The news that Bear Stearns needs bail out and may be bought out is not all that shocking. There will probably be more companies that will go under over the next year. Tax payers will be saddled with more debt as a result of the risks that these companies took. This points out that we are not in a true capitalist system where you are rewarded for your victories but punished for your defeats. The punishment for the Bear-Stearns executives for sinking the ship? No bonuses! They should be fined for the outcome since they were richly rewarded when the market was doing well. When companies get so big they can take risks that people in retrospect would condemn. But since the government doesn't want the economy to go into a depression, they will always bail big companies out. If you know that someone will always give you money if you fail but you can keep everything your investment brings in, wouldn't you go for the investments with the biggest reward and don't care about the risks? This is like the Chinese banks which loan money as fast they can to help the economy grow without worrying about defaults because they believe that the Chinese government will always bail them out. This is the communist system and yet we are doing pretty much the same thing. In fact it is worse in some respects because wall street executives will not go to jail for making dumb investments, only if they committed fraud. With the Chinese executives they would lose more than bonus money if they failed. So perhaps the Chinese executive would be more careful about risks than his American counterpart.

Ultimately unless we can figure out how to not accumulate debt, all the bailouts in the world will not save our economy. From individuals who have more debts than savings to our government which is running record deficits, we all have to do our part. I don't agree with candidates when they say that trade agreements hurt our economy. Just because the products are cheap it does not mean we have to buy them. We all should live within our means. The conservatives are right about personal responsibility when it comes to one's finances. Yet Bush's idea of helping the economy is to make the tax cuts permanent. I like lower taxes as much as anyone else but I don't see the logic that prosecuting a war that is costing us billions and creating a greater deficit everyday is a good idea. At best all this is going to be passed on to our children. At worst it is a national security risks. China and other countries are controlling our treasury bills. The dollar is sinking fast in value. If a company like Bear Stearns is up for sale, who do you think may bid for it? It will either be another investment bank with the help of the government (nobody would or could do it on their own since everybody is losing money right now) or it will be an Arab country or China. How is that for national security risk?

I am sticking with my prediction from a few weeks ago that unless Obama makes a huge mistake, he will win the nomination. My math was a little off last time but the conclusion is still the same. Even with her victory in Ohio and Texas, Clinton cannot win the nomination even if she wins Pennsylvania as expected. Even if she wins all the remaining states by 10% point each she will be behind on pledge delegates. And there is no way she will win them all, certainly not by 10% point each. As I said before if the super delegates throw the nomination to her with Obama ahead in pledge delegates, then the Democrats will lose the black vote and the election. I think all the Democratic leaders understand this point.

The 3 a.m. ad was credited with helping Clinton win Texas and Ohio. If it did then we have more morons in the Democratic party than I thought. I can understand that some people think that Clinton is more experienced but if someone had not thought of that before the ad, why would he think that after the ad? Just because someone says that she is more capable of handling a crisis, it does not make it true. If experience alone gives you better judgment, then McCain would be better than Clinton by that logic. This would come back to haunt her if she wins the nomination. I always said that Obama is a little green and going against the war from the beginning does not mean that he will be great in foreign policies. But the truth is that one positive record is better than a negative for Clinton. And it is much better than the poor judgment McCain has shown in this war. So I would be dismayed if this ad actually hurt Obama significantly.

I think a legitimate reason to vote against Obama last week was the story of an adviser talking to the Canadian officials about NAFTA. I think that both Clinton and Obama are wrong to speak out against NAFTA. I don't think either one would do much to it if elected. They were just saying what people in Ohio want to hear. But it is a huge mistake for Obama if he had sent a representative to the Canadians. He is not the president and had no reason to talk to foreigners about policies that he is not enacting now. He did not have to placate Canada. If he did not send the consultant, then he is guilty of not controlling his staff well. That is not a major minus but a minus nevertheless. Unlike the 3 am ad which was a negative tactic by Clinton, the Canadian episode was Obama campaign's own doing. This was not fatal but if he makes a worse mistake then it gives the Democratic establishment a cover to give the nomination to Clinton by saying that Obama is just too inexperienced for the general election.

