God told him or her to do so. If indeed God had wanted anyone of these people WIN, He would have only told one of them to run. Based on that logic, I think God is a Democrat!

Obama wants to thank Romney for the blueprint of his healthcare plan.

Obama wants to thank Gingrich and Perry for ideas on immigration.

In this time of Thanksgiving I think some other people have obvious reasons to be thankful:

Rick Neuheisel gives thanks for USC being on probation and hiring Lane Kiffin. This was the only possible way for UCLA to catch up to USC.

Lane Kiffin is thankful that UCLA hired Neuheisel ensuring that UCLA cannot catch up to USC.

UCLA is thankful that the PAC 10 became the PAC12 thus split into 2 divisions. So UCLA, after losing to USC tomorrow, can go to the conference championship game with a 6-6 record. They can also become the first team to go to a bowl game and finish the season 2 games below .500.

The SEC gives thanks to all the incompetent major conferences to ensure that they will be the only ones playing at the BCS championship game.

The NHL is thankful to the NBA owners and players for giving them their share of the winter sport spotlight.

Many people from Wall Street and the mortgage industry should be thankful that they are not in jail. One major figure convicted of wrongdoings after three years?

Well, I am getting tire and sleepy from all the eating the last two days. So I am thankful that I don't have to write anymore for now!

I always believe that one's moral standing is judged by what he does when nobody is watching and not by what he says. Politicians are often exhibit no. 1 for my point on this. Herman Cain is just the latest one. Newt Gingrich and John Edwards are example of people who talked about morality and then would cheat on their wives while they are dying. A few politicians quote the Bible about the evil of homosexuality and then were caught doing those same acts. The Catholic Church not only have their pedophile priests but also bishops and cardinals who covered up the crime. So whenever someone pontificate about morality, I always react skeptically now. I mean you do not have to memorize the Ten Commandments or have a PhD in ethics to know what is right or wrong. It is doing the right thing when nobody is monitoring you that show what kind of moral you have.

The PSU scandal is latest example where you have to take it with a grain of salt when you listen to morality talk from a figure of authority. Those who worshiped Paterno have found that he is a false idol. I wish that people who tend to pontificate about morality would stop it already. They are almost certain to not meet the standard they set for themselves and others. When the truth comes out they will add hypocrisy to the list of their faults.

Each day seems to bring out more accusers against Herman Cain. I thought in the beginning he could have put it away by admitting to the settlement on first two cases. He should have said that he remembered that the NRA came to him with the allegations and after investigating decided to settle for a minimal amount to make the cases go away. In this litigious society, settling cases for $30,000 to 40,000 to avoid the cost and hassle of a trial, would not make one look guilty. Since there was a non-disclose clause in the settlements, nothing else can be said about it. Instead Cain at first denied the cases, then claim to have forgotten and then claimed that those were not settlements. This makes him out to be a liar. I don't think anyone who was sued for sexual harassment would forget the cases, unless there were a lot of cases! Then he tried to use the race card and that just made things worse.

One thing for sure the Democrats are enjoying this. Cain and his supporters, by complaining that this is a liberal witch hunt, make themselves look worse. The Democrats want Cain to win the Republican nomination. It would be easier to beat him than Romney. So there was no reason to try to bring him down. One of her accuser, Bialek, is a Republican and met him again recently at a Tea Party event. So there is no liberal conspiracy here and everyone knows it. The only thing in Cain's favor is that Bialek used Gloria Allred as her lawyer. This diminishes her credibility. But given Cain's implausible denials, I don't think most people are going to believe him.

Having said that, it is interesting in the Republican debate tonight, the audience booed the questions about Cain's allegations. Even at a Republican event, it is hard to believe that such a big majority support Cain. Even if they believe he is not guilty, the way he handled the whole thing does not make him look presidential. Of course, Rick Perry took him off the hook a bit tonight when he forgot the third cabinet department he promised to cut as president. When Paul suggested EPA, Perry agreed. Later on he remembered that it was the Dept. of Energy. Being from Texas, how can he forget energy? This debate and others show that he really has not think things through and is totally unprepared to run for president. As a result, this makes Cain looked better. I noticed all the candidate were against the bailouts. Romney was against the auto bailouts in the past. Obviously he has to stick to this position now as he tries to get the nomination. Michigan is one of the states that he can take from Obama but I wonder how going against the auto bailout will affect him in the general election?

When Warren Buffett said that rich people pay too little, a lot of Republicans blasted him saying that he is so rich, it does not matter to him how much he pays. They said that it is the small business people who make between $250,000 to $1,000,000 that would be affected if the Bush tax cut were to be reversed. They argue that if the top bracket would have to pay more, these small business people would be less likely to expand their business and thus hurt the economic recovery. I find this argument is absurd.

Let's look at the math. The top tax rate during the Clinton years was 39.6%. The top rate with the Bush cut is now 35%. So basically the top bracket people will pay 5% more after the first $250,000. So the guy who makes say $300,000 with pay 5% more of $50,000, ie $2,500. I don't think that any business person will make a decision on hiring more employees or expanding his company base on $2500. Even the guy who makes a million will pay 5% more of $750,000 or $37,500 more. Would a guy who makes a million from his business make a hiring or expansion decision on $37,500? I don't think so. People who want to build their business would not let a few thousand dollars stop them from achieving what they want. Anyway if tax cuts increase hiring and business expansion, then how come that didn't happen after the Bush tax cut?

If people say that Buffett can be generous because he makes so much that it does not matter, then I think you can say the same for the other 400 plus billionaires in America. Why aren't many of them stand up and say the same?

With the news today that Joe the Plumber is running for office in Ohio, it reminds me of my blog from Oct. 2008, right before the last presidential election. You remember Joe the Plumber? His first name was not really Joe and he was not a licensed plumber. The Republicans tried to use him against Obama and he eventually became a supporter of the Tea Party. I don't know if he will win but it reminded me of the blog about all the different types of Joes that Obama and McCain could have used in their campaign. I noticed that the number 9 is being used during this campaign. You have Cain's 9-9-9 plan and Romney's 59 steps and the Wall Street Occupiers claiming they are the 99% of the population. Don't forget that the unemployment rate is stuck at around 9% for a long time now. Coincidences? I think not. Obama and McCain did not use my Joe ideas but maybe the Republican candidates today will try some of my number 9 ideas:

Michele Bachmann will try to get a vp nomination by saying that John Adam was helped by a woman called 99. I don't think she will Get Smart and know it was Don Adam.

Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman will be dialing 911 soon because their campaigns are dying.

Michele Bachmann will demand equal opportunity to play because of Title IX.

In trying to get the Canadians who became naturalized citizen to vote, a candidate will claim that he is the Great One of politics, old number 99.

Romney, whose family is from Michigan, will say that he is the really Mr. Hockey by claiming jersey #9, worn by Gordie Howe.

Ron Paul will claim that he is so frugal that he does all his shopping at 99 cent stores.

Football is king in Texas but Rick Perry will declare that he likes baseball better because it is played by 9 players a side over 9 innings.

Perry will also claim that Texas is so powerful that he is responsible for gas prices always ending in .99 cents.

