The following are my fearless predictions for the coming new year:

On the domestic front:  Obamacare will run into more glitches and will hurt Obama's poll numbers.  But Obamacare will survive and stay as law.  Its popularity will gain in the future but certainly not this year.   The GOP will come out slightly ahead in the midterm election but will not be able to win the senate.  So we will have more stalemates in Congress and not much will be done.  But in a sign of the decreasing influence of the Tea Party in the GOP there will not be disasters due to battles over the debt ceiling and budgets this coming year.  Stock market will gyrate up and down during the year and finish about 500 points lower.

On the international front:  Syria will dispose its chemical weapons but the civil war and massacres will continue.  A deal with Iran and nuclear weapons will be made.  Israel will not be happy but won't strike Iran.  No significant progress will be made between Israel and the Palestinians.  Tension will increase between Japan and China over the islands but both sides will avoid any confrontation of force.  North Korea will make more empty threats but Dennis Rodman will try to defuse tension by bringing  a team to North Korea.  He is lucky in that Kim Jong Un will not call him uncle.

On the sports front: New England to win Super Bowl.  FSU to win BCS.  Pittsburgh to win Stanley Cup.  San Antonio to win NBA.  Kansas to win NCAA basketball.  Brazil wins World Cup.  U.S. wins the medal count at the Olympics.  Tiger Woods wins a major next year.  Serena Williams wins two majors.  Djokovic wins Australia and U.S. Open while Nadal wins the French as usual.  In a shocker Federer wins Wimbledon and retires.

Given my poor predictions with the Big Ten bowl games so far, I would take all of the above with a grain of salt.

Here are my annual Big Ten bowl games predictions:
Minnesota over Syracuse
Michigan over Kansas State
Georgia over Nebraska
Wisconsin over South Carolina
LSU over Iowa
Stanford over MSU
Ohio State over Clemson
Total record 4-3   Most likely victory: OSU over a overrated Clemson team that should not have gotten a BCS bid over Oregon.  Most likely loss:  a mediocre Nebraska (how did they beat Michigan?) losing to a Georgia team that should have beaten Auburn.

I spent a lot of time talking about Lee Kuan Yew on the last blog.  Guess what?  More Singapore today because I am going to talk about PISA (Programme for International Assessment).  This is the test that is given to students in some 70 countries or regions assessing their abilities in math, reading and science.  First issue I have is that how smart are these people giving the tests?  I don't see a "S" in PISA.  Shouldn't it be PIA or PFIA? 

There are two predictable reactions to the results.  The first is that since Asians scored the best, we are in serious trouble in competing with Asian countries, in particular China, in the future.  Well, lets not get ahead of ourselves.  This is a test of middle or high school students and the scores reflect what the average students in these countries can do.  The top students of the U.S. I am sure is still up there and while our high schools on average are horrible, our colleges are second to none.  There are usually two routes of innovations.  First is by some genius out of nowhere and second is out of universities.  I believe there are geniuses in all populations and a society that values people who think outside of the box will allow their geniuses to make great contributions.  I believe the U.S. is such a society.  Restrictions of freedom and demand for conformity will hold a country like China back for many years to come even if they produce the best high school students.  Our universities allow bright people to do research that are the envy of the world.  I would guess that of the top 100 research universities in the world, the U.S. is probably home to one third.  China may have 3-5.  So we are not going to lose our technological advantage any time soon.

So we should not be frightened, but we should take the results seriously.  I read a couple of pundits who said China cheated, using data only from Shanghai which is the richest city in China.  It is true that we don't have data from poor areas of China which is still the majority of the country.  But Shanghai beat out Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan which are all in the top 5 and are Chinese majority.  I certainly don't think Chinese are smarter.  If that is the case, people like me wouldn't have to migrate to America for a better living.  I would say that the reason for the results are way too many and complicated.  But I do think the Chinese and Asian culture of education is one of the most important reason.  When Lee Kuan Yew united the country his first goal after survival is to improve the education system.  He himself would admit that Singapore's system is more rigid and less creative than those of the West.  But it has helped the country rise economically.  As I mentioned before minorities in Singapore score as well as the average of the U.S.  So most people in the country can participate in the global economy and not left behind like many people in this country are.  So while we may continue to lead the world in innovations, if we don't improve our schools eventually we will suffer a wider and wider gap between the haves and the have nots.

I cannot believe that I am in agreement with Newt Gingrich again!  Gingrich is one of the Republicans who calls Nelson Mandela a great man.  This is in contrast to some who call Mandela a terrorist.  Gingrich compares Mandela to the American revolutionaries who fought against the tyranny of the British.  That is a point I always make.  One man's idea of a terrorist is another man's idea of a freedom fighter.  You think the Americans back then wanted to confront the professional Red Coats head on?  They had to resort to surprise (sneaky) attacks.  If you don't want to be colonized and you are facing an army with superior weapons, wouldn't you do the same?  So if the term existed then wouldn't the British call the Americans terrorists?  But to us they are freedom fighters.

The liberals and conservatives both went overboard in trying to use Mandela's death to their political advantage.  The liberals made Mandela a saint who could do no wrong.  They also criticized Reagan for siding with the apartheid South African government.  On the other hand you get someone like Rick Santorum who compares Mandela to Tea Party people who are fighting against Obamacare.  To equate Obamacare to apartheid is absurd.  By that analogy the Canadians and Brits would be as bad off as the black South Africans back in the 60's.  Besides, has anyone been sentenced to life for protesting Obamacare?

Now for my own hyperbole.  I would rate Gandhi, Mandela and Lee Kuan Yew as the three most important leaders from third world countries in the 20th century.  I would rate Gandhi first because his non violent civil disobedience not only led to independence for India but was an inspiration to many others including Mandela and M.L. King.  Gandhi and Mandela are ahead of Lee because they did not want to become dictators.  This was and still is very unusual in third world countries.  Lee was a benign dictator but a dictator nevertheless.  To his credit Lee is the only one of the three who transformed his country from poverty to wealth.  So each has his own flaws and is not a saint.  But each serves as inspiration for people all over the world.

Let the lobbying begin!  Right after Auburn gets lucky two weeks in a row, Auburn and the SEC immediately cry that if the SEC does not get to play for the national championship it will be the worst injustice in the history of mankind!  The only thing is the BCS was brainchild of the SEC in the first place and it has worked out pretty well for them.  So excuse me for not feeling sorry for them if they are shut out this year.

It is true that FSU and OSU have not played very tough schedules.  I would say it is irrelevant in the case of FSU.  They have been extremely impressive throughout the season.  I would have picked them to beat Alabama if the Crimson had gone undefeated.  OSU has not been so impressive as demonstrated by its narrow win over Michigan.  So unless it beats MSU soundly I would say it would be a big underdog against FSU.  But if it wins against MSU it is the only major undefeated team left besides FSU.  I don't think Auburn deserve to leapfrog over OSU given that it got clobbered by LSU, barely beat WSU and should have lost to a Georgia team that had lost to 3 other teams.  I would say that if any team from the SEC deserving to go to the BCS title game would be Missouri, if it beats Auburn.  Missouri has only lost once in double overtime and I have been impressed by its overall performance.  In any case, Alabama should not have a chance even if OSU loses.  In that case the winner of Auburn and Missouri should get the nod.  I mean the voters can't possibly vote for Alabama over the team that beat the team that beat it, can they?

My question today is:  If MSU loses to OSU and OSU goes to the BCS title game, does MSU still get the Rose Bowl bid?  I understand that the runner up to a team that goes to the title game gets a BCS bid if it is in the top 14.  I think if the game is close, I don't think MSU will drop below 14.  Would that be the Rose Bowl or another BCS bowl depending on selection order of the bowls?

The Iranian nuclear deal is praised as a historic deal by Obama and his supporters and is derided as a historic mistake by his critics.  It is neither of these but a baby step toward possible resolution that has miles to go.  For one thing it is just an interim agreement for 6 months with a hope of a permanent deal.  For another thing it is nowhere near approval by the U.S. Congress and it still can be vetoed by the Ayatollah of Iran.  Even if these hurdles are overcome, it will just slow down Iran's progress toward the bomb, assuming verification of its end of the bargain.  So this is not some historic agreement.  On the other hand, how is it a historic mistake to give Iran a few billion dollars in relief of the sanction to see if it is serious in negotiations?  The outcries by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Republican Congress are just absurd.

The truth is despite the tough sanctions, Iran has made progress toward making the bomb since the sanctions started.  The technology to make the bomb is not so sophisticated.  Iran certainly has the scientists capable of doing it.  Israel and the U.S. can slow the process by bombing Iran but they cannot stop it entirely without going to outright war. This certainly is against the interest of the U.S. and I believe would be against the interests of Israel.  So a diplomatic solution is the only possible way out.  Rouhani, the newly elected president of Iran, is a possible hope.  He maybe a wolf in sheepskin as his critics say.  But so what if he turned out to be that?  We would just tighten the sanctions again.  The alternative would be to continue what we are doing without give Rouhani a chance.  In that case I believe Iran will get the bomb in the near future.  And if sanctions cripple Iran into extreme poverty when they do have the bomb, its leader will be more likely to use the bomb as a means of keeping national unity.  When you push a rat into a corner, it will bite even if it knows it cannot win.

