Due to popular demand I am writing about the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. I believe all the senate democrats will vote for her and most of the republicans will vote against. How is that for great insight? The nominations have become so political that everything is predictable. Was anyone surprised by Bush nominating Roberts and Alito? Is anyone surprise that a liberal Hispanic woman was nominated by Obama? Of course not. When Roberts was nominated I wrote that it is obvious that he is well qualified and even though I probably will not agree with many of his decisions, I would go listen to him if I had a chance. The same goes with Sotomayor. I am sure I will disagree with her on many decisions, but if I have a chance I would listen to her speak because she is intelligent.

I can see where people think that she is wrong to say that a Hispanic woman can rule more wisely than a white male. But this is taken out of context. She was talking about an immigrant case and being from an immigrant family she would have a different perspective. She certainly can use a better way of phrasing that but I can understand what she meant. I think I would have a better perspective than my American born friends regarding immigration. I don't buy the argument that you make your ruling just based on the law only and not your personal experience. If judges can do that, then why do most of the Supreme Court cases recently ended up 5-4? If personal opinions don't go into the ruling and every justice knows the laws very well, then shouldn't the ruling be 9-0 every time? How one interprets the law depends mostly on one's experience in life and one's core beliefs.

So now we have this charade call confirmation hearing. This is where the minority party tries to make the nominee say something stupid and where the nominee tries to say as little as possible. At the end unless he/she says something really stupid, he/she will be confirmed. I had no problem with Roberts and Alito, and I have no problem with Sotomayor. They are all well qualified. Now Clarence Thomas....

Been busy the last several days so I was not able to write about several topics that I have an opinion on during the past week. Now that some of these topics are no longer hot off the press, I don't know if anyone is interested about reading my view. So I will throw it out there. If anyone is interested about North Korea, Sonia Sotomayor, California's proposition 8 banning gay marriage, GM going bankrupt, or any other topic; please write in a comment and I will write something about it in the next few days.

Just returned home from Illinois where I attended my eldest son's graduation from a master program. I was a good trip and I found a few things to comment about.

During the graduation ceremony one of the speaker tried to get some easy applause by saying: "Are you happy?" This will usually bring a loud round of applause from the graduates. But this time the response was rather subdued. The speaker tried again: "Last year's class seemed much happier!" Usually the crowd would try to clap and yell louder to that challenge. But again the response was mild. I think the reason is that this year's graduates know the daunting task ahead of them in trying to find a job in this ec0nomy. I can't blame them. At a time where the future should be bright, they face uncertainty. Hopefully things will be better for them soon.

On the bright side Springfield, Illinois where the ceremony took place seem not to be affected by the recession. There is no change from what I saw last August when I was there. The restaurants are even busier and there are not many houses with for sale signs. This is different from California and other areas of the country I heard about. I think the main reason is that Springfield is the capital of Illinois. In a recession one of the few sectors that are still hiring is the government. So while during boom times government towns like Springfield may not benefit much, during recession these towns survive better. I think Sacramento is doing ok compare to other cities in California. Lansing is probably better off than Detroit, I think.

This was the 200 birthday of Lincoln and so Springfield is going all out to promote all things Lincoln. We went to the Lincoln museum. I enjoyed the place a lot. Particularly I like the section of cartoons about Lincoln from when he was president. It just reminds me of the politics today except the Republicans are the liberals then. Some of the stuff was racist and would not be published today, I think. But it is interesting that even back then the president is pulled from both sides. The supporters of slavery obviously hated Lincoln. But the supporters of emancipation also had harsh words for Lincoln as they think he was not moving fast enough and that he was trying to placate the other side. I am sure Obama would appreciate this. The more things change the more it is the same!

The last observation is that despite a Democratic majority in both houses and a Democratic governor, Illinois has trouble passing a budget. They are almost as dysfunctional as California! Forget about bipartianship, we may need dictatorship!

