With no more elections for himself and no democrat needing to shy away from him in the next two years, Obama went on the offensive in the State of the Union Address. It was the type of the best defense is offense theory that I proposed at the midterm election.  As I mentioned before, it may not have changed any results but by shying away from Obama, the Democrats were essentially agreeing with the Republicans that Obama was a failure.  In reality, as Obama pointed out, by almost any measure he was way more successful than Bush.  So now he makes proposals that will have no chance of passing the Republican majority in both chambers.  But at least he makes his points.  For example, didn't Wall Street screw up the economy last time?  So now you are worried about regulations for Wall Street?  I think Obama's vision will cause the Republican nominee to lean to the right and will make he/she less likely to win moderates in 2016.

While I agree with Obama in most issues, I don't agree that community colleges should be free.  From my experience, when someone gets something free, he is less likely to appreciate it.  I think here in California, the cost of attending junior colleges is very affordable.  I know a lot of people who go to junior colleges and work to save money to transfer to a 4 year school.  If it is necessary to lower the cost of junior colleges, I think they should first have to get rid of the sports programs in these schools before asking for more tax money.  I don't think these schools should be a minor league for the pros or 4 year colleges.  I know of people who played two years and had no credit toward transferring to a 4 year school.  I can't think of any country whose technical schools or colleges spend millions for intercollegiate athletes.  If the goal is prepare kids for the real world, don't use these schools to be minor leagues in sports.

I got the feeling that the Patriots are going to throw a ballboy under the bus like USC did a few years ago when they did the same thing.  Belichick is the usual bad guy.  But I can't imagine he would tell someone to deflate the balls to below standard since he is not the one throwing the ball.  I hope Brady is not involved other than telling the ball boy to get it down to 12.5 psi, the lowest allowable level.  While the Patriots are not going to be thrown out of the Super Bowl no matter what happens, Brady's legacy could be in jeopardy if he instructed someone to cheat on his behalf.  The whole thing is stupid anyway.  Why do each team have different balls?  Baseball pitchers don't bring their own balls.  Why didn't the officials notice a difference of almost 20% among the balls before half time?  And if Brady cheated, why was he so stupid?  Sure, a softer and lighter ball is easier to grip.  But a lighter ball would also be more affected by air resistance.  So it would be more difficult to control in bad weather.  Think in extreme:  would you rather throw a baseball or a ping pong ball in the wind?  So why cheat?

So as expected the Democrats got beat badly yesterday and the Republicans are going to take over the senate.  Given the mood of the country and the fact that the Democrats had to defend in so many red states in a midterm election, this result is probably inevitable.  But in a lot of close races, the Democratic candidate shied away from Obama completely.  I understand that Obama has low approval ratings.  But if the Republicans are making the election about Obama and you are running away from Obama, aren't you agreeing with the Republicans?  I believe that the best defense is offense.  I would have asked:  "Are you better or worse today than 2008 under the Bush administration?  Do you want to elect someone who will go back to the Bush policies that got us into recession and unpopular wars?''  Obama would have some impact to get out the minority vote.  All this may not have worked but by pushing Obama away, it only fed into the Republican message and made the Democratic candidates look weak.

So now what?  Nothing changes.  The Republicans are not going to agree among themselves what agendas to push forward.  They can waste their time trying to repeal Obamacare.   But Obama still has the veto.  Things like immigration reform, which Obama would sign if presented with a bill near what he wants, will not pass Congress even now because the Republicans won't be able to agree among themselves.  So we will continue to have a do nothing Congress and a lame duck president.  The only thing that this election may make a difference is if there is a Supreme Court opening in the next two years.  The Republican majority will make it more difficult for whomever Obama will nominate.

Praying for a speedy recovery for Mr. Hockey!

Obama said what he had to say last Wed.   But of course there are no real coalitions out there.  I have not heard anyone willing to put troops on the ground.  So if NATO countries are not sending troops nor are Arab countries, then it is impossible to destroy ISIS.  It will be a prolonged war of attrition.

Couple of years ago I considered Spain to be best sporting nation in the world.  They were the world champions in soccer, second best in basketball and had Rafael Nadal and many other great tennis players.  But since then, Spain has lost badly in the World Cup, lost in the quarter final in basketball as host country, and Rafael Nadal is injured and no longer number one.  So fortunes can come and go quickly.

U.S. wins world championship in basketball by destroying all competition.  This is a team without James, Durant, Paul, Howard, Anthony, Love, Griffin.  Any other country would not field a decent team without seven of their best players.  But the U.S. won easily.  It was felt that since the original Dream Team, the gap had closed significantly between international teams and the U.S.  But with this tournament it seems the gap had widened again.