And if Iran uses the bomb, it would not be against the U.S.  That is not a realistic capability for Iran even if it develops the bomb.  And even if Iran can attack the U.S. with the bomb, it knows it would be extinguished as a nation if it does so.  But if the U.S. bombs Iran to prevent it from having the bomb, it would increase by many folds the numbers of terrorist recruits against the U.S.  A nuclear Iran does pose threats to Israel and Saudi Arabia.  But Israel has many nuclear bombs already and can destroy Iran.  Saudi Arabia has no nuclear weapons now and the danger is that they will respond to a nuclear Iran with a bomb of its own.  But given the importance of oil for western nations, any attack on Saudi Arabia will also mean the end of Iran.  In any case, Israel and Saudi Arabia should recognize that no amount of sanctions and air attack will stop Iran from becoming nuclear.  Diplomacy, while extremely difficult, is their only hope for peace.

Just a few comments about things that are of little importance to most people:

The Democrats decide to use the nuclear option to get rid of filibusters for nominations.  How come the Republicans couldn't filibuster the nuclear option?   I think they should keep the filibuster but make it true filibusters.  That is the senator actually has to stand there and talk non stop like Ted Cruz did.  This way the Republicans can't complain about the Democrats stopping a tradition.  It also allows the Democrats to filibuster when they are the minority.  But if someone wants to stop a nomination that badly, he should stand there and talk non stop otherwise it is not a true filibuster but is minority rules.

The Tigers trade Prince Fielder to the Rangers for Ian Kinsler.  I believe it is a good trade for the Tigers.  I think Fielder is on the downside of his career although in a smaller park he may hit more homeruns next year for the Rangers.  This will free up money for the Tigers to sign extensions to Scherzer and Cabrera.  Cabrera can also move back to first base and make it easier for his body. 

MSU played well in beating Kentucky.  MSU has an excellent team to make a Final Four run this season.  But Kentucky is very young and they have a higher ceiling they can possibly reach.  So I will pick Kentucky to win the championship.  But of course most teams don't reach their full potential so I will not bet any money on my own pick.

Speaking of MSU, they look to be winning their football division easily.  But I would not overlook Northwestern.  NW appears to be the unluckiest team in the world.  They could easily be 9-1 but instead they may not even be bowl eligible. 

Who is this old guy name Bill who is still alive on DWTS when people who are way better than him got voted out the last 3-4 weeks?  I know he is some kind of comedians but I had never heard of him before.  I can't believe that he is popular with people younger than me and people who are older probably can't figure out how to vote.  He is about my age and dance almost as bad.  I would like to know the demographic that vote for him!

Jeff Daniels won the Emmy as the star of "Newsroom" with his speech about America not being the greatest nation anymore.  Some people would say this is heresy.  Some would say Daniels is correct.  I say this is not a true or false question.  In fact it is the wrong question.  The greatest nation label implies that a country is better than all others.  This, however, does not mean a country is actually GREAT.  Certainly it does not mean that a country is even good at everything.  I mean, I can be the best dancer in town but if everybody in town has two left feet then I may not be such a good dancer.  So when one says that America is not the greatest ANYMORE, it may or may not be a true statement but it is not all that meaningful.

The way I look at it, America was probably the greatest nation in the 1960s.  When I came to the U.S. the thing that struck me was how positive Americans think of their country.  Certainly Americans thought of their country as the greatest 50 years ago.  I would agree with them (I was not an American at that time).  Compare to other countries America was so much better, especially for someone who came from a British colony and whose ancestral home land is a communist country in deep poverty.

Today a lot more Americans seem to feel America is no longer at the top.  As Jeff Daniels pointed out, we are mediocre or worse in terms of education, life expectancy and infant mortality compared to other developed nations.  We no longer dominate in manufacturing.  We are frightened by terrorism.  Yet we kill tens of thousands of our own citizens each year.  We have a dysfunctional government that is deeply divided.  We have more people in prisons than any western country.  Daniels is correct with all these stats. 

So some countries do better than us in certain things.  It does not make any one of them greater than us.  We should try to improve on those areas that we are behind in.  But we have fallen behind not because we got worse but because other countries have improved faster.  Our life expectancy did not go down, for example, but it just has not gone up as fast as other countries.  Japan, for example, has improved a lot since the 60s.  It does many things better than us.  But I would not say that Japan is greater than us overall.  Same with China.  So the gap has closed but I think we are still at the top.  We just need to improve on many fronts.

So our world standing may not be as dominant as in the 60s.  But I think we are a better nation today.  Look at a show like "Mad Men" and see how people lived 50 years ago.  We smoke and drink less today and thus are much more healthy than before.  We live in bigger houses on average today and drive better cars.  We had two Kennedys assassinated along with MLK in less than one decade.  We were in a losing war in Vietnam with tens of thousands of Americans killed.  We had race riots in many cities.  Blacks could not drink out of the same fountains as whites. There was little diversity in the workplace.  Women were seldom seen in science or business.  So even if we were ranked the greatest 50 years ago because the rest of the world was more screwed up than us, it was meaningless.  I say we are better today and the world as a whole is better today.

So my fellow Americans:  Be as optimistic as the first generation of Americans I met.  A country that has gone from civil rights violations as being legal to electing a black president, a country that is no longer worried about a a nuclear attack from a communist adversary, a country that still produced way more Nobel prize winners than any other, and a country that immigrants still flock to; cannot be too bad.  Yes, we have a lot to improve on but I think we will meet the challenges.

The Supreme Court is taking a case of city council prayer from Greece, New York.  The question is can someone in a government meeting pray to a particular god or religion.  A Jewish person and an atheist brought suit against the town for invoking Jesus in the prayers.  There is a good chance that the Court will side with the city on this one.  I do not have a religious preference and I don't care how others pray.  But if the conservative majority on the Court say that a city does not have to be neutral in its prayers, I think it will be a blow to the separation of church and state.  I can see a day when the Muslim majority in a city like Dearborn, Michigan invoke Islamic prayers to open council meetings.  How about a town with Jewish majority or Buddhist majority?  I think keeping prayers neutral is less divisive in the future.

I read that Detroit maybe electing the first white mayor since the 1970s.  I don't know anything about this Mike Duggan who is well ahead in the polls.  I doubt that anyone can turn Detroit around in the near future but if someone can do it, I don't care if he is black, white or purple.

Lately I have some problems with Obama which I believe will hurt his legacy.  I understand that second terms are more difficult as scandals are more likely the longer you are in office.  There are also change of advisers.  Your supporters are no longer worrying about your reelection but more about their own future.  Having said that it still appears to me that Obama is not doing well in his second term.  I understand there would be glitches with the unveiling of Obamacare.  But given his campaigns ran so well with the help of technology geeks, how is is possible that the tech work is so poor with Obamacare.  This is his signature legislation, you would think he would personally be sure that any problems will be reported to him.  So he cannot plead ignorance.  He has to take responsibility for at least bad management and not lay all the blame on his secretary of health. 

The same with the international spying.  I understand every country spies on its enemies AND friends.  So it is a bit of hypocritical for all these countries to accuse the U.S. of spying on them.  But the White House cannot claim that nobody there knows that foreign leaders like Merkle has her cell phone tapped.  If this is the work of some stupid agent, put it out there.  But I cannot believe that Obama would not know this before Snowden did.  If we are not doing anything that our allies are not doing then Obama needs to say so himself.  I personally don't know the value of tapping the German chancellor's personal cell phone unless it is trying to get info why Germany is doing better than us economically!  In any case, with Obamcare and this spying problem, it is time for Obama is get better focus on his managing skills and say "the buck stops here!"

JP Morgan Chase is going to pay $13 billion to the U.S. government.  It is a bit of good news to recoup some money lost during the financial crisis from dangerous investments.  But in the long run this does nothing to deter financial meltdown as a result of risky moves by Wall Street.  A big bank like Morgan Chase can absorb such a fine and eventually pass the losses to customers and investors.  The executives will still make a lot of money.   Its chairman Jaime Dimon still made millions even after cutting his own bonus by half.  To understand that fines are of no deterrence, just witness Morgan Chase lost tons of money last year because of derivatives.  That supposedly was the work of one bad employee but you have to wonder why nobody at this big institution catch this before it got out of hand.  I bet if all executives had to pay every fine or loss out of their own pockets and that there is a great chance for criminal charges, the risky behaviors would be much less.

There is still possibility of criminal charges with this case.   But don't hold your breath.  How many people have gone to jail for the financial crisis?   You cannot tell me that practically nobody did anything illegal that led to the crisis.  So unless the government pass laws that have teeth in stopping such risky behavior and the government is willing to prosecute those responsible for endangering our economy, we will have another crisis in the near future. 

On a lighter note, I turned off the Lions football game when they turned over on downs with less than 2 minutes remaining in the game.  Then I found out they came back to win by one point!  I cannot remember the Lions ever getting a win like this before.  I wonder how Jerry Jones look after the game!

Both of my picks for the World Series lost 4 games to 2 in the league championship series.  Apparently having the best starting pitching is not enough now a days.  In the case of the Dodgers they could not hit and their ace lost twice.  In the case of the Tigers, they also could not hit and their bullpen lost the series for them.  I still think both teams are set up for the postseason for next few years and given any luck and some work on their rosters, they can win the World Series soon.

