Interesting program on Sixty Minutes tonight about the possibility of space war.  Many important things in our daily lives depend on satellites in outer space.  Much of our high tech military power also depend on satellites.  So the possibility of other countries shooting down our satellites is a real concern.  Obviously China and Russia can do this but even North Korea and Iran maybe able to do it in the near future.  So obviously we must be able to detect such attacks and be able to evade in coming missiles.  Short of an international agreement that space wars are illegal, this vast space cannot possibly be defended forever.

This brings to mind two things.  The first is that the world is going to be run by nerds.  Space war and computer hacking are the new war fares of the 21st century.  I think we should start thinking about alternate system of communications so that we are not so dependent of satellites and the internet.  This is particular important in military, electric grid, water supply and the financial system.  I hope there are people way smarter than me who are working on this.  I am not smart enough to figure how we do this but we have to have alternate systems since every country have science nerds who are capable of doing great harm.

The other thing is that why are Russia and the U.S. still engaged in spy planes activities near each others' coast.  With satellites and computers, is there any secrets that these planes flying in international water can possibly pick up?  Recently Russia planes have come close to the U.S. and the U.K.    Of course each time fighter jets are scrambled from the other country that is being monitored.  This brings to mind a few years ago when an American spy plane crashed with a Chinese fighter jet causing an international incidence.  There is bound to be accidents in the future as a result of these worthless exercise of power.  I don't think it is worth the money or obviously the risk to military personal on any side when there is no secrets that can possibly learn from these actions.  I mean if the other side knows you are there and can scramble a fighter jet, how much secrets is going to be sitting there for your spy plane to collect?

China is developing a new international bank called Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).  It is China's answer to the World Bank, the IMF, and the Asian Development Bank.  The first two are controlled by the U.S. with European input.  The third is controlled by Japan with U.S. input.  By controlling money lending internationally the U.S. and its allies have soft power over the rest of the world.  Now China is trying to do the same.

The U.S. is against the founding of this bank.  But it made the decision for China to go ahead with it easier when Congress voted to not allow increase of voting power for China in the World Bank.  This made it difficult for Obama to try to convince our allies to not join the AIIB.  To say that AIIB is going to be a political wing of China seems absurd when the U.S. refuse to recognize China's status in the world.  I mean if the World Bank is nonpolitical then the U.S. Congress should not be able to keep China's voting power below those of the U.K or France.  Also World Bank presidents have included former U.S. Sec. of State Robert Mcnamara and former Bush adviser and proponent of the Iraq war Paul Wolfowitz.  When the U.S. appoints politicians to the post instead of financial experts, it is hard to say the World Bank is not a political wing of the U.S.

So Obama failed miserably to convince allies not to join.  Almost all Asian nations except Japan applied to join as have most U.S. allies.  The UK is joining because it wants to be the center of yuan trading as China's currency gains more world acceptance.  South Korea is joining because its companies want to be in on the infrastructure building of Asia.  Same with Australia.  One bit of good news is that China rejected the North Korea application, further isolating the rouge regime.  So for Obama, the train has left the station.  We should work with this new financial institution even if we are not joining it.  After all, if we want China to take a more responsible position in the world as a global power, it would be counter productive to tell China it cannot help Asia improve its infrastructure.

Max who?  Verlander?  Hey if Greene and company keep pitching like this, we may not even need Nathan.  It is early, of course, but the Tigers look good.  Now those pesky Royals are on their tail and given what they did in October last year, this looks like a great race.  And I didn't know Julio Iglesias can play baseball as well as he sings.

Golden State over Cleveland in the NBA final.  This is against Charles Barkley who says a three point shooting team can't win the championship.  I think the Splash Brothers will do it!

Hillary Clinton announced today, as expected for a long time, that she is running for president.  It is assumed that she will win the Democratic nomination in a walk away.  But there are potential traps along the way.  For one thing, she was the favorite to win in 2008 but a relative novice name Barack Obama chased her down.  This time there does not appear to be an Obama out there especially if Elizabeth Warren does not change her mind and stay out.  But still, Clinton cannot take things for granted.

Clinton did not do as well as expected in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008.  Those states are relatively small where personal appearances can make a big difference.  In a state like California, media blitz trumps walking door to door because it is impossible to cover even a small part of the state.  In 2008, Clinton did not do the ground work necessary to confirm her status as the front runner.  Here lies the problem:  If you are expected to win, you better win or else you look vulnerable or worse, not viable.  Clinton is 40% point ahead of any possible Democratic candidate at this point so if she wins by say 20% or less, then there maybe doubts.  Already with Benghazi and e-mail gate, another possible scandal may cause people to think that she is just not trustworthy enough.  So it is important that Clinton goes to Iowa and win so convincingly that others may not challenge her.

If there is a legitimate challenge from the left wing then Clinton will have to move left to shore support, then she will be vulnerable in the general election if she gets nominated.  That is of course the problem of whoever wins the Republican nomination:  he would have to move so far to the right to win the nomination that he will have problem from the center in the general election.  If Clinton has no challenger, then it will be much easier for her in the general election.  So it is imperative that she wins a knockout early in Iowa and New Hampshire.

On the Republican side, I still think Scott Walker is their best candidate.  Jeb Bush may win the nomination but another Bush vs Clinton will be political fatigue.  Assuming no scandal from either side, I believe another Clinton will beat another Bush.  Walker is more of a fresh face.  Assuming he can handle the national stage, he will be a formidable foe for Clinton.

Now we are into the coin toss of the sports season known as the Stanley Cup playoff.  Last season, the LA Kings came out of nowhere to win.  With almost the same club, the Kins did not make the playoff this season.  This shows how much winning has to do with luck in hockey.  I think the post season in hockey and baseball are almost mostly luck, unlike the NBA and NFL.  So I don't even try to predict the NHL playoff anymore with the exception that neither of the top seeds in each conference will be in the Stanley Cup final!  So forget about it for the Rangers and Ducks.

The 6 world powers including the U.S. have made a preliminary agreement with Iran.  Can Obama sell this to the Republican led Congress.  It is unlikely.  Then can he go at it alone?  I don't know.  Is this a good deal?  I don't know.  All I know is that there is no good alternatives.  Continue sanction is not going stop Iran from building the bomb.  And as I said before, if it appears that it is the U.S. who stop the agreement, then the international sanctions will fall apart.  Any sanctions voted by the Congress will be meaningless without other countries involved since the trade between Iran and the U.S. is not much to begin with.  The other alternative of the U.S. attacking Iran would be wrong.  We are not bombing North Korea for the benefit of a nonnuclear South Korea.  So why would we bomb Iran for the benefit of a nuclear armed Israel?  In any case, to stop Iran you would need a full scale war since bombing a few possible nuclear sites would not stop Iran's program.

There are even neocons who think that a bombing combine with effort to aid rebels for a regime change in Iran is the way to go.  These people have no understanding of the world.  Any time you attack a country, especially a preemptive attack, automatically invoke nationalism in that country.  There will back lash against the U.S. even among people who are against the current leadership.  It is very easy for the bad guys to recruit people world wide for terrorist attack when they can simply show that the U.S. is attacking a country even though it has not attacked the U.S. So not only will the plan for regime change fail miserably, it will lead to more terrorist attacks in the future.

MSU did very well to get into Final Four.  They didn't play well against Duke.  But I think the better team won anyway.  I am rooting for Wisconsin to win on Monday.  I like the idea of a team with players who stay for four years beating teams that have super one and done players.