I am sure not many people watched the latest Democratic debate.  It doesn't make much difference anyway.  Clinton will be the nominee barring a big scandal.  Sanders is more of a sparring partner than an opponent in the ring.  So Clinton appears to be taking more shots at Trump than his "opponents".  I agree that Trump will serve as a recruiting tool for ISIS.  But I think Clinton went too far to say that there are ISIS videos featuring Trump right now.  There is no proof of that so far that I can see.  There is no point to exaggerate things.

But I don't understand the bromance happening between Trump and Putin.  Putin says Trump is bright and talented and Trump says there is no proof that Putin has killed any journalists.  Trump also says it is a great honor to be praised by Putin.  Since I don't think Putin has our country's interest at heart, I think he must want to deal with Trump than somebody else after next year.  So I can see why he praise Trump.  But is Trump really that stupid to defend a dictator?  It would be like FDR accepting the praise of Hitler and say that there is no proof that Hitler killed anyone.  But then I guess Trump's supporters don't care what Trump says.

Once again is time for my AAAAA-Angry Asian Absolutely Accurate Assessment of Big Ten Bowl picks.  I have Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Northwestern, Ohio State  and Penn State winning.  I have Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU and Iowa losing.  So I predict 6-4.

I think the playoff games are unpredictable.  The consensus among the so called experts is that Oklahoma and Alabama are the two best teams.  I think that is a stretch.  I think all four teams can win the title and all four could easily have not been here except for some luck.  But there is no controversy of the four being here.  I have Alabama slightly favored over MSU but I think the line of Alabama favored by 10 points is ridiculous.  If I am a betting man, I would take the points.  Oklahoma is favored by 3 and half over Clemson.  I also would take the points here.  In fact I pick Clemson straight up over Oklahoma.  I would like to see the semis before deciding on the final to see how each winning team played against another top team.  But if I have to pick right now, I pick Clemson because I think Alabama may beat MSU but they will be beat up pretty badly physically from this game.  I think Clemson will have a easier time against Oklahoma.

Obama went on tv tonight in an attempt to reassure Americans about the threat from terrorists.  I don't think it changes anything.  Those who are against him will say the same things and those on his side will not change their tunes.  There are no good and easy way to do this.  This will continue into the next presidency.  And whoever is elected will not have any better idea than Obama.  If someone like Trump gets elected, God forbid, he will find that rhetoric will not get rid of ISIS and in fact plays right into terrorists hands and increase their ability to recruit.

You know, there are a lot of Americans who are angry that more is not done about ISIS.  There are also a lot of Americans who have great fear of terrorism.  But despite what happened in California this week, terrorism have not cause many deaths since 9/11.   The chances of getting killed from terrorism is miniscule compared to the chances of getting murdered by fellow Americans.  So how come those people who are angry at Obama are not a thousand times more angry about the people who don't want to stop gun violence?  You don't want to stop people who are on no fly lists from getting guns?  Really?  Obama may sound careless when he described ISIS as a jv team.  But we are not living in the most dangerous time as people suggest.  Remember the 1960s when we were frightened of what the USSR will do to us?  Compared to the USSR, ISIS is jv.  Also 50,000 Americans died in Vietnam during that time.  So the chances of Americans dying due to a conflict was much greater then.  It was also greater during the Iraq war under Bush than now.  So let's have some perspective.  It took a long time to get rid of the threat from the USSR.  It will take a long time to get rid of the threat from ISIS who by the way came into existence thanks to our invasion of Iraq.

Hope everybody had a great Thanksgiving.  Not surprising news today: Kobe Bryant announces that this will be his last season.  It would be shocking if he had decided to keep playing.  Now, it would also be more gracious if he will tell Byron Scott to play him just a few minutes per game.  It makes no sense for him to play 30 plus minutes a game and then sit out one of two back to back games.  He is not helping the team win anyway and it would be much better for the team to give more minutes to the young players.  It is a cliche to say that father time always win but it is true.  I remember Willie Mays looking absolutely terrible in the outfield his last season.  Kobe is like that now with his shooting percentage around 30 and jacking up 3 pointers at a rate of less than 20 percent success.  Play about 5 minutes each half and bow to the fans.  That will be a good farewell tour.

Speaking of farewell tour, the same may happen to Ichiro next season.  He has signed for another season with the Marlins.  It looks like he is trying to break Pete Rose's all time hit record when combined with the hits he got in Japan and in MLB.  Ichiro has obviously declined in the last couple of seasons.  If he continues to decline early next season, it may not be worth it to stick around just to break the record.  I don't want to see him struggling below 250 for a whole season.  Even if he breaks the record, it is not a record recognized by everybody.  As Rose points out:  if they count Ichiro's hits from Japan, then they should count Rose's hits from the minors.  It is an argument where there is no right or wrong.  Whether Ichiro breaks the record or not will have no baring on the excellence of his career.  Remember, Ichiro is not just a great hitter but also one of the greatest outfielder of all time and had one of the greatest throwing arm.  So the last thing I want to see is him fumbling around in the outfield like Mays did at the end.

I am going to comment on two subjects today.  It will be obvious after reading this blog today that you can see why I can never run for political office.  I would be crucified from the left and right because one side will disagree with me wholeheartedly on one subject and the other side will disagree with me on the other subject.

First subject is student protests in liberal schools over microaggression.  I am not talking about Missouri where there appears to be legitimate reasons for the protests and subsequent resignation of the president.  There is a history of discrimination there.  But in liberal schools the anger over microaggression is disturbing to me.  Of course being called the n word or Chinaman is very hurtful and those words should not be spoken in a college.  But now people are complaining about minor misspeak by white people.  The dean at Claremont college resigned after agreeing to help students "who don't fit our mold".  Now she obviously misspoke but I don't think she is racist by any means and she is probably a person who really wants to help minority students.  It is like a person gets upset if a white person ask where he is from.  I would answer Detroit to that question.  But if someone really wants to know my ethnicity, it is no big deal.  If someone says that I dance well for an old Chinese guy, I don't get all upset.  If I think he is really trying to say Chinese can't dance, I would enlighten him by telling him to look up Victor Fung, who maybe is the best male ballroom dancer in the world!  We can't get too sensitive and forget the big picture: to be treated fairly.  We should not get mad at others for being slightly insensitive or misspeak.

Now I want to thank the mayor in Virginia who brought up the interment of the Japanese when he talked about Syrian refugees.  Now this is not microaggression, this is racism.  There was no evidence of any treason acts by the Japanese Americans.  If fact the Japanese Americans were about the most decorated in WWII.  Using one of the black eye in our history to back up your discrimination now?  Wow!  In fact this type of thing is exactly what ISIS wants to happen.  Killing a few westerners does nothing for ISIS compare to the paranoia it causes us.  Acting scared and discriminatory will help the bad guys recruit more fighters in our own land and be much more dangerous than letting vetted refugees come in.  Somehow the people born in this country built by immigrants is afraid of immigrants.

The French terrorist attack brings sadness and sympathy for the victims.  The news that one of the perpetrator had a Syrian refugee passport must send chills to the refugee community.  The door for them to get into Europe maybe shut as a result of this.  Even if countries like Germany are still willing to allow refugees in, there will be less kindness and more hostility from the native population toward the newcomers.

Lindsey Graham says that there will be another 9/11.  Isn't this saying the obvious?   No matter how good our intelligence and prevention strategies are, the terrorists only have to make it through the defense once!  We have to be 100% right and that is not possible for any nation.  We are in better position than Europe in that we have a lot less people going to the middle east and come back as possible terrorists than France for example.  Europe is also a lot closer to the middle east than the U.S.  But as I said, one mistake is all it takes.

I don't agree with Graham that we should put 10,000 troops on the ground now to fight ISIS.  Even if we and NATO forces can defeat ISIS, it will not eliminate threats.  We won the first Gulf War and that led to al qeada, and we took out Hussein and got ISIS.  When we defeat one group another props up because it is perceived that we are in the middle east to kill Muslims.  Look at Russia fighting in Syria and right away was targeted.  I say let the middle east sort itself out.  Besides putting premium on intelligence, we should also have counter offense against internet recruiting by terrorist groups.  For example, greater effort to show that 50% of young recruits from western countries ended up dead in the middle east.  These efforts will not eliminate threats but I know having our soldiers die in the middle east will not stop the threats either.