The Dodgers don't need much change.  If Puig continues to improve and Kemp, Ramirez and Ethier come back healthy next season, they will be the top contenders.  Their top 3 starters: Kershaw, Grienke and Ryu are the best in the league.  If they get Billingsly and Beckect back next season they are set with the rotation.  They also have Carlos Marmol in case.  They have a good bullpen if Kenley Jensen is not a one year wonder.  They may lose Brian Wilson as the set up man as he has proved that he can be a closer again.

Speaking of Wilson, the Tigers should try to sign him.  I think he can be an elite closer again but the Dodgers don't want to pay him top closer salary since they have a younger Jensen.  But the Tigers need to bolster the bullpen badly and should try to outbid multiple teams for him.  The question I have is Prince Fielder still usable?  He hit what, 20 some homeruns this season, way below his average.  He was a no show in the postseason.  He is a terrible base runner and not just because of his lack of speed.  I understand he has a long contract so I don't know what the Tigers can do about him.  If Cabrera comes back healthy and Martinez continues to hit, the Tigers still have enough hitting the win the division.  Like the Dodgers their top 3 starters are the best in the league so they will be strong contenders again.  But they need more bats or speed to help the starting pitchers in the postseason.

Finally the government shutdown and debt ceiling problem is over--for about three months.  We have managed to kick the can down the road again.   Of course none of this charade should have happened in the first place.  The GOP got nothing for their effort to stop Obamacare except angering most of the nation and the world financial markets.  The bill passed tonight could and should have been passed 2 weeks ago.  It was a pain that we should not have had to go through.  I blame the Tea Party which accomplished nothing and Boehner who could have called for a vote much earlier instead of trying to appease the Tea Party people.

Having lost on Obamacare the conservatives are trying to blame the deficit on Obama.  Steve King of Iowa said that if conservative policies would have been put in five years ago we would not have this deficit now.  Yes, we would all have been bankrupt by now instead.  Did they forget conservative policies were in place before Obama took over.  They had the Bush tax cut.  There was actually a surplus when Bush took over.  The banks failed during his term.  As I have said in the past, I don't blame the severe recession on Bush because the main culprits were Wall Street and the banks.  But Bush started the bailout policy that Obama took over.  So how is it that somehow conservative policies would have been better five years ago.  It just defy logic.

As I said before, Obamacare would not cause any disaster.  Afterall, Romneycare did not kill Massachusetts and socialize medicine have not kill France, Britain, Canada etc.  The deficit is not an immediate problem but I understand that we should tackle it, if for no reason than to give confidence to the conservatives that the world is not falling.  While the shutdown was going on, the GOP tried to pass various bills to fund certain things they like.  Let's do the reverse.  How about go item by item and vote to cut things that the majority want to get rid of.  This way every politician will have to vote up or down on each item.  If both the House and Senate vote against certain item or decrease its funding and the president does not veto, that item is out.  No item can stand behind something else, so no bridge in Alaska can be tied to funding for troops for example.  So all pork will be out.  So let see what do we actually want to get rid of instead of saying we need to trim 10 trillion.  Also for every 2 dollars cut, add 1 dollar of tax until the deficit is resolved.  This is an honest way to cut the deficit but I am not holding my breath that either side would accept this method.

It is NBA preseason time so Asian Americans are looking to see how Jeremy Lin is going to do this season.  Already many of his fans are up at arms because his coach Kevin McHale is planning to rotate the starting point guard spot between Lin and Pat Beverley.  They say that McHale never has confidence in Lin and eventually he will demote Lin and then trade him.  They say this is another example of Lin always being slighted, from high school all the way to the NBA.  I say let's wait and see how this plays out.  The bottom line is I don't think McHale is prejudice against Lin and the judgment should be whether his decision will help Houston win or not.

The truth is the offense of the Rockets run through James Harden, no matter who the starting point guard is.  Lin's stats were not as good as expected last year because he often times stand to the side and Harden runs the offense.  Harden is the best one on one player on the team and is one of the best in the league.  But last season when he is off, the Rockets offense stalled.  With Dwight Howard this season, Lin can play pick and roll with Howard and be another weapon for which the other teams have to worry about.  So being in the starting line up this season should increase Lin's assist average.  But the scoring may decrease even though he has improved his shots this summer as evidenced by his shooting percentage in the first 3 preseason games.

There may be some benefits for Lin and the Rockets if he comes off the bench.  Remember Harden made his fame as the 6th man for the Thunder.  McHale himself was an all star even though he came off the bench for a good part of his career.  So he knows the importance of a great 6th man.  Beverley's strength is defense so he may complement Harden better than Lin to start the game.  The key, I think, is to give Lin plenty of time to run the offense when Harden is resting.  Witness the 38 points he scored against the Spurs last season when Harden was out.  By going against the second units of other teams, Lin also would not have to guard people like Tony Parker and Russell Westbrook all night.  I would bet his scoring and assists average per possession will increase dramatically in this role.

With Lin running the second unit, the Rockets will have possibly the strongest second unit in the NBA.   In fact it will be an international unit similar to the type of team that helped the Spurs do so well.  They will have Donnatas Mutujiunas of Lithuania (spellings are going to be bad here), Omer Asik of Turkey, Omri Casspi of Israel and Francisco Garcia of the Dominican Republic playing along side Lin who is Chinese American.  Asik and Lin would a starter for most of the teams in the league and the other 3 are solid players who would be in the rotation of any NBA team.  I think they would give the starting 5 of Houston a good game most nights.  The key is that besides Asik who is there for rebounding, the other 3 are great shooters.  They just can't get shots themselves.  Lin would be a great facilitator for this group.

So I don't think it is all bad for Lin to come off the bench if he is used correctly and the team benefits.  But I think he deserves to play during crunch time because that is when teams stiffen their defense and Harden will be bottled up by good teams.  The key here is that Lin needs to be in the game then and create chances for Howard and Parsons.  I think he can do that better than Beverley.  If McHale uses him this way and the Rockets are successful then I don't think Lin's fans, including myself, would have any legitimate complaints. 

So one week into the shutdown and no sign of resolution.  Now the GOP want negotiation over spending cuts before raising the debt ceiling.  I am very tired of these tactics to put the nation onto brink of financial catastrophe just because a small minority believe that Obamacare and taxes are the most evil things in the country.  I can guarantee that if Obamacare continues without obstruction and our deficits continue at the current rate, the world will not end.  On the other hand, if we default on our debts, I will bet that we would have a world crisis right away.

Attaching demands to the budget and debt ceiling is like putting earmarks (pork) into bills--something that would not pass on its own merit.  If the GOP want to get rid of Obamacare, pass a bill to get rid of it.  If the GOP want to cut certain expenses to balance the budget, pass a bill to do so.  Do not try to attach these things to something else because you can't pass these things on their own merit.  It would be like the Democrats refusing to pass the budget unless guns are banned.  Would the GOP negotiate over that?

After the last debt ceiling crisis, we had the super committee to try to cut the deficit. If failed as expected.  So there is no chance that we can come up with something now in less than two weeks.  I think if we are serious about the deficit, we should put out a national referendum as to what things to cut and what taxes to raise, if any.  Each side will propose cuts and/or tax reform.  The people will vote on each proposal.  Maybe this will work or maybe it won't.  We may find that people don't want to cut anything and don't want to raise taxes.  But at least this is a true democracy where all people can have a voice.  Right now our so called representative democracy is not working as a small minority is holding the majority hostage.

A few rants today.  First there is Senator Cruz from Texas.  I will give him credit for standing up there talking away for over 21 hours without eating or bath room breaks.  I cannot go 21 MINUTES without going to the bathroom.  So I must tip my hat to him.  I think all filibusters should be done this way, not by the minority party simply saying that they would filibuster so unless the majority can get 60 votes then the law does not pass.  I think anyone who wants to filibuster should go up there and talk until he or she can't do it anymore.  Having applauded Cruz for his effort, I must say it was a waste of time.  At the end he voted with everybody so the vote was 100 to 0.  If he was doing this as a symbolic gesture, shouldn't he voted the way he wanted the vote to go in the first place?

Bud Selig is retiring.  Well overdue.  He has not been an effective commissioner, presiding over the steroid era.  A tie All Star game and the All Star game determining the home field advantage in the World Series occured under his watch.  I always wonder how is it that an owner of a team become the commissioner.  Shouldn't they have hired someone who was neutral?  Also the announcement came today but he is not retiring till Jan. of 2015, more than a year away.  Is he expecting a goodbye tour a la Mariano Rivera next year?

The U.S. wins the America's Cup.  Big deal.  It is an ultra rich man's sport.  Larry Ellison spends millions to win a cup nobody except a few billionaires care about.  This year's racing included cheating and a death.  It is like throwing money into water for no reason.  I know it is their money and they can do whatever they want to do with it.  But I will always think more highly of people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates for donating their money than people like Ellison who just want to play with toys. 

Before the expected battle to shut down the government in D.C. this week, I will talk about something light:  the Emmy.  Well, the Emmy turn out not so light either with all the tributes to the dead and arguments who should have gotten individual tributes.  Even the bit about the great 60s tv involved the JFK killing.  Carrie Underwood sang the most melancholy of Beatles songs:  Yesterday!  It was a depressing show.