Watched John Stossel on 20/20 last night. In a kind of take off from his "give me a break" segment, he talked about 6 things that would be politically incorrect to debate about. I'll give my take on these items.

The first one was about the law that protect pregnant women from being fired. Stossel says that it backfires on women because employers don't want to get sue so they are less likely to hire women who may become pregnant. As a business owner, I can understand his point. When a woman takes a maternity leave others in the company have to do more or employer has to hire a temp. If a woman is self-emplyed, she certainly can't take a maternity leave and expect her business will not suffer during her absence. The truth is if a woman is a good employee, the employer will hold the job for her until she comes back even without a law.

The second one is about irridiation of food. Stossel says that food poisoning kills 5 thousand people a year and irridiation prevents that and unlike what the fear-mongering activists say, irridiation is perfectly safe. I agree that irridiation is safe but I don't agree that we need to irridiate most of our food. There are 300 million people in the country and so 900 million meals a day are eaten. So 5,ooo deaths from food is hardly a high percentage. Most of the deaths are from old and sick people. I think if the general population is never exposed to germs in the food then they would be more likely to get sick if they go some place where food is not irridiated. So unless there is germ warfare against us, irridiation is not needed.

The third one is about people doing dangerous activities and need to be rescued, then they should have to pay for the rescue. I agree with that wholeheartedly. It is not just the money but this put the people doing the rescue in risky situations. So yes, charge these people or put them in jail for reckless endangerment of the rescuers.

The next one is about saving endangered species such as the tiger by allowing people to farm them. Since places like China want tiger bones for herbal medicine, there is an incentive to poach the tigers and driving them to extinction. The argument is that by farming them the tiger won't be extinct, just like chickens will not be extinct. If I am a tiger I wouldn't like that argument. I would rather be free in the wild and not be eventully killed for my bones. I think scientific studies need to be done to see if there is any medicinal benefit of tiger bones. If not, I think as China becomes more modernized, the demand will decrease, although I am not sure if that will be in time to save the tiger.

The next one is about steroid use in sports. Stossel argues that there is no evidence that steroid is dangerous and adults should be able to use them if they choose. I totally disagree here. There is no epidemiology studies on steroid use because nobody has been able to get enough subjects to study them. There are rumors that the former USSR and East German athletes are dying at a younger age. Obviously the truth of that is not revealed in this country. And we don't know which athletes used them in this country 30 or 40 years ago and see if they are dying at a younger age than expected. It is well known that erythropoietin used in increasing blood count and thus oxygen level can lead to congestive heart failure if used in excessive. Even if you argue that adults should be allowed to take chances with their lives, if steroids are legalize, you know that kids will use them even more than they are now because they will follow their sports heroes.

The last one is about medicare which is a benefit to all seniors regardless of income. Stossel correctly points out that even the ultra-rich seniors get this benefit and at this pace the young people will have nothing left by the time they are old. I agree with that although it is not the seniors' fault. The actuaries who calculated this for the government should have seen this before. The pay in should have been higher years ago. I agree that we need to raise the age of eligibility and decrease benefits for wealthy seniors. Of course instead of cutting benefit, the government added prescription coverage which also covered wealthy seniors and put us further in deficit!

All these topics can be discussed in much more detail. But the only one that is of great importance is the last one because we all will be seniors one day, hopefully. Add to that the deficits we are running as a nation and the cost of heathcare in general, we need to debate this topics more frequently and in greater depth.

I have not written anything for awhile. There are several things I wanted to write about in the past week. But I have been very busy at work and have been too tired to think when I got home. Obviously I have been busy because of the swine flu situation. It is not that I have seen any cases of this disease so far but I have been busy answering questions from patients who have nothing or some other infection symptoms. I don't think this disease is any more dangerous than the usual flu. In fact its symptoms are the same as any ordinary flu. It has probably been working its way through Mexico for awhile but now that it is recognized as a new strain and has a name attached to it, people get more nervous. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that it will fade in 2 to 3 weeks. It may make a come back in the winter season but by then we should be well prepared for it.