The leaders of China and Taiwan met in Singapore this past week.  There were protests in Taiwan and many supporters of Taiwan were uneasy over this historic event.  The leaders of the two sides had not met since the Nationalists fled to Taiwan.  It is understandable that there is fear and distrust of the communist government in the mainland.  But the truth is that the two sides have been having increasing economic and social ties gradually.  I think continue and increase engagement of the two sides is good.  I mean, if China decides to try to take over Taiwan then ignoring China would not change that.  By increasing trades and tourism between the two  sides, there will be less tension and make it less likely that aggression will occur.  So I think Taiwan's president Ma Ying Jeou is doing the right thing by meeting Xi Jingping.

Anyone watched SNL yesterday?  I didn't watch it but looking at some of the skits on the internet, I found the Trump show to be rather boring.  I am sure the ratings will be good but I don't think it helped the reputation of SNL or Trump.  I would not have bothered protesting the show, it gave it more publicity and does not change anyone's opinion anyway.

Opted to watch the World Series instead of the GOP debate last week.  It doesn't seem like it change anything even though people say that Marco Rubio did the best.  Of course previous good performances by Fiorina only temporary gave her a boost.  Now she is an also ran again.  So I don't think these debates are doing much to the race.  The big news coming out of this is that the GOP is so upset with the moderators from CNBC that they are boycotting NBC.  It seems to me if they want softball questions, they should just have all the debates on FNC.  Oh, I forgot that Trump got into fight with a woman moderator for Fox.  Hey, if they think NBC is biased, then why is Trump going on Saturday Night Live?

Frankly, I am surprised how poorly Jeb Bush is doing.  If no scandal occur, I don't see anyone in this field can beat Clinton.  Well, with maybe the exception of Rubio.  I don't see the GOP nominating a Hispanic. But if Rubio is nominated and he picks Kasich or Christie, then there is a reasonable chance of beating Clinton.  With Florida and either NJ or Ohio going to the GOP column, Rubio may pull it off.  Of course, I did see Scott Walker coming out of toss up state of Wisconsin.  That was over before it got started.  But at least Rubio has done well in the debates, unlike Walker.

China is getting rid of the one child policy.  Now couples can have 2 children.  The one child policy caused lot of bad things like forced abortion.  But it did stabilize China's population.  It is no longer needed however.  With increased prosperity and urbanization, Chinese couples are wanting less children.  So eventually no policy will be needed.  And it is a sure bet that in the very near future, India will surpass China as the world's most populous country.

Hey, the big election is over!  I am, of course, talking about the Canadian election.  Justin Trudeau, the son of the former prime minister Pierre, has led the liberal party to victory over conservative Steven Harper.  This ends the ten year reign of Harper.  I am not an expert in Canadian politics so I am hoping that anyone living near the Canadian border may have insight about this election.  Meanwhile, I have a few comments.

I remember that Trudeau's parents were compared to the Kennedys.  So this would be like John Jr. surviving and becoming president.  Pierre was 30 years older than Margaret.  She was obviously much better looking than him.  So I guess Justin must take after his mother since supposedly his good looks help him get elected.  So how much is looks and name have to do with this election or did the election simply turn on people's view of Harper?

Harper and Obama did not see eye to eye over things like Keystone, strategy in the Middle East and climate change.  So Obama is probably happy that Trudeau won even though he won't have much time to work with him.  While I can't say that Canadians and American voters are the same, I think they are similar.  So going for the more liberal agenda would please the Democrats.  For example, Harper had cut spending and Trudeau has promised to go into deficit to stimulate the economy.  But of course, the voters in Canada might just got tired of the Harper administration after ten years and want a change,  That would be bad omen for the Democrats.  So will see what happens next year.

I think it would be a mistake for Biden to get into the race now.  Clinton did well during the debate and I don't think that Biden or anyone else can take the nomination from her.  If she had stumbled during the debate then Biden may have had an opening.  But she did not stumble so if Biden gets in now he would lose badly.  Then if a big scandal comes out on Clinton that forces her out, Biden would not be looked upon as a savior if he had lost whole bunch of primaries.  I think the only chance for Biden is to stay out and be a good soldier for the party.  Then if something happens to Clinton, then he would be coming in unscathed.

It is funny that Trump blames Bush for 9/11.  I don't think he understands the world and why things happen.  But if he wants to blame his own party, go ahead.  I wonder if he blames FDR for Pearl Harbor!  But Jeb defends his brother by saying that he kept us safe.  How? By going into Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan?

Can the GOP elect a new Speaker?  Moderates like Paul Ryan doesn't want the job and I don't see how the 40 or so rebels in the House can elect one of their own.  More dysfunction up ahead!

Spencer Stone, the hero who took down the terrorist on the Belgium train, was stabbed outside a bar in Sacramento last week.   Maybe I am old but it seems to me nothing good comes being inside or outside a bar at 1 am.  In any case, the police are looking for two Asian men who apparently stabbed Stone.  The whole story is not out yet, but regardless there is no good reason for anyone to pull a weapon on someone else.  Just like there was no excuse for those guys who used a bat to kill Vincent Chin years ago, there is no excuse for these guys to stab Stone.

Of course, if those guys had a gun instead of a knife, Stone would probably be dead.  If this occurred in Florida or Texas. then these guys would plead self defense since Stone is a big and strong dude and would probably prevailed in a fight against them.  I wonder what the gun lobby and those who like the "self defense, no stand down laws" would say then?

I think knowing they have a weapon probably make it more likely that these guys would fight Stone.  It is just like Zimmerman would never approach Martin if he did not have a gun.  These laws are so stupid that if a little guy wants to kill a big guy, all he had to do was get into a fight with him.  Then he can claim self defense and shoot the bigger guy since it is obvious that he is in danger given the size difference.  Of course, without a weapon, the weaker guy would never instigate a fight in the first place!

Putin made a speech at the UN and then had a talk with Obama last week.  After that he started the air campaign in Syria.  Critics of Obama say that Putin looked strong and decisive as oppose to Obama.  Putin, in one week, put Ukraine out of the picture and make Russia a big player in the middle east.  Obama, meanwhile, asked Putin to attack only ISIS targets and not rebels against Assad.  Obviously, Putin refused and Obama gained nothing out of the meeting.  So Putin looked strong and Obama looked week.

Well, I say so what?  The reality is Putin's decision to help Assad is easy.  Syria has always been Russia's biggest ally in the middle east, going way back when Assad's father first came to power.  So it is natural that Putin wants to help Assad stay in power.  Since the Shiite governments in Iraq and Iran are also supporting Assad, it is a good way for Putin to gain more allies.  The U.S. options are not so clear.  We don't want Assad to stay but there are no strong, democratic rebels who we can align with.  The truth is air strikes by us will not get rid of Assad or ISIS and we don't want to put boots on the ground.  Yes, we can get rid of a dictator by force.  But after our human sacrifices, is there a stable and democratic government to take the dictator's place?  Well, obviously we can't say yes after Afghanistan and Iraq.

So let Putin enjoy his spotlight.  I think down the road it would backfire on him.  He is making enemies in the Muslim world by his bombing.  Remember we saved Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from Saddam Hussein and even that gave rise to al Queda against us.  You will see more Muslims from the former Soviet republics join ISIS.  If he gets alignment with Iraq and Iran, Sunnis will be enemies of Russia.  As Russia learned in Afghanistan in the 1980s, power does not equated to victory.  I think the U.S. should just sit back and let Putin be the bad guy to the Muslim world.  We should concentrate on humanity aid.  It does not make us look tough but it is better for the long run.

The pope has finished his trip to the U.S.  Everywhere he went he was a rock star.  I am not Catholic but I like this guy.  He speaks his mind but not down at other people.  He could have lived lavishly but he chose a simple residence.  He rides not in limos or SUVs but simple cars.  He is an important figure but does not act like one.  I hope he heads the catholic church for many years to come.

As popular as the pope is, he is being criticized by both sides of the political spectrum.  This shows how divided we are.  We can't even acknowledge a great man if he disagree with us on one or two things.  Wall Street is upset at him because they think that he is calling for the redistribution of wealth.  They call him a socialist.  I think catholic teaching demands that he speaks and advocates for the poor.  He is not anti-capitalism.  On the other end, liberals are upset that he is not for gay marriages and abortion.  Nobody could have become pope if he advocated those changes.  This is what he believes.  He made it clear that he would embrace those who are gay and those who have had abortions.  I don't think it is reasonable that one man can and would make changes that are so drastically different to the church.