A good thing for Obama is that if he comes out of this and play mistake free ball for the rest of the primary season he will win the nomination and be toughened up for the general election. People believe that this long fight for the nomination will hurt the Democrats. I think if Obama turns out to be the nominee, this long fight would actually help him against McCain. The Clintons are formidable politicians and they will hit hard. Obama needs to be tested against the best and if he survives it, he can handle on what the Republicans will throw at him. If Clinton wins with the super delegates and negative ads, then I think she will lose the general election. Even before this long fight Clinton was loved by 50% and hated by 50% of the people. Losing the black vote will doom her. And forget about the dream ticket. It is difficult enough to elect a black or a woman. To have both on the ticket may sound interesting but the country is not ready for that.

One more blog about guns and race. There is a law in Texas that allows homeowners to shoot any intruders on their property. The idea is that under the old English laws the home is a man's castle. Now a man has taken this law to the extreme and there is actually a lot of people supporting him. This man saw two guys robbing his neighbor's house. He called 911 and reported the crime and then he repeatly asked the dispatcher if he can stop the thieves. The dispatcher repeatly told him to stay in his house and wait for the police. Finally he said that he had a right to protect himself in his house and went outside. There he killed the two men leaving, shooting them in the back. How is that self-defense? He is using this law as his defense. This law didn't give anyone the right to be a vigilante. Even the police would have to warn a suspect before firing. How can an ordinary citizen be allowed to ambush someone from the back? If the gun lobby does not condemn this act it would show that there only care about their so called rights and not true justice.

The dead men were illegals from Colombia. The looked black in the pictures. Whether the man would have shot them if they were white, we would never know. On 20/20 last night there was a segment where 3 white teenagers were destroying a car in a public park. This was a white suburb and many people passed by but only 1 person called 911. In the same park two black teenagers were sleeping in a car and several people called 911 reporting suspicious people in the car. Later 3 black teenagers destroyed a car and many people called 911. These people all said that they would have called 911 if the teens were white. Yet earlier only 1 person had done so when the destroyers were white. Also there is no law against sleeping in the car in a park during daytime so why all the calls for the blacks sleeping?

I still stand by my statement from the last blog that I think there is less prejudice now than forty years ago. But we still stereotype big time. A person who called 911 when he saw two blacks sleeping in the car may welcome a black friend of his children into his house. But deep in his mind unknown blacks are still dangerous. We incarcerate more people than all western nations. Most of them black or Hispanic. We even incarcerate more people per capita than China, a nation with a poor human rights record. Yet we are less safe in our streets than in any western nation. I am not saying that gun control is the answer but arming everbody and passing so called self-defense laws like the one in Texas, are certainly not the right answers.

There has been at least 6 school shootings in the country from Feb. 4 to Feb. 14. I only read about two of them, one is in the county that I live in, otherwise I would have only heard of the one at Northern Illinois. We are so used to this type of things that most of us would have missed 5 out of this 6 events. In the past whenever a shooting occurs there is a call for tighter control of guns. Now there is actually calls for letting students, at least in colleges, be armed. Some want people be able to carry guns in churches, malls and libraries because shootings have occurred in these places as well. While it can be argued that gun control alone may not reduce murders, it would be nonsense to believe that if everyone is armed that we would actually be safer.

The shooting that occured in our area involved a middle school boy killing another boy who is gay. While activists are demanding that the school increase sensitive teaching, I do not think that prejudice is the main reason why this boy died. When I was a student in the Detroit public schools there was way more prejudice than today. It was not unusual for me to hear racial slurs on the little league field. There is no way that would be tolerated today. Fights occurred regularly between racial groups back then. The difference was that fists were the weapons of choice then. I don't know how a 14 year old got a gun but is not hard to do so today. So instead of punches now there are shots. Which is more deadly? I am sure there was plenty of road rage in the 60's. But people would just give each other the finger. I never heard of someone shooting someone else for cutting in front of him back then. If everyone is carrying guns, the number of angry encounters that end with shots being fired will increase dramatically.