Cain will start offering 9 topping pizzas for $9.99 from Godfather's Pizza. It is an offer you can't refuse unless you want a horse head on your bed.

Romney will try to get rid of his Mormon image by singing "99 bottles of beer on the wall".

John McCain will get back into the race by claiming he has 9 lives.

In trying to get the Hispanic vote, a candidate will try to get the football player Ocho Cinco to change his name to Nueve Nueve.

There are 8 Republican candidates. At the end of the primary season the Republicans will likely wish there was a #9: Chris Christie.

A few days ago the LA Times reported that only about 20% of NCAA division 1 schools made a profit from the athletic department. Most have to be subsidized by the school with general funds or student activity fees. I think that would make a strong argument against paying athletes. How can you expect other students to pay more and do with less in the classroom so that elite athletes can get paid? There is an argument that since football (and maybe basketball) teams bring in most of the money then those athletes should be paid. That will create a two tier system, although one can say that this already exist as football and basketball players get more perks even now.

It is amazing to me that in this time of economic crisis that so much money is thrown into college sports. Most public schools are running deficits and tuition is rising, but there is no cutbacks in most of these schools. Cal tried to cut a few sports last year but donations poured in to reinstate them. How come there isn't enough donations to stop cutting of classes available or to lower the tuition? Oregon is improving their athletic facility because of generous donation from Philip Knight of Nike. So they have become a football power but their academics is still mediocre. Now Conference USA and Mountain West are trying to merge. I think they will have teams from Virginia all the way to Idaho. None of these schools except for maybe Boise State can possibly make a profit. Wouldn't you think that the traveling expense increase will dramatically increase with this merger? Also the long travels will cause more fatigue for the students. The original idea of collegiate sports was a sound mind in a sound body. I think we have lost our minds.

It seems that with each passing season I find less and less good programs on tv. There are a lot more channels than ever before but that only means there are more junks on than before. I am especially annoyed by all these reality shows. The Real Housewives of _______ are all terrible. I don't want to know anything about the Kardashians. How many singing competitions are there on now a days? American Idol was very good in the beginning but I don't see how one can watch so many of these copycat shows. I used to like Dancing with the Stars but this season I just can't into it. There were always annoying people on like Kate Gosselin and Floyd Mayweather, but this season there seems to be more of them. And what was that Carrie Ann crying over Chas Bono's performance? It was terrible! And Nancy Grace had the gall to say that she deserved 8s! Let's get some originality in programming!

If the above rant doesn't make me sound old then consider that I like couple of the shows that are from the 60's. Mad Men and Pan Am. Now you know I am old. To me these shows bring back memories of how I saw America when I was a young boy and an immigrant. I am sure a lot people like these shows because of nostalgia. It was a time when America was #1 in almost everything and was still rising. Everybody likes American products and want to travel in luxurious jets like Americans. But to me these shows are a reminder for those who want to go back to the good old days: it wasn't as great as you remember them to be. Everybody was smoking and drinking nonstop on Mad Men which meant that people from that era died much sooner and suffered more health problems earlier. There were not much opportunities for women or minorities. Witness the people in power were all white males then. Even for most white men life was not necessary better than today. The main character in Mad Men was very high in the corporate ladder. Yet his home would be about middle class level today. Add to the fact that there was worry about the Russians attacking us, you can see that the good old days were not as good as we think. Of course I think most people today would be correct if they rather be traveling on Pan Am with the characters from Mad Men than be on Spirit Airline with cast of Jersey Shores!

With the announcement of Christie and Palin that they will not run, the race to be the Republican nominee will be down to Perry and Romney. There is no time left for anyone else to get in the race and raise money and get an organization going, what with the first primaries and caucuses being pushed earlier and earlier. A few weeks ago I predicted that either Romney or Perry will win with Bachmann and Paul hanging on for few more months. This looks to be correct. However, I had no idea that Herman Cain would be among the top three at this time. I thought he would have been eliminated. Still there is no chance that he will win. The Republicans are just frustrated with the performance of Perry and Bachmann and they don't really like Paul and Romney. All the conservative talk by Cain, delivered much better than Perry, have gotten him this far. But now that people are noticing him, there will be more scrutiny and he will fall out soon enough.

The conservatives had pushed Perry into the race. Then they found out they don't really like his stand on immigration and the HPV vaccine! Plus they found he couldn't debate well. I still think that he has a decent chance because most Republicans still don't like Romney. But again I think if the country stays the same next fall, Romney will have even chance against Obama, while Perry would lose to Obama. Perry can win, of course, if the economy gets even worse or if there is a terrorist attack. Perry can also win if he gets Christie to be vp. But after declining so many times, I don't think Christie will accept vp either. I think if the Republicans lose to Obama again, and Christie loses 50 lbs, I will guarantee that he will run in 2016.

Couple of days ago the Republican club of UC Berkeley put on a bake sale which has the following price structure: Whites $2.oo, Asians $1.50, Latinos $1.00 Blacks $.75, Native Americans $.25. Women are given a $.25 discount. This is an attempt at satire of the liberals in California who are trying to pass a bill that would allow the UC to consider race and gender in admission as long as no preference are given. This is basically a way to bring back affirmative action which had been outlawed by a proposition a few year back. Now I don't understand this bill since logically if you do not given preference to a gender or a race, then why do you consider gender or race? The liberals respond to the sale by lying on the ground nearby in protest. It seems to me that neither side are too bright. Let me explain why.

It is obvious that the Republicans think that the group most discriminated against if there was affirmative action would be white males because they would have to pay more than anyone else. It seems to me either these Republicans have not done their research or they are mostly white males. At Berkeley there are more Asians than whites and more females than males. It is also true that Asian applicants, especially the females, have the highest GPA. So if there is less emphasis on grades and SAT, then the group that would lose out the most will be Asian females. So to say that Asians and especially Asian females have an advantage over white males is absurd.

The price structure of the bake sale shows that the Republicans are not very good business people. If a Native American female comes by, she can "buy" all the bake goods for nothing. Now the liberals are not so smart either since they could have used this tactic and make the Republicans bankrupt right away. But instead they make fools of themselves by lying on the ground. So I am thinking maybe Berkeley people are not all that smart. Weren't the hikers that wandered into Iran from Berkeley? Talk about no common sense!

The Palestinians are applying to the UN for recognition as an independent country. This is another headache that Obama does not need. If the Palestinians get 9 votes in the security council then the U.S. has vowed to veto it. I don't understand why the U.S. has to be the one sticking out its neck. Why can't Britain or France veto it? Is it because their leaders don't have to worry so much about the Israel lobby back home? Obama can't afford to lose the Jewish vote but of course if he has to veto then the Muslim extremists will say that the U.S. is the only country that stand in the way of an Arab country from forming. That will go a long way to recruiting terrorists!

Of course everyone knows that this is only a symbolic gesture on the part of the Palestinians. They would not get a country by a UN resolution. This can only happen with a peace settlement. Now Congress is threatening to cut off aid to the Palestinians because of this action. Yeah, that will really discourage the recruitment of terrorists! I just hope that they don't get enough votes to force Obama to veto.