I may not agree with pope Francis on everything but I do have great respect for him.  I think his critics should look at the whole man and not just the things that he disagree with them.  But I am not holding my breath since politics in this country is just preaching to the choir.

Regarding the case of the Muslim boy who was arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school, I have questions for many people.  First, did the boy do this just to impress the teacher or was there any other motives?  I don't know of many kids who would go out of the way to do extra work that is not related to what is being taught at school.  Listening to him talk, he does not sound like a nerd who sits in the basement making things to please a teacher.  Maybe I am stereotyping, but I am not ready to accept that he is a pure victim of discrimination without further facts.

Next question is, if the police thought that the clock maybe a bomb and they want to act out of extreme caution as they said, why did they not evacuate the whole school?   Was the bomb squad called?  If they did not do those two things, how can they say they are acting out of caution by arresting the boy?  And they had to handcuffed a kid and then interrogated him for one and half hour without his parent or lawyer present?  Seems to me they were trying to intimate the boy into confessing something so they can justify their actions.

Then we have Obama who invited the kid to the White House.  Really?  Without knowing more facts?  There are a lot of people who got discriminated against everyday.  What is the big hurry for the invite?  Same with MIT and others who want to show love to the kid.  What if we found out that there was publicity seeking?  I think the school, police and liberal institutions all over reacted for different reasons.

So the next GOP debate is in a few days and it is near where I live.  But I will not attend.  I don't need to hear more Obama bashing, immigrant bashing, China bashing and Trump insulting everybody.  Did you see where Trump insulted Fiorina's looks but then said he is talking about her persona?  If he meant her persona, why did he said her face?  This comes from a guy whose hair is the butt of jokes everywhere and whose face is not exactly attractive.  I mean, doesn't he own a mirror?  Of course, this is a guy who questioned McCain's bravery when he kept trying to get out of going to Vietnam.  Since the McCain comment did not hurt him, I suppose criticizing the looks of the only female candidate will not hurt him either.

About the China bashing.  I saw an interview on tv where they asked people in China if they knew Trump and if they do, what do they think of his comments about China.  Most of those interviewed had no idea who he is.  For those that do know him and know about the China bashing, they don't seem to care.  Some just think that is the politics of the U.S. and some think that in a way it means China has become important and a worthy rival of the U.S.  They said that in the past, China was irrelevant but now the bashing means that they have arrived.  They care more about the continued advancement of China than what the U.S. thinks.  Maybe we should learn from this and put our own house in order instead of blaming China and immigrants for our problems.

I don't understand how some GOP candidates are supporting the clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage license to gay couples.  Regardless of her personal belief, she has to follow the law as a government official.  She cannot say she answers to a higher law, the law of God.  This would be same argument for Muslims who want to follow Sharia law.  I am sure the GOP or Democrats would not support that.  If it is against her religion to do the job, she should resign.  Unless she agrees to issue the licenses or resign, she belongs in jail.

The same reasoning goes for the Muslim flight attendant who refuses to serve alcohol because it is against her religion.  I don't drink myself and I believe that there is too much alcohol consumption in this country.  But since serving alcohol is part of the job of a flight attendant, I don't see why the airline has to accommodate her.  As with the clerk, nobody has a right to a job that he/she cannot fulfill completely.

The term anchor baby has been tossed around by GOP candidates lately.  As usual, it started by Trump.  As usual, that helped Trump in the standings among GOP voters.  But when Jeb Bush used the term, it backfired on him.  His retraction to say the term applied to Asians only made things worse for him.  I am sure there are Asian groups who are offended by the term.  I don't look at it as an offensive term.  After all, anchor on a relay team is the best runner usually.  The anchor on a newscast is the highest paid.  So the anchor by itself is not bad.  The implication of term is, however, inaccurate.  It implies that the baby being born in the U.S. is an U.S. citizen and thus can protect the parents from deportation.  That, of course, is not true.  In case of Asians, the parents are not trying to avoid deportation.  They are usually wealthy Chinese who just want an outlet for their kids in case the communist country reverse its economic course.  It would also give the kid a better chance of obtaining an education in the U.S. if so desired in the future.

Chinese women giving tourism birth in the U.S.is nothing new.  It maybe illegal only in the sense that it circumvent tourist visa laws.  It has been overlooked in the past, particularly in California.  It is not an economic drain for the U.S. in that these women are paying Americans to house and feed them.  They spend money while in the U.S.  They and the baby then leave the country.  They are not picking up welfare checks.  Eventually the kid may come back for high school and college.  They may cost the education system money at that point but I am sure they would be paying to live here and the parents may even buy houses here.  So it hard to know what the full economic impact would be.  If the U.S. wants to stop this, it can do so by shutting down the so called birth hotels in California and other places popular to Chinese visitors.  No need to change the constitution regarding birth citizenship.  It is also not a problem worthy of a presidential debate!

We have a lot of problems in this country but pointing the finger at immigrants is unfair.  There are studies that say illegal immigrants are a drain to the economy and there are studies that say they are positive.  But as I always say, where there is a demand, there is a supply.  To clear up the question, just arrest the people who hire illegals.  There are only two reasons why a business must hire illegals:  they can't make a profit with American workers or there are not enough Americans willing to do the job.  If legal pressure cause the owners to change the practice then we will find out if either of these things are true.  If neither are true then businesses will thrive.  If either is true, then the businesses will fail without illegal immigrants.  In either case, illegal immigration will come to a halt and we will find out what the true economic impact of illegal immigrants are.

A few weeks ago I wrote about the Greek bailout and the Chinese financial market's big decline.  Now the Greeks have kowtow to their European debt masters and accepted the bailout.  They have agreed to worse measures than if they didn't revolt in the first place.  I hope the best for the Greeks  but I don't see how these measures are going to get them out of trouble in the near future.

The Chinese market was stabilized for a short time but it is declining again.  This has spooked the rest of the world, including the U.S. stock market.  China has gotten so big now that when it sneezes, the world catches a cold.  But while this may linger for a while, China does have the largest foreign reserves in the world and should be able to withstand this down turn.  It just make market reform that much more difficult.  As far as the U.S.'s concern, our indicators show that we are due for a correction in the market anyway.  But the price to earnings ratio are not very high and unemployment is down.  So I think the market will recover in the near future.  I may be wrong and we head for a recession and that will hand over the election to the GOP nominee.  But I am going out on a limb and say this won't happen and I have backed that up by investing $5000 tomorrow in the market because I think it is a reasonable time to buy.

Joe Biden is being pushed by some of his supporters to run.  They set the deadline of Oct. 1st  because the first Democratic debate is Oct. 13.  It would be difficult to get all ready for a debate in less than two weeks if you have not decided by then.  My feeling is that if he does not decide by Labor Day, I don't think he will run.  With two passed failed attempts, the unpopularity of Obama generally, and the recent loss of his son, I don't think he has the stomach to do it.

If Hillary fails, how about Al Gore?  I do think that is a good possibility if the Democrats are desperate.  I think a lot of people think he got robbed the last time and wished that he would have become president instead of Bush.  So they may vote for him as a compensation.  He can also point out that he was an integral part of the Clinton administration that had a budget surplus.  In other words he can claim he is Bill second without the scandal!  I don't think he wants to run but he would be a good plan B for the Democrats.

The  first Christian. I mean Republican party, debates are over.  I did  not see much of the JV game but I understand Carly Fiorina came out best.  That is bad news for veteran politicians like Perry and Graham who should have been able do better than the inexperienced.  Fiorina is not a viable candidate since she couldn't even do the job at Hewlett Packard.  So I don't see anyone from the JV moving up to the varsity.

The varsity game started out with a bang.   Trump was the only one who raised his hand to not pledge that he would support the eventual nominee and not run as a third party candidate.  This seems to give credence to the idea that he is really a secret democrat embedded to mess up the Republicans.  Asked why he donated to Democrats like Clinton, he said basically that he used the system to get favors later on although he did not specify which favors he got with his money.  The question is:  if he games the system as a private person, wouldn't he also game the system even more as president?

I think overall John Kasich did the best followed by Marco Rubio.  Neither is likely to win.  Kasich is too well unknown and too moderate.  Rubio is too young and Hispanic.  Jeb Bush was mediocre, again not giving a concise answer (to an expected question) to the Bush war.  Bush, Christie, Walker, Cruz and Huckabee were in the middle pack.  Paul and Carson were at the end.  Trump maybe just ahead of those two but clearly did worse than the other 7 in my opinion.

