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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mitchell Report was ho-hum. None of the prominent names mentioned were surprising. The only question I have is "What about Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire?" Basically this is just a small percentage of the people who used steroids and HGH. If people like Ricky Bones used steroids then probably a high percentage of players used it. So if that is the case what do we think of the records of Bonds and Clemens? They faced pitchers and hitters who used steroids also. Are their records valid? Well, I would have to say no because if Marion Jones had to give up her medals then the records of the highest achievers in baseball should not be recognize if they used steroids. After all Jones' competitors probably used sterois also. Ultimately everyone can have his own opinion on this. I may be cynical but I am beginning to view sports as similar to a Jackie Chan movie; very impressive athletism but in the end it is just entertainment.

Very few people on the list responded to the report. The only two prominent names denying the allegations were David Justice and Roger Clemens. I believe Justice a lot more than Clemens. First of all Justice came out swinging right away but Clemens took 5 days before responding. If you are not guilty, why wait? Justice also retired at about the right age where Clemens kept going and kept going. Just like Bonds, I find it hard to believe that a player can improve in his forties. Like Bonds, Clemens also looks a lot bigger than you would expect by aging alone. As for the few that admit guilt they usually use the excuse of using HGH to recover from injury. This include Peitite and Fernando Vina. I don't believe these excuses. These are very good players who were probably trying to be great players. Now I would have sympathy for the life time minor player who just want to get into the majors. It is a wrong thing to do but very understandable.

Now that a new intelligence report says that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program back in 2003 people are asking if we should change our strategy toward Iran. To that I say -what strategy? Calling for sanctions and threatening war is not a strategy. Iran was never a threat to start world war III as Bush claimed. Iran can't threatened us, just as Iraq was no threat before we invaded. I am tired of people who talk about not backing down from Hussein or Iran because Europe once appeased Hitler and he ended up causing WWII. But Germany was the strongest nation in Europe. If England and France were to try to preempt Hitler they would have lost quicker. It is always easier to defend than to attack. Iran and Iraq had no power to attack us. Even if they had nuclear weapons they would not have used them because they would have been destroyed quickly afterwards. Hussein and Ahmandinejad were not suicidal.

Bush says that there will not be any strategy changed since Iran is still dangerous. Well, it does not matter what Bush says because hard sanctions are not going to happen. Russia and China has a way out now and will not go along with tougher sanctions. The question for me is "is this report even accurate?" Given the previous reports on Iraq turned out to be way off the mark, who would believe that this report is correct? My view has always been that Iraq and Iran would not use nuclear weapons but they may still try to get them. While Iran can't win a nuclear war, nuclear weapons is a deterrent against American attack. See North Korea. So I do not believe that they have no nuclear weapons program at all. If Bush was smarter, I would have thought that by going public with this report, it gives him a chance to back up from his WWIII comments and be able to start a diplomatic course. But I doubt it that he even thought about this.

The thing that frustrates me is that we believe that any one intelligence report should have great influence on our policy. We should focus on the long term, not react to any change in intelligence. I would not have gone to war on Iraq based on those false reports nor will I change my thinking about the Middle East based on this report. The number one priority in the region is always Israel and the Palestinians. Unless peace is attained there terrorism from that region will always be a threat. Seven years into the Bush administration there is finally an effort to bring the two sides together. This should have started in 2001 right after his election, even with 9/11. Afghanistan was a necessary move but Israel-Palestinians negotiation should have restarted at least 5 years ago. If we were to be scared of nuclear attack from a Muslim nation, it was going to be from Pakistan. Iraq and Iran would not have helped terrorists with nuclear weapon even if they had them. But Pakistan has them for sure and there are religious fundamentalists who are not controlled by the government. So what do we do? Attack Iraq and worry about Iran while paying Pakistan to help us in the war on terror. If terrorists get hold of the bomb in Pakistan, are we going to bomb our ally on terror? Is that a policy that will make us safe?

The LA Times have an article today about the supporters of the top 3 democratic and top 3 republican candidates. It only gave 4 examples of the supporters of each of the candidates. Obviously it does not give a complete pictures of who is supporting whom but it does give some insights of where the candidates are seeking support. I will rate each supporter from -3 to +3, depending on if I like their views and if they are good for the country in my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt because I generally don't like union and corporate supports because they are all about self-interests and not about the good of the country. There are no corporations like Countrywide on this list so it would appear that I am against liberals a little more. Also I don't have much respect for the opinions of entertainers or athletes unless I have heard of their views and find them intelligent. With those cautions in mind, here are the lists:

Hillary Clinton supporters: 1. Walter Mondale-- a far left liberal who got destroyed when he ran for president. rating -2
2. Jan Perry-- African American LA city councilwoman, again a strong liberal. Rating -2
3. Barbra Streisand-- Far left liberal who doesn't make much sense. Rating -3
4. American Federation of Teachers--Big union which doesn't help the education of our children. Rating -3

John Edwards supporters: 1. James Denton--actor, don't know much about him. But I hate Desperate Housewives, which he is in. Rating -2
2. Lar Ulrich--The drummer of Metallica, don't know much about him Rating -2
3. United Steelworkers and United Mineworkers of America. Rating -3
4. David Obey--Chairman of House Appropriation Rating -2

Barack Obama supporters: 1. Eric Garcetti--LA city Councilman and son of Gil Garcetti the prosecutor who blew the O. J. Simpson case Rating -3
2. John Conyers Jr.-- Michigan Congressman and a strong liberal Rating -2
3. Zbigniew Brzezinski--Former national security advisor and one of my most respected man in foreign policy. Obama is often criticized, including by me, that he lacks experience. So this means a lot that an experienced diplomat like Brzezinsi endorses him. Rating +3
4. Oprah Wifrey--Influential but I don't think she really knows what she is talking about. Rating -2

Rudy Giuliani supporters: 1. Pat Robertson--Crazy televangelist Rating -3
2. Steve Forbes--Conservative rich guy but I like his flat tax idea. Rating +1
3. Pete Wilson--former Calif. governor. Moderate Republican who wasn't much of a leader. Rating 0
4. Bo Derek--Come on! Claims to be a conservative republican but took off her clothes in the movies. How hippocritical! Ratings would be a -3 but since she was good looking when I was young, gets upgrade to a -1

John McCain supporters: 1. Republican for Environmental Protection. Sounds like an oxymoron! I would like to learn more. Rating 0
2. Former Prisoners of War--Supports McCain for obvious reason. Rating +1
3. Sam Brownback--Conservative Kansas Senator who dropped out of the race himself when he realizes that he doesn't know any issues except for abortion and creation of the world. Rating -3
4. Curt Schilling--Rich athletes are a big minus in my book. Plus he was for the war. It is easy to be for the war when you don't have to fight. Rating -3

Mitt Romney supporters: 1. Rick Caruso--Mall developer. Rich guy and I hate malls. Rating -3
2. Orrin Hatch--Utah Senator who is Mormon. I think Hatch is a fair Republican most of the time. Rating +1
3. Meg Whitman--Chief executive of e-Bay. Rich person made money on shopping. Not my cup of tea. Rating -3
4. Bob Jones III--Chancellor of the university of the same name. The university finally ended its ban on iterracial dating in 2000. Rating -3

So if my tally is correct the following is the final score: Clinton -10, Edwards -9 Obama -4 Giuliani -3 (although should have been -5, see Derek score) McCain -5 Romney -8

This is of course an exercise of no importance. But with all the negative scores, either the country is in real trouble or I am too much of a cynic. Feel free to give your opinions.