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.