As expected the House passed impeachment vote today.  The Senate will acquit Trump as expected early next year.  So I didn't bother to watch the proceedings today.  But couple of things I caught on tv today that maybe of interest.

There was a Congressman from Georgia who spoke out that Jesus had a more fair trial from Pontius Pilate than Trump got from the House.  First of all, the trial is to be in the Senate and has not begin yet.  I doubt that McConnell will be harder on Trump than Pilate was on Jesus.  This guy said that Pilate gave Jesus a chance to confront his accusers.  Well, Pelosi invited Trump to come to testify.  Trump said he was considering it but ultimately chickened out.  So none of what this guy said makes any sense.

How come no Christian has come out attacking this guy.  He is comparing Trump to Jesus!  I know more than half of Republicans think Trump is greater than Lincoln.  But do Christians really believe that Trump is being persecuted more than Jesus was? 

The other thing I saw was Trump mocking Debbie Dingell, the widow of John Dingell.  He even implied that John was in hell.  John Dingell was the longest serving Congressman in history.  He served 59 years from Michigan.  Trump is low class as always.  But again no Republican has come out admonishing his words. 

I don't know if Dingell is still popular in Michigan.  I think these crass remarks from Trump can be used against him in Michigan.  Maybe it won't change many votes but it is a battle ground state that Trump won by the thinnest of margins.  So a few votes may make the difference.

It is time for the Big Ten football bowl games predictions.  I will put up also the level of confidence I have of each of the predictions.

Michigan State over Wake Forest 75% confident
USC over Iowa  53%
Penn State over Memphis  90%
Ohio State over Clemson 51%
Cal over Illinois  53%
Alabama over Michigan 95%
Auburn over Minnesota  95%
Wisconsin over Oregon 55%
Tennessee over Indiana  60%

So that makes 4-5 for Big Ten.  I think it maybe the first time I predict that they will end up with a losing record.  As you can see there are 4 games that I have practical no confidence about my prediction, they are basically tossups to me.  Unfortunately, I am quite confident that Michigan has no chance against Alabama.  OSU dropped to second really is bad for them since Clemson is a much more difficult draw than Oklahoma would have been.  I think Clemson will probably be the favorite in Las Vegas although I was very impressed with OSU the two games I saw them play, against Michigan and Penn State.

The Democrats put out a 300 page report regarding the impeachment while the GOP put out over 100 pages to rebuff the Democrats even before the report came out.  Neither is going to change anyone's mind.  A poll from the Economist showed that 53% of Republicans think that Trump is a better president than Lincoln.  Probably 100% of Democrats think that Lincoln is better than Trump even though Lincoln has been dead for more than one and a half century!   It is impossible to argue with someone who believes the president who freed the slaves and defeated the confederates was inferior to Trump as president.  Apparently there are many people who are for the breaking up of the union and continuing slavery in this country!

On the Democrat side, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been criticizing Mayor Pete for saying that while he is for free college tuition, it should not apply to children of rich people.  AOC has also criticized Yang for saying he is for Medicare for all but would allow people who want to keep their current insurance to do so.  I understand the argument that if free tuition and health insurance is not for everyone then the Republicans will attack it, just like food stamps and welfare.  But they are going to attack it anyway as socialist no matter what.  Pete and Yang are right that the way the left presents these entitlements, they will not pass.  They can only hurt the chances of the Democrats defeating Trump next year.

As the most recent polls show, the lefts' candidates, Warren and Sanders, are not beating Trump in the battleground states.  The Democrats need to nominate a centrist candidate.  If Biden falters, Pete maybe viable.  The Democrats cannot put whoever is nominated in a position where he or she has to lean so far to the left that he or she cannot win those battleground states.

Been taking a break from writing as I felt rather frustrated with the politics in the country and the violence in Hong Kong.  Everyday brings more revelations of how unethical and incompetent our president is.  I can write something on that everyday but I feel like I would be wasting my energy.  The country is so divided that nothing will change anyway.  The situation in Hong Kong has gone way longer than I expected and there is no light at the end of the tunnel.  This is also an issue that people on either side will not change their minds.  So I will not try to change anyone's mind on either situations but after thinking over things in the past month, I will try to predict what will happen.

So the impeachment inquiry has started.  For the past couple of weeks, witnesses have been testifying in televised sessions.  To me, Trump is worse than Nixon.  But it doesn't matter what I think.  Trump will be impeached by the Democrat controlled House, but will not be convicted by the Republican controlled Senate.  Trump will claim victory.  The whole thing will boost turnout for Trump, making it very difficult to beat him.  He will lose the popular vote again but all he has to do is defend the states he narrowly won in 2016.  If his supporters turn out bigger than his detractors in those states, he will win again.

The latest polls show that only Biden, among the Democrats, beating Trump in those battleground states.  Biden has been shaky in the debates so you can never be sure that he will do well in the general election.  So unless they come up with a bombshell during the impeachment proceedings, I am afraid that the Democrats are helping Trump win reelection.

Since we all know how China can mow down dissidents (see Tiananmen Square Massacre), it is amazing that they have been hands off in Hong Kong for several months.  But I think it is just a matter of a pending trade deal.  The Hong Kong police, to me, has been remarkably disciplined given the circumstance.  But if China says attack, the protest will be over with big time violence.  But Xi will at least wait until Trump signs a trade deal.  The deal will include, maybe not in writing but certainly in verbal agreement, that Trump will not protest if China uses force.  Trump needs a deal to get out of the quagmire that he got himself into.  He does not and will not care what happens to the Hong Kong people.  Just ask the Kurds.

Well, there are more depressing news that I have avoided to write about.  The tragedy of the Kurds is among them.  But I will end with at least a mild uplifting news:  Sean Spicer has bee eliminated from DWTS, finally!

Here is my take on the debate last night:  Warren was attacked like she was the front runner.  She did ok in response to the attacks but she did not do as well as she did in the other debates.  It is tough to be the target, just ask Biden.

Sanders was actually better than in the other debates.  I guess heart attack helps!  Actually I think he was having problem with his heart and so was affecting him previously.  Now that he is treated and has better blood flow, he is better!

It was the best debate for Biden but then he was not the main target this time.  He still needs to get better and will see if holds the top spot after this.

I think everybody who has been around has improved.  So despite the worry that the debates cause the Democrats to make each other look bad, I think the debates make everybody better.  The question is will it make the eventual nominee great at debates.

I thought Steyer did all right.  I expected a half crazy billionaire who just talks about impeachment.  But for a political neophyte, he was not bad.

I think Klobuchar and Pete did the best, meaning the moderates are making some inroads against the liberals.  But it is unlikely that they can hold the moderate torch should Biden falters.

So here are my ratings:  Top quarter Klobuchar, Pete, Gabbard.  Second quarter:  Booker, Yang, and Steyer.  Third quarter: Sanders, Warren, Biden.  Last quarter:  O'Rourke, Harris, Castro. 

So the good news is that just about everybody has improved.  The bad news is that the three who are most likely to be nominated are only in the third quarter.  But they are the ones who are being attacked the most, so maybe whoever wins will be able to withstand the attacks of Trump and the GOP.

Came across on YouTube an interview by Shaun Ley of the BBC to Alvin Yeung, the leader of the Civic Party of Hong Kong.  I think it was a balance interview by a respected Western broadcast network.  I would have asked similar questions as Ley did if I was the journalist.

An article in the LA Times today said that there are more people applying to emigrate out of the city.  This is totally expected given the situation there.  What is not expected is that the U.S. is no where near the top of the destinations for Hong Kong people.  If you see the American and British flags being waved during the protests, you would think the people in Hong Kong have great confidence in the U.S.  That apparently is not the case. 

In the past the U.S. have always been the top country the Hong Kong people want to emigrate to.  In the last couple of years, Australia has passed the U.S. and Canada is not far behind.  The survey now reveals that Canada and Australia are the top destinations.  Taiwan and Singapore are also ahead of the U.S.  In fact the U.S. was the top choice in only 2.9% of those survey. 

Keep in mind that those who apply to the U.S. and elsewhere usually have money to invest in the target country or have high education level.  So they are older and richer than most of those protesting.  Still, the anti-immigrant rhetoric from the Trump administration, gun violence in the U.S. and changes in immigration policies all contributed to the decline in the desirability of the U.S.  The people in Hong Kong are very sophisticated in their understanding of the politics of the U.S. and elsewhere.  I am sure they understand more about the Brexit or the abandonment of the Kurds in northern Syria by Trump than most people in the U.S. and U.K.