My favorite show Breaking Bad won as did my favorite comedy Modern Family.  Also the Colbert Report finally edged out the Daily Show which I think is long overdue.  But there were surprises as Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul did not win.  I have no idea who the guy that beat out Paul is.  I have not watched Boardwalk Empire.  But I have watched Newsroom and I am familiar with Jeff Daniels' work.  I don't think he was as good as Cranston in BB.  I found out the rule was each person was nominated for a particular episode.  So Daniels won on the basis of the premier where he made this long speech about why America is not greatest nation on earth.  That was a great performance but I am not sure one episode should decide who is the best over a years' worth of performances.  By the way, that speech is a good starting point for a blog, if anyone is interested.  The Newsroom, I think, is too left wing oriented.  This is not surprising given its creator Aaron Sorkin's history with the West Wing. 

I hear Dexter's finale was a disappointment.  I am not going to read anything else about it since I will get the DVD when it comes out on Netflix and see for myself.  But as I said before, it is difficult for a great show to end on a great note. Breaking Bad's finale is this coming Sunday.  I hope it can meet expectations.

I have finally regain consciousness after witnessing Michigan almost losing to Akron.  This goes to show that there is not that much difference between the so called power houses and the doormats.  It is also difficult to predict how 18-22 years olds play one week to the next.  For that matter from 1 hour to the next.  Witness UCLA sleep walk through almost half the game to only wake up and score the last 38 points of the game.  Of course, having lost a teammate the week before and playing at 9 am west coast time could have big effect on a team. 

The Pac 12 beat the Big Ten in 3 out 4 meetings yesterday.  Wisconsin should have won to even it up.  The ending was poorly officiated.  It was difficult to tell if the Wisconsin qb had taken a knee before putting the ball on the ground.  But the officials should have called something and let the replay official sort it out with the clock stopped.  Instead nobody called anything and the ASU player just lied on top of the ball so that the clock ran out. 

Now that Cal has a coach that run the up tempo offense, it is now accusing other teams of faking injuries to slow it down.  Last season it was Oregon accusing Cal (and others) of faking injuries.  I never thought that faking an injury is bad sportsmanship.  I mean, if my lungs are burning, I am injured!  Anyways it is difficult to tell who is faking.  One thing they can do is make the player go off the field for 3 plays instead of 1 like it is now.  Or they can have 3 injury timeouts per half, like the old 20 second timeouts in basketball.  If they used those up and a player is injured, they will have to use the regular timeouts.  This way, they will be less likely to fake an injury so that they can save their timeouts.

I thought Obama made a very good speech tonight.  He went over almost all points about why we should not bomb Syria.  I think that is about as well he could have done.  It did not change my mind.  I am still against it and I think the majority of the people are still against it.  He may have moved the needle his way a bit but not enough.  I think he should try to use the diplomatic opening that the Russians provided and try to save face.  It will also save us a lot of money and grief.

As I have said before, a lot of countries have more stake in stopping the war in Syria than us.  The Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan do not like instability in the middle east.  Turkey has its hand full with refugees pouring in over its border with Syria.  Israel cannot be happy with Syria having and using chemical weapons nearby.  Add to this list is Russia.  They don't want to world turn from apathy to against Assad.  They realize if Assad loses and the rebels take over, they are going to be against the Russians.  It is to their security concern that the chemical weapons are in check.  So they will try to make this work.  It is a good opportunity for Russia and the U.S. to cooperate now and get over the Snowden incident.

I had been on vacation and thus did not write anything recently.  I also have not been following the news much.  Just found out that Obama was getting ready to bomb Syria but then decided to let Congress debate and vote on it.  I also heard that Newt Gingrich is against bombing.  Well, what do you know?  I agree with Gingrich and disagree with Obama.  Must be something in the water in Michigan!

Obama painted himself into the corner by saying that using chemicals crosses a red line.  But it is a red line that I don't understand.  After 2 years and 100,000 dead and no intervention, now 1000 dead from a sarin attack crosses the line?  I mean, what is the difference between getting blown up by a bomb or killed by sarin?  You are dead either way.  And do we know where the chemicals are made and stored?  How do we know that our own bombs won't cause more collateral deaths than the sarin attacks themselves?  Isn't a death from a cruise missle same as a death from sarin?

The Arab League has called for intervention from the UN.  Knowing Russia and China will veto, it is basically asking the U.S. to intervene on its own.  Hey, how about doing it yourself?  It is a regional problem and they should deal with it themselves.  Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan all are stronger than Syria militarily.  Why should we get involved in this civil war in which neither side will be friendly to us once it is over?

Incidentally if this red line is drawn by international law as Obama puts it, why did the U.S. looked the other way in the 1980s when Iraq used chemicals against Iran?  Was it because Iran was our enemy then and Iraq was our friend?  Also if after bombing Syria for a while and Assad stopped using chemicals and go back to killing his own people with conventional weapons only, do we declare victory while the next 100,000 are being killed?

So I am against Obama on this one.  But I do agree with him in seeking Congressional approval.  I do not agree with those who say that Obama appear weak by not pulling the trigger now.  It does not take courage to send the greatest military to fight.  McCain, who has been calling for intervention long before this, now asks Obama what is the strategy and exit plan.  Well, why doesn't McCain tell us what exactly what he would do?  In the Congressional debate, I want the hawks tell us how they envision we can be successful in this.  I doubt anyone can.  I think New Gingrich is the voice of reason here!

There are no good options on Egypt.  The only leverage we have is the monetary aid which many politicians are calling on Obama to stop funding.  Obama is reluctant to do this because in the short term it will have no effect on the Egyptian army but may have negative effect on us!

The problem with cutting off aid is that most of the money is in the form of a fund deposit which is used by the Egyptian army for the purchase of military hardware from U.S. manufacturers.  So this will indirectly hurt U.S. businesses right away.  But the Egyptian army may not need those arms right away.  For example, they may not need to buy any sophisticated fighter jets to combat their own civilians right now.  In the meanwhile Obama is getting lobbying pressure from arms manufacturers and the states where they are located.  Given the minimal effect cutting off funding will have on the Egyptian army, it is no wonder that Obama is reluctant to cut off funding.

The reason that Egypt gets so much aid from the U.S. in the first place is because it made peace with Israel.  But why do we supply arms to both Israel and Arab countries?  In the past we had provided arms to the Shah of Iran, then Saddam Hussein to fight Iran, and the Afghans to fight the Soviets.  And how did these aids help us?  We would have been better off providing funds for Arab and Israeli youths to come to America as foreign exchange students.  An Arab kid would stay with a Jewish family and vice versa.  I believe that when these young people go back home, they will be less likely to be enemies of each other when they become adults.  Some of these kids will become leaders of their homeland.  Wouldn't that be better than giving both sides bombs?

Christie tells the members of his party that you have to be practical.  Taking extreme views means that you are not going to win.  And if you don't win, your views do not matter.  This reminds me of               Kennedy who once said that the first duty of a politician is to get elected.  I think Cristie is right.  Of course, right now he is appealing to New Jersey voters.  Will he still take such a strong centrist position when he is pushed by the right?

It seems like the extremists on any side are the best friends of the other side.  Take Egypt
, for example.  The Muslim Brotherhood had power.  But the extremists would not just run the country but had  to be merciless against their enemies.  This led to protests and led to the army taking over.  Of course, the army is now doing the same thing and thus lead to endless violence.    Whenever one side goes overboard it will only help the cause of the other side.  Maybe our politicians should keep that in mind.

News:  Alex Rodriguez suspended till 2015.  It is about time and well deserved.  The only problem with the suspension given to A Rod and Ryan Braun is that they have such big contracts that they will get millions after the suspension is over.  Even if  a life time ban is too harsh, I think that voiding the rest of the contract is an appropriate punishment.  If one got better stats from peds which led to big contracts, then those contracts should be voided.  The player should have to prove his worth without peds to get another contract.

Sure the integrity of the game is important.  But I worry about the use of steroids by big stars is driving the use of these drugs among young athletes.  A Rod and others are still idolized by young athletes and seeing them prosper even after getting caught will do nothing to deter the youngsters from trying peds. 

From the previous blog comments:  I don't think that Rand Paul will win the nomination but he will make it difficult for any moderate to win.  I agree that Christie is a good candidate.  I don't think Rubio can win either.  He is a LINO--Latino in name only as oppose to RINO--Republican in name only, the term given to moderates by the extremists in the Republican party.  So I don't think Rubio will win the majority of the Hispanic votes.  I doubt Huntsman will run again as he is too moderate for his party and he does not have the blue state appeal of Christie.  Christie vs Clinton is still the best matchup.

Bradley Manning is acquitted of the most serious charges and thus won't be sentenced to life without possibility of parole.  Eric Holder has promised that Edward Snowden will not get the death penalty.  I think both of these decisions are reasonable.  I don't think that these two guys intended to be traitors and deserve a second chance.  I do think that they deserve some punishment.  How much?  I am not sure.  One thing I am sure is that these two guys are not heroes as painted by their supporters.  Manning was a soldier.  When you are a soldier you cannot unilaterally decide to go against your country even if you believe that it acted irresponsibly.  In Snowden's case, his supporters say that what he did was civil disobidience.  This brings to mind someone who goes against the government but is willing to go to jail to prove his point.  Well, Snowden tried to escape.  And he escaped to China and Russia.  And he is trying to get asylum to places like Venezuela and Bolivia.  Not exactly the bastions of freedom!  So to me these two are not heroes by any means.

