Last week Bill Clinton went to North Korea to secure the release of journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling. It was a nice human story and it was nice to see the women reunite with their family, particularly Lee with her little daughter. The nice thing was that officially it was an unofficial visit by Clinton with no official diplomatic effort. Well, everybody understands what I meant anyway. Some people actually said that we gave in to Kim. What is it exactly we gave him? A picture of him and Clinton sitting in chairs without a smile, that's about it. Kim would get some publicity in North Korea out of it, as he really needs publicity there. Elsewhere everybody understands that the U.S. had to do what it had to do and gave away nothing for the women's return.

Having said that, this was a distraction the government did not need. I know that journalists have to take risks but to me it was dumb to be inside of North Korea or close enough so that they can be caught. What can they possibly uncover in that area and tell the world about it? We already know Kim is a terrible dictator and the N. Koreans are living in hell. Why take such a stupid risk? Now there is news that 3 Americans hiking in Iraq wandered into Iran and were captured. What, they can't hike anywhere else in the world other than Iraq? You can't get close to nature at Yosemites? You don't know that Iran and Iraq share a border? I know we don't teach geography well in school, but this is ridiculous. All three were UC Berkeley graduates, which make me wonder what they teach in that famous school. Obviosly not common sense. After these people get home, they and the two women journalists should be sentenced to teach political geography to high school students. After they take a course themselves first, of course.

The economic news have been relatively good lately. The Dow increased by over 700 points in the last month. Housing prices went up by .5%. Not exactly great but better than keep going down. I think we have gone through the worst but I don't think we are out of the woods yet. Certainly the stock market is going to have sell offs in the near future. And unemployment has not peaked yet as companies that had cut jobs are not going to hire until they feel more confident.

The question is how is Obama's economic plan doing? I always thought that a president has much less control of the economy than the people believe. Who really knows if his stimulus plan has anything to do with what improvement there is so far. I like Obama not because I believe he has any great strategy with the economy even though it was the economy that got him elected. I like Obama for his foreign policies and his understanding of the world. I don't know if his economic policies are good or not.

I don't believe that he is killing the country with his policies as the conservatives are saying. They say things are still bad 6 months into his term and that his stimulus plans are going to cause inflation and enormous debts for the future. I think there is a parallel with Obama and Reagan, of all people. Reagan took over from Carter with runaway inflation. Reagan allowed Paul Volcker to raise interest rates to battle inflation. He also enacted tax cuts. But 2 years into his administration inflation and the economy were still horrible. I think it was around 1986 that things turned totally around. Frankly I think if you do nothing things would turn around in 6 years. I think without any stimulus, the economy would turn around for Obama in 6 years also. But the critics of today are complaining after 6 MONTHS. But neither Reagan nor Obama could have done nothing. Reagan had to try to get inflation under control and Obama had to get the economy moving again. If either one said let capitalism take its course, they would have been the next Hoover. I think with some luck Obama will get reelected in 4 years because the economy will have bounced back by then.

That doesn't mean Reagan and Obama were great economists. Obama will have to deal with inflation and deficits and may have to raise taxes. But he won't do it till his second term. Reagan' policy led to big deficits that eventually caused Bush I to raise taxes which led to his loss to Clinton. Obama may do all right during his stint in the White House but he may lead to the Democrats losing after him. Reagan is adored by Republicans today but he helped Clinton get elected. Obama may be fondly remembered by Democrats years from now but I think the next Republican president will be thanking him secretly.

So don't lose sleep over the economy. We will recover and march on. We just need the next Bill Gates, Steven Jobs and Andrew Grove to step up.

As if he does not have enough problem trying to sell health care reform, Obama gets side-tracked into making a comment STUPIDLY! You know he fumbled badly when Al Sharpton praised him! Why was he answering a question about Henry Louis Gates when he doesn't know all the facts as he even admitted? This does not seem like the politically savey Obama we know. I think the pressure of trying to pass health care reform is getting to him. I don't see how he is going to get a good bill to pass. The energy bill, which was suppose to be less controversial, ended up much weaker and with lot of junk added on. And those junks were put in by members of his own party. With lots of people having a stake on how the health care bill shapes up and Republicans determine to make this Obama's Waterloo, I can see why Obama is stressed out.

Having said that Obama stupidly let the conversation drift away from his agenda, I would like to point out that I thought the police acted stupidly from the information I have read. First of all a neighbor called the police because he or she thought that Gates was breaking in his own house. I can't imagine that a 58 year old white or Asian male would be suspected of breaking in by his neighbor even if they don't know each other. If I was Gates and I came home from a long trip and had trouble getting into my house, I think I would be in a pretty foul mood. I admit I have a slight temper. Okay, my wife would say very bad temper. If after I finally get into the house and the police shows up and demand to know if I lived there, I would be pretty pissed. I can see if Gates was a young man but he is older than me! In what way can the neighbor or police think that he is robbing the house? Now, it is very likely things escalated because Gates cursed out the cops. I may have done the same. But there was no report that he was violent. In what way would the cops felt threatened by a man in his late 50's without a weapon? So why was he hand-cuffed? What was he charged with? And why were charges dropped if he did something that required him to be hand-cuffed.