I didn't get to watch most of the Republican debate tonight. I guess there was not anything earth shocking that occurred. The only thing that caught my attention was that Romney attacked Perry of saying social security is a ponzi scheme. Perry did not back away from that statement and reiterated it. I agree with Romney that this a major blunder that would be a big issue in the general election. Add to the fact that Perry at least did not refute the idea of Texas seceding from the Union, I think this certainly make Romney the more electable Republican candidate. I had thought that with Perry in the race, Romney would have to move more to the right to win the nomination but I think Romney realizes that he cannot out-right Perry and would instead show that Perry is too extreme. If this works, Romney will be a more formidable candidate against Obama next year.

Tomorrow is Obama's speech. I wonder if anybody will be watching with the start of the NFL! I don't have high expectations for this either. As I said before, there is not much any president can do to ensure the economy will improve. Otherwise they will all have done it and we would never be in a recession! As good of a speaker Obama is, he has not galvanize the country to his side so far so there is no reason this will be any different. Anyways, the Republican will go against whatever he says. Obviously he will use that against the Republicans but he doesn't have to announce that he will use that against the Republicans BEFORE he even spoke! This strikes as just a political ploy. So I will watch the speech but pay more attention to the football game as will most of the country.

Michelle Bachman won the Iowa straw poll today but the big news for the Republicans is that Rick Perry is now officially in. I see Bachman, Perry, Romney and Paul to be still in the race in the next 8 months or so. Everybody else will have dropped out and I don't think Sarah Palin will throw her hat in the ring. If Perry doesn't make any big errors, he will be the choice of the conservatives because they don't think that Palin and Bachman are electable. I like Paul the best among the Republicans but there is no chance for him to be the nominee although he will stay in because of his followers are passionate. So ultimately it will be Romney vs Perry for the nomination at the end.

It is a good possibility that if Perry is a good campaigner, he will beat Romney. I don't think Republicans are sold on Romney. They think he is a flip-flop and will be more liberal if he gets elected. In a general election, I think Romney has a much greater chance to beat Obama than Perry. Let's face it there are certain states, mostly in the south, that if Charles Manson is the Republican nominee he would carry them. So it does not matter if Romney or Perry is the nominee in those states. But Romney is sure to put Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Michigan into play. These were Obama's states that can very well go to Romney but not likely to Perry. Perry will win by a bigger margin in southern states than Romney but that does not matter to the total electoral votes.

So I think the Obama camp is still worrying about Romney the most right now. But I think they are glad that the road to the nomination just got harder for Romney. He will have to lean more right to hold off Perry and that will make him more difficult to win over independents in the general election.

Once again I wrote a comment on the previous blog and again it got erased. So I am starting a new blog by commenting on the last one. First I want to say that even though I think the Republicans won the debt ceiling round, I don't agree with some people who say that Obama and the Democrats caved. When negotiating each side has to decide what would be the outcome if a deal fails. In the case of the Democrats failure to make a deal is a catastrophe. For some Republicans, it is what they want secretly or not so secretly. So it was the Democrats who were more desperate and thus have to give more. There are no new revenues as Obama wanted but given the polls show that most people want both cuts and raise revenue, I think it would be difficult for the Republicans to argue against letting the Bush tax cut expired at end of next year.

Unfortunately, I do not share the optimism of LBOAYM from the previous comment about the super committee. Dick Durbin was on Jon Stewart Thursday. Durbin was on the Simpson/Bowles commission. He said they worked for 10 months and came up with several proposals that would have helped. Durbin was also part of the Gang of Six that also came up with bipartisan proposals. The Gang of Six worked for 17 months. Neither one of these groups got anything passed in Congress. They didn't even get voted on. The super committee have 10 weeks! I am going to call them the 12 angry men. I am confident that they are men because the leaders, especially Republicans, already indicated that they are not looking for people who would compromise. Since women legislators are more likely to compromise, I don't think any woman would be selected. Given this situation, unlike the original 12 angry men who had come up with an unanimous decision at the end, I don't think these 12 angry men will come up with any consensus. And if they do, the Congress will vote it down anyways. By the way, if a woman is selected, we can call them the dirty dozen.

Now for the news from yesterday: S@P downgrade the U.S. As I have said before, these rating services are worthless and they are doing the country a disservice. S@P said they have 5 main criteria use to judge a country. I can't recall exactly how the spokesman put it, but it seems to me 4 of the 5 were subjective. The 5th has to do with debt to GDP ratio. S@P admitted, after the treasury pointed it out, that they made a 2 trillion dollar mistake in that calculation. They said it didn't make a difference. Does this make it like this whole process is scientific that the only criterium that is objective is calculated incorrectly? Given that the rating services gave the highest ratings to bankrupt companies right before their demise, nobody should have any faith in their ratings. Of course the Republicans will use this in their campaign against Obama. But it is interesting they would not mention that S@P say the whole debt debate was one reason that cause the down grade. S@P also thinks revenue should be raised. Of course the Republicans will say that S@P's opinions are flawed here!

I wrote a comment on the previous blog last night but somehow it disappeared. So instead of writing the comment again I may as well write a new blog. Regarding the question about drug companies in trouble because several patents on profitable drugs are due to expire soon and generics will be available, I agree that the drug companies will take a hit now. But don't feel too sorry for them. They have done very well recently with these drugs. If they don't have drugs in the pipeline then it is their own fault since they know this day is coming. I hope this spurs them into finding drugs for less common diseases as we have many choices now for things like diabetes and hypertension. I think it maybe better to try to corner a small market (uncommon disease) than to try to win a big share of a large market (common disease).

Having gone over the main points of the debt deal, I still think that the Republicans won this round. There are only two ways to cut a deficit: decrease spending or increase taxes. It is no compromise when one way is not considered. I don't like to pay more taxes either but it is nonsense to say increase taxes always decrease jobs. We had a tax cut during the Bush era, how well did that worked? Nobody really understands economy so I believe that if things are going bad, just do the opposite as what you are doing now. You see, economy is all about confidence. If you have inflation, increase interest rate. If you have recession, decrease interest rate. Does it work? Who knows? But the fact you did the opposite the rest of the world thinks that the U.S. knows what it is doing. When you are in a recession, you are arguing about debt limit and no tax increase when you had tax decrease at this time? That does not instill confidence in the world which means worse economy for the world and for us.

Another way you can see the Republicans won is that 68% of Republicans voted for the bill but only 50% of Democrats voted for it. Boehner and McCopnnell looked a lot happier than Reid and Pelosi! The super committee of 6 Republicans and Democrats will not work anything out. And if they did the Congress will not support it. We had the Simpson and Bowles Commission which had some very good ideas but that didn't get anywhere. They should have the courage to adopt Simpson/Bowles and we would be better off. I had said after the 2010 election that nothing is going to be done in the next two years. This debt deal is worse than nothing done. It was a crisis that was self-made. Nothing is going to be done with this super committee and nothing good will come out of this Congress next year either.

Now there are less than 3 days left before debt ceiling collapse time. I am still waiting to see what the idiotic politicians are going to do. In the mean time I will write what I think of economics and how it relates to our situation right now. This is not a scientific paper and I have nothing to back up my thoughts. So feel free to tear it apart.

