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.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, December 09, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, December 02, 2013
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?
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?