Snowden revealed that the U.S. spies on other countries!  That caused a ruckus in Europe against the U.S. for a few days.  Obama came out and said all nations spy.  He is right.  I would not want my country to not spy on other countries.  This is not an ideal world and if we are going to survive we have to protect ourselves.  I hope we act more responsibly and more fairly than other nations.  But I would be upset if my country is not doing what every other country is doing.  Notice there was very muted response from other governments over this revelation.  Even China and Russia had very little to say.  I guess you don't throw stones if you live in a glass house!

Young guys like Snowden and Manning can be more easily manipulated by bad guys than older folks who have more experience in the world.  Unfortunately in cyber wars we depend on young guys who are way more technologically advance that old folks like me.  Right now there are young men in China on computers battling with our young guys over the internet.  In a free society it is very difficult to keep our young guys in line.  But we have an advantage that in a country like China where it is more difficult to take secrets out of the country, the restrictions and monitoring also stiffen the creativity of the young hackers.  So in a sense the two systems may be on trial in this battle over cyber space.

Although not unexpected, there was still sadness when I heard that Detroit has declared bankruptcy.  If I feels strongly that Detroit can turn around after bankruptcy, I would feel much better.  But there is no light at the end of the tunnel even if the legal proceedings go Detroit's way.  The best Detroit can hope for coming out of this is get rid of large amount of debt and decrease its pension obligations significantly.  It still would not bring in the revenue the city needs.  I mean, all the auto makers are raking in good profits this year but it has not done anything for the city itself.  So what happens with next downturn in the auto industry?  It is still a catch 22:  business won't come to the city without great improvement in services but if there is no business to provide taxes, services won't improve.  Dave Bing was a successful businessman but even he couldn't do anything for the city.  What will happen after bankruptcy?

I know they are trying to get rid of abandoned houses, moving people out of certain areas of the city and trying to start urban farms.  I don't know if any of these things would help.  I can't say I have any ideas that would work but I am throwing one out there.  Can they let border cities absorbs some of the neighborhoods near the border?  For example can Livonia, Farmington and Plymouth absorb areas of west Detroit?  Southfield, Warren absorb areas north of 8 Mile Rd.   Grosse pointe absorbs and St. Clair Shores absorb some of the east side of Detroit.  I understand the areas around the River is doing much better.  Renaissance Center, the GM building, Comerica Park, Ford field etc. are already is decent shape.  Just start from those areas and rebuild outward gradually and let the fringes be absorbed by the suburbs.  So the city will be much smaller and the taxes from businesses downtown will sustain the smaller city.  Maybe business will go to northwest Detroit if Livonia police is servicing the area so the response time is not 1hour. I know the suburbs would not like this at all, particularly those that have to absorb parts of Detroit.  But even if the suburbs are doing well now, if Detroit goes down eventually the entire southeast Michigan will deteriorate.  In fact I believe the entire state needs to contribute to Detroit's revival.  I don't think a state can be great without a major city.

While vacationing in Hawaii last week, I tried to use my ipad to write my blog.  However, google noticed that I was trying to write from Hawaii and thought that someone had hacked into my blog.  Well, I am back home now and I am glad that Google thinks that this blog is important enough for someone to try to hack into.  This also shows that Google can keep track of where I am if it wants to.  As I said before, Big Brother may not be the government, but private enterprises.  Or worse, it can be private enterprises in cooperation with the government. 

I guess the big story from the mainland this past week was George Zimmerman's not guilty verdict in the killing of Trayvon Martin.  Thank goodness there has not be violence breaking out over the verdict.  I had not followed the trial carefully.  After reading about it afterward, I feel that the jury acted reasonably in coming back with a not guilty verdict.  It was a difficult case to prove beyond reasonable doubt given the right to not stand down law in Florida.  The idea that you have a law where you can start something and then claim self defense is absurd.  I mean following this logic: If a small man wants to kill a big man, all he has to do is provoke the big guy, gets hit in the face, claims that he fears for his life, and fires his gun.  Once he got hit by a big guy, it is reasonable that he feels scared for his life.  In fact, what would have happened if Martin had a gun when Zimmerman approached him.  Martin could have claimed that as a black man walking in a white neighborhood he felt his life was in danger when a white man approached him for no reason.  Would Martin have been justified if he shot Zimmerman? 

As I have said before, if Zimmerman was not carrying a gun, he would not have approached Martin.  He would have waited for the police.  Pro gun people believe that guns and self defense laws will save innocent people from danger.  But in this case, Zimmerman was never in any danger.  But an innocent man did die because Zimmerman had a gun.  Ultimately the so called innocent people like Zimmerman will not be safe with a gun and a law backing him.  Once REAL criminals, not a guy just walking down the street, realize that there are regular people carrying guns out there, they will up the ante and carry ak47s.  They may even shoot first before committing the crime.  Worse yet, an innocent person like Martin may walk the streets carrying guns himself.  He may shoot first and talk later.  So eventually we will have "non-criminals" shooting at each other.  It will be the wild wild west again.  So are we an advanced civilization or not?

Will the justice dept. file civil right charges against Zimmerman?  They may do it due to political pressure but I don't think they have a good case.  It is not clear at all that Zimmerman approached Martin because he was black.  This is not like the Vincent Chin case where the killer hurled racial slurs at Chin prior to killing him.  Even that conviction never led to jail time for the killers.  So I don't think Zimmerman will go to jail for Martin's death.  A civil lawsuit will probably successful but the family only can win money from Zimmerman.  It is likely Zimmerman will declare bankruptcy and avoid paying much.  It seems that they should have charged Zimmerman with harassing Martin which would be a no doubter.  Maybe it would not mean much jail time but Zimmerman should have been found guilty of at least harassment.

This is a tragedy and will be repeated in the future unless these so called stand down laws are repealed.  These laws violate the spirit of self defense and lead people to confrontations instead of avoiding confrontations.  The same with the right to carry guns for "protection".  It leads to more unnecessary confrontations and as a result avoidable tragedies.

Dwight Howard chooses Houston over LA.  Not a surprise here as the Lakers are only going to be older next year whereas Houston was going to improve even without Howard as their main guys are all young and have not peak yet.  Don't hand the Rockets the trophy yet though.  I think that they are only going to be #4 in the west.   I think the Clippers, Thunder and Spurs are going to finish ahead of them as I think it will take at least a year for them to jell.  While the Spurs are eventually going to be too old, the Clippers and Thunder are just about as young as the Rockets.  How each team improve will determine who will be the king of the west.  Then, they have to beat the heat and possibly Nets.  So yes, Howard will help the Rockets, particularly on defense, but it is no sure thing that Howard will get his ring in Houston.

So what about Jeremy Lin?  I think it will be better for his career if he is traded.  But that will be hard to do as his contract kicks in big time after next season.  Who wants to pay him 10 million in 2014-15?  If he stays in Houston his role may diminish next season and he won't be able to develop to his capability.  Lets face it, Houston's offense this past season consists of fast breaks, quick 3 pt shots and failing that, Harden drives the lane.  In the half court, Lin stands to the side as the other 3 players while Harden shoots the 3, drives to draw a foul or drives and kicks out to a 3 pt shooter.  Lin's ability to run the pick and roll is of no use when Harden is on the court.  That is why the best game Lin played last year was when Harden was out and Lin scored 38 against the Spurs.  With Howard there Harden will give it up some to Howard inside, but that means even less touches for everyone else, including Lin.

There is talk that Houston is better off with Patrick Beverly as point guard.  Well, if it is the Harden, Howard show then it does not matter who is the point guard anyway.  But Beverly is not as good as Lin if Harden is out.  Beverly will NEVER get you 30 points in any game.  He is a great hustler and is a good backup.  But even his defense, which everyone consider better than Lin, is not as good as it appears.  Remember, Lin plays against the starting point guards like Chris Paul, Russell Westbrooke and Tony Parker whereas Beverly comes in against back ups so he is going to look better in comparison.  In fact, if Houston does not make any more trades, I think it would be better for Lin to come off the bench.  That way, he will run the offense when Harden is out and is going against backups.  He will save energy as Beverly will chase people like Parker.  Lin's total will be down but his points and assists per 48 minutes will increase.  He will actually get more chance to run the team.  There is no shame to be a 6th man, just ask Ginobili, and Jason Terry.

I had made comments over gay rights in the last blog.  I will devote this blog on the affirmative action issue ruled by the Supreme Court.  The court issued a narrow ruling, basically punting back to lower court to decide if Texas had gone too far with using race.  So nothing is really decided.  I said that affirmative action based on race should be banned.  I only meant it to be for college admissions.  Certainly there are instances where affirmative action is needed and should be implemented.  For example, in heavily Hispanic neighborhoods, it is absolutely necessary to recruit as many qualified Hispanic police officers as possible.  The trust of the community and the ability to communicate effectively with the people is way more important than any written test.  Having said that, I think college admissions are different and that colleges often use race based affirmative action to make their "numbers" look better only.