By accounts so far, the cop involved was a good cop who trained others about racial profiling. And it is possible that Gates was out of line with his emotions. But I would have to ask: Would Gates have been led out of his own house in hand-cuffs if he was a 58 year old white professor at Harvard? I suppose it could have been worse. Remember the guy in Texas who shot 2 men in the back because he felt threatened that those guys had broke in his NEIGHBOR's house? So Gates is lucky he does not live in Texas. His neighbor could have shot him and got off for self-defense!

The death of Robert McNamara last week went pretty much unnoticed by the general public as all the media was focused on Michael Jackson's death. Obviously 99% of Americans know who was Michael Jackson but I would bet that less than 10% know who was McNamara. McNamara was Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson. He was considered the architect of the Vietnam War and many historians hold him responsible for the disaster of this war. To me there is a similarity between him and a more recent Dept. of Defense official.

I am talking about Paul Wolfowitz, the undersecretary of Defense under Bush. While Donald Rumsfeld was the Sec. of Defense, I think Wolfowitz had more influence on Bush to start the Iraq war. McNamara used the Gulf of Tonkin incident to escalate the war. The information on that incident is questionable. Wolfowitz used weapons of mass destruction and link to al qaeda to get support for the Iraq war. Those information turned out to be false. McNamara underestimated the support the Viet Congs had. Wolfowitz underestimated the support for the insurgents. McNamara argues for Vietnam war with the Dominoes Theory. Wolfowitz argues for spreading democracy to the Middle East.

One last thing: When it appeared that these men had failed, they were both given the job of president of World Bank. I wonder who thinks that people who fight bad wars would be good at loaning money?

What a surprise! The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the white firefighters in the New Haven case. I am such a prognosticator! I could have told you who is on what side before they heard the case. David Souter, as expected, voted the same way as Sotomayor had. So nothing will change when Sotomayore is confirmed.

I have to say that despite the fact that everyone is biased I think Chief Justice Roberts is trying to get some consensus so that it is not always 5-4. Last week there were actually 2 cases where the vote was 8-1. By narrowing the opinions he was able to get almost all of the justices to agree. I don't usually agree with Robert's rulings but I think he is similar to Obama in that he tries to get beyond partianship. Neither will succeed and both have biases themselves, but they both are trying.

One more item on the justice system. Madoff was sentenced today. Judge Denny Chin sentenced him to 150 years as the prosecutors requested. I think we need some empathy here. One hundred fifty seems like too large of a number. The defense had requested 12 years. I have much more empathy than Chin. I would take the average of the 2 sides and thus give him only 81 years. With such empathy, can I be nominated by Obama for a judge position?

Well, nobody is claiming that Iran's failure to qualify for the World Cup is making the protests last longer. But as I stated before if Iran had defeated South Korea then the regime might have been able to stop the revolt quickly. Now the ending is not in sight and the regime may have to use even more force. While people are not out there because of soccer, the symbolic gesture by the national team in Seoul of wearing green wrist bands had to have encouraged the protesters. I can't imagine Chinese athletes like Yao Ming would have the courage to buck the Chinese government as these Iranians soccer players did on national tv. They are well recognized by the government and thus they put themselves and their family at risk by their actions.

A few days ago I disagreed with people like John McCain who say that Obama has not done or said enough. What did they want him to do? We are not going to send troops so what is the point of meddling in the early part of the protest. It just gives the regime a chance to blame everything on the west and use force against the people. It is not the mind of the hardliners that we are going to change by coming out against the government. It would have actually hurt our standing with moderates and the majority of the Iranians. We have no credibility there. We supported the Shah, we helped Iraq in their war, and we called them the axis of evil. It would be the kiss of death for the demonstrators if we come out strongly agaisnt the regime in the beginning.

Now, however, I think Obama should come out with stronger rhetoric. Again we can't do anything concrete to help the demonstrators but now our moral support will be seen as genuine and not meddling to the average Iranian. You see, the government has resorted to violence already and has already tried to link us to the demonstrators. So we are not endangering the people anymore by condemning the regime. The average Iranian and the world has seen the violence of this regime against its own people. The woman Nada shot by the police has become the face of this revolt. Now Obama can come out and say in no uncertain term that the Iranian government is illegitamate by virtue of actions. Even the Muslim world would have to agree that this is not the doing of the west but of Iranian government itself. It is time for our president to shout out our support for the brave demonstrators.

