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.