The following are my fearless predictions for the coming new year:

On the domestic front:  Obamacare will run into more glitches and will hurt Obama's poll numbers.  But Obamacare will survive and stay as law.  Its popularity will gain in the future but certainly not this year.   The GOP will come out slightly ahead in the midterm election but will not be able to win the senate.  So we will have more stalemates in Congress and not much will be done.  But in a sign of the decreasing influence of the Tea Party in the GOP there will not be disasters due to battles over the debt ceiling and budgets this coming year.  Stock market will gyrate up and down during the year and finish about 500 points lower.

On the international front:  Syria will dispose its chemical weapons but the civil war and massacres will continue.  A deal with Iran and nuclear weapons will be made.  Israel will not be happy but won't strike Iran.  No significant progress will be made between Israel and the Palestinians.  Tension will increase between Japan and China over the islands but both sides will avoid any confrontation of force.  North Korea will make more empty threats but Dennis Rodman will try to defuse tension by bringing  a team to North Korea.  He is lucky in that Kim Jong Un will not call him uncle.

On the sports front: New England to win Super Bowl.  FSU to win BCS.  Pittsburgh to win Stanley Cup.  San Antonio to win NBA.  Kansas to win NCAA basketball.  Brazil wins World Cup.  U.S. wins the medal count at the Olympics.  Tiger Woods wins a major next year.  Serena Williams wins two majors.  Djokovic wins Australia and U.S. Open while Nadal wins the French as usual.  In a shocker Federer wins Wimbledon and retires.

Given my poor predictions with the Big Ten bowl games so far, I would take all of the above with a grain of salt.

Here are my annual Big Ten bowl games predictions:
Minnesota over Syracuse
Michigan over Kansas State
Georgia over Nebraska
Wisconsin over South Carolina
LSU over Iowa
Stanford over MSU
Ohio State over Clemson
Total record 4-3   Most likely victory: OSU over a overrated Clemson team that should not have gotten a BCS bid over Oregon.  Most likely loss:  a mediocre Nebraska (how did they beat Michigan?) losing to a Georgia team that should have beaten Auburn.

I spent a lot of time talking about Lee Kuan Yew on the last blog.  Guess what?  More Singapore today because I am going to talk about PISA (Programme for International Assessment).  This is the test that is given to students in some 70 countries or regions assessing their abilities in math, reading and science.  First issue I have is that how smart are these people giving the tests?  I don't see a "S" in PISA.  Shouldn't it be PIA or PFIA? 

There are two predictable reactions to the results.  The first is that since Asians scored the best, we are in serious trouble in competing with Asian countries, in particular China, in the future.  Well, lets not get ahead of ourselves.  This is a test of middle or high school students and the scores reflect what the average students in these countries can do.  The top students of the U.S. I am sure is still up there and while our high schools on average are horrible, our colleges are second to none.  There are usually two routes of innovations.  First is by some genius out of nowhere and second is out of universities.  I believe there are geniuses in all populations and a society that values people who think outside of the box will allow their geniuses to make great contributions.  I believe the U.S. is such a society.  Restrictions of freedom and demand for conformity will hold a country like China back for many years to come even if they produce the best high school students.  Our universities allow bright people to do research that are the envy of the world.  I would guess that of the top 100 research universities in the world, the U.S. is probably home to one third.  China may have 3-5.  So we are not going to lose our technological advantage any time soon.

So we should not be frightened, but we should take the results seriously.  I read a couple of pundits who said China cheated, using data only from Shanghai which is the richest city in China.  It is true that we don't have data from poor areas of China which is still the majority of the country.  But Shanghai beat out Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan which are all in the top 5 and are Chinese majority.  I certainly don't think Chinese are smarter.  If that is the case, people like me wouldn't have to migrate to America for a better living.  I would say that the reason for the results are way too many and complicated.  But I do think the Chinese and Asian culture of education is one of the most important reason.  When Lee Kuan Yew united the country his first goal after survival is to improve the education system.  He himself would admit that Singapore's system is more rigid and less creative than those of the West.  But it has helped the country rise economically.  As I mentioned before minorities in Singapore score as well as the average of the U.S.  So most people in the country can participate in the global economy and not left behind like many people in this country are.  So while we may continue to lead the world in innovations, if we don't improve our schools eventually we will suffer a wider and wider gap between the haves and the have nots.