Boston is out of Olympic bidding.  So it is logical that LA will be the U.S. bid for 2024.  I think they will have tough competition with Paris, Rome and Hamburg in the ring.  So I propose a brand new idea for Olympics.  Join hosting with LA and SF.  SF was behind Boston and LA when the USOC decided on Boston last time.  So I don't think it can win on its own.  But I think giving SF some events would make it very interesting.  For example:  the open swim can be to Alcatraz.  Mountain biking can be in the hills of Berkeley.  Triathlon near the Golden Gate.  An LA Olympic is going to be spread out anyway so why not spread it out 380 miles north?  The infrastructure of LA is much better than the Bay area for multiple sports but I think giving SF some events would boost the chance of the U.S. winning the bid.

I think the NFL is right about upholding Brady's suspension. The fact that he destroyed his cell phone right at the time he was supposed to meet investigators make it seem like he had something to hide.  I mean if it was pictures of another supermodel then it would have only enhanced his reputation and so it is likely it had something to do with deflategate.  So just take the punishment and then come back to prove he is still the best big time qb in the NFL!

The first GOP debate is next month.  It will be on Fox News and Fox is limiting it to the top 10 candidates in the polls.  I agree that 16 people on stage is to unruly.  Viewers will have trouble remembering who said what.  I think 10 is even too many. I would have gone a different and do what European soccer has done for decades:  multiple divisions.

I would use the polls just like Fox is doing and also what the BCS had been doing.  I would have the 1 to 4 debate at Fox, 5-8 at CNN, 9-12 at MSNBC, and 13-16 at C-SPAN.  The top three divisions can rotate for the second and third debate alas college football style.  C-Span is the minor bowl.  By the four debate there should be less than 12 left and we can regroup.  But after each of the first debate the grouping maybe different as the poll result maybe different.  This would be like the relegation of European soccer leagues where the top three in each division move up and the bottom three move down.  With only four players, each player can give the viewers a much better sense of their personality and ideas.  If they do well in a debate, they can move up or if they do poorly they move down.  If you have not move up to the top two division after 3 debates you are sunk anyway.

Right now with a lot of people on stage, thing can get messy.  Can you imagine Trump refusing to yield the floor and 9 guys trying to talk over him?  I would use soccer rules again where a moderator can issue a yellow card if someone refuses to stop after the whistle blows indicating time is up.  Two yellows means a red card and you are escorted off the stage.  This will insure more civility and more debates on issues rather than name calling.  Of course the GOP is not known to like international things so soccer rules may not work here.  So 15 yard penalties or 2 minutes in the penalty box may have to be used against anyone who does not behave!

The Iran nuclear deal is made.  Can it passes Congress?  Well, it won't pass but it probably will survive a veto override as I don't think the GOP can get two third majority in the Senate.  When this deal goes into effect, it will be part of Obama's legacy for years to come.  Actually, Obama has a few things that will be looked at by historians in the future.  Even though he may not leave office popular, I think history will be kind to him.

Whether you like them or not, presidents usually have at least one thing that defined their tenure.  FDR obviously had the New Deal,, Truman used the bomb, Eisenhower railed against the military industrial complex, Kennedy the Cuban missile crisis, LBJ the Great Society, Nixon the opening of China, Carter the Israel Egypt peace treaty, Reagan the fall of USSR, Bush1 the first Gulf war, Clinton the tech age, Bush II 9/11.  I think unpopular presidents like Nixon and Carter are looked upon as much better when their legacies are evaluated years later.  I think Obama will also be better in the years ahead although it is not a slam dunk.

Obamacare and getting out of the recession are controversial subjects that will be debated years from now.  Just in recent weeks, gay marriage won in the Supreme Court.  The U.S. embassy is set to reopen in Cuba and now the Iran deal.  There will be many people who are against these and will continue to think Obama is a terrible president.  Obamacare and the Iran deal still can blow up in his face.  But I think in the future gay marriage and opening of Cuba will be accepted as the norm. And there is no argument that the economy is better today than when he took office although one can argue that is not his doing.   So I think overall Obama is likely to be judged well in history.

The news about whether Greece will go bankrupt and be out of the Euro union has dominated the financial news in the past week.  But more important to world economy is what is happening in the Chinese stock market.  Will take a quick look at both situations today and I can discuss in more specific detail if anyone is interested.

So Greece needs another bail out and it tried to get the money without having more austerity measures dictated to them by other European countries, particularly Germany.  But it looks like they have no choice but to capitulate and do what other countries tell them to do in order to get more loans.  What is not clear to me is this:  after the first two bailouts, did the Greeks do the austerity measures that were demanded of them?  If they did, then obviously austerity alone is not turning around the economy and maybe a stimulus plan maybe better.  If they did not raise taxes and cut back public spending as they were obligated to do, then they need to do these things that the creditors demanded of them now. 

My feeling is that austerity alone will not be enough.  If salaries of public employees and pensions are decreased, the likely effect is that people will not be able to spend as much and thus the economy will not pick up.  Also raising tax when people have no income will not work either.  I mean, neither liberals nor conservatives in this country would recommend these two methods.  The GOP would decrease salaries and pensions but not raise taxes.  The Democrats would increase salaries and pensions and increase taxes.  So what is best for Greece?  I am not sure but I don't think the demands of the European union by themselves, even if followed precisely by Greece, will not enough.

Far more important than Greece is China in the world economy.  First of all, even though trillions of dollars of paper money was lost in the past couple of weeks in the Chinese markets, it is not as bad for China as a whole as it looks.  The Shanghai market had doubled in the past year and so even a 40% drop still leaves it with a big gain for the year.  The problem is that it was a big bubble and it drew into the market people who are totally unsophisticated to investing and those people are losing their entire life savings.  What is also troubling is that things have stabled in the last couple of days due to the intervention of the government.  If the government's efforts do not keep thing well in the long term then it will cause big problems throughout the world.  But if the government's effort are successful, then it may create a belief that the government will always bailout investors and worse bubbles are going to happen in the future.  So I don't think that what the government did in the past week are good for the long term.

The one winner out of China's problem is Hong Kong.  The HK market did not go up like the Shanghai market did in the past year but its drop was much less than those of China overall.  It shows that the HK investors are much more sophisticated and the HK market as a whole is much more mature than those of Shanghai.  It shows that while China will eventually use Shanghai as the financial center of the country, HK is still a very important part of China's financial relations with the rest of the world in the foreseeable future.

Now that the NBA season is completely over with the Warriors winning the championship, it is time to analyze the the career of Jeremy Lin as he comes to a cross road.  Three seasons removed from Linsanity, it is clear that Lin is not a super star as his admirers claimed nor is he a D league level player as his critics claim.  I believe that he is good enough to be a starter in about half the NBA teams and the first guard off the bench in the other half.  A lot depends on the system.  But that can be said about a lot of players.  Pau Gasol was not a good fit with a poor Lakers team the year before but yet is an all star with the strong Bulls this past season.

Lin's strength:  Very good at pick and roll.  Not as explosive as Westbrook but fast than most point guards in the NBA which is saying a lot.  (This was proven in an ESPN Sport Science program).  His decision making has improved thus less turnovers.  His problem in the past 3 years is that no pick and roll run for him in Houston and LA.  He is not good when told to stand in the corner while Kobe or Harden run the offense.  Scott's triangle offense is not a fit for Lin or many others.  The triangle is no good unless you have a Jordan or a young Kobe as Derek Fisher and Phil Jackson found out in New York this year.  Nobody can guard the pick and roll when there is a good point guard running it.  The only way to slow down a Chris Paul is to run pick and roll against him on offense and tire him out. Lin had to battle those fast guards on defense but since he is not allowed to attack them the same way on offense, the opposing point guard can save energy to attack Lin on offense.

This brings to my pet peeve of the criticism that Lin is a poor defender.  That is the excuse that Ronnie Price started over Lin.  Truth is Price and others like him cannot stop elite point guards either.  If he could, he would not be a journeyman his whole career.  Lin is not a stopper but he is not soft as Bryant and Scott implied at times.  Lin took more charges than anyone on the team this year.  How can Bryant call anyone soft when he never takes a charge and admitted that on record?  

While some will say that Lin's stats are getting worse each season, it is not true.  If you look at points and assists per 36 minutes, Lin has been consistent the last 3 seasons.  He scored more with New York per game but his shooting percentage from 3 point range is higher now.  He is also having a lot less turnovers.  So he is a more mature player and if he gets into the same offense as he did in New York he would do very well.  It would not be Linsanity 2, however, as teams know him a lot better and can defend him better.  But given the right situation, he can be very productive for the next five years.