There are still couple of important questions that nobody has been able to answer. One is why people in Mexico die and people in the U.S. so far have not? The second one is why does this flu affect young healthy people more than the elderly or infants? I will give my take on these, not that I know anything concrete and maybe proven way off base later. First of all the Mexican death rate of this disease may not be any different that an usual flu death rate. Once we know the exact number infected and the exact number of death then we can see if this really more deadly than other flu. As more Americans get infected we are likely to have deaths from this although again it may not be a higher rate than the usual flu.

As for young healthy people getting sicker my theory is that this disease is causing the body's immune system to overreact and injur itself. In other words like friendly fire in a war. Now healthy young people normally have a stronger immune system which would kill pathogens quicker and more effectively. In this case it may overreact and cause damage to its own cells. Mexicans are probably exposed to more disease than the average Americans and so may have a slightly stronger immune system but in this case it may back fire. Do I have scientific data to back up this theory? No, but my experience is that when Americans go to Mexico and eat in the villages like the natives do, they get sick. But the natives don't get sick eating the same food because they have built immunity. So I think generally the young Mexicans would do better against infections than Americans, but maybe the immunological reaction is too strong this time. Well, I put my 2 cents worth on this subject and will see how it plays out over the next couple of weeks.

It was, of course, great news that Captain Phillips was rescued. The captain, his crew, and the navy SEALS all did their job heroically. What I don't understand is why people are saying that Obama passed his first crisis as president. Just like when people questioned before if Obama had the strength to lead the military, I am confused. I asked then: what strength do you need to send the best trained and best equipped military to fight? It is not as if the president has to pick up a gun and fight the bad guys himself. In this case, he did what he and any other reasonably intelligent person would have done: give the authority to the people on the scene to make the judgment to kill if necessary. It is like going to Afghanistan after 9/11, anyone could have made that call. It is making stupid calls like going to Iraq that really separate the dumb ones from the smart ones.

Obama did what he was supposed to and got lucky. If the captain had been harmed during the rescue, he would have been blamed even though he had given the same order. Luck plays a big role, just ask Jimmy Carter whose rescue attempt of the Iranian hostages ended miserably through no fault of his.

Now what do we do about the pirates. Obviously the navy can't protect all of our ships not to mention those of other countries. Going to Somalia would be a risky proposition even though some have suggested that it would not be like going into Mogudishu during the Clinton years because the pirates are located on the coast. But if we are to attack their position, wouldn't they try to hide among the civilians inland like Hamas do in Gaza? Certainly we cannot go in without support of other countries. In the short term, the commercial companies will have to hire mercenaries to protect the ships. In the long term only by helping Somalia estabish a stable government will these acts of piracy become extinct. Good luck with that!

Two stories in the LA Times touch on subjects that I talked about in earlier blogs. I really have nothing new to say on the subjects, but I am mad again reading about them.

The first is about hospitals having to settle with the city of LA for dumping patients onto streets of skid row after they were discharged. The city uses some obscure law about false imprisonment to extort from the hospitals. As I said before, these people were homeless BEFORE they were hospitalized. The hospitals may have acted on behalf of their bottom line and sent these patients back to the streets, but where were they supposed to sent them? They were from the streets! If the argument is that nobody should be homeless then it is the responsibility of the government to provide a place for them. The hospitals are already giving these people free or only partially compensated care and who do you think will have to absorb the added cost of finding a place for these people to go? The result of this and other mandates on hospitals will be shutting down of ERs which will lead to health crisis for the whole population. Shame on the government for extorting the hospitals.

The next subject is John Yoo, the law professor at Berkeley who wrote all kinds of legal opinions supporting the actions of the Bush administration. In an opinion in LA Times today there were arguments about whether Yoo should be fired as a law professor. As I said before, I don't agree with Yoo's opinions. But crazy liberals can teach at Berkeley, but crazy conservatives can't? He is not flunking his students for going against his opinions nor is he stiffling debate in his class. So what is the big deal? As I said before, if someone admitted to Berkeley's law school can be brainwashed by a professor, then he/she should not have been admitted in the first place.