I cannot believe that I am in agreement with Newt Gingrich again!  Gingrich is one of the Republicans who calls Nelson Mandela a great man.  This is in contrast to some who call Mandela a terrorist.  Gingrich compares Mandela to the American revolutionaries who fought against the tyranny of the British.  That is a point I always make.  One man's idea of a terrorist is another man's idea of a freedom fighter.  You think the Americans back then wanted to confront the professional Red Coats head on?  They had to resort to surprise (sneaky) attacks.  If you don't want to be colonized and you are facing an army with superior weapons, wouldn't you do the same?  So if the term existed then wouldn't the British call the Americans terrorists?  But to us they are freedom fighters.

The liberals and conservatives both went overboard in trying to use Mandela's death to their political advantage.  The liberals made Mandela a saint who could do no wrong.  They also criticized Reagan for siding with the apartheid South African government.  On the other hand you get someone like Rick Santorum who compares Mandela to Tea Party people who are fighting against Obamacare.  To equate Obamacare to apartheid is absurd.  By that analogy the Canadians and Brits would be as bad off as the black South Africans back in the 60's.  Besides, has anyone been sentenced to life for protesting Obamacare?

Now for my own hyperbole.  I would rate Gandhi, Mandela and Lee Kuan Yew as the three most important leaders from third world countries in the 20th century.  I would rate Gandhi first because his non violent civil disobedience not only led to independence for India but was an inspiration to many others including Mandela and M.L. King.  Gandhi and Mandela are ahead of Lee because they did not want to become dictators.  This was and still is very unusual in third world countries.  Lee was a benign dictator but a dictator nevertheless.  To his credit Lee is the only one of the three who transformed his country from poverty to wealth.  So each has his own flaws and is not a saint.  But each serves as inspiration for people all over the world.

Let the lobbying begin!  Right after Auburn gets lucky two weeks in a row, Auburn and the SEC immediately cry that if the SEC does not get to play for the national championship it will be the worst injustice in the history of mankind!  The only thing is the BCS was brainchild of the SEC in the first place and it has worked out pretty well for them.  So excuse me for not feeling sorry for them if they are shut out this year.

It is true that FSU and OSU have not played very tough schedules.  I would say it is irrelevant in the case of FSU.  They have been extremely impressive throughout the season.  I would have picked them to beat Alabama if the Crimson had gone undefeated.  OSU has not been so impressive as demonstrated by its narrow win over Michigan.  So unless it beats MSU soundly I would say it would be a big underdog against FSU.  But if it wins against MSU it is the only major undefeated team left besides FSU.  I don't think Auburn deserve to leapfrog over OSU given that it got clobbered by LSU, barely beat WSU and should have lost to a Georgia team that had lost to 3 other teams.  I would say that if any team from the SEC deserving to go to the BCS title game would be Missouri, if it beats Auburn.  Missouri has only lost once in double overtime and I have been impressed by its overall performance.  In any case, Alabama should not have a chance even if OSU loses.  In that case the winner of Auburn and Missouri should get the nod.  I mean the voters can't possibly vote for Alabama over the team that beat the team that beat it, can they?

My question today is:  If MSU loses to OSU and OSU goes to the BCS title game, does MSU still get the Rose Bowl bid?  I understand that the runner up to a team that goes to the title game gets a BCS bid if it is in the top 14.  I think if the game is close, I don't think MSU will drop below 14.  Would that be the Rose Bowl or another BCS bowl depending on selection order of the bowls?

The Iranian nuclear deal is praised as a historic deal by Obama and his supporters and is derided as a historic mistake by his critics.  It is neither of these but a baby step toward possible resolution that has miles to go.  For one thing it is just an interim agreement for 6 months with a hope of a permanent deal.  For another thing it is nowhere near approval by the U.S. Congress and it still can be vetoed by the Ayatollah of Iran.  Even if these hurdles are overcome, it will just slow down Iran's progress toward the bomb, assuming verification of its end of the bargain.  So this is not some historic agreement.  On the other hand, how is it a historic mistake to give Iran a few billion dollars in relief of the sanction to see if it is serious in negotiations?  The outcries by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Republican Congress are just absurd.