I read somewhere that even trained police officers hit their targets accurately only about 8 percent of the time. So if someone fires away in a crowded lecture hall, even if someone else has a gun what are the chances that he will hit the shooter instead of some other people. What if several people respond at the same time by pulling out guns at Northern Illinois? I think the death toll would have been higher than 5. I don't have a great answer for all these shootings but arming everyone is definitely not the right answer.

I am going out on a limb and predict that unless Obama makes a major blunder or that there is a big skeleton in his closet, he will win the nomination. After his sweep of the Potomac primaries tonight he has taken the lead in the delegate count. Of course his consecutive victories since Super Tuesday were predictable. So basically he has just held serve during this past week. But the thing is he is winning by big margins and he is raising more money. He is also winning among white males and closing the gap with white women. It is a strong momentum. If I was Hillary I would not make my last stand at Texas and Ohio, but come out swinging now for Wisconsin. She cannot let this losing streak go to March.

I see that CNN say that even if either Obama or Clinton win all the other states by a margin of 55 to 45, he or she cannot seal the nomination. So on the surface it does not look like anyone can predict accurately who is going to win at this point. But the task for Clinton is much more daunting than that. Without a major Obama blunder there is no way that she can win the rest of the states by anywhere close to 55-45. Right now she is counting on the super delegates and Florida an Michigan to put her over the top in a close final count. I say that she needs to be well ahead before it comes down to that. Can you imagine the fallout for the democrat leadership if it is even and they decide to let Florida and Mich results stand in favor of Clinton and the super delegates go for her? Blacks would feel the whole thing was rigged and it would mean a loss in the general election for the democrats. So right now instead of being behind by around 215 delegates, Clinton has to make up over 300 votes because that is the lead Obama has right now if the super delegates that are committed to either one is not considered. So Clinton needs to reverse the trend right now starting with Wisconsin next week or it will be too late.

It is amazing that we have this exciting sport event in our country with millions of people watching world wide. And this year's event is bigger and more dramatic than all other years. Yes, I am talking about the Ballot Bowl. (CNN's phrase) While I liked this year's Super Bowl, I find Super Tuesday more exciting and interesting. The following are some lame observations I have about this historic day.

It is an advantage to be on the west coast for sporting events, whether it is MNF, the World Series or the election. By the time I get home from work MNF just got started and I can watch the whole game before going to bed. Last night I got home for the east coast result and stayed up till Calif's winners were announced. Most of the people in the east would have gone to sleep way before that. Of course even we didn't get the American Samoa results. Not even today!

Home field advantage is more important in elections than sports. Romney lost almost everywhere except where he lived: Mich, Mass, and Utah. Clinton won NY but also Arkansas even though she denounced it to run in NY. Obama won Illinois but also Kansas because his mother was from there. By this reasoning Shawn Kemp should run because he has fathered children in all 50 states.

John McCain must have made up with the conservatives to be winning so easily. I mean Rush Limbaugh with his 11 million or so listeners must have turned out for him or how else did he beat two conservatives? What? Limbaugh is against McCain? You mean he is like Ann Coulter?

Speaking of Ann Coulter, I think I remember seeing someone looking exactly like her at the Democratic convention in 1968. She sure looks like a woman's liber. She said that if McCain is the nominee then "Hillary is our girl." Sounds like something a person from NOW may say. The woman in 1968 was a McCarthy liberal and was so angry that Humphrey won that she vowed not to support the Democratic nominee. As a result Nixon won and the Democrats were in disarrayed. I am sure the Democrats would be happy to be receiving the gift this year.

Buy your cigars for the smoke filled rooms in Denver in August. The Democratic nomination will be decided then. Bring out the old time party bosses and mafia for this. In the interest of political correctness (not wanting to offend blacks and women), the Democrats are declaring both Clinton and Obama winners of Tuesday. She won more votes, he won more states. As far as the delegates are concerned, nobody has an exact count. Their formula to distribute the delegates are intentionally confusing so that nobody can figure it out. This way they can do a poll in August and see who is most popular in the country and then give the nomination to that person without worrying about how many delegates he or she has. Get it?