So where to next?  The ideal situation would have been if Denver had hired D'Antoni who had said that he would be happy to reunite with Lin.  But Denver did not hire D'Antoni and while the new coach is said to favor a fast break offense, it is unclear if Denver will go after Lin.  There is talk of the Rockets wanting him back if they don't keep Beverly.  But will Lin want to go there and watch from the corner while Harden shoots all day?  I doubt it although that would be one place Lin can contend for a title.  Dallas and Philly maybe other possibilities but Philly may draft a point guard and groom him so Lin would not be there long.  Dallas runs a fast pace offense and if both Rondo and Ellis leave, Lin may have an opportunity to start for a decent team.  I think Lin will look for the best fit possible and is willing to take less money for that opportunity.  Hope he finds that right team.

Dennis Hastert, the former Speaker of the House, is being indicted for covering the sexual abuse of a minor while he was a wrestling coach.  So if I get this straight:  Hastert was basically the prosecutor of impeaching the president, Bill Clinton, over the Lewwinsky sexual scandal.  During his stint as Speaker, he managed to ignore Mark Foley's sexual scandal with pages.  Hastert had replaced Newt Gringich, who while was going after Clinton, had an affair while his wife was extremely ill.  After Gingrich resigned, his designated replacement, Bob Livingston, also then resigned after it was discovered that he too had an affair. Of course, Hastert was supposed to be the clean one but now turns out he was worse than them all!

As predicted the Ducks and Rangers, the top team in each conference, failed to make the Stanley Cup finals.  The Lightning made it even though they should have been eliminated in the first round by the Red Wings.  Such is the luck of the NHL playoffs!

What has happened to the Tigers?  The only team the Angels seem to be able to beat is the Tigers!  When is Verlander going to show up?  And is the real Anabel Sanchez going to show up?

On this Memorial Day everybody says thanks to the veterans who served and sacrificed for us.  It is not unusual for people who pass soldiers at airports to stop and say thanks for serving.  Sometimes we even pick up a check for a military person at a restaurant.   But I am thinking that to really honor the sacrifices of the military, we need to be sure that in the future, they are deployed for the right causes.  Afghanistan yes, Iraq no for example.

Jeb Bush took several tries in answering the question of whether he would have gone to Iraq as his brother did.  That is a question that should have been anticipated.  Yet Bush took several tries before finally saying that he would not.  In one "answer", he actually said that to ask the question was disrespecting those who served.  I think sending them to Iraq under false pretenses was way more disrespectful.  Maybe Jeb has really learn the lesson.  But apparently Rubio and Walker have not.  They are advocating more military action in the Middle East now and maybe boots on the ground.  I think they also should be asked about Iraq.  On the Democratic side, Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq war so she should be asked the question as well.

Couple days ago a coalition of more than 60 Asian American groups filed a federal complaint against Harvard over its admission policies.  The groups claim that Harvard uses quotas to keep Asian Americans students population lower than expected based on SAT scores and grades.  I think this is an old story but it is interesting that white students have bought up more suits in the past comparing to Asian Americans even though in most schools it takes a higher SAT and grades for Asian Americans to get in than whites.

I think there is no doubt that qualified Asians are getting the short end of the stick with admissions at prestigious schools like Harvard.  The people who run these schools want to show that they are committed to diversity and thus will try to do anything to make their ethnic stats look palatable.  I don't have any problem with affirmative action based on socio-economic status.  But I bet a black kid from a rich family with the same score will have a better chance to get into Harvard than an Asian kid from a poor family. 

If there is discrimination against Asians, what is the effect of this discrimination?  Well, other than loss of pride of not getting into Harvard, not much.  The truth is getting into a prestigious school or not have little effect on a person's life.  Chances are if you were qualified for Harvard but didn't get in, you will end up at a good school.  And if you do well there, your futures is bright.  This is particularly true if you are in chemistry, physics, math or engineering.  There is no affirmative action at the graduate level.  You are either good at these fields or not.  So say if you end up at your "safety" school of Michigan or UCLA and graduate with a degree in engineering, you will command a good salary or can get into a big time grad school.  Maybe that is why individual Asians don't bring suits on their own.  Might as well concentrate in studying at the college you ended up with and become successful four years later!

Just last week I was talking to my brother in law about deflategate.   I said even though the report was kind of wishy washy,  I believe that New England did deflate the balls and that Tom Brady had to know about it.  After all, the person who would benefit from this would have to be Brady.  There was no reason for the Patriots employees to do this if Brady did not want it.  So I propose that Brady be suspended for 4 games.  Today it was announced that Brady will be suspended 4 games.  There were also draft choices lost and a million dollar fine.  But obviously the most important is Brady's suspension.  I thought 4 games would be a big punishment because with no experienced back up, I think that there will be a 2-3 games swing as a result of this.  So when Brady comes back they may have a difficult time making up the standings in the remaining 12 weeks.  They may not make the playoffs as a result of this.

Having handed out the punishment I am waiting to see if they change the ball situation. Why don't they have the same balls for both teams?  Tennis players don't get to use their own balls when they serve.  Pitchers don't have their own balls to throw.  So this can easily have been prevented if both teams use the same balls.

British prime minister David Cameron's Conservative party won an unexpected majority in the national election three days ago.  Polls for several months had pointed to a close election with neither the Conservatives nor chief opposition the Labor party getting a majority.  Even though I am no expert on British politics, I am going to make a couple of observations.

Cameron won election in 2010 after the world financial crisis made it impossible for the ruling Labor party to stay in power.  Since then the UK, as the U.S., have made a good recovery.  But like the U.S., the citizens of the UK are not convinced that the recovery is fast enough or permanent.  Social unrest and terrorist threats are actually worse in Britain than the U.S.  So given that Obama's ratings have been low and the Democrats had been shellacked in the last mid term election, it would not be surprising that the Conservatives maybe in trouble. 

Of course Republicans can attack Obamacare but then the British health system is way more socialistic than Obamacare and there is no call from Cameron and conservatives to get rid of it.  I think rather than comparing to the U.S., the British election should be compared to the recent Israeli election.  That election polls also pointed to a close race with Netanyahu probably losing.  Turns out Netanyahu won despite low ratings for his economic and general performance.  Netanyahu won because of scare tactics about his opposition will be dangerous for Israel's security.  Right or wrong, this proved to have worked.

Cameron warned about Labor's close ties with Scottish separatists and the European Union.  He arouse fear about immigration problems with Labor in charge and that the UK will lose its independence to the European Union if Labor wins.  Right or wrong, this tactic also worked.

Cameron is not a conservative extremist.  He will try to keep the Scottish in the UK.  And with Scotland having had a negative vote on independence last year, he can easily decline to have another referendum in the near future.  He has promised a vote on staying in the European Union by 2017 to placate the conservative voters.  I don't think he wants to bolt from the Union but if the UK does leave, it will be a blow to Europe and Britain itself.  Meanwhile, I don't think the relationship with the U.S. will change.  Like Thacher-Regan and Blair-Clinton, Cameron and Obama have a good working relationship and it won't change with this election result.  But maybe Obama should have learned from Cameron and Netanyahu and asked the electorate:  Do you want to go back to recession and war under the previous administration?

While lamenting Pacquiao's loss to Mayweather, I was thinking how he would have ranked among Asian male athletes in my life time.  I think if Pacquiao had won I would have ranked him number one.  Even with the loss, Pacquiao would still be in the top ten.  So I am going to put up my list of the top ten Asian male athletes during my life time up to this point.  I am only doing a male list because frankly, Asian females have done a lot better than males in international sports.  Just look at golf where the Asian females are dominating whereas males have just made some progress in being competitive.  The lone exception being Tiger Woods whom I am putting on the list even though most people consider him to be black.  The truth is that Tiger is 50% Asian so he qualifies to be on my list.

The same reasoning that I am doing only a male list means that I am not going to put up names of table tennis players, badminton players, gymnasts, figure skaters, divers, and short track skaters.  All of these sports have way too many great Asian male athletes so it is not unusual for an Asian male to succeed in these sports.  So that is why Apollo Anton Ono is not listed since there are many Koreans, Japanese and Chinese short track skaters who have done well.  So in no particular order (too difficult to rank from 1-10 since each sports are so different) here is the list:

Sadaharu Oh--all time home run hitter.  Question of whether he would have been a star in the MLB.  But he did well against American pitching in exhibition games and given that Japanese players have done well in MLB in recent years, I believe Oh would have had a Hall of Fame career in MLB.