I think deep down the people in Hong Kong know they can't count on the U.S. or U.K. to rescue them.  The situation in Hong Kong will lead to a brain drain out of the city.  That is bad news for Hong Kong.  It is also bad news for the U.S. that they will not benefit from the transfer of talent as she had in the past.

As promised I am writing an open letter to the president of China after having written an open letter to the protesters in Hong Kong.  Unfortunately since then a protester was shot and in critical condition.  This was predictable and could have been prevented.  As I mentioned before, neither side would likely listen to what I have to say.  But having said my piece to the protesters, I am going to say my piece to the president of China.

Dear President Xi

The display of the celebration of the 70th founding of the PRC was very impressive.  A lot have been accomplished by China during these 70 years.  But most of it has been done since Deng Xiaoping changed the system in China.  I think it is obvious that the old communist system under Mao Zedong was an abject failure.  If China wants to move toward becoming the greatest power on earth, it is essential that the Chinese government continues to open its system toward more democracy and more freedom and do not revert to the past.

President Xi, you said in your speech yesterday that the Chinese people are a great people, the Chinese nation is a great nation and the Chinese civilization is a great civilization.  Well, two out of three ain't bad!  China is not yet a great nation.  Great economic progress have been made but there are still lots of people in poverty.  But worse, are the policies in Xinjiang and Tibet.  I understand your desire to keep the country united.  But by putting so many people in internment camps and jails, you lose credibility all over the world.  I am sure most of the people who are detained are not threats to a great military power like China.  Start releasing some of them, it would be good publicity.

In the matter of Hong Kong, I say you must take the young people seriously.  Listen to their concerns both politically and economically.  Give the Hong Kong people the freedom to vote for their chief executive.  What have you got to lose?  Whoever is voted in cannot declare independence.  Hong Kong depends on China for so many things, it cannot stand alone.  But China also needs Hong Kong for its business know how and connection to the Western world.  If you let them choose their leader, you would have outdone the British over their entire colonial rule of Hong Kong as they never let Hong Kong choose their leader.  Again, it would make China look like a great nation.

President Xi, you have done a great job with the Belt and Road Initiative.  A great use of soft power.  You are right to say that "China used to send people all over the world because it was weak, but we send aid all over the world today because we are strong."  But the policies closer at home make people all over the world question your motives in sending the aid.  By making changes in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong, China can look like a benevolent power that a great nation should be.

During the Ming Dynasty, Admiral Zheng He took the greatest navy the world had known up to that time and for couple centuries after that on seven voyages.  Zheng went south and then west across the Indian Ocean all the way to Africa.  Along the way they were attacked a few times but easily defeated their attackers each time.  Zheng showed off the brilliance of the Chinese civilization and nation.  But unlike the Europeans later, the Chinese did not take any slaves nor did they take treasures from other countries.  Many countries paid tributes to the Chinese emperor after that.

I think it is possible for China to become that great military power again.  But can it be a kind power like it was in the days of Zheng He?  Mr. President, you have the power to point China in that direction.  You can start that by being more kind at home.  I believe your legacy will be enhanced if you change some of your stances regarding Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong.  As you know soft power is much better than hard power in the 21st century. 

AYM

Another day of violence in Hong Kong as the protest there is on the 17th week.  As China's national day on Oct. 1st approaches, we can expect more violence over the next few days.  As a former Hong Konger who is now an American, I wish to give advice to both the protesters and the authorities in Hong Kong and China.  I know nobody on either side have any interest in what I have to say.  But I am going to say it anyway.  So here is an open letter to the protesters, particularly the young ones.  Later on will be an open letter to the authorities.

Dear Protesters: 

I know the overwhelming majority of you are peaceful people who just want to protest without causing damages to Hong Kong and injuring innocent people.  You also do not want to be injured or arrested.  But the problem is there are people among you who are dangerous and is causing havoc that have led to violence.  While you may believe it is the police who are causing the violence, I don't see it that way.

I live near LA.  If a million people are out in the street of LA protesting and some of them crash their way into the city council building, raise foreign flags, sing foreign national anthems, burn the American flag, shut down LAX, shut down some of the subway (although we don't have those here), throw Molotov cocktails, petrol bombs and bricks, what do you think the LAPD would do?  It would be much worse than the tear gas and water cannon that the Hong Kong police have used.  In 17 weeks there would be death at the hands of the police here for sure.

A few weeks ago French police were using the same tactics against protesters at the G7 summit.  There were only a few hundred protesters at that time, hardly a threat.  Do you remember the tactics the French police used against the Yellow Vests protesters last year?  Way more number of and severity of injuries then than those in Hong Kong now.  But was there complaints by other western nations against the French police?  I think the Hong Kong police have been rather restrained in comparison.

Some of you are worried that Carrie Lamb will use the Emergency Regulations Ordinance against you.  This is a draconian law that basically lets the Chief Executive do whatever she wants.  But you do know this is not a Chinese law but a law left over from British colonial rule?  It was put into law to stop the Chinese seamen who were protesting that their white counterparts were making several times as much money.  This rule was used in 1967 in the leftist riots by the British forces.  If the British were so worried about human rights in Hong Kong, why didn't they repeal the law all these years, particularly when they handed Hong Kong over to China?

I understand that many of you don't like the policies of China.  But I don't understand why you would raise the British or American flags and sing their national anthems.  The rights that you demand from China were not given to you by the British until it was obvious that they are going to hand Hong Kong over to China.  This way they can say China is abusing you.  But to the day of the hand over, the people of Hong Kong had no right to vote for their chief executive.  It was a governor appointed by London.  And I don't know of any instance where the U.S. chastise the UK for human rights abuse in Hong Kong or in any other of its former colonies. 

Yes, there are good Americans who are rooting for you.  But the U.S. government have always look for its own self interests above human rights.  The U.S. went to Vietnam to fight the communists.  But did the U.S. protest French colonial rule in Vietnam?  Sure, China should be called out on human rights issues in Tibet and Xinjiang.  But the U.S. is only giving out toothless protests all over the world over human rights.  China gets hit by western nations more than others because it is their biggest competitor for world power.  But you should not believe that any nation, including the U.S. will be of any real help for you.  If China wants to stop U.S. complaints, it will just give Trump a trade deal.  If you don't think money talks, just ask the family and friends of Jamal Khashoggi.

Most of your families originally came from the mainland to have a better life.  I would say that life in China is way better than that of your ancestors before they made their way to Hong Kong.  I would also say that even though you may not think so, I think Hong Kong today is way better than in the 1960s when I left.  Improvements in China and Hong Kong took place slowly.  Those in power do not give it up easily, whether it is communist China or colonial Britain.  The Western nations will give you verbal support but there will not be concrete help.  You have won the extradition bill battle.  It is time to let things go back to normal because there is a minority who will take violence to much higher levels.  This will eventually lead China to put down the hammer.  This will cause damage to Hong Kong that may be impossible to repair.  Good luck.

AYM

New SNL hire Shane Gillis was found to have made disparaging remarks about Asians, including calling them chinks and mocking Chinese accents.  Presidential candidate Andrew Yang weighed in and took the high road.  He said he would forgive Gillis and would sit down and talk to him, using this as an educational moment.

That is very generous of Yang.  But I don't agree.  Gillis also said in the past that one can get away with making fun of Asians.  The implication to me that he is too much of a coward to attack another group the way he attacked Asians.   Can you imagine if he used the N word and mocked black speech?  We would not have a discussion of if he would be fired by NBC.  NBC would have fired him the same day the news came out.  It has been a weekend so I will give NBC another day or so.  If nothing happens, I say we need to boycott NBC.

I believe in forgiveness and not punishment in every instance.  But in this case, Gillis believed that he could get away with mocking Asians.  I am sure a lot of people do too.  Thus we need to send a message that they can't get away with it.  Gillis says that he is just pushing the boundaries as a comedian.  Is there a joke somewhere when you call people chinks?   He has fell over the boundaries and into quick sand. 

Take Gillis' "apology".  Yes, take it and shove it up your you know what.  He said he would be happy to apologize to anyone who is actually offended.  This is a non apology.  It implies that there is nothing wrong with what he said but that if someone is so sensitive that he feels offended, then Gillis would say he is sorry to him.  If someone says the N word in front of only white nationalists, nobody would be offended.  So does it means he is not wrong and does not need to apologize?  If one is sincere about making an apology, he should say he is sorry about what he said because he knows that it was horribly wrong.

