The World Series has been riveting.  Hopefully there are two more games to be played.  But the stupid gesture by Yuli Gurriel has marred the games.  Yu Darvish, on the other hand, has been magnificent in his response.  I don't have problem with forgiving Gurriel as Darvish did.  But I have trouble with some people who defended him.  There were people giving a standing ovation yesterday when he came up to bat the first time!  I understand Houston fans cheering him after his home run.  But standing ovation before he bats means they were cheering his disgusting gesture.

A LA Times sport writer who is half Hispanic and half Japanese defended Gurriel slightly by asking people to take things into context.  He said that the word Chinito was used by his soccer friends and family members  on him and he was never bothered by it.  Well, I agree the context is important here.  I am sure his soccer friends and family members like him and the word Chinito is a term of endearment in this situation.  But this was not a term of endearment from Gurriel to Darvish.  He had just hit a home run off Darvish and he made the gesture and mouthed the word in the dugout.  The intention, obviously, was to mock Darvish even if it was not intended to be racist.  If he had done the gesture and mouthed the word while running the bases, there would a brawl.   Even a flip of the bat and staring at the flight of the ball before running the bases would have been unacceptable in baseball culture.  So no, under any context this was ugly.

I am not worried about Darvish being hurt by this.  Just like when a player recently was called the N word at Fenway Park, the big time athletes maybe annoyed but they are not intimated.  They know their team, their league and the media have their backs.  I am worried about the youth league or high school players who are attacked as such and feel intimated.  They may be suffering in silence.  That is why as Darvish said, this has to be an education moment.  Kids look up to professional athletes.  So when athletes do something wrong, they must be punished and made clear that this type of action is unacceptable at any level.

Now that we see General Kelley is learning from his boss, I think rather than control Trump's out bursts Kelly is going to have outbursts of his own.  The situation of four soldiers killed in Niger is an embarrassment to the country.  There is some fault that lies with the Congresswoman involved but Trump is, as usual, acting like a child.  Now his chief of staff is making things up like his boss. 

But what I am wondering is:  why are we in Niger in the first place.  Trump had nothing to say when the killing happened probably because he didn't know where Niger is and certainly didn't know why we are there.  Some pundits say that we are there to advice the government to prevent terrorists groups from gaining a spot from which to flourish.  I don't buy that.  Having watched the Vietnam war documentary last month, I am more convinced than ever that we should only send troops for good reason.  There must be a define goal and end point and there must be an ally on the ground that is reliable.  Neither of these things are in place in Niger and other places in Africa where we have "advisors".  By having our soldiers there it just helps terrorists recruit people.  This is particularly true since we use drone strikes where we often accidentally kill civilians.  So we should learn our lessons and be way more careful about getting involved in places where we have no good allies and no obvious end points.

In lieu of accomplishing anything legislatively, Trump is trying to destroy accomplishments of past presidents, most notably those of Obama.  From DACA to NAFTA to the Paris accord, Trump is destroying and not offering any better alternatives.  This week he signed executive order that would sabotage  Obamacare but not offering any alternative that economists and health care providers deem workable.  He is also trying to decertify the Iran nuclear deal.  I don't think any of the other countries involved will go along and so we would be the only one putting out sanctions.  Now if you are North Korea, you see that the U.S. would go back on its words, would you negotiate or double your effort to build your nuclear weapons and missiles?

Maybe some people would agree with Trump on all those things I mentioned above.  But unless you live and work in coal country, I don't think you would agree with Trump's elimination of the Clean Power Plan.  He claims that with the elimination of the CPP, coal will make a come back and coal miners will go back to work.  That is absurdly false.  The coal industry is dying not just from the CPP but also because natural gas is cheaper and cleaner.  Trump also wants to provide subsidies for coal.  This is patently stupid.  China has woke up to the fact that pollution from coal is killing its people.  Its solar energy and electrical cars industries are growing faster than any other country and is way ahead of us.  While we are trying to prop up an industry of the 19th century, China is looking ahead to the industries of the 21st century.  This is a mistake by Trump that cannot be refuted.

Jeremy Lin has his hair in dreadlocks!  Lin has been playing around with his hair in the past couple of seasons.  He usually enlists a teammate or two in setting his hair style.  In particularly he made sure he consulted his teammate Rondie Hollis Jefferson before getting his hair done.  He did not want in anyway offend African Americans with his new hair style.  Of course an ex NBA player Kenyon Martin tweeted against Lin suggesting that he tries to be black when he is not.  Lin responded with a diplomatic tweet thanking Martin for his opinion.  He subtly noted that Martin had tattoos of Chinese characters on his body.  Public opinion came out for Lin.  But Martin got some racist remark directed at him.  Lin then tried to tell his supporters that they should not do that and that everyone is titled to his opinion.  

Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  So I don't see any problem with Lin in dreadlocks anymore than Halle Berry in straight hair.  It is quite different than the Cleveland Indians logo which looks silly to me.  Personally, I don't see why athletes want to have dreadlocks.  It must be more sweaty than short or no hair.  And if you play in the NFL, it is a disadvantage because tackling by pull on the hair is NOT a penalty!  But as long as the coach allows it, a player can wear his hair any way he wants.  But like Lin said, Martin is entitled to his opinion and I hope Lin fans do not keep attacking Martin.

So VP Pence shows up at a Colts game and leaves after the national anthem because some players from SF kneeled.  I think this was all planned by Pence to rally his and Trump's base.  He knew all along the SF players were going to kneeled at the anthem and by leaving right after, he draws more attention to the controversy.  In fact, it was reported that he told his security detail to be prepared to leave real early.  I think maybe at this time, both sides are preaching to the choir!

Well, this is going to be awkward!   Trump is going to Puerto Rico on Tuesday.  This after the mayor of San Juan and others complained about the slow federal response to the storm destruction and Trump basically saying the Puerto Ricans are too lazy to fix their own problems.  When Trump fought with the NBA players, he just uninvited the Warriors so he doesn't have to face them.  He is not going to show up at an NFL game soon and the Super Bowl champs next year can forget about an invitation to the White House.  But Trump needs the photo op and at least pretends he cares, so he is going to show up in Puerto Rico.  Everybody will probably be polite but it would not be Obama meeting Chris Christie in New Jersey for sure.

I watched most of the PBS show by Ken Burns on the Vietnam war.  I thought it was very good and a very balance look at the history of this tragic war and the impact on all sides.  I hear some South Vietnamese and American veterans say that the documentary is biased and is a propaganda for the communists.  I don't agree with this.  I think there is criticism of leaders of all sides who could have prevented this tragedy.  There is  sympathy for the soldiers of all sides who had no choice or just believe that they were doing the right things.  There is also sympathy for the civilians on both sides of Vietnam and the families of American soldiers back home.  So I thought it was well made and balanced.  If anyone had seen it, I would like to hear what he or she thinks.