First of all I think that it is strange that we say that we make money when we go to work or invest. I mean none of us, except those who work at the mint actually make any money. We just get money from other people for doing work, sell a product or "let our money work for us, whatever that means". So basically money just exchange hands and if money never exchange hands, we never would "make" any money. So in order just to keep the standard of living the same, more money have to printed all the time because the population is always going up and those new babies are going to need money soon! Money is going to be destroyed or lost by wear and tear so more have to be printed. So it seems to me the government will always run a deficit even if the amount of taxes brought in cancels the amount the government pays out.

Now I assume that the "deficit" we have been talking about is only about paying out more than taxes taken in as opposed to printing money due to expanding population etc. But how come we can print more money than say Greece which is in more debt than us? There are many reasons economists give to explain why Greece cannot recover on its own. But the bottom line to me is that the rest of the world trust the U.S. economy and U.S. government. In other words the world thinks that the U.S. still have the best private companies and the most stable government (and the most powerful military). So will this change? Yes, it can but not for many years in the future. This won't change now regardless whether we default on Aug. 2nd. They will still buy U.S. bonds and the dollar will still be the currency of exchange in most of the world.

This does not mean, of course, that the debt is not important. Twenty or thirty years down the line at the rate we are going we could lose our #1 position. If we just raise the debt ceiling and start working for long term solutions we would be fine. We are hurting ourselves by giving ourselves a no confidence vote. Take Moody and other rating services. These people should be put in jail. They missed lowering the ratings of financial firms in 2008 which caused investors and American people billions of dollars and now they have the nerve to threaten to lower the rating of the U.S. bonds? Look, there are no companies and countries in the world that are safer than the U.S. right now because if the U.S. disappears there would be nothing left in the world anyway so how can the U.S. be lower than the highest grade?

The stock market has dropped the last few days. This is due to uncertainty of what may happen. If the world truly has lost confidence in the U.S. the stock market would have dropped much more. Yes, we have to deal with our deficit but this whole charade in Washington right now is doing nothing except show the rest of the world that WE have less confidence in ourselves. The government spending that gets the Tea Party people most upset are entitlements and government salaries and pensions. Yes, these need to be fixed but they are not the reason the economy went downhill in the past few years. No new entitlements have been added recently except Medicare prescription drug program put in by Republicans. Government employment and pensions have not gone up either. The real culprits are the lack of oversight of Wall Street and financial institutions and the 2 wars. Entitlements and government salaries and pensions are like small cuts that would eventually kill us but will take a long time whereas the financial criminal actions are like stabs to our chest that will kill us faster. Now this lack of confidence in ourselves by not raising the debt ceiling, while will not be fatal, will be another stab to the chest. So the Tea party, in trying to stop small cuts, are really putting a larger wound into our body.

OK enough ranting for now. We will see if Washington comes up with anything in the next 2 days. So I will probably write something in the next couple of days. It will likely be more ranting.

Obviously the blog about the debt ceiling is inevitable. But this whole thing sickens me so much that I find it hard to write about it. Eventually before Aug 2 I will have my say. You are right about the interviews which do not change anyone's mind. Everybody who has been thinking about this issue already has formed an opinion that is unchangeable. So I am just going to wait to see what happens first before putting in my 2 cents worth.

On to lighter things first. Apparently Mr. Costanza, former assistant to the traveling secretary of the Yankees, wrote in about uniforms. I don't know if he is right about cotton and polyesters but I think here in LA the Dodgers can't afford either. I suggest that they wear the uniforms of Australian rule football players. I am sure they cost less and my wife thinks that they are sexy. I think in LA here they will attract more female and gay male fans to Dodger stadium and thus reduce McCourt's deficit.

Speaking of gay, regardless of what your position on gay marriage is, you must admit that allowing gays to marry as they do in New York now will be a stimulus to the economy. I saw pictures of gay men in tuxedos and women in white brides dresses. This will help the clothing business. Now many of these newlyweds will throw a wedding party so that helps the food industry, hotels and flower shops. After they wed they are more likely to have children since they would not be illegitimate now and so that will boost the adoption business along with fertility clinics, egg and sperm donors, OB-Gyn doctors and surrogates. Being married, these people will have nagging spouses which will lead to anxiety and depression and thus more business for psychiatrists and drug companies. But the biggest industry boost will be the lawyers. Prenuptials will have to be written, wills designating spouses and children as beneficiaries will be drawn up. And if gays are like us heterosexuals, 50% will need divorce attorneys. So as you can see the economic stimuli are tremendous. I think the other 44 states better allow gay marriages before all these businesses end up in other states!

Japan's victory in the women's World Cup final was welcoming to everyone in the world other than U.S. fans. Given the bad year Japan has had, this should boost the country's spirit. This game was almost the reverse of the U.S.-Brazil game with the team that fell behind in overtime coming back with a dramatic late goal to tie and then win in pk. The U.S. team gave a good account of themselves and with a little better luck yesterday, would be 3 times champions.

Japan's victory I think support my theory about the rigid system in China will not produce teams that can compete as well as they are capable of. Sure, China almost won the Cup in 1999. But for the first 10 years of world competition for women, only the U.S., Norway, Sweden, Germany and China were good teams. With the sport institute system, China was able to jump ahead most countries that did not have much of women soccer history. This includes Japan. But while rest of the world have improved a great deal, (I think this U.S. team would have beaten the great U.S. teams of the 90's.), China is still stuck with the training and skills of the 90's. Think back to when the USSR and East Germany were dominating Olympic individual sports, they could not beat the top western European and South American teams. China has more talent than Japan. But with freedom to train and explore different styles, it is the Japanese who are the world champions today.

I felt sad when I heard the news of Yao Ming's retirement. I followed Yao's career with great interest because he is the first Chinese athletic star in a mainstream sport in the U.S. Even though he did not have much of a formal education, he had a great understanding of the world and was very funny during interviews. My favorite was when they interviewed him before the Bejing Olympics in the Chinese team's locker room. It was obvious that in order to advance into the second round the Chinese team had to beat Germany. Right before the Games, Chris Kaman, who has German blood from about 3 generations ago, joined the German team. Yao was asked if this frightened him. Yao, with a serious expression, said that he will personally take care of Kaman so there is nothing to worry about. Then turning to his teammates, he then asked: "Now would someone else take care of Dirk Nowitzki?" This cracked up the reporters and also his teammates. Well, maybe his teammates had a nervous laugh.

Yao's coming to America was taken by some as the beginning of the invasion of players from China. It didn't turn out that way as Yi Jilian and Sun Yue had not played well in the NBA. So the question is, can China ever catch up in the major sports. My answer is no, if they continue their methods of selecting and training elite athletes. By looking for youngsters with the "right" size, strength, speed and flexibility for various sports and then train them in a very strict manner, China will continue to produce world class athletes in sports like gymnastics and diving. But this method does not work for team sports where someone is defending against what you are doing and you must defend against what they are doing. China tends to try to match westerners in size in sports like soccer and basketball. The smaller players are overlooked and are not given the training. Since there is no AYSO and youth basketball leagues in most of China, unless you are big at a young age, you will be forgotten. I think if properly trained there would be players similar in size of say Allen Iverson and Diego Maradona who can be better than people on China's current soccer and basketball national teams. Sports like basketball and soccer also require individual imagination that cannot be taught at a sports institute that has rigid training methods. Playing in the playgrounds like Americans would actually be better. Yi, who has the height, quickness, jumping ability and shooting touch, should be much better in the NBA. He looks lost out there. I think if he had grown up in New York, LA or Detroit he would be a dominant player in the NBA.