Colleges use "diversity" to justify the need to have race consideration.  I did not realize everybody in the same race think the same and act the same.  I have never seen any study where it shows that student become better people having been in a "diverse" college.  If diversity is so important then you would think that historically black colleges and women colleges would give an inferior education.  Nobody have come up with that conclusion for sure.  I can't believe that Harvard gets more diversity by admitting a black doctor's son over an Asian immigrant's son.  Yet Harvard will take the black kid over the Asian kid if their stats are similar for sure.

I believe that using socio-economic background for affirmative action is much more fair.  A black doctor's child will likely go to a better high school and can take SAT study courses.  A poor white child will not have such access.  But by using socio-economic background as a guide, there will still be more blacks and Latinos admitted than based on grades and test scores alone.  In the Texas case, the top 10 % from each high school can get into a U-T school.  In California top 12.5% can get into a UC school.  Of course it does not guarantee one gets into the most popular campus such as Berekeley or UCLA.  But getting into any of the UCs would be fine in terms of future employment, assuming one do well and graduate.  But again the colleges want to admit the rich minority student rather than the poor white student because it makes their stats look better and they can get the full tuition from the rich kid as well.

In reality the argument over affirmative action for undergrads is really not that important.  Like I said above, not getting into Berkeley or UCLA is not that big of a deal.  Other UCs are still good schools.  The woman who filed the lawsuit against Texas is now graduating from LSU.  She will do well even without going to U-T.  There are no shortage of college spots in the country.  It is what you do after you get there that is important, not where you went.  The problem is different in medical school.  In California the spots in medical schools are way too few for the population of the state.  California depends on doctors who graduated from other states to come and work here.  The problem for prospective Asian medical students are enormous.  In Berkeley and UCLA Asians make up 40% of undergraduates.  Yet despite better grades and MCAT scores than whites, Asian only make up about 25% of UCLA and UCSF medical schools' enrollment.  Overall in the nation, Asians have the lowest admission percent of any race group in medical school even though they have the best grades and MCAT scores.  Unlike undergrad where if you don't get in your choice school, there is always another school that will take you, that is not the case here.  If you don't get into an American school, your dream of becoming a doctor is gone, unless you go to a foreign school.  But you will have a hard time getting a residency when you come back if you go to a foreign school.

Using socio-economic background will help the deserving minority student as well.  There is a stigma of a minority having gone to a prestige school that he got there due to his race.  This is a stigma even for justices Thomas and Sotomayor.  It is even a stigma for Obama.  But if they got into Harvard Law partly because of poor economic status, that is not a stigma but a badge of honor. 

Everyday now there is 1 or 2 major decisions coming out of the Supreme Court.  I am not sure what case(s) the readers are interested in.  So I will just give a quick agree or not agree with a few of the decisions and if anyone is interesting in further discussion of any of the cases, please say so and I will oblige.

I agree with the majority in the generic drug case, the DOMA case, the Prop.8 case and I would have gone further than the Court and struck down race based affirmative action.  I disagree with the majority in the civil right case.  Any opinion or discussion?

This Wimbledon is dangerous to the favorites with Nadal, Federer and Sharipova all gone within 2 rounds!  Ultimately Murray and Djokovic will still meet in the finals and Serena will win.  Anyone knows why the Angels, one of the most disappointing team in baseball, keeps beating the Tigers?

The latest news is that Snowden is in Moscow and trying to get asylum to Ecuador.  This seems to be getting weirder all the time.  Why did he go to Hong Kong (essentially China) in the first place and why Russia now?  My analysis, which may be way off base, is that China and the U.S. have made a deal in the last few days that they would not fight or waste energy over this.  I think that China realizes that even if Snowden is of some propaganda value right now, it is not worth getting the U.S. angry by giving asylum.  On the other hand, just handing him over to the U.S. would seem to say that Snowden's accusation of U.S. hacking into the Chinese government is untrue.  The U.S. realizes it has a losing hand on this right now and so was not going to push Hong Kong (China) over extradition.  When words get back to Snowden that the two super powers are not going to fight over him, he realizes he has to go some place else.  So he flees to Russia.  He understands that Russia will probably act like China but maybe it has influence over Cuba, Venezuela or Ecuador to take him in.  Also WikiLeak is helping him and Assante is already getting protection in the Ecuador embassy in England.  If Russia, like China, lets him go to another country, then we can conclude that Snowden does not have any secrets of importance.  Without secrets to offer, China and Russia have no interest in keeping Snowden.  I have a feeling Cuba is not interested either.  So I think Ecuador may be his last hope.

I did try the baseball quiz.  Got 4 out of 10.  I think the questions were intended to fool people because even if you don't know anything about baseball you should have gotten about 50% since the questions were true or false.  I would be interested to see what umpires would get.  I also saw the David Henry Hwang play.  It was quite entertaining.  I have recommended it to a few people already.  Thanks to LBOAYM for the suggestion.

I was going to write about the Dodger fight anyway so it is interesting that it was brought up in the previous blog.  Please read the previous blog to see my comment on Benghazi attack.

It is a pet peeve of mine that baseball teams retaliate whenever one of their batters get hit.  Last week Dodger phenom Puig was hit by Arizona pitcher Kennedy.  I don't think it was intentional as Puig was killing outside fastballs but had missed a couple of inside ones.  So naturally Kennedy is going to throw inside.  The next inning Dodger Greinke hits an Arizona batter in the back.  There was no need to retaliate as the first one was not intentional.  The umpire gave both sides a warning.  The stupid thing for Greinke is that the score is tie.  There was no reason to retaliate and let the go ahead run to get on base.  The next inning Kennedy was even more stupid.  He hits Greinke on the head and rightly gets tossed and subsequently suspended.  Why do that when you know you are going to get tossed?   In a tie game, you are going to let a pitcher get on base to represent the go ahead run?  Is it more important to retaliate than to win a ball game?  To me this code of conduct in baseball is absolutely ridiculous.  You rather lose the game than not retaliate?  These people ought to have their heads examined.

The benches of course empty after Greinke gets hit.  McGwire, Mr. Steroid, acts like he is still on steroids, challenges Gibson and Matt Williams.  These old guys should grow up and try to stop the young guys from fighting, not add more fuel to fire.  Greinke already had been out several weeks after breaking his left collar bone when an idiot charged the mound.  Why are these people risking injuries for some stupid code for "protecting" your teammates? 

They should have automatic ejection whenever a pitcher hits a batter on the head.  In hockey a high stick causing bleeding in the head is a five minute major, regardless of intent.  I think you can control a fast ball better than a stick when the hockey player is jostling on the boards.  You can go inside with a pitch but not to the head.  A batter who rushes the mound after getting hit will get an automatic 10 game suspension.  Players leaving bench gets automatically rejected, like in basketball.  Coaches who rush out like McGwire will be put into a nursing home.  I think these rules will stop this nonsense.

The approval rating for Obama has gone down a little with all the so called scandals around him.  Frankly I don't see any faults with Obama in terms of Benghazi, the press, and the IRS.  His administration could have handled the aftermath of Benghazi better but I think most Americans would agree that it is a dangerous world for our diplomats and that we can protect them 100%.  The thing with the press again should be handled better but I don't think most Americans are very sympathetic with journalists, especially when it comes to national security.  There is so far nothing to suggest that the IRS situation came from the administration.  And it would be incredibly stupid if Obama actually had anything to do with it.  This may have some legs because everyone hates the IRS.  (Except for me, of course)!  So to me it would be unfair to blame Obama for these problems.

On the other hand, I have trouble with Obama's handling of Syria.  Unlike people like McCain, Obama really did not want to get involved.  But he made the mistake of saying if Syria uses chemical weapons, it would have crossed the line.  So when this occurred, Obama was painted into a corner.  Not only do the hawks call him a coward, internationally people expect him to do something.  He finally announced that he will arm the rebels.  I do not think we should get involved at all and certainly not get involved because we had draw a line in the sand.  I don't think arming the rebels will win the civil war.  Even if it did, sectarian violence will continue as there does not appear to be a reasonable group that will govern the country peacefully.  With all the troops we had in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have not stopped sectarian violence.  We should not get involved unless we have reasonable idea of what the end game will be.

The Republican conservatives are siding with Obama while liberal Democrats are attacking him?  Justice Breyer sides with the conservatives while Justice Saclia sides with the liberals?  What is going on in D.C.?  The first part is easy to understand.  With revelation of the intelligence program PRISM keeping track of vast amount of phone calls and internet communication, Obama being called "Big Brother" by liberals is easy to understand.  It is also obvious why Republicans come to Obama's defense.  This type of program was put in place by the Bush administration.  So while saying that Obama is hypocritical for embracing the program now after attacking Bush's policies, the Republicans have to say that Obama is right for continuing the program.

I would have to agree with Obama and the Republicans.  (That is a weird sentence).  It is easy to attack the government for infringement of freedom as an outsider.  But once you are the government and responsible for security, you are going to try to get as much legal power as possible.  If Obama had stopped PRISM and an attack occurs, he would be fried.  Now he can say there is Congressional and court oversight of the program.  He is still hypocritical but he would rather be hypocritical than a failure at national security.  For all those people who cry about privacy, how many of you have facebook and other social media accounts?  How many of you buy things over the internet or use membership cards at a Costco?  You no longer have much privacy.  Companies all over the world know what you like or dislike and how best to sell you stuff already!  So at least for now the invasion of my privacy by private sources is more annoying to me than any government monitoring of my communications.  (You are welcome, Big Brother who is reading this).