Ichiro--He makes my point for Oh easy.  He is a certain Hall of Famer.

Yao Ming--A pioneer in the NBA for Chinese basketball player.  His career was cut short but he is a certain Hall of Famer.

Michael Chang--Won a grand slam and rose to as high as umber 2 in the world.  A Hall of Famer.

Tiger Woods--Nothing needs to be said.

Liu Xiang--Won Olympic gold in 110 hurdles.  First Asian to win in track and field sprints.  Also held world record in the event.

C.K. Yang--Silver in Olympic decathlon to Rafer Johnson.  He actually beat Johnson in 7 out of 10 events but lost because Johnson, with his powerful body, trounced Yang in the three throwing events.  Yang held the world record for the decathlon as well as the indoor pole vault world record.

Sun Yang--Won Olympic gold in 400, 1500 freestyle and silver in 200.  There have been Asian male swimmers who have done well in swimming but Sun's feat is incomparable.  It is almost like a record holder in the mile beats Michael Johnson in the 400 and finish a close second to Johnson in the 200.  Nobody has done that in swimming, Asian or not.

Jeremy Lin--Not quite the accomplishments of some of the others on the list since he is not even an all star in the NBA.  But he plays a position that is the most difficult and most athletic in his sport.  Also consider that China, which is the best in Asian basketball, has only produced big men to the NBA, I think it is safe to say that Lin has done something worth of being on this list.

Many Pacquiao--Despite the loss, he is a sure Hall of Famer and the second best pound for pound figher of his generation.

So this is my list.  I am sure there can be argument for inclusion and exclusion on this list.  So bring it on!  If I had to pick the number one I would pick Liu Xiang.  I know it is an event that takes less than 13 seconds to run.  But it is also an event that no Asian male or female had come close to be world class before Liu. Even Tiger has lost to Asian males in the PGA tour.  When he won in Athens, Liu famously said that he won not only for China but for the Asian race.  It maybe stereotype, but it is the truth for whatever reason.  So with the risk of offending all great Asian male athletes, I pick Liu Xiang as my all time great.

Interesting program on Sixty Minutes tonight about the possibility of space war.  Many important things in our daily lives depend on satellites in outer space.  Much of our high tech military power also depend on satellites.  So the possibility of other countries shooting down our satellites is a real concern.  Obviously China and Russia can do this but even North Korea and Iran maybe able to do it in the near future.  So obviously we must be able to detect such attacks and be able to evade in coming missiles.  Short of an international agreement that space wars are illegal, this vast space cannot possibly be defended forever.

This brings to mind two things.  The first is that the world is going to be run by nerds.  Space war and computer hacking are the new war fares of the 21st century.  I think we should start thinking about alternate system of communications so that we are not so dependent of satellites and the internet.  This is particular important in military, electric grid, water supply and the financial system.  I hope there are people way smarter than me who are working on this.  I am not smart enough to figure how we do this but we have to have alternate systems since every country have science nerds who are capable of doing great harm.

The other thing is that why are Russia and the U.S. still engaged in spy planes activities near each others' coast.  With satellites and computers, is there any secrets that these planes flying in international water can possibly pick up?  Recently Russia planes have come close to the U.S. and the U.K.    Of course each time fighter jets are scrambled from the other country that is being monitored.  This brings to mind a few years ago when an American spy plane crashed with a Chinese fighter jet causing an international incidence.  There is bound to be accidents in the future as a result of these worthless exercise of power.  I don't think it is worth the money or obviously the risk to military personal on any side when there is no secrets that can possibly learn from these actions.  I mean if the other side knows you are there and can scramble a fighter jet, how much secrets is going to be sitting there for your spy plane to collect?

China is developing a new international bank called Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).  It is China's answer to the World Bank, the IMF, and the Asian Development Bank.  The first two are controlled by the U.S. with European input.  The third is controlled by Japan with U.S. input.  By controlling money lending internationally the U.S. and its allies have soft power over the rest of the world.  Now China is trying to do the same.

The U.S. is against the founding of this bank.  But it made the decision for China to go ahead with it easier when Congress voted to not allow increase of voting power for China in the World Bank.  This made it difficult for Obama to try to convince our allies to not join the AIIB.  To say that AIIB is going to be a political wing of China seems absurd when the U.S. refuse to recognize China's status in the world.  I mean if the World Bank is nonpolitical then the U.S. Congress should not be able to keep China's voting power below those of the U.K or France.  Also World Bank presidents have included former U.S. Sec. of State Robert Mcnamara and former Bush adviser and proponent of the Iraq war Paul Wolfowitz.  When the U.S. appoints politicians to the post instead of financial experts, it is hard to say the World Bank is not a political wing of the U.S.

So Obama failed miserably to convince allies not to join.  Almost all Asian nations except Japan applied to join as have most U.S. allies.  The UK is joining because it wants to be the center of yuan trading as China's currency gains more world acceptance.  South Korea is joining because its companies want to be in on the infrastructure building of Asia.  Same with Australia.  One bit of good news is that China rejected the North Korea application, further isolating the rouge regime.  So for Obama, the train has left the station.  We should work with this new financial institution even if we are not joining it.  After all, if we want China to take a more responsible position in the world as a global power, it would be counter productive to tell China it cannot help Asia improve its infrastructure.

Max who?  Verlander?  Hey if Greene and company keep pitching like this, we may not even need Nathan.  It is early, of course, but the Tigers look good.  Now those pesky Royals are on their tail and given what they did in October last year, this looks like a great race.  And I didn't know Julio Iglesias can play baseball as well as he sings.

Golden State over Cleveland in the NBA final.  This is against Charles Barkley who says a three point shooting team can't win the championship.  I think the Splash Brothers will do it!

Hillary Clinton announced today, as expected for a long time, that she is running for president.  It is assumed that she will win the Democratic nomination in a walk away.  But there are potential traps along the way.  For one thing, she was the favorite to win in 2008 but a relative novice name Barack Obama chased her down.  This time there does not appear to be an Obama out there especially if Elizabeth Warren does not change her mind and stay out.  But still, Clinton cannot take things for granted.

Clinton did not do as well as expected in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008.  Those states are relatively small where personal appearances can make a big difference.  In a state like California, media blitz trumps walking door to door because it is impossible to cover even a small part of the state.  In 2008, Clinton did not do the ground work necessary to confirm her status as the front runner.  Here lies the problem:  If you are expected to win, you better win or else you look vulnerable or worse, not viable.  Clinton is 40% point ahead of any possible Democratic candidate at this point so if she wins by say 20% or less, then there maybe doubts.  Already with Benghazi and e-mail gate, another possible scandal may cause people to think that she is just not trustworthy enough.  So it is important that Clinton goes to Iowa and win so convincingly that others may not challenge her.

If there is a legitimate challenge from the left wing then Clinton will have to move left to shore support, then she will be vulnerable in the general election if she gets nominated.  That is of course the problem of whoever wins the Republican nomination:  he would have to move so far to the right to win the nomination that he will have problem from the center in the general election.  If Clinton has no challenger, then it will be much easier for her in the general election.  So it is imperative that she wins a knockout early in Iowa and New Hampshire.

On the Republican side, I still think Scott Walker is their best candidate.  Jeb Bush may win the nomination but another Bush vs Clinton will be political fatigue.  Assuming no scandal from either side, I believe another Clinton will beat another Bush.  Walker is more of a fresh face.  Assuming he can handle the national stage, he will be a formidable foe for Clinton.

Now we are into the coin toss of the sports season known as the Stanley Cup playoff.  Last season, the LA Kings came out of nowhere to win.  With almost the same club, the Kins did not make the playoff this season.  This shows how much winning has to do with luck in hockey.  I think the post season in hockey and baseball are almost mostly luck, unlike the NBA and NFL.  So I don't even try to predict the NHL playoff anymore with the exception that neither of the top seeds in each conference will be in the Stanley Cup final!  So forget about it for the Rangers and Ducks.