Yang has been criticized for enhancing Asian stereotype by saying Asians are good at math and that lots of Asians are doctors.  I agree that those remarks are not funny and adds little to his campaign.  (Although MATH stands for Making America Think Harder is pretty good,)   But if you remember  Obama, when asked about people claiming  that Bill Clinton was the first black president, replied that he has to see if Bill can dance first before calling him a brother.  I don't think blacks were offended by the implication that they dance better than whites.  So I can live with people giving us Asians positive stereotypes.  When the false negative stereotypes go away, the false positives will go away also.

Watched most of the debate last night, so here is my take:

Corey Booker once again did the best, I thought.  Beto was right up there with him.  I thought it was the best Klobuchar did of all the debates and the town hall last week.  Warren again was the best of the Big Three.  Pete led the middle three.  Biden was very good in fending off Warren and Sanders in the beginning, his best performance so far.  But he faded toward the end of the third hour.  Yang, as in previous debates, got the least amount of questions and time.  Other than the beginning where he said he was giving away a thousand dollars a month for a year to 10 people, he was flat in his limited time.  Harris came across as combative, trying to show she will fight Trump by calling him out.  She was, however, on the defensive over her time as DA and AG.  Sanders again was near the bottom as Biden beat him, I think.  He also was not as good as Warren, by far, in holding up the progressive flag.  Castro was last again, especially since he attacked Biden for his memory, which came across as mean and he was actually wrong about what Biden said.

Not much changed as a result of the debate.  Klobuchar and Beto got the most boost, I think.  Klobuchar came across as a moderate, which she is, but also fair to the progressives.  Beto had the advantage of being from El Paso, site of a recent massive shooting.  He was able to speak passionately about gun control.  He even said he would take away AK47s and AR15s.  This may give the GOP ammunition to say the Democrats will take away your guns.  But, hey, they were going to say that anyway.  I think it is maybe time to lay it on the line.  Do we really think that people should have guns that were meant to be used in war?  If you need these guns to hunt, you are a cheat!

The big winner last night:  Obama!  Everyone said something nice about him.  Obama has become the Reagan of the Democrats.  All GOP candidates before had to mention Reagan.  Now all the Democrats had to mention Obama.  I think they recognize you can't attack Biden by attacking Obama.

I was not home last night so didn't watch the town hall of Democratic candidates on CNN.  Just as well since all 10 candidates got 40 minutes and so the whole thing went on for several hours.  No way could anyone watch the whole thing.  I watched excerpts of each candidates after I got home last night.  So here is my take on the event based on somewhat limited information.

I think the format made everyone looked good.  There was only one topic: climate change.  So it is easy to prepare what you are going to say ahead of time and be able to answer any questions that may come up.  There was nobody attacking you, like at a debate.  Instead of one or two minutes, like at a debate, you have much more time to make your view or ideas more clear.  So it helps everyone participating look good.

I think this helps someone like Yang the most, if people choose to watch while he is on.  During the debates, I felt he was called on less often than some of the other candidates.  He was also not as loud as some others.  His ideas need more explanation than can be done in one minute.  His humor also came through more last night.  So I think he did well.

Not surprising, Klobuchar was the most moderate and Sanders the most radical.  His 16 trillion price tag was 13 trillion more than that of Warren.  Booker was also more moderate than expected, saying nuclear power is not off the table as many progressives demanded.  I am actually surprised that this former Stanford football player who is well spoken, is not doing better at the polls.

I thought mayor Pete brought out a good point, asking would God want you to take care of the planet or destroy it?  This maybe helpful to persuade some conservatives who are most likely to be climate change deniers.  It may not work but at least it shows that he is not just preaching to the choir like most of the others were doing.

Of the big three, I think Warren did the best.  She came across as more detail oriented and spoke clearly.  Biden did ok but given the format, I don't think he did great.  There was the question of him attending a fund raiser hosted by an oil executive.  He denied that the man was an oil executive.  It may be semantics but it is not good to have to defend when he should be bringing out policies.  To me Sanders was just too far to the left and not as good a speaker as Warren.  So I declare Warren the winner of the big three.

The Hong Kong protests are getting out of control.  I thought things went fairly well in June when the government backed down from the extradition law which led to the protests in the first place.  But the protesters were not satisfied.  They demanded the resignation of Carrie Lam, the chief executive.  They also demanded more democracy.  Since then the protests have turned more violent with government buildings and the airport being occupied.  Businesses came to a halt for many days since then. 

Recently a friend of my wife and her husband came to the U.S. from Hong Kong for a visit.  We sat down and talked about the situation in HK.  Now, I must admit we are all in our 60s so our views are quite different from the majority of protesters who are mostly in their teens or early 20s.  One thing that was brought to our attention by one of our friends in America was that some of the protesters were singing the American national anthem in some videos.  We understand that the U.S. is still consider a model of freedom in the world.  But most of the protesters, who were not even born when HK was handed over to China by Britain in 1997, have no idea how things were under colonial rule.

There was no true democracy under British rule in HK until a few years before the handover, when British knew they will not be governing soon.  There were protests and riots during the British rule.  There was never a response from the U.S. in support of HK protesters against the British back then.  It is easy for the U.S. to chide China for undemocratic stance in HK, although Trump seems to give Xi a bye on this so far.  But the U.S. never chided Britain for colonial behaviors in HK,  So for those young people singing the praise of the Britain and the U.S,, remember all countries back their friends and act mostly in their own self interests.

Speaking of those protests against the British, remember the actions of the HK police back in 1966 and 1967 vs the actions of the HK police today.  While the protesters are complaining the brutality of the HK police today, they should go back to history to see that the HK police under British command were much more brutal back then.  Now, to be fair, the 67 riots instigated by the leftists sympathetic to communist China were much more violent.  The majority of HK people wanted the police to stop them toward the end.  But the 66 riots were peaceful and most historians would say that the police acted more brutally than necessary.  Same with the beginning of the 67 riots.  The reaction of the police back then were over the top which contributed to the violence.  The British government, after the 67 riots, commended the police for its fine work putting down the rioters.  The brutality of the police under British command was not discussed openly.

So I think the actions of HK police is rather restrained today.  There is a picture in the LA Times today showing a protester swinging a bat against a cop.  In the U.S. that may have led to a shooting by the police.   But nothing happened.  Sure tear gas  and water cannons were employed.  But that would be the least response from any police force faced with people breaking into government offices and shutting down the airport. 

The future of HK is not bright.  China, of course, may take away all freedom at any time.  At the very least, China is less dependent on HK for its finances and will try to let Shanghai be the financial capital of the country.  Part of the problem that led to these protests by the young people is that their economic condition is much worse than those of their parents.  But with these protests turning violent, it may make HK's financial situation permanently worse.  A nephew of one of my friends who works for a big U.S. investment bank, said that with the instability in HK, his firm is planning on pulling out of its Asian headquarters out of HK and into Singapore.  Losses like that are going to be permanent.  My wife's friend and her husband agree with this assessment and fear for the future of their children.

Just returned from a trip to New York.  It has been many years since I visited the biggest city in America.  A lot has changed since then in my eyes.  The traffic is still horrible.  I had to rent a car to go upstate to attend a wedding.  It took an hour and a half to just get the rental car.  Are there that many people going out of the city?  I don't think that many people want to drive in the city, do they?  Then it took forever to drive out of the city.  The wedding was only 80 miles from JFK but it took about 4 and a half hours to get there, including the delay at the rental office.  It was almost as long as the flight time from LA to NY!

When I got back to the city, I found the transportation with the subways and buses were great.  The subway trains and buses are free of graffitis, unlike the last time I was there.  The subway stations were clean.  I didn't see any rats.  The trains were on time and not as crowded as before.  Interestingly, there were very few beggars and homeless people in the streets.  This is in contrast from what I saw before and what I have seen in LA and SF lately.  It seems to me that NY is doing a better job of getting rid or housing the homeless than the big cities in California.

I also find the people in NY have better manner than before.  I did not run into any rude people the entire week.  Whenever we asked for help, even strangers on the bus or on the subway, they were polite and helpful.  The diversity of NY is amazing, even more than California.  I must have heard about 20 languages spoken in just the short time we were there.  Of course, we did not test the manners of the NY taxi drivers who were mostly rude the last time I was in town.  Now we ride in Uber or Lyft, and those drivers are polite.

The most glaring difference to me, however, was the lack of honking in NY.  Before I would turn around to see what was going on if I DON'T hear cars honking.  Now there is practically no honking at all.  I thought the people couldn't have changed that much, could they?  Then my wife's cousin told us that there is a law that if you honk and is not an emergency, you can be fined $350!  Now, I don't know how they would enforce it.  There are no cops watching to see who is honking, right?  Even if there are cops, how can they know who is honking for sure, given the heavy traffic.  But I guess if you have a law, most people will obey it, even if they know you are not likely to get caught.