The truth is despite the tough sanctions, Iran has made progress toward making the bomb since the sanctions started.  The technology to make the bomb is not so sophisticated.  Iran certainly has the scientists capable of doing it.  Israel and the U.S. can slow the process by bombing Iran but they cannot stop it entirely without going to outright war. This certainly is against the interest of the U.S. and I believe would be against the interests of Israel.  So a diplomatic solution is the only possible way out.  Rouhani, the newly elected president of Iran, is a possible hope.  He maybe a wolf in sheepskin as his critics say.  But so what if he turned out to be that?  We would just tighten the sanctions again.  The alternative would be to continue what we are doing without give Rouhani a chance.  In that case I believe Iran will get the bomb in the near future.  And if sanctions cripple Iran into extreme poverty when they do have the bomb, its leader will be more likely to use the bomb as a means of keeping national unity.  When you push a rat into a corner, it will bite even if it knows it cannot win.

And if Iran uses the bomb, it would not be against the U.S.  That is not a realistic capability for Iran even if it develops the bomb.  And even if Iran can attack the U.S. with the bomb, it knows it would be extinguished as a nation if it does so.  But if the U.S. bombs Iran to prevent it from having the bomb, it would increase by many folds the numbers of terrorist recruits against the U.S.  A nuclear Iran does pose threats to Israel and Saudi Arabia.  But Israel has many nuclear bombs already and can destroy Iran.  Saudi Arabia has no nuclear weapons now and the danger is that they will respond to a nuclear Iran with a bomb of its own.  But given the importance of oil for western nations, any attack on Saudi Arabia will also mean the end of Iran.  In any case, Israel and Saudi Arabia should recognize that no amount of sanctions and air attack will stop Iran from becoming nuclear.  Diplomacy, while extremely difficult, is their only hope for peace.

Just a few comments about things that are of little importance to most people:

The Democrats decide to use the nuclear option to get rid of filibusters for nominations.  How come the Republicans couldn't filibuster the nuclear option?   I think they should keep the filibuster but make it true filibusters.  That is the senator actually has to stand there and talk non stop like Ted Cruz did.  This way the Republicans can't complain about the Democrats stopping a tradition.  It also allows the Democrats to filibuster when they are the minority.  But if someone wants to stop a nomination that badly, he should stand there and talk non stop otherwise it is not a true filibuster but is minority rules.

The Tigers trade Prince Fielder to the Rangers for Ian Kinsler.  I believe it is a good trade for the Tigers.  I think Fielder is on the downside of his career although in a smaller park he may hit more homeruns next year for the Rangers.  This will free up money for the Tigers to sign extensions to Scherzer and Cabrera.  Cabrera can also move back to first base and make it easier for his body. 

MSU played well in beating Kentucky.  MSU has an excellent team to make a Final Four run this season.  But Kentucky is very young and they have a higher ceiling they can possibly reach.  So I will pick Kentucky to win the championship.  But of course most teams don't reach their full potential so I will not bet any money on my own pick.

Speaking of MSU, they look to be winning their football division easily.  But I would not overlook Northwestern.  NW appears to be the unluckiest team in the world.  They could easily be 9-1 but instead they may not even be bowl eligible. 

Who is this old guy name Bill who is still alive on DWTS when people who are way better than him got voted out the last 3-4 weeks?  I know he is some kind of comedians but I had never heard of him before.  I can't believe that he is popular with people younger than me and people who are older probably can't figure out how to vote.  He is about my age and dance almost as bad.  I would like to know the demographic that vote for him!

Jeff Daniels won the Emmy as the star of "Newsroom" with his speech about America not being the greatest nation anymore.  Some people would say this is heresy.  Some would say Daniels is correct.  I say this is not a true or false question.  In fact it is the wrong question.  The greatest nation label implies that a country is better than all others.  This, however, does not mean a country is actually GREAT.  Certainly it does not mean that a country is even good at everything.  I mean, I can be the best dancer in town but if everybody in town has two left feet then I may not be such a good dancer.  So when one says that America is not the greatest ANYMORE, it may or may not be a true statement but it is not all that meaningful.

The way I look at it, America was probably the greatest nation in the 1960s.  When I came to the U.S. the thing that struck me was how positive Americans think of their country.  Certainly Americans thought of their country as the greatest 50 years ago.  I would agree with them (I was not an American at that time).  Compare to other countries America was so much better, especially for someone who came from a British colony and whose ancestral home land is a communist country in deep poverty.