The 6 world powers including the U.S. have made a preliminary agreement with Iran.  Can Obama sell this to the Republican led Congress.  It is unlikely.  Then can he go at it alone?  I don't know.  Is this a good deal?  I don't know.  All I know is that there is no good alternatives.  Continue sanction is not going stop Iran from building the bomb.  And as I said before, if it appears that it is the U.S. who stop the agreement, then the international sanctions will fall apart.  Any sanctions voted by the Congress will be meaningless without other countries involved since the trade between Iran and the U.S. is not much to begin with.  The other alternative of the U.S. attacking Iran would be wrong.  We are not bombing North Korea for the benefit of a nonnuclear South Korea.  So why would we bomb Iran for the benefit of a nuclear armed Israel?  In any case, to stop Iran you would need a full scale war since bombing a few possible nuclear sites would not stop Iran's program.

There are even neocons who think that a bombing combine with effort to aid rebels for a regime change in Iran is the way to go.  These people have no understanding of the world.  Any time you attack a country, especially a preemptive attack, automatically invoke nationalism in that country.  There will back lash against the U.S. even among people who are against the current leadership.  It is very easy for the bad guys to recruit people world wide for terrorist attack when they can simply show that the U.S. is attacking a country even though it has not attacked the U.S. So not only will the plan for regime change fail miserably, it will lead to more terrorist attacks in the future.

MSU did very well to get into Final Four.  They didn't play well against Duke.  But I think the better team won anyway.  I am rooting for Wisconsin to win on Monday.  I like the idea of a team with players who stay for four years beating teams that have super one and done players.

Ted Cruz announced his candidacy for president. I am waiting for people like Donald Trump who demanded Obama verify that he was born in the U.S., to come out and say that Cruz is not eligible.  If people like Trump would not say that Cruz is ineligible, then why all the fuss about where Obama was born?  If being born in the U.S. is needed to be president, then Cruz is not eligible since he was born in Canada.  I personally think that if someone is an offspring of an American citizen and lived in the U.S. most of his life then he is eligible.  I think the original intention of the founding father was to prevent someone born in England become president and possibly undermine our independence.  In any case, I am still waiting for Trump and others who demanded proof even when proof was already given, say what they think since there is proof that Cruz is not born in the U.S.

I didn't see the comment from LBOAYM from the last blog till today.  The article of the artist is very interesting.  Our family, like many immigrant families from China, are from Taishan of Guandong province.  We were considered poor uneducated hillbillies in China.  Yet many immigrants from that area have flourished, not only in the U.S. but also Canada, Europe and Southeast Asia.  Lee Kuan Yew would be an example of descendants from Guandong province who went on to do great things.  By the way, Fareed Zakaria, the host of CNN's GPS program, said today that Lee was the most interesting man in the world.  Very few people in the U.S. know about him and it is too bad.  Most people in the U.S. probably think the most interesting man in the world is that guy in the Dos equis beer commercial!

The Chinese Exclusion Act was all to real.  We are a country of immigrants but our treatment of immigrants is no where near the ideal that we were taught in school.  The quote on the Statue of Liberty:  Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...."  is well known to school children but the Chinese Exclusion Act?  I would bet 95% of college educated Americans had no idea of its existence.  What native born Americans don't realize is that the people who are willing to make a horrible journey, face discrimination and still work very hard are the people who push this country forward.  Without the drives of immigrants, we will lose our world leading status in a very short time.  We, the Chinese immigrants, have to remember those who came before us, our Jackie Robinsons.  It was their dedication and suffering that made it so much easier for us today.

Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore has died.  I consider Lee the greatest leader of a country in the last 50 years.  Although Lee has many critics, Singapore is celebrating its 50 years of independence as a thriving economic powerhouse.  I don't think that in 1965, Lee or anyone else in the world could have predicted that Singapore would survive 50 years let alone be a rich nation.  There was problem with its much larger Muslim neighbor Malaysia.  There was also a restless native population that did not like the idea of being ruled by people of Chinese ancestry.  Lee had to act to protect the country and unify it at the same time.  Given all that and take the country from the third world to be one of the tigers of Asia in less than three decades is a great accomplishment. 

Of course there is the question of individual freedom in Singapore.  Lee did rule with an iron hand.  But when the country became stable and prosperous, Lee did step down even though his influence continued behind the scene.  Obviously laws such as no chewing gum in public will never be accepted in western countries.  But the type of discipline that Lee brought to Singapore helped it survive and thrive.  Lee is the father of the country, literally.  He is the father handing out tough love and the children do well as a result despite resentment.  The difference between him and other dictators is that he did not do it to benefit himself.  He lived frugally and did not become extremely wealthy while the country stayed in poverty.  With his passing, I am sure the laws will gradually loosen up.  Young people of this generation did not grow up in danger or poverty.  They may not appreciate what Lee had to do.  They will demand more individual freedom.  And that would be the right thing for Singapore.  But we must not forget that without Lee, Singaporeans would be living as Muslims under Malaysia today.  They would not have more freedom under that system and certainly will not be as rich.

Forty seven GOP senators wrote to the ayatollah of Iran telling him that any nuclear deal made by Obama will be cancelled with the election of a new president.  I think it is safe to say that the negotiators from Iran have a very good understanding of how our government works.  I am sure they know the party of the current president may not be in power in 2017.  They also know about the difference between a treaty which needs the approval of the senate and an executive agreement.  So I don't think that Iran will stop negotiating after reading this letter.

But the letter is stupid in that gives the advantage to Iran.  Now if the negotiation breaks down, Iran can blame the Americans because the U.S. government as represented by these senators are going to go back on any deal.  Sure, the agreement may be a bad one and Iran can cheat after making the agreement.  But we can always restart sanctions if Iran does not keep their end of the bargain.  And what is the alternative?  Bomb Iran on behalf of Israel?  Israel is perfectly capable of doing that herself.  But it will only delay and not stop Iran from building the bomb.  If negotiation completely fails, can we count on our allies to continue sanction if it appears people in our own government is sabotaging the effort. 

In two days Israel will have their election.  Netanyahu's speech to Congress at the invitation of GOP was a political move by him and his hosts.  We will see if the citizens of Israel agree with them.

Was away during the weekend.  Trying to catch up with the news today and found about the U. of Oklahoma racist video.  I was a little shock that in 2015 that college educated people would still think nothing of saying these sickening things.  Then I realize that I would be naive if I don't think that this happens behind closed doors in college campuses everywhere.  It just happens that this time somebody who is appalled by this is able to send out a video recording to the public.  I think most people believe that with each succeeding generation, racism decreases.  But despite being more diverse than previous generations, I think the young people of today maybe no better or even worse than last couple of generations when it comes to racism.

I think there is a perception among young people today that economically they will go backward compared to their parents.  White males still make the most money compare to others with the same education.  It is just that a college educated white male have to battle with females and males of other races for a job that would have gone to a white male before.  There is a perception that Asians are getting the top college spots, not realizing that Asians actually get less spots than their credentials would indicate.  (more on that in the future)  There is also the perception that minorities are taking jobs away from whites through affirmative action.  Add to that the rants from conservatives about our black president and you can see why young naive people can become racist.  I don't know if any of this apply to the U.of OK video but I will not be surprised if more of this goes on behind closed doors on campuses today than in the past 20 years.

The GOP blockage of funding for homeland security is totally ridiculous.  They are willing to hold hostage the security of the country in an attempt to stop Obama's immigration policy?  There is no chance that they would succeed because they don't have enough vote to stop filibuster in the senate nor override a veto from Obama.  This is an exercise in futility.  Even most Republicans agree with this.  While this may not cripple the country in the short term, it will have consequences if the department is not funded.  Do you really want the people who are working in security lose their concentration because they are forced to work without a pay check?  Just like the debt default debacle a few years back, the confidence in the U.S. is at stake here.

I don't know why the GOP is wasting time on this and trying to kill Obamacare.  Their best chance in these are in the courts.  They have no chance legislative wise unless they elect a GOP president in 2016.  They can enhance their chances in that if they can show they can govern.  If they put out laws that are moderate, they have the votes to pass both houses.  Then if Obama vetoes then they can use that against the Democratic nominee.  If he signs, then the GOP show that they are reasonable and able to govern.  So if they are smart, they won't waste any more time trying to do things that are impossible and endanger America.

Speaking of presidential election, Rand Paul won a conservative poll this week while Jeb Bush got booed at the gathering.  Don't read too much into this.  Both Rand Paul and his father Ron had won this poll in the past and neither have been close in getting the nomination.  Jeb Bush is not a favorite among conservatives but he has the name and money.  With Romney bowing out, Bush is still viable among the moderates in the party.  I think Scott Walker is in a good position as he has placed himself between the extremists and moderates.  Plus he is from a toss up state that the GOP nominee needs to win to get elected.  So I would place him as the front runner at this time.