Regarding Scalia and Breyer reversing roles, I don't understand how that happened.  This case was about whether the police can obtain DNA from anyone who was arrested as opposed to someone who was already convicted.  Breyer voted yes and Scalia voted no.  I agree with Breyer and the conservatives.  (Again, a weird sentence).   I don't see how this is anymore infringement than getting finger printed and a mug shot when you are arrested now.  Sure, DNA reveals more of you than the finger prints.  But this is hardly more intrusion to the privacy of someone arrested.  This law would increase the national data base to help solve crimes.  So I think the benefits outweigh the infringements here.

Saw a program on PBS last night about Detroit called Detropia.  Things still look very bleak even with the auto companies making good profit now.  It talked about mayor Dave Bing is trying to consolidate the city's population to a smaller area and try to use the rest of the land to start urban farming.  The program did not really talk about how these two things can be accomplished.  It seems to me people are not going to willingly move to another part of the city unless there is a benefit, like a tax rebate.  As Bing said, the city is broke so how is it going to pay people to move?  And how is this urban farming to going to work?  What do they do with the land in the winter when things don't grow with snow on the ground?  Are these programs still on the agenda?  All I know is that I don't want to be in Bing's shoes!

This program made me think about the fires in Bangladesh factories recently.  There has been a lot of calling by activists to stop manufacturing in Bangladesh and other countries where safety violations are rampant.  While that is well meaning, I am sure the people of Bangladesh and other countries don't want the manufacturing to stop.  People who are starving are willing to take whatever safety risks to feed their children.  The Mexicans are willing to risk dying to cross over to the U.S. to find a job.  So the people of Bangladesh are willing to work in unsafe factories.  We should demand that companies from the U.S. do a much better job of policing the factories that make their products.  But in reality we are not doing the impoverish people any favor by taking away their jobs.

The truth is there are more and more people competing for limited manufacturing jobs all over the world.  Detroit will not get significant number of jobs back.  The city will have reinvent itself.  But with the poor public education system, I am not sure how they are going to be able to train the next generation in other types of work.  This will not be limited to Detroit but to rest of America as well.  I can see where the gap between the rich and poor will widen.  If you are not educated enough to get a professional job, you will be stuck in the service economy.  The middle class will shrink.  Having said that, I am not a pessimist for America as a whole.  Most of America can avoid what happened to Detroit and other old cities. Will talk about that in the future.

I think for the first time there is no surprising finalists for DWTS.  All four finalists are deserving.  I think anyone of the four can win.  A lot will depend on the performances Monday.  Based on consistency and how I think the fan voting will go, I predict the order of finish:  1.  Pickler. 2.  Jones.  3.  Raisman. 4.  Zendeya.   I would not be surprised if it was backwards!

The action of the  IRS making it difficult for conservative groups such as the Tea Party to get tax exempt status is obviously wrong.  No particular group should be discriminated against when applying for something from the government.  An investigation is needed to see how high  the order came from or was it something that a group of bureaucrats decided to do it themselves. But beyond that, why do any group of people or institution get tax exempt status anyway?

I found 10 major ways to get tax exempt on the internet.  The most troubling to me is religious organizations.  I mean, if we have separation of church and state, then why do we give favor to churches.  I understand that the law does not favor a particular religion.  But then how do you decide what is a reasonable religion and not a dangerous cult?  It maybe reasonable for the money raised for charity work by a church to be exempt.  But what about the money raised to try to get more members?  I don't think the government should be helping any church to increase its membership.  Another way that is just troubling is exemption granted to labor unions for various activities such as "educating members".  This is basically a way of promoting unions which lead to increase membership.  In fact, using money for education purpose seem to be a popular way for an organization to get exempt status.  Again, it is not the business of the government to increase any organization's membership, in my opinion.

There maybe public good that come out of exempting certain organizations.  But I think in most cases the benefits are questionable at best.  Since both the Republicans and Democrats claim that they are for simplifying the tax code, getting rid of the tax exempt status laws would be a good first step.  Why do we let the IRS make judgment calls of what groups of citizens get such a big tax advanatage?

I have just finished reading Jason Collin's article in SI.  I applaud him for coming out but I don't agree with some people who compare him with Jackie Robinson.  When Robinson came to the Majors there was not much movement in the areas of civil rights.  Even some of his teammates were against him.  I think the gay right movement is much further along now and judging by the response Collins have received, I don't think he will face challenges anywhere near what Robinson faced during his time.  That is not to say that he won't be heckled by fans.  Jeremy Lin was heckled even during Ivy League games and those fans are affiliated with some of the greatest institutions of higher education in this country.  But Collins will not be bothered in the locker room or by opponents.  Ironically everyone who has come out against him (and there are very few), has been attacked themselves in the court of public opinion.  Take Chris Broussard of ESPN.  He gave his opinion that as a religious person, he is against gay life style.  He was immediately attacked.  While I don't agree with him, he has the right to what he believes.  If you only have to listen to opinions that is agreeable to you, then you are not living in a democratic society.

Even though Collins is technically an active player in the NBA, he is at or near the end of his career.  In fact, if this article did not come out, the chances of him of getting a contract next year is slim.  So I don't think he will be hurt in terms of staying in the league by coming out.  I don't think you can accuse any team of prejudice for not signing Collins for next season.  It will be more interesting when a player near the peak of his career come out and is a free agent.  Then we will know what teams think.  I bet that most team will act depending more of that player's ability than sexual orientation.

It is interesting that Jason's identical twin Jarron is not gay.  Obviously having identical DNA does not mean same personality.  On the other hand environment do not determine personality either as both Jason and Jarron grew up in the same household, went to the same high school and college.  So who knows what really make up who we are.  Interesting enough of the 4 sets of identical twins I know of in NBA, the skills of 3 sets of twins are about the same.  Tom and Dick Van Arsdale, the Morris twins of Phoenix Suns and Jason and Jarron Collins are all about same in style and skill as each person's twin.  Only Brooke and Robin Lopez are somewhat different with Brooke being a better offensive and overall player whereas Robin is better on defense.  But given that Brooke and Robin have big difference in hairstyle whereas the other 3 sets of twins look exactly the same, I conclude that hairstyle is the ultimate determining factor in skills of NBA twins.

We got the two bombers but why they did this is still unclear.  All I know is that the Russian government is happy that Chechens are involved.  This will make it easier in the future for the Russians to go in and claimed that they are going after terrorists.  In the past, the U.S. may have considered Chechens freedom fighters.  I guess terrorists are the ones against your cause, while freedom fighters are those for your cause.  From indications so far the bombers did not do this for political reasons.  It seems likely that the older brother was radicalized because of feeling of alienation in this country.  That certainly was a reason in terrorist activities in the U.K.  But in this case, I think this is not a valid excuse for these brothers.  For all account they were doing well financially and the young one was in school and had many friends.  They had lived what most immigrants think of as the American dream.  To turn against the country that gave them asylum is just evil.  If they did not like it here, they could have gone back like their parents.  In fact one went back for 6 months, he could have just stayed there if he thought America was evil.

So are they going to ban pressure cookers now?  If shoe bombs and liquid bombs have failed and still we have to take off our shoes and give up our water before boarding, why allow pressure cookers which have succeeded, to be sold?   Oh, I forgot.  Being a successful weapon now, pressure cookers will be protected under the Second Amendment as arms.

After following the Masters this weekend, I am convince more than ever that it is the most annoying sport.  I rarely watch golf except when Tiger is in contention or when Jack Nicklaus was in contention in the old days.  These two were so much better than their contemporaries that you just have to watch to see if they can come up with the heroics.  Sure, once in a while somebody like Lee Trevino, Seve Ballesteros or Tom Watson might go on a good run and you may watch.  But otherwise if Tiger or Jack were not in contention, I do not watch.

So this weekend with Quan Tianlang being the youngest player ever to make the cut and Tiger being in contention, I tuned in.  So what happens?  They penalize the poor 14 year old for slow play.  Now, I see players agonizing over two foot putts, changing clubs and even going to the porta-john during golf tournament and they are going to penalize this kid for slow play?  The LA Times wrote that since 1997 there were 22 penalties for slow play in the European Tour.  There were none in the U.S. PGA tour during this time.  The official that penalized Quan is European.  He is also the guy that penalized Ballesteros twice and Harrington once in a major.  It seems to me that is not uniform officiating.  Maybe this guy is one of the few who is enforcing the rules correctly.  Or maybe he just like to get on tv.  They said that Quan's group was 22 minutes behind by the 17th hole.  Well, the kid maybe the reason for this but I would think that Ben Crenshaw shooting an 84 during that round may have slowed things up.  If they want to speed up the game, have the players run the course instead of walking.  This way the 14 year old will have an advantage for sure!

