John McCain says that the Democrats are naive and misunderstand the history of U.S. involvement in foreign territories when they criticize him for saying that he is willing to keep troops in Iraq for a hundred years. He says that he would keep U.S. in Iraq as a peace-keeping force and that eventually no American troops will be harmed. He cites the use of American troops in Korea, Germany and Japan as examples of American troops in a post war territory for over 50 years already.

This is what I mean when I say that McCain is losing it. Does anyone believe that American troops will be a peace-keeping force and not be shot at in the future? How can Americans prevent Sunnis from fighting Shiites and various factions of Shiites fighting with each other? The fact is these religious battles have gone on for centuries and the fact that we are there only gives them an excuse to blame the Americans. There was no al Qaeda in the equation before the American invasion but there is now. Whichever side the U.S. helps will bring anger against Americans from the other side. American troops will be attacked as long as they are there. Remember our peace-keeping efforts in Lebanon in the 80's? If our forces can help bring peace in the middle east instead of adding gas to the fire, we would have put troops in Israel a long time ago. Nobody would suggest we do that.

Japan, Korea and Germany all have governments who are friendly to the U.S. They also did not have any choice when American troops first occupied there. Today German and Japanese bases are more important to Americans than the host countries. There are a lot of Germans who want the Americans out of there and the majority of Okinawans probably would want us gone. There is some sentiments among South Koreans that we should not be there even though they are facing danger from the north. But the situation is even more absurd for American troop presence in the middle east. It was the American bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that bin Laden used as one of the big excuses to recruit terrorists. Can you imagine the recruiting posters that bin Laden can post if McCain becomes president? It is not the Democrats who are naive, it is McCain who is senile and have a lack of understanding of history and the world.

Somebody beat me to the punch and was quoted on CNN about Al Gore stepping in. I missed the name of the person who said it. I had thought about the possibility that Al Gore can clean up this mess for the Democrats. With McCain gaining momentum while Clinton and Obama are hurting each other, Al Gore may be the savior. With the war and the economy there should be no way the Republicans can win this election. The Democrats can lose it, however. The same can be said for Clinton; there is no way she can win the nomination but she stays in just in case Obama loses it with a huge mistake or more pastorgate. If it turns out that McCain is shown to be beating both of them in the polls because neither can win the nomination, then Al Gore can come in and be the compromise candidate. He can name Obama as VP and groom him for down the road and that can satisfy the black voters. It is a long shot but that's what I am hoping for.

I don't know if Gore will be a great president but he would be better than the 3 choices we have right now. He is now well known all over the world. Even in China and India he is well-respected. This will bring some credibility back to us after the Bush years. Obama is too inexperienced even though I think he is the best of the 3. Clinton is too divisive and will probably lose to McCain given the likely defection of the black voters if the super delegates nominated her. McCain is getting senile. He gets confused about al qeda, Shiites and Sunnis. Now that the violence has increased again because of Shiites militias are fighting the Shiite army, the Republicans are blaming Iran. I can see another war brewing if McCain is elected. Plus the economy is in trouble and he claimed that he does not know much about the economy. If the Democrats can't win this year, I wonder if they ever will win again.

The protests and violence in Tibet was predictable. There has been relative quiet in the past 20 years but the oppression of freedom in Tibet continued during that time. With the Olympics this year and China's plan to take the torch up Mount Everest, it was predictable that the activists would try to cause trouble for Beijing. I guess the Chinese plan was simply to use overwhelming force (after it was caught short-handed in the beginning). There is no creative strategy to meet this expected situation.

As I have pointed out before, I don't know why China wants to hang on to this piece of land. It is a money loser. There are no natural resources worth stationing lots of soldiers there. It just causes bad international publicity. China keeps pointing their fingers at the Dalai Lama as the voice of the independence movement. In reality the Dalai Lama is a voice of reason, advocating nonviolence and is willing to compromise. Most of the problem is with the young who wants more economic improvement. They see many parts of China getting richer and they feel that they are being exploited. Of course, Tibet was backward economically before China took over and without China it would be more difficult for it to improve economically. Nevertheless it is true that China denies Tibetan religious rights and is an oppressive presence.

China is counting on the rest of the world not to boycott the Olympics. They are right about this since China is an economic power and nobody wants to anger it. But if violence lingers it would hurt China's prestige enormously. If I run the Chinese government, I would invite the Dalai Lama back to visit this homeland and discuss Tibet's future. No treaty needs to be signed. Just this gesture would ensure the Games will go on and make China look good. Of course a communist government will never think of a creative solution like that.

Five years of war, the country is in a recession, gas prices approaching $4 a gallon and all we are talking about is some crazy preacher's words? If we let something like this influence our selection of a president then we deserve to have poor leaders. Obama's speech was right on. I had my doubts about his inexperience before but I feel more strongly about him with the way he handled this Wright episode. There is not much one can do except tell it like it is. It is absurd that this prevent us from concentrating on what the real important issues are.

I don't see how this whole thing is worse than McCain embracing Pat Robertson who had said that 9/11 was God's punishment against us for embracing abortion and homosexuals. To me both Wright and Robertson are religious lunatics. The only difference for Christian right is that they think Robertson is more patriotic because he has conservative views. But according their understanding of the Bible's teaching since both Wright and Robertson accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they will both go to Heaven. So there is really no difference between them in the eyes of their God. On the other hand if a Muslim American soldiers dies fighting in Iraq, he will go to hell even though he is patriotic. So I ask you what does patriotism has to do with anything?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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