Happy Chinese new year!  Since it is Chinese new year, we will talk about Hong Kong today.  As you know it had been a year of turmoil in HK.  A long protest called the umbrella movement put light on Beijing's rule of HK.  Although the street occupation by protesters have been stopped, I think we will be revisiting the same in the near future.  So it is interesting that the very unpopular chief executive of HK, C,Y. Leung came out with a statement asking the people of HK to behave more like sheep in this the year of the sheep.  Sheep are considered to mild and gentle and live in groups without fighting.  Of course, Leung is called the wolf by his critics.  So this is not lost on the people of HK and all kinds of jokes or serious discussion will come out of this.  The word for sheep, goat or ram are all the same in Chinese.  Since I am born under this sign, I will prefer to say its is the year of the ram since I think the ram is tougher than goats or sheep.  I mean the LA Rams sound a lot better than LA Sheep or Goats.

Also from HK, a Filipino domestic worker recently won a scholarship to NYU to study photography after her photos of Filipino domestic workers in a shelter for abused migrant workers in HK came to light.  There are 320,000 foreign domestic workers in HK.  When I was there in 2007 I walked into a park on a Sunday where many of these women were congregating.  This was the one day off they had and since they can't afford other entertainment, they gathered there to visit with each other.  I felt a little uncomfortable then even without knowing that some of them were abused.  As a land that was colonized for much of recent history and now being governed by a communist government, I would think the people of the land I was born, would be very cognizant of human rights.  I think now that HK people are well off financially, they should be treating others as well as they wanted to be treated when they were under British rule.  Now that they are demanding more human rights from Beijing, they should be giving more rights to their foreign workers.  I see some abuses are being tried in court and there are calls for laws improving the lives of foreign workers.  I hope HK will continue to make improvements in this sad situation.

Brian Williams has been suspended for 6 months by NBC for telling a false story of his helicopter being hit during the Iraq war.  Now more stories that he has put out there are under question.  It is a disturbing pattern with a person in such a powerful position when it comes to informing the public.  If it turns out he had lied about another story, then I think his career as an anchor and possibly as a serious journalist is over.

I never did like Brian Williams. I don't have problem with him going on lots of talk shows.  Even presidents do that.  But he tries to be the funny man whenever he goes to the shows.  And it is not just when he is outside of news coverage that he is trying to be funny.  In 1999 when the U.S. "accidentally" bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Williams said of the mistake "oops"".  When innocent people are killed, there is no room for jokes.  It showed an immature behavior for a person in such a serious profession.  Some people have joked or seriously mentioned that with Jon Stewart quitting the Daily Show, Williams should take over that role.  Frankly, if the accusations are accurate, Williams is too unrealistic for even fake news.   I think Jon Stewart has much more integrity as a comedian than Williams as an anchor of a network news organization.

Watched the third and fourth episodes of Fresh off the Boat.  I find these two episodes to be a lot better than the first two.  If it continues to be this funny, it deserve a renewal for next season..

I want to hear some opinions on the new sitcom Fresh off the Boat.  Since this is only the second Asian American sitcom after Margaret Cho's show, I am hoping it would be a success.  It is extremely difficult for a show like this to succeed. On the one hand, if the characters are portrayed like "average Americans" then what would be special about the show?  But if too much racial undertone is used then "average American" may not watch.  And if too much stereotype is used, then it would not serve Asian Americans well.  So all this is a fine line to walk on.  Add to that, you have to be funny.  So this is a high mountain to climb.  I just wish the show the best of luck.

I actually did not watch the Super Bowl last week.  Don't ask!  After hearing people say that Pete Carroll called the worst play in history of the Super Bowl, I looked at the highlights.  I didn't think that was such a bad call.  I mean, there was about 30 seconds left and one timeout.  If they ran the ball and failed, they would have had to use the timeout.  Then if they ran it again and failed, they may not have time to run a third time without a no huddle.  Sure, the chances are they would have scored on two tries running from the one.  But there have been times when NFL teams fail on 2-3 times running from the one.  And the odds are overwhelming that they can pass for one yard as well.  I suspect the odds of an interception from the one is not higher than a fumble from the one.  If the pass is incomplete, the next two plays can be run without a no huddle regardless of what happen.  So I don't think it was a gamble at all for Carroll.  On the other hand, why no criticism for Belicheck for not calling timeout after the first run?  Maybe by not watching the game itself, I missed something but that is my opinion from the highlights.

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?

Many people disagreed with the pope who said that freedom of speech has its limits.  While he says killing in the name of religion is wrong, it is also wrong to insult other people's religion.  I would not equate insulting with killing of course.  But the Pope gives an example that if someone calls his mother a bad name, he would have punched him.  I would agree with the Pope on this:  human beings can be provoked into doing something violent.  The Pope would be wrong to punch the guy but it would be an action that was not surprising.  In the case of the Paris terrorism, there is no question of the heinous crime. The cartoonists had the right to write what they want, but what purpose did it served?  Everyone has the right to walk in the worst areas of the city at 3 am, but why would you?

To paraphrase Tina Fey at the Golden Globe award:  thanks to North Korea, we are forced to watch a bad movie.  Same with the Charlie magazine which is selling like hot cakes.  People who thought that making fun of Muhammad for the action of extreme Muslims is like making fun of Jesus for Christian criminals, are now buying Charlie.  So it goes to show you, when you go extreme against something, it usually make that thing more popular.  Whenever the Catholics protest a movie, it would help increase its box office.  This is something to keep in mind when we try to solve problems with blinding force without thinking it through. 

Last week Barbara Boxer announced that she won't run for reelection to the senate.  So finally one of the 3 big elected office in California will be taken by fresh blood.  Dianne Feinstein will most likely not run the next time she is up for election and Jerry Brown will be term limited out in 4 years.  So will see an era of new leadership in California over the next few years.  Given the high percentage of Hispanics and Asians in the state, one would think that these positions can very well be filled by one or more minorities.  And given that the state is dominated by Democrats, you would think that minorities from the state would also be national leaders in the Democratic party.  But that does not appear to be the case.

In fact the most likely minority candidate for Boxer's job is Kamala Harris, the black state attorney general.  There are no Latino or Asian candidate that is likely to win this state wide election at this time.  Among Asians only John Chiang, the former controller and present state treasurer, is even a viable candidate.  And since he just won election for treasurer in November, I think he is a few years away.  I also think that voters have less trouble voting for an Asian to a position involving math than voting for him to be a chief executive or national office.  Part of the problem for minorities is that the Big Three have been there so long that nobody has any experience running in competitive state offices.

But interesting enough, while California and the Democrats are not producing any viable minority national politicians, the Republicans are actually doing a better job of this.  Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Bobby Jindhal come to mind.  I think this is due to Republicans are trying to look not so white.  So any minority who claims to be a conservative Republican is going to get support from the party in races that are winnable.  The Democrats can wheel out any white liberal in a state like California and win anyway.  So while demographic changes in the future would seem to favor Democrats, if they take minorities for granted, they can lose their advantage.  I think as Hispanics and Asian move up the economic ladder, the Republicans will gain a higher percentage of them.  So will see if the Democrats notice this and try to consolidate the minority base by promoting more minority candidates in California over the next few years.

Wow, congrats to MSU for the thrilling victory today!  It could not be a better day for the Big Ten.  (Unless Minnesota also had won).  But I think Big Ten fans would have taken 3 out of 4 before the day started.  Jim Harbaugh has not been on the job for 2 days and he is going to have nightmares already seeing how MSU and OSU came up with big victories.  It is going to be that much more difficult for Harbaugh to beat out those teams now.  The Big Ten east has actually outplayed the SEC west!  So instead of Big Ten east trying to be SEC north as Urban Meyer suggested, maybe SEC west should try to become Big Ten south!

With the 3 victories today, the Big Ten is guaranteed 5 wins with Iowa still to play Tennessee.  So I claim victory over the Las Vegas oddsmakers, the LA Times and LBOAYM since they all predicted smaller number of victories for the Big Ten.  So what if my predictions are not 100% accurate in terms of individual games.  It is the number of victories that count as in all sports.

Despite my allegiance to the Big Ten, I will take Oregon over OSU.  Their victory over FSU was amazing and I think they are the best team over the whole season.  Plus I don't want Harbaugh to have worse nightmares.