Nobody noticed this but Obama lost Calif. not because of whites, half of whom voted for him, nor because of Hispanics, 40% of whom voted for him. He lost because Asians voted 70-30 against him in Calif. Could it be that Asians are more prejudiced than whites and Hispanics? I don't want Asians to be considered racists so I am volunteering my services to help Obama. For example I would change Obama's name. Chinese have trouble with foreign names. They probably confused Obama's middle name Hussein with that of a certain Iraqi dictator. That is not good. I would change it to Dentzel Washington. It reminds everybody of George and Dentzel is very popular among pirated movies in China. So popular that they confuse him with Will Smith on the cover of the box sometimes. So by using the name Washington there are 3 chances for name recognition and that will beat Hillary whom people are confused with Bill.

Until I get the call from the Chinese Olympic team or the Obama campaign, I'll look forward to Saturday's sporting events.

Finally we have bipartisan support for something! All of the presidential candidates from both parties have a stimulus plan for the economy. Nobody has come out against a tax rebate. Maybe I am stupid but doesn't giving everybody money make our national deficit much bigger? Are we cutting spending in the military, welfare, farm subsidies and earmarks? If not, where are all these money coming from? Wouldn't this cause the dollar to devaluate further? By going deeper into debt, wouldn't that mean more of our treasury bonds will be owned by countries like China? It seems like yesterday everybody says that we should save more and not go so far into debt. Now the government is encouraging us to spend more.

I know the theory is that people get the rebate, spend it and get the economy moving and then there will be more taxes collected etc. I am not sure this will work even if the money is delivered to people quickly. I for one will deposit my rebate check in the bank. I don't have anything that I need the buy right now and so why I should I spend it. I think there are a lot of people who would do the same. I think this is part of the economic cycle and we will naturally get out of the recession in due time. Maybe 2 to 3 years. We don't have a disaster situation as in the 1920's. The world economy is basically sound. The subprime mortgage problem that ignited this mess will correct itself. As people lose their houses, the people who had been shut out by the obscene price increases in the past few years will jump in and buy. The people who were not greedy and were patient will benefit. The economic engine will move again.

This is an election year so all the politicians will be for a stimulus deal. It is not a long term solution for the challenges of our economy in the future. We should be looking at the factors that determine the economic status of our children and grandchildren, like education and energy policies. Instead of tightening our belt, we look for short term gratifications from our politicians. Well. we get what we asked for.

Taking a break from the election, I am turning to the Olympics. I am thinking of applying to be the consultant for the Chinese Olympic team. I would apply to the U.S. team but I think they will mistake me for Norm Chow and reject my application. China is anxious to beat the U.S. in the gold medal count this summer and they need a person who understands U.S. sports to help them achieve their goal. Before you call me a traitor, remember that Tommy Lasorda, Muhammed Ali and Lebron James have gone over to China to help their athletes. Del Harris was the coach of the Chinese basketball team in Athens. You wouldn't call any of these people traitors, would you?

First I would help the Chinese baseball team which is way behind Taiwan, Japan, Korea and of course the U.S. I would give the hitters the same flaxseed that Barry Bonds used. This will lead to bigger heads, arms and shoulders right away. They will be hitting homeruns in no time. I will inject the pitchers with lidocaine and B12 vitamins and right away they will throw like Roger Clemens. No use to exercise your hands in rice as Clemens claimed he had done. This does not work since the Chinese have put their hands in rice for thousands of years without producing one decent pitcher.

Even with Yao Ming the Chinese can't beat the Americans in basketball. So I will suggest that a certain former NBA referee be hired for the Olympics and I will try to hook him on mahjong. Just be sure he refs the Chinese games.

Track and field is another sport that China can't compete in with the exception of Lu Xiang. So I will bring the vitamins that Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery used to use. In no time the Chinese will be contenders in the sprints.

China is good at table tennis but not in tennis. To improve their chances in this sport I will bring with me the friends of Nikolai Davydenko to the Games and have them contact the opponents of the Chinese players. It would not matter if you lose the first set, people will still bet on you!

In football or as we call soccer here in the U.S., Chinas is not competitive. But of course that is because the final is determined by elimination rounds. I will change the format where the finalists are determined by the BCS as in American college football. I will teach coaches and writers to vote the proper way. The computers in the Olympic is already being run by a Chinese company and so the other half of the equation is no problem. China is thus guaranteed a spot in the championship Rice Bowl.