Watched most of a story on CNN about the violence in Mexico due to the drug war. The violence is spreading to America and despite Obama saying that we are going to help Mexico fight this, I don't think we will succeed. As I have said many times before: where there is a demand, there will be a supply. Our demand for illegal drugs have made the cartels rich. There is a 2 way traffic with drugs coming in and money and weapons going to Mexico. With these money and weapons, the Mexican police are outgunned and government officials are bribed. Illegal drugs are a national security problem and no amount of border control will stopped it.

I say go the way of alcohol and tobacco. Legalize drugs! I hate drugs and I am proud to say that I have never even smoke a joint. But the reality is rich free nations don't seem to be able to curb their appetite for drugs. I am under no illusion that legalizing drugs will decrease the addiction rates. I don't think the Netherland's drug addiction rates has decreased. But I don't think it has increased with legalization either. But by legalizing, we can at least take the profits away from the mob. I am also under no illusion that taxes from drugs will help in prevention and treatment as the politicians will funnel the money to elsewhere. But right now we are not getting anything and we are spending tons of money to police drugs not only here but abroad as well. So legalize now before our streets turn bloody like those in Mexico.

Just returned from Hilton Head, South Carolina, where I watched my daughter's college tennis team played 5 matches during spring break. I was pleasantly surprised by how I enjoyed the trip. I was looking forward to seeing my daughter of course, but I did not think that I would like to watch college tennis so much. I have not played tennis for a while because of my shoulder injury and with only one more child still competing, I had not thought much of tennis lately. But at Hilton Head I saw some incredible matches involving athletes who will not be going pro after graduation. They were playing for the love of the game with genuine joy, something I don't see often in pro or high level div. 1 sports. It makes me want to start playing tennis again!

In contrast to this, I saw an article about this guy started a "rock, scissors, paper" tournament for college students. It is going to on cable tv with bikini clad women and beer kegs. So we are trying to sell a kids' game with sex and alcohol. So this is how low our intellectual level has sunk to? People are actually going to watch this and think these "competitors" are athletes or geniuses who can out think their opponents? And I thought college poker tournaments was the lowest we would get!

Is Obama spreading himself too thin? Obviously, whether his presidency will be judged to be successful over the next couple of years depend on how fast the economy recovers. Many people are criticizing him for not focusing on the economy at this time. Obama is trying to put new policies in healthcare, energy, education, stem cell research, war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and foreign relations. These are ambitious programs and many people think that he should just concentrate on the economy for now. I disagree. It is not like he can spend 24 hours a day on the economy and things will turn around in a month. He promised changes and he is trying to achieve them. I don't agree with all of his ideas but I give him credit for trying to improve the country beyond the next couple of years.

The problem with trying to do all these things is that you make enemies with each program. No matter what you propose there will be people who oppose it. Today, for example, he spoke about changes he want to make in education. You know that things like merit pay and charter schools will get the teachers unions all upset. And they are among the strongest supporters of the Democrats. So you are making an enemy of an ally, never mind what he proposes make sense to most Americans. The truth is most of us are selfish, so our politicians are selfish and try to protect the interest of his district or state even though it is not for the best interest of the country.

Obama has assembled an intelligent group in his cabinet. But so far he has been the only spokesman. He is trying to sell all the programs by himself. About the only one who has been helpful in public has been Hillary. She is carrying out the foreign policies well. Tim Geithner has been of no help with trying to sell the stimulus program. Stephen Chu needs to speak out more about the importance of the energy program not only in the future but also on the economy today. Where was Obama's education secretary today? Where has Joe Biden been? Obama can't do it by himself. He needs his cabinet members to step up. He needs the Congress to be less selfish. Well, that last part we probably will never get.