The news of huge protests of the election in Iran would seem on the surface what the U.S. wants. Following the victory by the pro-western faction in Lebanon, it seems like the tide may be turning in the Middle East. I would caution against such optimism. It is true that Ahmadinejad is reeling with the widespread protest. But this is not a democracy and eventually I think the government will be able to kill the protest just as China did 20 years ago. And while we think that Ahmadinejad's opponents are pro-U.S. I am not sure that is so. Most of the protest is the result of poor economic performance by the government and if Obama tries to inflame the situation it can backfire. Ahmadinejad can use the argument that the U.S. is trying to bring down Iran and nationalism may trump economics.

But even if Ahmadinejad eventually gets thing back under control, the fact that he had to cheat (he may have won without cheating but obviously he did cheat), is going to weaken him. If the U.S. and Israel do not upset the Iranians, Ahmadinejad's days as president will be numbered. Ironically I think if he stays in power the U.S. have a better opportunity to progress diplomatically than if he loses power. This is because the opposition will be seen by the clerics and the people in the rural areas as being influenced by the west. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is a hardliner and may think that being little more moderate may quiet down some of his enemies. So will see how this plays out.

As to how long the stalemate is going to continue, I have an idea that everyone is going to dismiss as absurd. I think it will depend on the soccer match between Iran and South Korea tommorrow. If Iran upsets South Korea on the road and somehow qualifies for the world cup, it will give the government a boost as people will run into the street to celebrate and decrease the protestors' volume. This will make it easier for the government to crackdown and disperse the protestors. If Iran loses, then this may run for a much longer time because everybody will be in a foul mood, even more so than before due to economic hard times. This will bring out more people to protest the government. I know it sounds absurd but don't underestimate the power of soccer in the world outside the U.S.

I assume that you all have read the assignment which was my blogs from 7-20-06 and 9-26-05. My favorite political commentator on tv is David Gergen of CNN. Gergen had worked in the Nixon, Ford, Regan and Clinton administrations. He considers himself an independent. I agree with his views about 90% of the time. So it got my attention when Gergen said that Obama's speech was the most powerful by an American president EVER on the Middle East. After I read the excerpts in the newspaer, I thought this was an unusual hyperbole from Gergen. Then I realized that Gergen was not saying much afterall. There has not been any presidential speech ever on the Middle East that was of any significance. So this is actually a small step. But at least it is a small step in the right direction.

Other presidents have tried. Carter got Begin and Sadat to sign a peace agreement. Clinton came close to getting Arafat to agree to a peace plan before Arafat chickened out. I don't know if Obama can even match the achievements of these two men. But in order to have a breakthrough in impossible situations, you need an unexpected person to step up. It took Nixon, a staunch anti-communist to open up China. If Ariel Sharon, one of the biggest hawks in Israel history, had not suffered a stroke, he may have been able to achieve peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Obama, with his unusual heritage and world-wide popularity, is maybe our best bet to succeed here. His speech won't win over any extremists but may win over a few moderates. It is a small step in a marathon but as I wrote before, we can never have stability in the Middle East without solving the Israel-palestinian conflict.

I personally would not have given the speech now. There is very little immediate reward for this as things are not going to change with one speech. In the meawhile back at home every part of speech can be nit picked by his adversaries. They can also criticize him for leaving home while the financial crisis and two wars are going on at the same time. But Obama is not shortsighted. He understands that without winning back Arab moderates and start the path to peace in Israel, we are going to face even more problems in the future. He understands that when Bush ignored Afghanistan and went into Iraq we lost credibility with the moderates in the Arab world. He wants to start the effort to bring them back to our side as soon as possible.

I think his admission that Iraq was a war of choice is right. I don't think that is an apology or a sign of weakness. Let's face it, even the extremists know that we are the most powerful. But threatening our enemies has not work. North Korea and Iran are certainly bolder than before. What he said about the Israel-Palestinian conflict was also good. It is not what Netanyahu wants to hear but I think Sharon would have approved. What I don't like about the speech is when he quotes the Koran, the Bible and the Talmud. That strikes me as kissing up to all the religions involved. The other thing is that he did not address Pakistan, the second largest Muslim country in the world. It also has nuclear weapons. If Iraq was the war that shouldn't have been and Afghanistan is the war that needs to be, then Pakistan may be the war that will be. I would have like to see what he would do to prevent that and try to convince the Pakistanians to be on our side.

Did it change many minds? Probably not but I think maybe a few moderates are leaning back toward us now. I think now that Obama has to come back and work on the financial crisis, it is time for Hillary to keep working on the Middle East. Maybe Bill can help?

One bit of good news. Since Israel's battle with Hezbollah in 2006 the western leaning politicians in Lebanon have been losing ground to Hezbollah. Today the western-backed March 14 bloc won election in Lebanon. Usually an U.S. endorsement in this region is a kiss of death. So victory by this bloc is a pleasant surprise. Did it have anything to do with Obama's speech? I doubted it but it couldn't have hurt. Hopefully Obama is smart enough to not take any credit because that would hurt our allies in the region in the future.

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

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

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

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