There was also a lot of police presence everywhere.  Obviously at Trump Towers there were lots of police.  But subways, Central Park, JFK and ordinary streets are staffed with what seems excessive number of cops.  Well, it did make me feel way more safe than in the past, especially walking at night.

So overall, my impression of NY is that it has made a lot of improvements.  Maybe people are more mellow after 9/11?  I don't know.  But at least on the surface, NY has outdone LA and SF as far as I can see.  LA in particular, with its homeless problems and lack of good public transportation, needs to learn from NY.

Three massive killings in less than a week!  Massive shootings have become so common that we are almost numb to it.  That should never be the case in a civilized society.  But three in a row in such a short time, with all three perpetrated by young white men, makes me wonder if there is going to be even more frequent tragedies in the near future.

Trump and the Republicans are going to point to mental health as the reason for these shootings.  As I said before, if you believe that, you will have to admit that Americans are crazier than everybody else in the world.  Given the percentage of shootings by young white men, you will also have to admit that young white men are crazier than other ethnic groups.  I choose to believe the easy access to guns is the main factor.

But Trump is also a factor given his rhetoric.  The Republicans are going to strongly disagree with this.  But if I turn it around and say, what if Obama used the same rhetoric about white people as Trump did about people of color.  And what if black men started shooting all over the place after posting manifestos against white people.  Would the Republicans blame Obama?  I bet they would.  B

There is a similarity between young Muslim men who join terrorist groups and young white men who join white supremacist groups.  Usually they feel isolated, lonely and that the world is against them.  Both groups are easily convinced by bad people to join a cause.  They feel being part of something greater than they have in their own world.  We need to get to these young men before the bad guys do, otherwise tragedies are bound to happen.  Trump is not like the bad Muslim clerics who call for killings.  But his rhetoric is encouraging white supremacist groups which will lead to more violence.

There is one big difference.  When a Muslim commits any act of terrorism, there are calls by Trump and others to ban Muslims.  When a white man commits an act of terrorism, nobody calls for banning white people.  Do you think this difference makes it easier for Muslim terrorists to recruit?

After watching very little of the first debate on Tuesday and more of the second debate on Wednesday,  I conclude that the winner of Tuesday was Warren and the winner of Wednesday was Warren.   Warren seems to have taken the lead of the left of the party from Sanders and Harris.  Everybody thought she debated well.  The moderates that were on Tuesday were weak and didn't challenge Warren much. 

Then on Wednesday, everybody piles on Biden but he was better prepared this time.  He was still not great but did fight back against his attackers enough to prevent further damage.  Harris, who had done well in the first debate, faded this time with people now attacking her.  It is always harder when you have a target on your back,  just ask Biden.

I think Booker and Gabbard did well on Wednesday.  But I don't think anyone crashed into the top four.  So given that, Warren comes out ahead on both nights as she is the only top candidate getting a boost from Detroit.

I thought that the CNN moderators were not very good.  They started with Harris, gave Biden a chance to rebut, then gave Harris a chance to rebut, then Biden.  This went on for few minutes before anyone else got to speak.  Then it was back to Harris and Biden again.  I think Yang didn't get to answer anything for  the first twenty minutes!  (I might have exaggerated but not by much).  There was also very little foreign policy discussions.  I understand that domestic issues are big, but given the problems we have all over the world today, I think we need to hear the views of the candidates on foreign affairs.

Although Yang seemed to try to solve every problem with his one thousand dollars per month idea, I thought he brought out some interesting thoughts.  The talk about 80% of the manufacturing jobs lost are due to automation, not due to transfer to overseas, is interesting.  He didn't get to talk much during the debate.  But was given the highest mark of anyone by a debate coach who commented for CNN afterward.  Then when interviewed by the CNN panel, he came across as very smart.  Perhaps too smart, as his points seem to go over the heads of the members of the panel.  They were just able to nod in agreement. 

I think with so many people attacking each other, there will be ammunition from the debates for Trump to use in the general election.  But it is important to find out out if Biden or anyone else is going to be able to take the heat.  Because Trump is going to try to bully during the general election debates.

The Democratic debates are in Detroit this week.  This brings up the question:  Will Trump win again in Michigan in 2020?  I read that during this coming week, a GM plant in Warren will close.  This will be one of 5 GM plants scheduled to close in 2019.  There is also one in Detroit-Hamtramck on the list.  Given that Trump campaigned in 2016 of bringing auto work back to the U.S., shouldn't the voters in Michigan vote against him in 2020?

Besides hammering at each other this week, the Democratic candidates should point this out in Michigan:  Obama and the Democrats saved GM and now GM is closing factories under Trump's watch.  I always say the president have limited ability to control the economy.  But the idea that Trump and the GOP are on the side of the auto workers is absurd.  I ask the people in Macomb county:  Would the GOP have bailed out GM for sure?  Has Trump done anything for the auto industry since he took office?   You may not care about the Mueller probe or Trump's racist comments.  But what about you pocketbook?

"Love it or leave it", that is what Trump is telling people whom he says are criticizing America.  Never mind that Trump criticized everything about America when he was running.  He even called the FBI acting like Nazis.  But of course, this type of rhetoric occurred during the anti-communists era.  Conservatives also used this phrase against antiwar protesters in the 60s.  But isn't the ability to criticize the country fundamental to democracy?  So it is Trump and his supporters who are against what this country stands for.  That maybe why Trump likes Putin so much!

After watching all 8 hours of the Mueller testimony in Congress.  Just kidding, I only watched small parts of it.  Who would sit through all that?  I did watch the analyzes afterward on CNN.  So I know that not very many minds were changed.  See, nobody on either side or the middle would sit through the hearings.  If they follow it at all, it would be to watch the news channels afterwards.  I watch CNN, the leftists would watch MSNBC and the rightists would watch Fox News.  So everybody would have listened to the same preacher as before.  So the opinions of the nation will change little.

Mueller pretty much did not deviate from what he said in the report.  I think there are some points from the testimony that the Democrats can use if they seek impeachment.  But impeachment is a bad idea anyway as I mentioned before.  Basically, Mueller punted to Congress and the people.  The Congress will not do anything as the GOP controls the Senate.  So it is up to the people to do something.  The people can return the punt for a TD if they resoundingly vote out Trump in 2020.

Mueller did give the opinion that after Trump leaves office, he can be prosecuted.  So if we get a Democratic president in office in 2021, will we hear the chant of "Lock him up"?

So the Trump is telling four Congresswomen to go back to their own country.  And incredibly, most GOP politicians are backing him or are silent on the matter.  What happened to you, Lindsey Graham?  John McCain, your great late friend, is turning over in his grave.  There are some conservatives who are speaking out.  George Will said that Trump is worse for the country than Nixon.  No kidding, Watergate was stupid but Russian interference is extreme danger for our democracy.  Nixon never kissed up to dictators like Trump is doing.

Comedian Joe Wong joked that he was told that America is a country of immigrants.  So he wants Americans to get out of his country!  Since Trump is telling the Congresswomen, who are all American citizens, to get out of the country, Trump is basically copying Joe Wong!  Except Trump himself is not an immigrant, at least not that we know of.  So we should tell him to leave the country!

Many in the Republican party are mad at Paul Ryan because he had unflattering things to say about Trump.  He was just saying the things all Republicans were thinking about but were afraid to say in public.  I am thinking, why is the GOP following Trump but pushing Ryan away?  After Ryan took over the Speaker position, the GOP won big in 2016.  His only sin was to not flatter Trump.  The big loss in 2018 was the fault of Trump, not of Ryan.  Shouldn't they be wanting Ryan to come back and getting rid of Trump?  It seems to me, the Republicans are like a bunch of school children who are afraid of the bully and are not interested in following the smart kid in the class.

Been having computer problems lately so have not been writing.  The two Democratic debates looked more like shouting matches.  There were just too many people yelling at the same time.  Joe Biden was attacked as expected, being the front runner.  Kamala Harris landed the best blows against Biden.   And Biden's lead decreased significantly after the debate while Harris moved up.  The question is:  Will the trend continue.

Biden is known for gaffes.  That is partially why he had failed to win the nomination in the past when he ran.  I expected trouble water for Biden.  He has been in politics for a long time so there were a lots of votes and speeches that people can pick out to use against him.  But civil rights should not be one the areas that people can attack him on.  If his record on civil rights was less than excellent, Obama would not have pick him to be vp.  The whole busing debate is nonsense.  I always felt that busing was a poor way to achieve desegregation.  Even a large majority of blacks believe that also.  So I think to paint Biden as against busing should not serve anyone well in the long run.  People care about healthcare, the economy and climate change way more than the old busing story.