There are other ideas I have that I don't have time to mention. But all is not a lost cause for the U.S. if I help China. When I return I will have the secret recipe of worm and fungus concoction that helped the Chinese women set several long distance running records years ago. I can produce this "tea" for American athletes upon my return. The secret vitamin shots of the former USSR and East Germany will also be available. American females will break all kind of records in London 4 years from now. My dermatologists friends will also thank me for the increase in acne and hirsutism among female athletes as a result. So it is win, win situation for everybody!

Even though I won't vote Republican this year I am turning my attention to the Republicans this week because they have the only primary. The Democrats have decided to ignore the Mich primay because it was moved up without the party's consent. I think that is unfair. It would have been interesting to see Clinton and Obama slug it out there after they took turns upsetting each other in Iowa and New Hampshire. But we will have to wait till South Carolina and Nevada.

In Mich. we have Romney vs. McCain in a very important state for both. McCain needs the momentum to continue afte New Hampshire and Romney need to get a win after 2 disappointing 2nd place finishes. Iraq is not a big issue here. The big issue is the economy. With high unemployment rate Mich may be a forecasting state for the general election. Remember in 92 the first Bush was expected to win reelection easily after winning the first Iraq war decisively. But the economy sunk him. It is the economy, stupid--that was the thing that concerned the voters the most. It was believed a few months ago that with the war going badly and Bush's approval ratings so low that the Democrats would win in 08 easily. But given that the surge has given Bush some good news and the possibility of the recession, the economy will probably dominate the debate soon. Unfortunately for the Republicans they are in the White House now and so will also get most of the blame for the economy if it gets worse. So the Democrats are still going to win but the economy will have more to do with who gets nominated than the war.

Eight years ago I wanted McCain for president. To me he is among the most honest of the politicians, which may not be saying much but is still important. He is one of the few that can bring together Democrats and Republicans. Thus the endorsement from Joe Liberman. The reasons why I won't vote for him this year are that he is reaching more to extreme conservatives who are not tolerant, his wrong ideas about the war, and the lack of judgment he showed when he walked the streets of Baghdad and declared it safe while wearing a bullet-proof jacket, with armed guards and helicopters protecting him. All these show me that he is losing it. But if I am still in Mich I would vote for him over Romney. Neither have any specific ideas on how to turn around the economy. Of course it is entreprenuers who create jobs not presidents. But both say that they are going to create jobs. How exactly? At least McCain is being brutally honest when he says that most of the jobs lost are not coming back to Mich. Workers will have to learn new skills to compete. Romney, on the other hand, is just pandering. He says that he will fight for every job. But how? It is just rhetoric and dishonesty. So I will root for McCain to get the Republican nomination.

Been having trouble with the computer and so have not written for a long time. Saw the big debate last night on ABC. It was entertaining with both parties involved. On the Republican side I only like Ron Paul. His libertarian views were impressive. He is obviously not going to win but at least he has stayed around longer than my Democratic favorite Joe Biden. The other 5 Republicans are all for the war which is amazing given the losses and the fact that it has no benefit whatsoever for the U.S. Paul is the only one who realizes that while there are always bad guys in the world, by doing the wrong things we are enabling them to recruit people who otherwise had no beef with us. Unless Paul is the Republican nominee I will vote Democratic this year no matter who their nominee is.

This bring up the fact that Clinton may not be the nominee. Obama has the momentum and while I thought Edwards did the best in the debate, Obama did all right as he was not hurt by Clinton's attacks. Edwards was trying to help Obama eliminate Clinton and then try to win a two man contest. This strategy helps Obama and if it works will hand the nomination to Obama. Bill Richardson was absolutely terrible. How in the world Biden finished behind this guy? With Biden out I am going with Obama. I still have trouble with his inexperience but as I said before since Brzynski endorsed him he probably has a good understanding of foreign policy. Also Bill Bradley is about to endorse him and I have respect for Bradley's intelligence. So I think that despite his youth Obama may do all right.