Yao is owner of the Shanghai Sharks of the CBA. I hope that he will use his knowledge learned in the NBA to improve basketball in China. He also wants to go back to school and get a formal education. You think he maybe a popular pick in intramural basketball? After he gets his education, I hope he fulfills the prediction I made a few years ago on this blog: Yao becoming a great politician>

An independent commission of citizens in California recently redrew districts for the state assembly, state senate and House of Representatives. This commission was formed following a law passed by the voters to take away the power of forming political districts from politicians. This ensured that there is no gerrymandering in order to keep as many incumbents in "safe" districts as possible. I think this is a good progress to get more centrists and less extremists into political office. After redistricting was announced, the magazine The Economists analyzed the result and find that more districts are going to be competitive in the next election in California. For example, for the 53 Congressional districts, 9 are now deemed competitive compared to 4 before. This does not sound like much but it is a step in the right direction. This is an idea that should be followed by other states.

Another thing we should consider is to get rid of the electoral college. States like Wyoming and Alaska should not get 3 electoral votes. This does not fit the idea of one man one vote democracy. Also the American citizens of D.C. and Puerto Rico are shut out of the process. It is time to amend the Constitution and get rid of the electoral college.

Haven't had time to write lately. As a result I have missed talking about news such as the Republican debate, Weiner's weiner, and the Wal-mart case. If anyone have any interest in these and other old news, please write in.

Today Obama decided to open the oil reserve and flood the market with oil to bring down the prices. I don't understand this since the prices were already dropping and there is no shortage at this time. He is probably thinking that by lower the price of oil it would stimulate the economy indirectly by making the cost of doing business lower and keep more money in the pockets of consumers. It may also put a chill on futures traders who want to bid up the prices down the line as they maybe afraid Obama will do this again. But I don't like this move as the reserve should be used in emergencies only. I think this has only been done couple of times before. If we do this at $3.65 per gallon, what are we going to do when it goes over $4 next time? This seems like a desperate political move for the economy and I don't think will play well.

I also didn't like the troop withdrawal decision yesterday by Obama. I know withdrawal needs to be done as Obama had promised. But he should have listened to his military leaders who want to do it slower. With the cost of the war and the bad economy there is an urgency to leave Afghanistan. But as I have said before, I think we have an obligation to leave the country with a reasonable chance of surviving without the Taliban taking back over. I think Patreus's time line is better than Obama's. Many people on the Republican side who want quicker withdrawal are also the same people who advocated the invasion of Iraq. Of course we would have been able to get out of Afghanistan a lot quicker if we never went into Iraq in the first place. Now, I think we can get the rest of the soldiers out of Iraq quicker since I don't think we are doing anything there now anymore. Quicker out of Iraq, slower out of Afghanistan, that's what I advocate.

Last week Goodwn Liu took himself out of the nomination for an Appellate court position. This occurred after the Republicans filibuster his nomination. Of course they accuse him of being biased and unqualified. I am not familiar with all his writings and of course the Democrats say the opposite. But one thing is certain and that is both Kenneth Starr and John Yoo, two of the most well known conservative lawyers in the country, support Liu and think that he is well qualified. Certainly if Liu is an extremists like the Republicans claim, then Starr and Woo would not have supported him. Given that there have never been an Asian American Supreme court justice and only couple of Federal Appeals court Asian American judges active right now, I find this tactic by Republicans to be a travesty.

Last week the Democrats won a Congressional seat in upstate New York, in Republican territory. They attributed that to the Medicare plan by Paul Ryan. The Republicans attributed that to a third party candidate from the Tea party which siphoned votes from the Republican candidate. I think both of these contributed to the upset. But regardless I think you will see Republican candidates in close contests try to stay away from Ryan's plan while the Democrats will use it to their advantage. The Ryan plan was terrible but I think to cut into the deficits, social security and medicare have to be discussed. But it is obvious that people want to cut deficit but nobody likes to lose their entitlements. Politicians touch these entitlements at their peril. The Republicans are screaming unfair, saying that Democrats lied about the Ryan plan. But don't forget they lied more when they said that Obama's plan would have got rid of medicare and that there were death panels in his plan. What goes around comes around!

Last week Obama was criticized by Romney for throwing Israel under the bus by suggesting negotiation with the Palestinians begin with the 1967 boundary. Come on, I don't see anybody under a bus at this time! Netanyanhu then lectured Obama about the 1967 line being indefensible. It seems to me that Israel defended very well in 67 and again in 73. Since then the gap between the military strength of Israel and its neighbors have widened tremendously. There is never an issue of Israel defending itself against an army attack from the Arabs. No Arab army is going to invade Israel and be successful, no matter where the border is. The problem for Israel is going to be terrorist attacks and those can occur no matter where the border is. Netanyahu was playing to his audience back home by lecturing Obama which to me is arrogant given the U.S. is Israel's biggest supporter. I am also pessimistic that Israel and the Palestinians will ever make peace which have dragged the U.S. into a mess that we will never get out of. I am not sure that there is a strong enough partner for peace among the Palestinians right now but I think Israel will be getting more and more conservative in the future. I think liberal Jews are now less likely to immigrate to Israel from the U.S. and Europe. The people who want to move to Israel and live in the settlements are going to be hard liners. Israel has always been the democratic state in the Middle East that is a friend of the U.S. But I am afraid the demographics will be changing and with people like Netanyahu being elected, I don't see peace coming.

So the apocalypse did not come! It is incredible how many people actually believed what that crazy guy predicted. Many were actually intelligent people, supposedly. Now you can see why people can be brain-washed into believing anything. This is why you have people committing massive suicide for whatever they believe. It is why people can be convinced into being a suicide bomber. Now I do have to believe that a miracle has happened as the two comments that were missing from my post before the last one have reappeared! This obviously cannot be explained scientifically and thus maybe I have proven there is a God! Or else it is the work of Big Brother.

On DWTS tonight, I believe that Hines Ward did out dance Chelsea Kane and deserve the championship tomorrow. Even though they got the same scores I think Ward had more difficult routines. In particular in the free style, Mark Ballas lifted Kane several times. While that made Ballas look good, he IS the pro. Those lifts cut into the time that Kane is dancing herself. Ward, meanwhile did a great job of dancing and did his lifts well. And as I said before, I think Ward will get more audience votes so the tie score among the judges is all right for him.

A strange thing happened in the past few days. On Thursday I was trying to get on the blog and write more comments about the previous post. The whole thing was shut down for the day. When I checked back yesterday, I realized that comment #4, written by me, and comment #5, written by LBOAYM, were deleted. I waited another day and the comments are still gone. So I am writing a new post which are based on the last two comments with additional info that have come out the last couple of days. If this post do not get published, then I will have to think that maybe I am being watched by some Big Brother who doesn't not like my blog!