Today a lot more Americans seem to feel America is no longer at the top.  As Jeff Daniels pointed out, we are mediocre or worse in terms of education, life expectancy and infant mortality compared to other developed nations.  We no longer dominate in manufacturing.  We are frightened by terrorism.  Yet we kill tens of thousands of our own citizens each year.  We have a dysfunctional government that is deeply divided.  We have more people in prisons than any western country.  Daniels is correct with all these stats. 

So some countries do better than us in certain things.  It does not make any one of them greater than us.  We should try to improve on those areas that we are behind in.  But we have fallen behind not because we got worse but because other countries have improved faster.  Our life expectancy did not go down, for example, but it just has not gone up as fast as other countries.  Japan, for example, has improved a lot since the 60s.  It does many things better than us.  But I would not say that Japan is greater than us overall.  Same with China.  So the gap has closed but I think we are still at the top.  We just need to improve on many fronts.

So our world standing may not be as dominant as in the 60s.  But I think we are a better nation today.  Look at a show like "Mad Men" and see how people lived 50 years ago.  We smoke and drink less today and thus are much more healthy than before.  We live in bigger houses on average today and drive better cars.  We had two Kennedys assassinated along with MLK in less than one decade.  We were in a losing war in Vietnam with tens of thousands of Americans killed.  We had race riots in many cities.  Blacks could not drink out of the same fountains as whites. There was little diversity in the workplace.  Women were seldom seen in science or business.  So even if we were ranked the greatest 50 years ago because the rest of the world was more screwed up than us, it was meaningless.  I say we are better today and the world as a whole is better today.

So my fellow Americans:  Be as optimistic as the first generation of Americans I met.  A country that has gone from civil rights violations as being legal to electing a black president, a country that is no longer worried about a a nuclear attack from a communist adversary, a country that still produced way more Nobel prize winners than any other, and a country that immigrants still flock to; cannot be too bad.  Yes, we have a lot to improve on but I think we will meet the challenges.

The Supreme Court is taking a case of city council prayer from Greece, New York.  The question is can someone in a government meeting pray to a particular god or religion.  A Jewish person and an atheist brought suit against the town for invoking Jesus in the prayers.  There is a good chance that the Court will side with the city on this one.  I do not have a religious preference and I don't care how others pray.  But if the conservative majority on the Court say that a city does not have to be neutral in its prayers, I think it will be a blow to the separation of church and state.  I can see a day when the Muslim majority in a city like Dearborn, Michigan invoke Islamic prayers to open council meetings.  How about a town with Jewish majority or Buddhist majority?  I think keeping prayers neutral is less divisive in the future.

I read that Detroit maybe electing the first white mayor since the 1970s.  I don't know anything about this Mike Duggan who is well ahead in the polls.  I doubt that anyone can turn Detroit around in the near future but if someone can do it, I don't care if he is black, white or purple.

Lately I have some problems with Obama which I believe will hurt his legacy.  I understand that second terms are more difficult as scandals are more likely the longer you are in office.  There are also change of advisers.  Your supporters are no longer worrying about your reelection but more about their own future.  Having said that it still appears to me that Obama is not doing well in his second term.  I understand there would be glitches with the unveiling of Obamacare.  But given his campaigns ran so well with the help of technology geeks, how is is possible that the tech work is so poor with Obamacare.  This is his signature legislation, you would think he would personally be sure that any problems will be reported to him.  So he cannot plead ignorance.  He has to take responsibility for at least bad management and not lay all the blame on his secretary of health. 

The same with the international spying.  I understand every country spies on its enemies AND friends.  So it is a bit of hypocritical for all these countries to accuse the U.S. of spying on them.  But the White House cannot claim that nobody there knows that foreign leaders like Merkle has her cell phone tapped.  If this is the work of some stupid agent, put it out there.  But I cannot believe that Obama would not know this before Snowden did.  If we are not doing anything that our allies are not doing then Obama needs to say so himself.  I personally don't know the value of tapping the German chancellor's personal cell phone unless it is trying to get info why Germany is doing better than us economically!  In any case, with Obamcare and this spying problem, it is time for Obama is get better focus on his managing skills and say "the buck stops here!"