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.