But Biden was shooting himself in the foot by talking about his working with racists when he was in the Senate.  It may well be that he needed to do so to advance important agenda.  But talking about that now is hurting him with today's electorate.  At least he has apologized.  But it is amazing to me that someone who has been around so long still makes unforced errors like that.

We were 10 minutes away from bombing Iran.  We were less than 24 hours from arresting and deporting a million undocumented immigrants.  Then Trump changed his mind.  Is Trump the voice of reason in his administration against the hardliners on immigration and Iran?  I don't think so.  He is the president.  There is no need to announce the policies of the hardliners and then stopped them just before they go into effect.  If he is the voice of reason, he would not have given the go ahead in the first place.  The excuses for pulling back are just unbelievable.  He didn't realize 150 people would be killed in the bombing?  Did he think that our bombs and missiles only hit buildings and weapons?  And he listened to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to postpone the ICE raids?   Come On!

The truth is that Trump has no strategy on anything.  He just wings it or announce something that will rally his base.  Once he realizes that what he wants to do will backfire, he changes course.  His dealings with North Korea and China bears this out.  The problem is, his threats may lead to escalations that will be bad for the country and the world.  The trade war with China can still spiral out of control.  Miscalculations between Iran and the U.S. still can lead to war and more chaos in the Middle East.  

The Iran situation is typical example of an unforced error.  The Iran deal was going well.  All other countries involved were pleased with the situation.  Trump blew it up to satisfy his base and Saudi Arabia and some factions of Israel.  There was no backup plan.  Sure it hurt Iran but if you push someone into a corner, he is sure to fight back.  Trump has repeatedly complained about the quagmire that Bush got us into in Iraq.  So I don't think he wants to send troops.  But bombing by itself will not stop Iran or cause regime change.  Iran will cause damage to us and the world if we attack.  Terrorism will increase.  All this because Trump blew up the nuclear deal without any well-thought out strategy. 

Surprise, surprise!   The Hong Kong government actually backed down and suspended an extradition bill.  Chief Executive Carrie Lam actually apologized to the public for her mishandling of the bill.  This was after two massive protests in the past two weeks.  I did not see the government backing down as they did not back down during the Umbrella Movement of 2014.

I am also surprised that the protests this year is much bigger than in 2014.  The protesters estimate 1.9 million showed up on Sunday while the government estimated about 338,000 showed up.  Either one side is using Donald Trump to do the counting or the real number is somewhere in between.  I think the government did lower the true estimate but 1,9 million is also unrealistic.  That would mean a quarter of all the people in Hong Kong showed up.  I don't think the average person in Hong Kong is big on politics.  Making money is the goal, especially for the older people who knew about the time Hong Kong was not that prosperous.  But there maybe a change this time.

As in most democratic protests, this one is led by young people.  So was the Umbrella Movement.  But this one was more successful because more older people are involved.  In 2014 there was a generation divide where the older folks did not want to rock the boat.  Perhaps the older people now realize that the autonomy of the former British colony is being slowly eroded.  Maybe they don't want their children become second class citizens like they were under British rule.  There is more solidarity between the generations this time and the government has taken notice.

But of course the government is backed by China and that means things can go in reverse very quickly.  Beijing could have tell the Hong Kong government to use force to shut down the protest.  They did not seem to have done so.  One reason is that Beijing is in a trade war with the U.S. and it did not want negative publicity that would give Trump the upper hand.  China may want the world to see that Hong Kong has freedom as China had promised.  It wants to tell the world: See we are for freedom and by extension, free trade.

Whatever the reason, it is good for now that the government has backed down.  What will happen next time is anyone's guess.  

If I am a Mexican all I am thinking today is that the U.S.is a bully and our own president is weak to kowtow to the bully.  If the most powerful country in the world cannot keep people from entering its country, why is it that poor Mexico will be able to stop people from Central America to come into Mexico and eventually make their way to the U.S.?  We have limited resources to serve our own interests and now we have to do the job for the rich Americans to bar others from entering their country?   If we don't do it we are slapped with tariffs that will choke our economy?

The American appetite for illegal drugs make it very profitable for Mexicans to form drug cartels to sell to the Americans.  Remember, when there is a demand, there will a supply.  Having form drug cartels, there will be a need for weapons to fight each other for territory.  The U.S. is happy to supply the heavy weapons.  When there is a demand, there will be a supply.  So with all these powerful weapons, our law enforcement agencies are stressed to the limit.  Now we have to take resources from these agencies to help America protect its border?

Our president agreed to Trump's demands because he is weak.  But he also doesn't have a lot of choices.  We are dependent to America.  The U.S. can destroy our economy with some tolerable pain to its own economy.  Of course, our government may not really comply with what Trump wants.  We just pretend to agree.  Nothing much will really change.  I guess Trump likes to create a crisis and bully someone for an agreement that means nothing but then he can claim victory to his base.

So Trump gets what he wanted for now with Mexico.  He may get something similar from China to avoid an all out trade war.  But I am not sure.  He may get some meaningless concession and then claim victory.  China, for sure, will not agree to anything that will even look humiliating to it.  China had its recent history of humiliation.  The reason Xi Jinping has accumulated so much power is because he promises the Chinese that humiliation will never happen again.  And all the Chinese who know about history agree with him.  So Trump will not get anywhere by trying to bully China.  This will not resolve like it did with Mexico.

I am very surprised by the demonstrations in Hong Kong.  I heard of the law that is the cause but it didn't seem like it would be such a big thing for most people in Hong Kong.  There is a second reading of the law on Wednesday.  I will need to look closer at the law and see how the Hong Kong people react after that.

Today is the thirtieth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests, known in China as the Six Four Incident.  This date in history reminds us that obtaining freedom takes a long time but losing it can happen quickly.   Thirty years ago I thought with the reforms China was undergoing, that capitalism will lead to democracy soon in China.  Turns out in a few days, China went backwards quickly.

 Economically China recovered and kept marching upward after that.  It is not true capitalism but the system is closer to capitalism than socialism and nothing like old communism.  Freedom continues to be on hold.  Chinese are able to study and travel abroad with less restrictions.  But in their own country, the Chinese cannot see censored sites on the internet.  You can't find an objective view on Six Four on the internet in China for example.  And don't think about protesting against the government too loudly.

So progress for freedom is slow but at least we didn't go back to the Mao era of the Cultural Revolution.  I think eventually the progress for the economy will slow.  In order for China to advance and challenge the U.S., it will need to innovate.   Innovation is much harder to come by if freedom is restricted.  Eventually maybe a Chinese leader will see this and take the country out of dictatorship as Deng had taken the country out of the communist economic system.

Unbelievable, eight way tie for the championship of the Spelling Bee.  They decided before hand that  twenty rounds was the maximum for the final.  Anyone still standing after that would be crown co-champion.  I am happy for the 8 winners, who were obviously great.  I think I might have gotten about 5% of the words correctly.  So hats off to them.

But what are they going to do in the future?  It seems like every year, there are more and more kids who are capable of standing there all night and not miss a word.  So maybe there will be a 12 way tie next year.  I think it is time to introduce the time factor!

They get two minutes to spell the word now.  It is too long!  Many times, the kid knew the answer right away but ask all the questions allowed anyway.  The worst question is "Can you use the word in a sentence?"  Invariably, the sentence is of no use.  It is like the Seinfeld episode where a guy called Seinfeld a hypocrite.  He tried to calm Seinfeld down by telling him hypocrite can be a complement.  When asked to use it in a sentence, the guy said "That Michael Jordan, he is such a hypocrite."  As you can see, using it in a sentence is not helpful at all.

So let's give everyone 30 seconds to write down the answer, like Final Jeopardy.  The most right answers wins after 20 words.  In this case, spelling DOES count!  The game would move along and it would not depend on who got the easier words since everyone will get the same 20 words.

If there is a tie, then do best of 5 by buzzing in.  I know, the speed of of your thumb would matter then.  But I think it would also bring into play quick thinking.  I think the Bee would be much more exciting to watch if we change to this format.  

On this Memorial Day, as we honor those heroes who sacrificed for us, we must be careful to not get into needless conflicts that will kill our soldiers and those of other countries.  At this moment I am talking about a possible conflict with Iran.  We are sending an aircraft carrier to the area and more troops are also being sent.  I have not seen any evidence that Iran is on the verge of attacking us.  Trump even said that if Iran wants to fight us, it will be the official end of Iran.  If that is the case, what danger are we under that we have to act right now?  Surely Iran does not want to meet its official end!