I wrote before that bin Laden's pictures were released by Obama to show the world that he had been converted to our side. He was shown lying on the couch in his pajamas and blanket, using a remote to channel surf. He does not do anything all day except play with his computer and plan war games. He was living a typical American male's life. His advantage is that he has many wives, tons of money and people who bring food and play things from the outside. The last couple of days revealed that they had bought him pornography! So now he is more American male than we realized even couple of days ago! It is also shown that he dies his hair which again is typical of middle aged males in this country! His followers should take note as their leader had clearly defected before he died.

The other story that I commented on was just beginning three days ago. I did not get the story of the Wall Street trader right. His name is Raj Rajaratnam. He was not arrested as I wrote but was already convicted. He is not Indian but of Sri Lanka descent. I thought the whole thing looked suspicious as most of the big time traders are white and yet only this South Asian guy is going to jail. I stand by this opinion because the prosecutor in the case is of Indian descent. It is typical that when prosecutors don't want to look prejudice to use people of the same race or ethnicity as the defender to prosecute the case. Think Chris Darden vs O.J. or the Jewish prosecutors and judge in the Rosenberg spy case. I know Sri Lankan is not the same as Indian but I am sure they have to go out of their way to find any South Asian to take this case. LBOAYM made a good point about Raj may look like a terrorist so it is a good target for the government. Well, I looked it up and Raj was known to be a donor to the Tamil Tigers, a rebel group against the government of Sri Lanka. The Tamil Tigers are considered a terrorist group by the U.S. government. Hmm, again this looks suspicious. Now if they next prosecute a guy from Dearborn who supports the Detroit Tigers, then we will have seen a pattern for sure.

Recently I watched a documentary called "Inside Job" which detailed the collapse of the financial market that led to our current depression. I think it is a film everybody who is concerned about the financial future of this country should watch. Wall Street and the government will not want us to watch it because it shows who really control our country.

As I asked before, why nobody has gone to jail for what happened with subprime loans and derivatives that caused the financial meltdown? Somebody like Angelo Mazzillo, head of Countrywide, used subprime loans to inflate the profits of his company and then when he realized that the whole thing was going to collapsed, sold his stocks before they fell. Now if Martha Stewart can be jailed for getting inside information to sell her stocks in a company she does not own, how is that Mazzillo is not guilty? The film also showed how academics were paid by corporations or foreign government to tell how well the economic conditions of these entities were. For example one economics professor wrote that Iceland was in great shape in an article when he was a consultant for Iceland banks. This was just before Iceland collapsed. And he did not have to disclose his financial ties to Iceland. How is this different situation than a doctor who is paid by a pharmaceutical company have to reveal that relationship when he writes or talks about a drug from that company?

Worse than that above sample is companies like Standard and Poor who rates companies, governments etc. S & P recently wrote that they may have to downgrade the U.S. government in the future. Why should we listen to firms like that when they were paid by investment banks to tout how financially sound these banks are? Just right before Lehman Brothers collapsed, S&P had double AA ratings or them. Bottom line we can trust them. We also cannot trust people like Greenspan who refused to regulate the industry as the government should. If people like him didn't understand the dangers of derivatives, who can?

People on the right accuses Obama being a socialist. I always said that presidents have very little control of the economy and I think he is doing as well if not better than Reagan did after he took over the disaster from Carter. But if I fault Obama, it would be that he really did not change anything from Bush. Bernanke is still here as Fed chairman, Geithner is a protege of Hank Paulson and Larry Summers has been around presidents for many years. They are not socialists and they are not for increasing regulations on Wall Street. It is the same policies that have gone on since Regan deregulated. By the way, that led to the savings and loan debacle which we never learned from. Obama is not a socialist. He just does not have great ideas about economics. But then neither did any of the people I mentioned in this paragraph.

Couple blogs ago I complained about public unions. I stand by that. I will admit that after watching this film which just confirm what I had believed all along, I find the people in the financial sector more despicable than the union people. I can understand somebody making average money trying to get more, even if they buy off politicians to do that. What I don't understand is that people making millions already is trying to rip people off. How much is enough?

Well, Jack Bauer did it. I am convinced that it took someone like Bauer to finally kill bin Laden. His identity will only be known to Obama and a few others. I have doubts that Pakistan was let in on the operation until it is over or at least underway. With the likelihood that the Pakistani intelligence force having been infiltrated by terrorist groups, I would be shocked that if the U.S. had informed them of the operation being planned. I think it is just good PR for Obama to thank Pakistan for its help. This way it is a face saving thing for the Pakistani government as it always insisted that bin Laden was not in Pakistan. By giving them credit, Obama is hoping that they will give more cooperation in the future. Anyways, it is a great victory for the country and the fight against terrorism.

Having said that we can't let our guards down. Having been killed by the U.S., bin Laden is not only a hero but also now a martyr to the extremists. While bin Laden is the face of al Qaeda, there are many other who do the planning still at large. It is likely they will plan an attack in the near future for revenge and to show that they are still relevant. So I like Obama not gloating in his speech. It is a great victory but we the war is far from over.

A new example of why public unions should be illegal came up in the LA Times yesterday. Jerry Brown is giving the prison guard unions improved benefits. The reason: the union gave $2 million to his campaign. Many people have complained about the wages and benefits of the prison guards for many years. I can understand that it may not be legally possible to break contracts but to give more when the state is practically bankrupt? Brown has been trying to put on ballots propositions to increase tax to decrease the deficit. How is he going to get voters to agree to that with his giving to the union? If Brown has any integrity, he would do the right thing and stiff the union. What are they going to do to him? He is not likely to run again given his age and so if I were him, I would do the right thing and the hell with the people who tried to buy me off. Democrats like Brown say that without increasing taxes, programs for the poor will have to cut. But isn't each dollar you give to your political contributors is one less dollar for those programs?

Of course those Republicans who want more tax cut are no better. The McCourts who own the Dodgers, pending take over of the team by MLB, paid no income tax in 2009! There are rich people who use loopholes and off shore accounts to pay nothing. They are always saying that cutting taxes will create jobs. Then why were jobs lost after the Bush tax cut? Did a tax increase caused the recession? Most corporations are making big profits this past year and their tax have not increased. So why are they not hiring?

The truth is both sides will only complain about the wrongdoings of the other side. A candidate I am looking would be a Democrat who wants to get rid of public unions and decrease the size of government or a Republican who would repudiate Wall Street and get rid of loopholes and tax breaks for the wealthy. I am not holing my breath.

The House passed the Ryan bill even though there is no chance that it will become law because of the Democrats have the majority in the Senate and Obama is sure to veto any bill that resembles this one. The budget is very complicated so today I will only talk about the part regarding healthcare as proposed by Ryan. The good thing about this bill is that it forces a debate on the things that are most difficult to cut, ie, entitlements. Due to the power of the senior citizens at the poll, both parties have been reluctant to even talk about cutting Medicare and social security. Certainly, without the challenge from Ryan, Obama would not be so quick talk about how to save money from Medicare. But at the end of the day Ryan's proposals will not work to decrease healthcare cost and will not reduce the deficit. This is the analysis of the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The central point of the Ryan proposal is to dismantle Medicare as we know it today and instead give vouchers for seniors to buy their private insurance. This shows a lack of understanding about health insurance in this country. The administrative cost of private insurance companies is higher than Medicare. The insurance companies also have to make a profit for their investors. If they have been effective in holding down cost then we would not have so many people uninsured and premiums like mine would not have more than double in the past 3-4 years. I would say that Medicare have been too generous in providing this entitlement. For example, it covers a motor scooter for people who can't walk. So now we have many seniors who can walk calling their doctors to authorize a scooter for them. Companies are calling up patients to entice them to bug their doctor about all kinds of free equipment. Many doctors do not want to anger their patients and thus approve things that are really not needed. This obviously drive up cost.