Tiger then got penalized 2 strokes for dropping the ball 2 yards from where he was supposed to.  I mean what is 2 yards when you are 200 yards from the hole.  If he move the ball near the green, yes, he should be penalized or even disqualified.  I know Tiger should know the rules.  But he obviously did not otherwise he would not have incriminated himself by saying he dropped it 2 yards from his previous shot while being interviewed.  In fact, the rule committee had watched the tape after a view called in about the violation and decided there was not enough evidence to penalize Tiger.  It is only with his own incrimination that they made the ruling.  Can you imagine someone calling in and say Lebron had stepped out of bounds and the replay was not conclusive and they ruled only after Lebron admitted he stepped out, after the game.  If golf has all these anal rules and they insist they be followed, then have officials everywhere on the course to observe every shot and ball drops and make rulings right there.  It is a rich sport that can afford the number of officials needed.  It is not fair for the players to know every rule and then say that not knowing the rule is not an excuse on not calling a penalty on himself. 

Given all my displeasure with the game, obviously I don't think it should be in the Olympics.  We don't need to add another rich man's sport to a menu that already include sailing and equestrian.  It is a game even someone like Tiger or Jack win less than 20% of the time, so it is relatively meaningless to be called an Olympic champion.  Also can you imagine the controversy if an European official call a penalty on a Chinese golfer who is in contention for a medal?  It will be USA/USSR basketball 1972 all over again!

I am not too bummed about M losing to Louisville.  I think the better team won although M could have won that game.  Burke is going to the NBA as expected and Hardaway will probably also even though I think he will be drafted higher if he stayed another year.  I think Spike proved that he can be the point guard and the other freshmen will be much better next year.  I am already surprise how much McGary has improved already.  So I think they will be in contention again next year in the very tough Big Ten.

After I had said that North Korea did not post much of a threat, Kim Jong Un started to cause problems by putting North Korea in a state of war preparation.  That would seem counter to my claim that secular dictators are not irrational and their first priority is to survive and keep power.  Kim's action does appear irrational, trying to pick a fight with the most powerful country in the world.  It is possible that he is crazy and thus throw out all of my theory.  But it is not likely the case.  His father also had seem to be crazy at times.  But each time he threatened, he was just trying to get concession from the U.S.  Kim Jong Il also had at least 3 sons so if Jong Un is really crazy, I don't think he would have been picked as the successor. 

I think that being so young and being the third generation dictator, there is a lot of pressure to show that he is tough enough for the job.  There may even be some possibility of someone planning a coup.  If Kim knew about such threat, the best way to prevent it is to rev up nationalism and making himself look tough and capable of leading.  Certainly having been educated in Europe, he can't possibly think that he can win a war.  But if, like his father before him, he is able to get some concession, then his hold on power will be stronger.

The U.S. should act calmly.  We should put more military power into the region but do not sound threatened.  I think eventually China will get through to Kim behind close doors.  China has great interest in keeping the peace because a war would destabilize the region.  War would also likely destroy North Korea.  Even though North Korea is an unreliable ally, China gains leverage with the U.S. by being North Korea's main benefactor.  China also does not want war refugees coming over the border.  Most importantly a war would mean greater U.S. involvement in the region.  This will increase American influence in Asia and make China's goal of becoming the dominant power in Asia much more difficult to achieve. So China will make some assurance to Kim about his survival and convince him to pull back.

Well two final 4 picks correct isn't bad!  OSU should have made it given their easy bracket.  They have nobody to blame but themselves.  Syracuse blew up the other bracket.  I am just glad that M got lucky and made it.  I think you have to get at least one lucky game if you are going to win the tournament.  Now we have to see if Burke is truly the best point guard in the nation as he tries to solve the Syracuse zone.  It would be difficult for McGary to play like he has in these four games but then Hardaway has not been playing like he can.  He will have to because he is the only one other than Burke who can break down defenses and get his own shot.  Given that lucky game against Kansas, I think they can go all the way!

Saw parts of the women's game between Baylor and Louisville.  Even the women's game now has some parity where anyone can win.  Well, I don't think both Baylor and Connecticut will lose so Connecticut is going to win now.  But one thing I notice is that the officiating is much worse in women's basketball.  The game is slower with smaller people so you would think it would be easier to officiate.  So obviously the women don't get the best officials even in the playoffs.

This week mark the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war.  At the same time, Obama is traveling in the middle east.  This reminds us of the problems this area has caused us over the last several decades and the many mistakes we have made over there.  Here are some of my thoughts:

1.  The several thousands U.S. lives and maybe a hundred thousand Iraqi lives lost were terrible price to pay for a war that was wrong.  That was on top of the trillion dollars spent and the lost of focus in finishing the job in Afghanistan.  Never again should we allow crazy politicians lead us into such a war.

2.  One of the reason we are bogged down in this region is because of our dependence on oil.  We propped up despots who are friendly to us so that we can get the oil we need.  We must do everything we can to become energy independent as soon as possible.

3.  We spend a lot of money in the region trying to bring peace but we have not gotten much for it.  About the only thing the Israelis and Palestinians have in common is that they don't agree with what our presidents have propose for each side to do to even start the peace progress.  So lets withhold our financial support unless each side agree with our proposals. 

4.  Support Muslim countries that have been friendly to the U.S.  A country like Jordan must become economically much stronger in order to prevent extremists from taking over from King Hussein.  If populous Muslim countries like Indonesia and Turkey can become more prosperous then it will demonstrate to average Muslims that the U.S. is helping them and is not their enemy.

5.  Don't sweat about Iran and nuclear weapons.  Just like Iraq, Iran will not be dangerous to us.  By constantly worrying and complaining about their nuclear weapons program will only help Muslim extremists recruit terrorists.

On a lighter note the Big Ten did well this weekend.  Four teams made it to the sweet 16.  Minnesota and Illinois won a game and played well against tough opponents in the second game.  Only Wisconsin was disappointing.  As predicted the team that is in Gonzaga's region has the best luck.  That is OSU.  I think they will have a clear path to the final 4 now.

Well, OSU got that prize 2 seed in the region with Gonzaga.  As a result I predict that OSU will make it to the final 4.  M and MSU both got "home" games in Auburn Hill for the first 2 rounds so they should advance to the sweet 16.  If they don't it is their own fault.  I think M has a better draw than MSU.  I think Kansas and Georgetown are easier to beat than Louisville and Duke.  So I have M advancing to the final 4 along with Louisville.  I know that is homer talk and may jinx myself but hey this is one year that 3 or 4 seeds are almost as good as 1 and 2.  I will take Miami over Indiana in the last regional.  I think Miami could well have been a 1 and I think they are better than Kansas.  Plus I can't pick 3 Big Ten teams!

I think Oregon really got screwed.  A 12 seed  after winning the Pac 12 tournament?  I know that the Pac 12 is ranked low and deservedly so in some respects.  But Oregon went into a slump when their point guard went down.  If Trey Burke went down, M would lose a lot more games.  The guy came back and helped Oregon win the finals but the selection committee guy said that they had to look at the whole season, not just the last game.  But then they lowered UCLA to a 6 because they lost one of their starters before the final   They can't argue both ways!

Just finished watching DWTS.  My top 3 picks are Zendya (or whatever her name is), Jacoby Jones and Dorothy Hamil.  Zendya was by far the best but the concern is that nobody my age knows who she is and people at her age is not going to watch the show.  Jacoby Jones has great potential even though his technique was not too good today.  Did you see how out of breath he was? I know he had surgery and so been idled but he had more trouble than anybody I ever seen on the show and he is a young athlete.  Dorothy Hamil is pretty good and will get lot of sympathy votes due to her age and her cancer history.  The country singer Pickler was also impressive.  The gymnast was not as good as I thought she would be but maybe she can improve.  It seems to me Ashley Judd really let herself go!

Rand Paul did the good old fashion filibuster last week.  I don't agree with Rand Paul a lot but I think it is great that he was willing to stand up for hours speaking to a dwindling audience in order to get his point across.  This is a lot better than have the minority party simply say they are going to filibuster and if they got 40 votes then everything comes to a halt.  If you are going to filibuster, you should actually get up and stand there and talk nonstop, the way it was meant to be.

I don't think there is any chance that a president will order drone strike against American citizens unless there is a reason of extreme national security.  I think the debate instead should be setting guidelines internationally of when this type of weapon should be used.  Make no mistake about it, the technology of drones is spreading.  China, for example, has quite a bit capability in this.  If we use it without good reason, then in the future other countries will say that they are only using it the same way the U.S. did.  And what about terrorists acquiring the technology?  These are all more important debate than Rand's rant.

Let March Madness begin!  I am, of course, talking about the election of the new pope.  I think we should start brackets and see who can come up with the right champion.  I am betting on the guy from Brazil.  With Latin America having the most Catholics in the world, it is about time someone from there is elected.  Plus, I always pick Brazil for every World Cup.

Another election I want to mention is for the mayor of LA.  This took place last week and as expected there will be a runoff as no candidate received 50%.  This outcome was obvious since there were 6 candidates and none of them were that well known.  What ticks me off is that they have this election 4 months after the presidential election.  Why don't they have it in November to save some money?  Not only that, only 16% showed up to vote last week.  The electorate is pathetic but I am sure they would have had a much greater number in November.

The only election this month that is a slam dunk is the Chinese presidential election.  So you thought that had already happened last year?  Well, technically the election is now but it was decided behind close doors last November.  So I can predict the Yi Jinping will be the new president!