I think the reason that people like John Bolton are sending the message that we may attack Iran is that these people want regime change.  Just like the neocons in the Bush administration who wanted regime change in Iraq post 9/11.  I will give Trump some credit in that, at least for now, he is rebuffing Bolton's escalation of tension.  Maybe he remembered that he was against going into Iraq when Bush decided to do so.  Bush listened to people like Cheney and we know how things turned out in Iraq.  By the way, if a war breaks out between the U.S. and Iran today, Iraq would be on Iran's side.  We have the Iraq war to thank for that change of allegiance.

I am tired of the chicken hawks who want to send Americans into harms way to serve their agenda, which are against American interests.  This is especially true of people like Bolton and Cheney who avoided fighting in Vietnam themselves but are willing to send our troops for regime change in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela etc.  I think that if a leader who proposes a war, he himself must put on an uniform to serve in that war.  Not only that, his children and grandchildren should also be drafted and sent to combat.  If you think that a war should be fought, shouldn't your family be willing to participate?  I bet there will be less hawks in D.C. if that is the law.

Just returned from a vacation in Michigan and Toronto.  It was a big family get together and things went very well except for trouble with Spirit Airline.  It started when two of my children tried to fly from California to Michigan.  Their flight was canceled about 5 hours before scheduled takeoff.  The choice became taking the same flight 24 hours later or take an indirect flight with stop in Houston the next morning.  Given that there was a storm coming into Houston, it was risky taking the earlier indirect flight.  So my children arrived one day late and almost missed the banquet we had planned.

Then when we were leaving Michigan back to California, we were notified our flight was delayed three hours.  We missed the email notification and got to the airport as planned.  We noticed a lot of people were already at the gate, apparently also missing the notification.  We all waited patiently but then one hour before the new takeoff time, we found out that it was going to be delayed two more hours.  People were almost at a riot mood, standing at the gate desk, complaining loudly.  My wife thought of her flight to Hong Kong with Cathay Pacific last year when the flight was delayed several times and then was eventually canceled, forcing her and others to scramble to San Francisco to catch another flight to Hong Kong.  The people here were thinking about the same and were screaming at the gate agents.

Finally a member of the flight crew calmly spoke thru the microphone that the agents had no control and that they were trying their best to contact the authorities to see what was happening and that it was best that people let them do the job.  She did a great job of calming the passengers, things settled down although many angry faces continued to mill around the gate.  Finally two hours later, it was revealed that the original pilot did not show up and they had to fly one in from some place else to take over.  He did show up, in fact an hour earlier than the second delay time, and we were on our way.

Was the missing pilot the reason for the delay?  How did they know that he wasn't going to be there several hours earlier (from the time they sent out the email).  And couldn't they have got another pilot during the first delay?  When they announced another two hour delay, I assume if another pilot was on the way, they would know when he would get there.  But he actually showed up one hour earlier than expected, given the estimate second delay time.  I would not think about conspiracy too much except less than two weeks ago, my children's flight was canceled without explanation.  Was Spirit trying to save money by not having a flight that was not crammed like sardines?

My wife also observed that the passengers going to Hong Kong, who were majority Asians, were much more polite than those flying from Michigan to California.  Is it that Asians are less confrontational?  There is the old saying that in Asian, a nail that stands out gets hammered.  In the U.S, the old saying is that the squeaky wheel gets the oil.  Did the almost riot situation caused Spirit to act and quickly get the flight going?  I don't know.  It maybe just the passengers going to Hong Kong happened to be calmer individuals and those on the Spirit flight were just happened to be more impatient.  Maybe some study should be done.  Better yet, find out how often Spirit and other airlines delayed or canceled, causing grief among passengers.

The full Mueller report with redactions came out yesterday.  Will it change anyone's mind?  Probably not.  If someone had believed and supported Trump all this time, he/she will continue to do so.  But here is my take:

1.  While the report could not establish any collusion or conspiracy in legal terms, it says that the Russians interfered with the election with the goal of helping Trump win over Clinton.  Also Trump welcomed the help and believe that it would benefit his campaign.  You must wonder, why did Putin want Trump to win?  Why did Trump think that the Russians want him to win?  Either Putin thought that Trump is a weaker leader than Clinton or that he had something on him. 

2.  The report certainly does not exonerate Trump on the matter of obstruction of justice.  In fact, Mueller said that he tried to obstruct, failing at times because his subordinates did not follow his orders.  Mueller even said that if he had confidence that Trump did not obstruct, Mueller would have said so, but he could not say so.  It is like saying:  I would say you are innocent if I believe that you are innocent.  But I can't say that.  Implication:  I think you are guilty.

3.  It looked like Mueller did not want to deal with any prosecution of this mess and thus punted.  He punted to Congress, not Barr.  But Barr intercepted and cleared Trump of obstruction.  I guess even if the punt went to Congress, it would have called for a fair catch and led to nowhere.  Impeachment should be off the table, given that the GOP controlled Senate won't convict.  It would be a waste of time and divide the country more.

So what do we go from here?  Maybe if Mueller testify, it would clear things up and make Trump's guilt more apparent.  But if Mueller wanted to sink Trump, he would not have punted.  So I am not sure he will have much more to say on the subject.  The best the Democrats can do is use this in the 2020 election.  Keep hammering the fact that Putin was trying to help Trump.  Point out how Trump have nice things to say about Putin and other dictators.  Point out why Trump wanted to obstruct justice, as mentioned in the report, if he was not guilty.  Maybe all this will get some independent votes and get him out of office.  We can't afford another four years of this.

Many news pundits believe that Stephen Miller is the guy who drives the anti-immigrant policies in the Trump administration.  He maybe responsible for Kirstjen Nielsen and others who are out at the DHS.  It is remarkable how this 33 year old has that much power.  But to me, what is remarkable is how much hatred this man has for immigrants and refugees given that his family history includes escape from Jewish persecution from the Russian Empire.

Of course many descendants of undocumented immigrants and refugees are vehemently against those fleeing persecution or economic disasters today.  Recently, Trump was cheered at a Jewish group meeting for his anti-immigrant stand.  I am sure there are descendants of holocaust survivors and victims in that crowd.  They should understand that if  their ancestors had a choice of coming here as undocumented immigrants or suffered their fate, the choice would be obvious.  And we as a country should have taken them in.

The same with the descendants of those who escaped Vietnam, the Irish famine, and Mao's China.  How can those people be against undocumented immigrants and refugees?  Even if their ancestors came by the legal route, they should realize that if the legal route took too long, given the  circumstances, their ancestors would be doing the same thing as those at our border today.

Turned out my prediction of Virginia for the NCAA basketball championship was correct.  But I can't claim any skill as I said it without much conviction.  I just thought that Virginia had the easiest regional and most likely to get to the Final Four.  Turned out, they were remarkably lucky to win at least three of the games.  I had no idea that Texas Tech, who were much more convincing than Virginia in getting to the finals, would be that good.  Parity has come to college basketball.

Now for the NBA.  I am taking the Bucks and the Greek Freak to win it all.  I think GS will have a much harder time getting out of the West.  I think they will be tired out by the time they get to the Finals.

Just came back from a trip to Sequoia National Park on the way to SF.  Not my cup of tea to trek through the snow.  But it is a magnificent to see these great trees.  A reminder of the wonderful things in this country.  Hopefully these remain for generations to come.

Back to reality.  I understand that Trump had come up with a great healthcare plan to replace Obamacare while I was away.  But he won't reveal it until after the 2020 election.  If the plan is so good for Americans,  wouldn't it be hurting Americans by delaying its implementation?  Come on!  Tell us what you got, Mr. President.  Or is it just more BS?

The President also threatens to shut off the border.  Wait until the agricultural businesses lose tons of money when their produce perish at the border.  Wait till the automakers had to shut down plants because parts cannot come from Mexico.  Maybe this is the plan that Trump will implement after 2020, when he has one more month in office as a lame duck.

I did not know that Trump's father was born in Germany!  I would think that we would have known that.  Well, at least Donald would know, right?  I can understand someone wants to lie to gain an advantage.  But I don't see how lying about your father was born a German is beneficial to Trump.  But I guess if someone lies frequently, he just can't help it.

If Donald's father was born in Germany, maybe we should ask to see the President's birth certificate.  Then ask again after seeing it and repeat the process.  After all, anyone who has a father born in another country must not have been born in the U.S. himself!  I don't think Trump was born in Germany even though he claims his father was from there.  But Moscow, maybe?