Maybe some of these things would stop if the coverage that seniors are able to buy with their vouchers would not cover them. But it is obvious to everybody, including the CBO, that the amount of the voucher will leave seniors way short. So I am sure by then the seniors, insurance companies, equipment firms, and pharmaceuticals will all lobby Congress to raise the voucher amount. This is what happened when the drug companies and senior groups lobby for the prescription drug coverage. To me that was a waste. Medicare had to use private insurance companies to run the program under the law. This added a middleman to negotiate with the drug companies who now can sell more of the brand products with more seniors who can afford them. Under the law, Medicare with its powerful influence, cannot negotiate directly with the drug companies. Whose idea was that? So now we have more deficit as a result of this program. Who passed and signed this bill? The Republican Congress and George Bush!

The Republicans attacked Obamacare with a scare tactic that say it was cutting Medicare and there would be death panels. These were false charges for political gain only. Ryan's bill is in fact cutting Medicare and will have negative effects on the health of seniors and the handicap. I think the Democrats will use this against the Republicans in 2012. While I welcome a debate to change aspects of Medicare and Medicaid, this proposal is too radical and will not improve the spiraling cost of healthcare. I am afraid as the details are eventually heard by the voters the reaction will be so negative that the Republicans will back off. This will mean the legitimate debate about entitlements will be put off further.

As a Giant fan lies in a coma, the result of a beating outside of Dodger stadium, I am thinking about how uncivilized many sports fans are all over the world. I have not been to many sports events lately but the papers are talking about fights breaking out in the stands being not uncommon now a days. This still do not compare with the soccer hooligans throughout the world but it is alarming for the U.S. I think, just like the rowdy behaviors in English soccer games, much of the problems here in the U.S. can be attributed to heavy alcohol usage before and during the games. Of course there is no chance that the teams will decrease selling of alcohol at stadiums as this is big revenue for them. So I have a feeling that in the future there will be less and less of families with small children attending games.

Sports can be compared to religion in certain locals only. So if sports rivalry can cause violence, can you see why religion can cause extreme violence? Recently after that crazy preacher in Florida burned a koran, a mob killed several UN workers in Afghanistan. This reaction is predictable but of course the preacher was trying to call attention to himself without regard for the safety of other people. The press actually did a good job by not giving him much coverage when he burned the koran. Unfortunately Karzai decided to bring that to the attention of his people which gave the extremists an opportunity to arouse the anger of the people. Since anyone can predict that this would happen, I am sure Karsai knew what his own action would have caused. While the preacher deserve blame, why isn't anyone pointing their fingers to the president of Afghanistan? I think the idea that he is a reasonable partner for the U.S. and NATO has been proven to be completely false.

Finally Obama went on t.v. to present his case of attacking Libya. It would seem to me that he should have done this before the first bombs were dropped. As I said before, when he said that "Kadafi must go". he did not leave himself much wiggle room. I had mixed feeling about getting into another war but I think once we are in we've got to make sure that Kadafi is going out. Obama is afraid to state the goal because Kadafi can always play rope-a-dope and try to outlast NATO. But regardless what Obama does, he is going to be criticized anyway from right and left. Witness Newt Gingrich who complained for couple of weeks that Obama did not attack Libya. Now that the operation has started, Gingrich said that he should not have done so. Given that Obama has already committed, he has to act stronger and announced that IF the Arab league believes that Kadafi should go, then the U.S. will sure to HELP accomplish that. But of course in the backroom, he should make sure that Qatar, UAE, and others are on board, even if we need to twist some arms.

Actually it may not be too bleak of a situation. Now that NATO has controlled the sky, the rebels are pushing Kadafi's army back already. So this means that a rag-tag civilian force can win in combat without much arms, can you imagine what they can do with real fire power provided by the Europeans and the Arab League? It is a matter getting these countries to supply the rebels. I think once it is clear that the rebels are well-armed, the Kadafi army will give up without NATO or American forces on the ground.

There is at least one person who is thankful for the disaster in Japan: Kadafi. For more than one week now while the rest of the world is watching the tragedy in Japan, kadafi has managed to push the rebels away from Tripoli and over take many cities as his troops move east. What should the U.S. do? Obama painted himself into the corner when couple of weeks ago he declared that Kadafi must go. Obviously, Kadafi's exit would be welcomed and couple of weeks ago the prospect looked promising. But now that Kadafi is winning and having said that Kadafi must go, Obama must take action. If he has said very little and waited like he did with Egypt, he could have just say that he will support what the Arab League is willing to do at this point. The Arab League wants the U.S. and Europe to enforce the no fly zone last week. Obama could have said that the Arab League can do it themselves. We have supplied many of these countries with modern fighter jets and they have the capability to at least start it. This way if Kadafi backs down, great. If not and the Arabs run into trouble, we can offer help later if so desired. Now even with U.N. approval we will still have to start it and coordinate it. And the problem is this: what if even without air power, Kadafi continues to advance on the ground? What if the rebels are incapable of fighting back? I think Kadafi will declare a cease fire for awhile and wait it out. When something else occurs in the world, he will strike again!

Last week an article asked why there are no looting in Japan after the disaster. Many people wrote that the Japanese culture and people are better. Well, if that is the case, why do they start two world wars and tried to colonize all of Asia? The truth is that they have good people and bad people like everyone else. But what they have developed over centuries living in a crowded nation with very little natural resources is that the good of the whole is more important than the good of the individual. That is why they lined up for food and water for hours and when the food or water ran out before their turn, nobody starts a riot. It is the same reason why their subway cars are clean without any graffiti, unlike those of the U.S. As the old saying goes in the U.S., the squeaky wheel gets the oil. In Asia, the old saying is that the nail standing out gets hammered down. Which way is better? Neither right now but if the world gets more and more crowded, then the Japanese way would probably prevail.

Wisconsin governor Walker has used the nuclear option. The stalemate is broken as the Republicans passed the bill without the fiscal issues, thus making a 20 person quorum unnecessary. So all along it was not so much about balancing the budget today, but more about busting the union. They should be man enough to admit that all along. As I have said before, I am for busting the public unions. I don't think that it is fair to the taxpayers who are paying the public employees to have unions back politicians who give them what they want. No less of a Democratic authority than FDR felt this was wrong! To be fair, no less of a Republican authority than Eisenhower, warned us about the military-industrial complex! Well, I digress. As I have said before, I don't begrudge a cop or a teacher for making $50,000 a year. What I think gets regular taxpayers mad is the crazy benefits unions got from politicians. For example, a police chief in a nearby town retired this year in his 50's. He got a pension of $200,000 a year. He then got a job as an assistant chief at the county sheriffs, and is being paid over $200,000 for that job. So he is making $400,000 a year! It is this kind of absurdity that gets people mad. Ironically, a Republican district attorney of L.A. lost the state attorney general election when he said he deserves to be able to double dip if he is elected to be attorney general and get the D.A. pension at the same time.