Obama decides to use air power to stop the advancement of ISIS.  I am ambivalent about getting involved in Iraq again.  It seems we are just trading one dictator for another whenever we are involved in this area of the world.  ISIS appeared to be our worst nightmare.  A terrorist group that somehow got so powerful that it is operating in the open and destroying the Iraqi army that we have trained.  The major reason for this is that the current government refused to be inclusive of the Sunni minority which led to the rise of ISIS.  It is also so corrupted that the military is run by incompetent people and thus many of the soldiers refuse to fight for them.  So unless there is significant change at the top, I don't see how the U.S. can help them.  We sent in "advisers", just as Kennedy did in Vietnam.  But like Vietnam, if the people are not willing to fight for that government, we will end up in a quagmire.

So is Obama making a big mistake by using air strikes now when he did not do so in Syria?  I don't think so.  In the past few days before the air strikes, ISIS was advancing toward Kurdish territory.  This area has been an oasis in Iraq.  The Kurds were abused under Saddam Hussein.  They were hopeful that after the first Gulf war, Bush the First would have gone into Baghdad and got rid of Hussein and help establish Kurdistan.  That didn't happen but the U.S. did create a no fly zone to help the Kurds somewhat against Hussein.   Since the fall of Hussein, the Kurds have been trying to be loyal to the new government despite not getting anywhere politically.  They have also made peace with Turkey so that now I think Turkey would accept an independent Kurdistan at its border.  The area has been democratically run and westernized.  So I think we cannot let this oasis fall to ISIS.

The Kurds are willing to fight for their homeland, unlike many of the Iraqis under the Baghdad government.  They had to retreat due to the overpowering forces of ISIS.  But I believe with U.S. air power, the Kurds can turn back ISIS.  So here we have a democratic ally that needs our help.  It is essential that we give them help.  Criminals like easy targets.  Once they realize that they can't overrun Kurdish territory like they did in Mosul, ISIS will turn back toward other areas of Iraq.  We should allow Kurdistan to be declared an independent nation.  If it can survive and prosper, we may have a model for other countries in the area.

I see that Dick Cheney is calling Obama the worst president in history.  I will call out Cheney and others with the same view their credential as historians.  Are they such experts in our presidents that they know how good Fillmore. Pierce, and Garfield were?  I believe such claims have racist overtones.  There were 43 white president and they think that Obama is worse than all of them?  I don't think Obama is the best president ever but he is way better than George Bush for sure.

Let say Obama was elected before Bush.  Let say  during Obama administration 9/11 happens, the economy collapses, we invade Iraq and thus taking our eye off Afghanistan and allowing bin Laden to escape and the war causes a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives.   Let say during the Bush administration bin Laden is killed, the economy revives and the wars are over.  If all of the above are true, would any of these Obama haters call Bush the worst president in history?  I think we should ask Dick Cheney this question and see what lies he comes up with.

The Republican conservatives are siding with Obama while liberal Democrats are attacking him?  Justice Breyer sides with the conservatives while Justice Saclia sides with the liberals?  What is going on in D.C.?  The first part is easy to understand.  With revelation of the intelligence program PRISM keeping track of vast amount of phone calls and internet communication, Obama being called "Big Brother" by liberals is easy to understand.  It is also obvious why Republicans come to Obama's defense.  This type of program was put in place by the Bush administration.  So while saying that Obama is hypocritical for embracing the program now after attacking Bush's policies, the Republicans have to say that Obama is right for continuing the program.

I would have to agree with Obama and the Republicans.  (That is a weird sentence).  It is easy to attack the government for infringement of freedom as an outsider.  But once you are the government and responsible for security, you are going to try to get as much legal power as possible.  If Obama had stopped PRISM and an attack occurs, he would be fried.  Now he can say there is Congressional and court oversight of the program.  He is still hypocritical but he would rather be hypocritical than a failure at national security.  For all those people who cry about privacy, how many of you have facebook and other social media accounts?  How many of you buy things over the internet or use membership cards at a Costco?  You no longer have much privacy.  Companies all over the world know what you like or dislike and how best to sell you stuff already!  So at least for now the invasion of my privacy by private sources is more annoying to me than any government monitoring of my communications.  (You are welcome, Big Brother who is reading this).

Regarding Scalia and Breyer reversing roles, I don't understand how that happened.  This case was about whether the police can obtain DNA from anyone who was arrested as opposed to someone who was already convicted.  Breyer voted yes and Scalia voted no.  I agree with Breyer and the conservatives.  (Again, a weird sentence).   I don't see how this is anymore infringement than getting finger printed and a mug shot when you are arrested now.  Sure, DNA reveals more of you than the finger prints.  But this is hardly more intrusion to the privacy of someone arrested.  This law would increase the national data base to help solve crimes.  So I think the benefits outweigh the infringements here.