The long awaited Mueller report is out and we got a summary from AG Barr today.  There was not much surprise in Barr's summary and it opened more questions.  Most of these questions may be answered by a full disclosure of Mueller's report.  Whether we get to read the whole thing is unknown at this time.  I will give my take on this and what it means to Trump.

1.  There is no collusion between Trump and the Russians according to the Mueller report summarized by Barr.  I don't doubt that finding and is not a surprise.  I am not sure Trump initially wanted to win the presidency that badly that he would commit treason to get that job.  So this finding is a vindication for Trump for saying no collusion all along.  The question I want answered from the Mueller report is if there was no collusion, why Trump always defended Putin.  Was there something else that Trump owed Putin.  Did Mueller looked closely at his finances?  If so, will that be made public?

2.  Mueller did not decide whether Trump should be tried for obstruction of justice.  He left that up to Barr and Rosenstein.  According to Barr, both he and Rosenstein decided that there was not enough evidence to go forward to charge Trump.  But Barr also noted that Mueller did not exonerate Trump.  If there was no evidence of obstruction of justice, Mueller would have say so and exonerated Trump.  The fact that he did not, it means that to most people, Trump was trying to obstruct justice.  It is just that the man he appointed as AG feels that there is not enough evidence to convict him.  If this occur in another country, would anyone believe that the leader of that country was not trying to obstruct an investigation on himself?

3.  Lot more questions.  As mentioned above, why all the coziness toward Putin?  Why did Trump disagree with the intelligence community about the Russian meddling?  Who did Putin want to win with all the meddling?  How do we prevent this from happening again?  Did Trump violated campaign finance laws by paying off Stormy Daniels?

The GOP and Trump will gloat with what was disclosed today.  The Democrats will keeping digging.  I don't think it changed many minds about Trump.  Maybe he picks up a few percent of the Independents after today.  He may have more problems coming out of Southern District of New York.  I would say that unless the full Mueller report contained some real damage, this was a good day for Trump.

But Friday was a bad day for Trump.  Not because anything with investigation but with the stock market.  It is not just the 460 points loss but because the loss was based on an indicator called yield inversion.  This is where a long term bond yield drops below that of a short term counterpart.  As usually the case, this involves long and short term Treasury investments.  This yield inverse is usually an indication of a coming recession in about a year.  This last occurred in 2007 and we know what happened in 2008.  If this holds true again, then before the 2020 election we will have a recession.  Trump has been exaggerating the success of the economy under him.  If the recession comes, it will be a disaster for him and his backers.

All over the news the last few days was the college admission cheating scandal.  It is big news because rich and famous people are involved.  I am appalled by the revelations but I am not that surprised.  I would bet that some of the people who paid to get their kids admitted to elite schools are at the same time against affirmative action.

I am against affirmative action by race.  But I am for affirmative action based on economic status.  That is the least colleges can do to try to even the playing field.  As you can see, rich folks already have affirmative action for themselves.  They have had back doors and side doors to get in.  Poor folks should have a door somewhere open for them.

It has always been known that at elite colleges there is a back door where rich alums can get their kids in if they are not qualified to go in thru the front door.  This door is known as legacy admits.  There is also a back door for athletes in non revenue generating sports which mostly rich people can participate in.  Golf and tennis are the old examples among others.  Now you can add rowing which has teams in inland schools that are nowhere near water.  You think any inner city kids can play these sports growing up?  So by giving scholarships and lowering  admission standards for people who play in these sports, you are essentially giving affirmative action to rich people and maybe those of upper middle class.

So while white conservatives questioned whether Obama got into Harvard Law School by affirmative action, I will say with 100% certainty that George Bush and Trump got into their schools by white affirmative action or the backdoor.  Trump wanted to see Obama's grades.  At the same time he had Cohen threaten his high school and college not to release his grades.  He also threatened the College Board not to release his SAT scores.  You can't get decent SAT scores after going to elite private schools?  You still need to get in thru the backdoor?  You are so hypocritical that you complain about minority affirmative action?

Many years ago when my future wife was a student at a east LA junior college, a counselor offered to drive a few minority students to UC Santa Barbara so they can experience what a four year college was like.  It opened my wife's eye to an institution that was almost all white at the time.  After the scandal came out the LA Times published an article about some of the minority students at that same junior college are in a club so that they can learn how to transfer to four year colleges.  This club seemed to be the descendant of that trip from many years ago.  The interviews in the article point out that it is still an uphill battle for the students of this college.  They were disheartened but not surprised about the admission scandal.

It seems interesting to me that in many of the cases, the mother of the student is indicted but not their equally famous husband.   See Huffman and Laughlin.  It seems to be similar to cases where the mother is blamed in pushing the kids too hard.  Asian mothers are called tiger moms.  But no name for the dads even though I am sure the fathers are pushing the kids hard as well.  In case of cheating, wouldn't the father be just as guilty?  But since women are blamed here, I suggest that they be called kangaroo moms since they keep their young in their pouches and not let them be independent.  If they don't get what they want, they get "hopping" mad!

News:  Treasury figures show a 77% increase in the deficit over the first four months of the budget year.  (I think they start the budget year in Oct. 2018)  This is due to a combination of decreased revenue due to the tax cut and spending increases.  Trump talks big, but is silent on the issue.

The argument from the GOP has always been that a tax cut will pay for itself by stimulating the economy which will increase tax revenue.  I like paying less tax myself but I doubt that the effects of tax cuts are always positive for the country.  The last tax cut during the Bush year led to one of the worst recession in history.  So why do we buy into this tax cut concept?

To me it is obvious that if you decrease revenue coming in, then you must decrease what you are paying out.  Otherwise the deficit increases.  The criticism of the Democrats have always been that they like to spend more and more and so need to keep raising taxes.  But when the GOP cuts taxes, they still spend more and more.  It doesn't take a genius to see that neither way is sustainable but the GOP strategy is worse for the country.

It is, of course, no upside in cutting any benefits.   For example, seniors who are the most conservative among the electorates, would go crazy if you cut Medicare.  So the GOP, who needs their support, would never cut Medicare.  The most liberal Democrats are advocating Medicare for all.  This will mean much bigger deficits unless there is a big tax raise.  That is not realistic at this time.  So both sides are just trying to please their supporters and not really doing anything logical.

As I always said, we need pragmatic centrist to get elected.  But is that really possible?  It certainly is not possible on the GOP side as long as Trump is the president.

Michael Cohen described to the nation in the Congressional hearing today what most people in this country already knew:  Trump is a racist, a cheat and a con man.  Deep down, even Trump supporters know this even if they won't admit it.  This man has no regard for this country.  He is all about himself.  I would think even those GOP Congressmen at the hearing know this.  That is why they never defended Trump, only attacked Cohen's credibility.

Since Cohen has admitted lying, the GOP points out why we should believe him.  I think the conservatives have no problem believing a mobster's top assistant when he flips for the prosecution.  The mobster boss will not be the one who actually pulls the trigger.  He only orders the hit.  So of course you need his foot soldiers to flip on him.  These "witnesses" are never your clean cut model citizens.  But I bet the law and order conservatives see no problem of convicting the boss based on the crooks who flipped him.  But in this case, instead believing a person who was very close to Trump, they chose to attack him. 

I think Trump may try to distract from Cohen's testimony by making a deal with Kim.  I think he will declare the official end of the Korean War, which had only been suspended all these years.  I won't make much of the difference in reality for now except Trump can say that he got peace.  He hopes that will detract from all these hearings and legal problems.  I doubt that Kim will get rid of his nukes after that.  For now, nothing changes.  But if the war is officially over, how long before Kim demands that the U.S. troops leave Korea?   I think he sees this opportunity to play Trump again.  Noticed he had a sly smile when reporter asked Trump about Cohen.  By the way, Trump touts that he has great relationship with Kim.  Well, so does Dennis Rodman!

I was not surprised that Trump declared a national emergency so that he can manipulate money to fund his wall.  Since he lost big in the shutdown and he showed his inability to get deals done, he had to do something to show what a tough guy he is.  After all, conservatives like Ann Coulter were calling him a wimp, one even weaker than Bush.  So it was inevitable that he declares emergency to show that he has the power.  Hopefully law and history will prove him wrong.

The thing that surprised and irritated me was the announcement that McConnell supported the declaration of emergency.  It shows what a weakling he is.  He was against the declaration and stated as such before.  But faced with Trump not signing the bill to avoid the shutdown again, he caved.  The truth is Trump had no leverage.  The bill had bipartisan support, Trump would have been on an island by himself with his extreme conservative supporters.  But I guess McConnell was too afraid of a fractured GOP senate trying to decide if they want to override Trump's veto.  By supporting the declaration of emergency, there is little chance of the Senate overriding Trump's declaration.