So what happens now? There will be lawsuits, of course. There are going to be attempts to recall lawmakers from both sides. I don't know what the majority of people in Wisconsin think but I have a feeling that even if the majority believe that Walker was right in the first place, I don't think they like him to use the nuclear option without any negotiation. Somebody on a talk show think that this is a plan for Republicans to defeat Obama in Wisconsin next year. I think that is far-fetched. The Republicans won big last year there because of the frustration over the economy. I think people of Wisconsin will have regrets about voting out people like Russ Feingold who was one of the best biparisan politician in the country. Even though the unions are defeated now, I think they will be energized for the 2012 campaign because they know that another defeat will mean the end of the road for them. The Democrats can campaign that the Republicans made the middle class the scapegoat for the economy and that the people who caused the financial crisis, the rich Wall Street folks, not only that none of them are in jail but most are making more money than before. So it will be interesting to see how that shakes out.

Paul Wolfowitz was on CNN today talking about the situation in Libya. Predictably, he criticized Obama for not being tougher on Kadhafy. This comes from someone of the Bush administration which declared that Khadafy was no longer a terrorist because he had renounced terrorism and would not pursue nuclear weapons. Wolfowitz also wants Obama to stop standing by dictators and be more supportive of democratic movements throughout the region. Of course it is the people on the right which is cautious about the victory for freedom in Egypt, fearing that more radical leadership would emerge in place of Mubarak. Wolfowitz also would not come out and say that we should renounce Saudi Arabia which has the most oil.

I think the revolution will win out in Libya and reforms will be made in Bahrain but I don't think it will spread to Saudi Arabia and Iran at this time. Iran will use force on their own people and will hold out for now. The economic problems that started in Tunisia and Egypt do not apply in Saudi Arabia. Most Egyptians were living on $2 a day, this does not apply to Saudi Arabia. I also think that the Saudis will try to stabilize oil prices because if oil goes out of control, food prices will go up and there will be more instability in the region which the Saudis do not want.

China also do not want instability. I am sure the leadership is watching this closely. There are mild protests right now which the government can control easily. But this is at a time when China has the greatest economic growth of any country in the world in the last decade. They have subsidize food and energy prices to keep the masses happy. If there is an economic collapse, there would be great deal of trouble for the government. When that time comes, how will the U.S. react? What if China decides to sell all the U.S. bonds they hold? So it is time to try to decrease the deficit and also decrease our dependence on oil. Otherwise when the governments of China and Saudi Arabia are in trouble so will we.

There are several things I want to talk about regarding the Wisconsin situation. First, I agree with the moves by the governor. It is obvious that this is not just about saving money but about busting the public unions as well. I agree with this because I don't believe that public unions should have the right to bargain. The unions can and do spend lots of money to help people who are favorable to them get elected. These officials are not spending their own money but taxpayers' money. I have no problem with private unions negotiating with businesses. The officers of the company have to watch their bottom line and if they give away too much the company can go under. In the case of a government, it cannot go under and ultimately taxes have to be raised. The private unions cannot help elect the people they negotiate with but the public unions can. So this is an unfair advantage.

Having said that, I am also against corporation's ability to almost spend an unlimited amount on an election as the supreme court ruled last year. Where the unions have an unfair influence on state and local government with their money, the corporations have too much influence on the federal level with their money. The supreme court ruled that corporations and unions have freedom of speech. But this means more money means more freedom. To me that is wrong.

The democrats walked out so that there is no quorum for a vote in Wisconsin and the conservatives are up and arm and say that this is unethical. While I am on the side of the Republicans on the bill, I don't agree with the conservatives' complaint. The quorum is a rule and the democrats are using a rule to their advantage. This is just like the republicans using filibuster to make Obama make concession on healthcare last year. In both cases the will of the majority is stifled because a rule makes it difficult to bring a vote to the floor. Obama had to figure out a different tactic and so Walker will have to do the same here. It is the rule. I don't like either rule, but what is fair for one is fair for the other.

This is a difficult problem for Obama. He is siding with unions which is going to hurt him in reelection. But he has no choice. If the Wisconsin unions are abolished, those in many other states may fall also. He needs the unions in many of those toss up states and without them, reelection becomes extremely difficult. So while he wants to be more centrist in the next two years, he has no choice but to come out in support of the unions. My position is different from Obama on this issue. But if a republican defeats Obama, I am afraid the country will be worse off because the regulation of Wall Street and other businesses will be much more lax. While I don't like the tactics of the unions, it is the Enrons, the Madoffs, the Mazillos etc. who have cause us much more pain economically in the last few years.

Another week has gone by and the Egyptian protesters are going at it with more passion than ever! If there was any doubt as to where the U.S. should stand, there should be no doubt now. Mubarak's action today makes his strategy obvious. Blame other countries (really the U.S.), delay as long as possible and hope that the protesters become violent and give him excuse to use lethal force. The protesters have shown great discipline so far of being peaceful. This is so even though they don't have a Gandhi to lead them. At this point they cannot afford to lose because if the protests stop, many of them will be targeted by the secret police afterward. So they must fight on without provoking the army.

Having seen Mubarak not so subtly blame the U.S. for interfering, Obama must go against him. He needs to signal to the army that if Mubarak survives, the enormous aids that the U.S. gives to the Egyptian army will stop immediately. The people of Egypt have spoken loud and clear and if we don't support them now, we will be look upon as being hypocritical in the Middle East and rest of the world.

Due to technical difficulties, I have not been able to write anything lately. I am still limited but will try to write something whenever I can as I have already missed opportunities with the Tucson shooting, the state of the union address etc. If anyone wants me to comment on something that already passed, please write in.

Egypt is still going crazy. Obviously it is a difficult situation for Obama because of Mubarak's support in terrorism and his keeping the peace with Israel. Whichever way Obama go, he will be criticized. But I think it is time for him to dump Mubarak and take the chance that a less friendly government will be formed. I think history tells us that support for dictators like the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein will be disastrous in the long run. I think if we cut the tie with Mubarak now the Islamic fundamentalists in Egypt are not strong enough to take over. Siding with Mubarak now and even if he survived the fundamentalists will get stronger and when Mubarak does leave there will be a even less friendly government to the U.S.

Once again I show my tremendous ability to forecast football results by predicting that the Big Ten will win 3 bowl games this postseason. I don't know why I said they will go 3-4 even though they played 8 games and I made a prediction on all 8. Anyways I predicted 3 wins and just like last year I got it right on the nose. I know one of you will say that I got Iowa and Wisconsin wrong, but they were both close games and the result could easily have been reversed. New Years day was a pathetic day for the Big Ten as I predicted. But even I couldn't have seen the shellacking that Michigan and MSU got. The Big Ten was lucky to salvage some pride because Ohio State survived a comeback from Arkansas. Jim Harbaugh: We need you to come home!