I am not even going to bother to put up arguments why the declaration is wrong.  If you think putting a wall is an emergency and more urgent than various problems in this country, there is no argument that will persuade you.  After all, you would have believed that Mexico will paid for the wall.  I will say that with this declaration, Trump has cemented his reputation as a dictator wannabe.  Although that should have been obvious before with his firing of the man who was investigating him and his fondness for Putin and other dictators.  The question is, will the Congress and the Supreme Court have the spines to stop him.

Watched Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s program "Finding Your Roots" yesterday.  Three politicians:  Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Senator Marco Rubio and former House Speaker Paul Ryan were the guests.  All three came from immigrant families even though they knew little about their immigrant ancestors.  Gabbard, being a Democrat, obviously has been outspoken about anti-immigrant rhetoric from Trump.  The two Republicans have been much quieter on the subject.

At the end of the program, I think both Rubio and Ryan were touched by the stories of their ancestors' hardships in coming to America.  I think it was Rubio who summed it up by saying that people will do anything to get to a place where their family will have a chance for a better life.  He said that we are a country of go-gettors.  Well said, Senator.  I hope they will keep those things they learned in the program in mind next time when they are confronted about a political decision involving immigrants.

I have to say that the Trump administration is doing a good job with the Venezuela situation.  Like many bad situations in the world, there are no good or easy answers.  But unlike most of his foreign policies, Trump is actually trying to do something good.  Since his so called America first agenda, Trump has been pulling away from the world.  America has been losing its leadership in the world.  But in this situation in Venezuela, Trump has been able to get allies around the world to support his policy of demanding that Maduro leave office.  It is not sure that this will work.  But by leading a multiple national effort, it is more likely to succeed and critics can't say anything about American imperialism as a goal here.

The Democrats has been rather silent on this issue except for some left leaning members of Congress who called for the U.S. to stay out of it.  How can we not try to do something about this humanitarian crisis?  By not coming out strongly against Maduro, it also will let the GOP claim that the left is socialist.  At this time, I think centrist Democrats should support what Trump is doing because there isn't any good choices here. 

Russia and China are supporting Maduro.   But there is a difference in their support.  Moscow wants a thorn on the U.S. side close to our shore.  So Russia will support Maduro no matter what.  China has invested a lot of money in Venezuela.  It wants return in oil and money.  But if China can be convinced that a new government will honor all previous contracts, it can change its support.  For Russia, it is a political issue.  For China it is a financial issue.  So if Guaido can convince China that under him Venezuela will be stable and export oil to China, I think the tide may change.

I don't see how Virginia governor Ralph Northam can stay in office.  After revelation of a picture from his medical school yearbook surfaced showing a man in black face and another in KKK outfit.  At first he admitted that he was in the picture, although he didn't say which person was him.  Then he said that it wasn't him and that he had not seen that picture before.  This all sounded like Trump when the Access Hollywood tape came out.  First he apologized, then he said it was just locker room talk.  Then later on he questioned whether that was his voice in the tape at all.   To both Northam and Trump, I ask:  If it wasn't you, why did you admit it at first?  So you thought you did something that you didn't do, only to remember later that you didn't do it?  Yeah, right!

I will admit that I did not know that there was this racist thing called black face until maybe in my thirties or forties.  So if at my medical school someone with black face had stand next to me and someone took a picture of us, maybe I would not react.  But then I would not be wearing a KKK outfit.  So there was no reason for Northam to be in this kind of picture.  Certainly I can't think of any legitimate, non-racist reason to post that picture in your yearbook.  His clumsy defense makes things worse. 

If he refuses to resign.  I think the GOP will call for impeachment.  The GOP may not do this so that they can use this issue in 2020 elections.  But I don't think that would be productive for them because then they would be blasted for condoning racism.  Now they can force the democrats to renounce one of their own.  Once the GOP move for impeachment, the Democrats will go along since this is indefensible for them even if no crime had been committed.  So I think Northam cannot ride out the storm.  If doesn't resign, he will be kicked out of office.

The Democrats have to take the high and right road on this.  They cannot be like the GOP base who gives Trump a bye every time he says something racist or sexist.  So what if this is a victory for the conservative site which reported this.  It also exposes the hypocrite they are when they do not call out Trump.

The Evil Empire wins again.  I rooted for the Rams, not just because they are from LA, but also I don't want Brady and the Patriots win again!  But give them credit, even if they might have cheated in the past, their consistency and excellence are just tremendous.

Trump has once again gone against his intelligence team.  He said they were naive after Dan Coats said everything opposite of Trump regarding North Korea, Iran, ISIS and the southern border.  Is there anyone out there who believes that Trump is right and the intelligence community is wrong on all of these situations?  I thought Bush was out of his mind when he went into Iraq instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan.  Now Trump thinks that people coming into the country to take jobs that Americans don't want is more dangerous than ISIS and North Korea?

Thirteen year old Alysa Liu won the U.S. women figure skating championship this past week.  Problem is, she can't represent the U.S. in the world championships because she is under the minimum age of 15. 

I had complained about these type of arbitrary age requirements before.  In the Beijing Olympics it was widely believed that some of the Chinese women gymnasts were under age.  I believed that they did skirt the rules.  But those rules are stupid and I believe they are racist.  Asians tend to mature at a younger age, reaching their full height earlier on average than Westerners.  I believe that this is the reason for the age requirement since western nations, particularly Europeans, dominate the federations of figure skating and gymnastics.

It is not about protecting kids, as the sports governing bodies say.  If that is the case, then they should not have junior championships where they do the same moves.  In most cases, the older athletes are able to do difficult moves better than young ones.  But they are doing the same flip, jumps etc.  The younger ones are not being injured more than the older ones.If someone younger can do better, then she should be the world champion regardless of age.  Generally it is not an advantage to be younger.  For example, Shawn Johnson was not better at 14 than 16.

The U.S. had gone along with the Europeans in the past in setting the age requirement.  But Alysa Liu is not the first American affected by this rule.  In 2008, Mirai Nagasu won the U.S. championship but was not allowed to compete in the World championships.  She was never as good as she was in 2008 even though she competed at the Olympics last year.  I think the U.S., with more Asian ethnic athletes than other Western nations, should try to get the rule changed.

I see that the Clemson football team visited the White House and was served various fast food by Trump.  Apparently due to the government shutdown, the White House staff was short and couldn't provide food.  So Trump paid for the fast food out of his own pocket.  In the process, he blamed the Democrats for the shutdown.  People were quick to criticize and make fun of Trump for this low class food affair.  I am not going to do that, it is really too easy.

I am wondering why Chick-Fil-A wasn't on the menu?  It is a fast food chain that is known to support conservative causes.  So it would seem that Trump would want to support this chain.  I mean, how can you not feel for an executive who is anti-gay with a name like Dan Cathy?  I wonder what it does to a man who is constantly called Cathy everyday?  Of course, I think that former MLB pitcher Ron Darling was not bothered by men calling him Darling everyday!

Bit I digress.  It seems that Trump doesn't always help his supporters.  Take the farmers group he is speaking to in New Orleans.  With his trade war with China, the farmers are hurting.  He then tried to decrease the pain by giving subsidies and loans to farmers.  But then with the government shutdown, the farmers are not receiving their subsidies and can' apply for the loans.  Also since farming requires a lot of immigrant help, his stance on immigrants are also hurting farmers.  But why would anyone thinks that a real estate guy who had a rich father would actually be sympathetic to the plights of the American farmers?

There are a lot of arguments over whether the Congress should subpoena the interpreter whose notes were snatched by Trump after a one on one meeting between Trump and Putin.  Trump didn't want any of his aids to go into the meeting with Putin.  Afterward, he took away the interpreter's notes so there will never be any record of what was said.  Some called for the interpreter to testify.  Others think that while Trump was setting a bad precedent by taking the notes, it would also be bad precedent to have the interpreter testify.  Like priests and lawyers, interpreters for president should not have to testify of what was said.  Plus, it is possible the interpreter may not remember clearly what was said at the time.

But I would argue that even if the contents of the meeting should not be divulged by the interpreter, he/she  should testify if Trump actually took the notes.  I think the people have the right to know of this unusual event took place.  Why would a president do that if he had nothing to hide.  If the interpreter can testify that the president indeed did that, I think it would be another sign that Trump is beholden to the Russians.