The voting must have been rigged. The Republicans must have stuffed the ballot or Sarah Palin convinced the Tea party to vote her way. How else do you explain that Rick Fox was voted out of Dancing With The Stars while Bristol Palin is still alive. Fox had the highest point total given by the judges on Monday night while Palin had the lowest so there must have been millions more votes for Palin than Fox. And those people who voted for Palin can't possibly be objective. Fox was way better in not only my opinion but the three judges. So if I am in charge of the Democrats I would protest the elections tonight given this irregularity in DWTS!

No surprise that the Republicans won big tonight although the Democrats manage to salvage the senate majority. As I predicted before there will gridlock no matter what happens tonight. I understand the majority of the people are upset by the state of the economy and they will blame the incumbents. But the idea that the Republicans or Tea Party people are going to do better is absurd. For example, one of the reason that people are unhappy with Obama is that they don't like the stimulus and the deficit increase because of it. The truth is without the stimulus the situation today would not be better and probably worse and the people would complain why he didn't do anything. If Obama had done nothing and somehow we have improvement in the economy, people would then complain that if he had done more, the recovery would have been sooner. I can guarantee you that if the republicans and McCain had won in 2008, we would be talking about a landslide for the Democrats tonight. The Republicans have absolutely no idea what to do.

On CNN tonight the Republican whip Eric Cantor was asked what big program he would cut to decrease the deficit. He was asked three times and he did not answer the question. He only said that the Republicans want the deficit to go back to the level of 2008. Gee, we still had a big deficit then and the economy was collapsing at that time under Bush. How about we go back to 2002 before we send troops to Iraq which certainly increase our deficit. Or how about we go back to before Bush when we had a surplus. Yes, the Democrats like to spend but if you think the Republicans are better, you are delusional because while the Democrats are in the pockets of the unions, the Republicans are in the pockets of corporations like Enron, AIG and Goldman Sachs.

The pundits are all talking about whether the control of Congress will change hands with this coming election. Everybody is making predictions about the outcome. I am going to make the prediction that the result won't matter. Whether the Republicans win one, none or both chambers, we will have complete gridlock over the next two years. Every politician says that he/she will create jobs, change Washington etc. But nothing important will happen no matter who wins.

Things are so partisan now that even with overwhelming majority in both chambers by the Democrats plus Obama in the White House, it was difficult to pass any significant bill. Even if the Republicans win both chambers, they won't have much of a majority, certainly nowhere near able to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. Even if they pass a bill, say repealing the Healthcare bill, Obama will just veto it. So the Republicans won't be able to do anything. Even if the Democrats retain majority in both chambers, they are going to be a lot weaker than before and they certainly are not able to bring out any big bill that will get any Republcian support. So I predict that the next two years we will have a do nothing but bickering Congress. There is nothing legislative wise that Obama can do. He will get re-elected if the economy makes a spectacular recovery. Short of that unlikely scenario, he will need either a big improvement in Afghanistan and/or some progress in the Israel-Palestinian negotiation. Even if he has a great economic stimulus plan that he just thought of, there is no way it can pass Congress and will not have worked in two years anyway. So Obama's fate will basically depend on luck, just as any other president.

I think Juan Williams was just being honest, saying what a lot of people are thinking in private. He said that he is afraid when he sees people wearing Muslim clothes on the plane with him. I believe that he understands that this is an irrational fear because most Muslims are not terrorists and for those that are, they are not going to wear clothes that will bring attention to themselves. I believe that the 9/11 hijackers were not wearing Muslim clothes. Nor were the shoe bomber or the underwear guy. So he has an irrational fear which I don't think is a cause for getting fired. His firing is another example of political correctness which plays into the hands of organizations like Fox News which will use Williams as a victim.

I believe we are so polarized and self-centered that we can't accept other people's right to opinion. Bill O'Reilly's comment about Muslims killed us as oppose to adding the word extremist before the word Muslim, was insensitive. But I don't think Whoopi Goldberg and (I think it was) Joy Behear walking out was appropriate. If you disagree with another person's opinion or facts, debate him, not walk away or calling that person a racist, a socialist, or unpatriotic. This is a problem on both the right and left and if continue, will divide our country more and more.

Sharon Angle, who is running for the Senate against Harry Reid in Nevada, said recently that Dearborn Mich. is under Sharia law. I am pretty sure that if that was really the case, it would be all over the news nationally and my relatives in Michigan would have called me about it. So for her to make up something like that shows not only dishonesty but also stupidity. I don't like Harry Reid but it is mind boggling that she is ahead in Nevada.

The idea that a religion is going to take over this country is actually not new. Early in the last century it was thought that Catholics were not patriotic and that they answered to the Pope, not to our government. Even when John Kennedy ran for president decades later, he had to proclaim that he was American first and that his religion would not determine how he would govern. Obviously those fears were unfounded. I think the more people who subscribe to Angle's view, the easier it will be for the extremists to recruit for their cause and thus make us all less safe.

Being a head football coach is similar to being the president in certain respects. You work very hard and you hire the best people you can think of and hope for the best. If things go well, everybody thinks you are a genius. If things go badly, everyone thinks that you are an idiot. The same with the assistants that you hire. They were considered very bright in their previous employment, but will be bumps if things get worse even if you have worse players now.

I am thinking of Norm Chow who is the offensive coordinator for UCLA and Monte Kiffin, the defensive coordinator of USC. They both have been around for a long time and previously have been considered geniuses in their professions. I am sure they have not become stupid all of a sudden. But now that UCLA can't move the ball against high grass and USC have holes that a truck can drive through, the blame is on them. If this continue then it is not only their jobs are in jeopardy but those of their head coaches as well. Of course, when Chow and Kiffin were successful, they got too much credit. It is unlikely that Chow made Carson Palmer and Ty Detmer great quarterbacks by himself. Most likely the QBs abilities and other players around them made Chow looked great, even though he is a very good coach. Now with more difficult situations, Chow and Kiffin look very mediocre.

The same with Obama. He can't possibly know more about economics than the economic experts that he hired. No president is an expert on everything. He depends on assistants to guide him. When the economy is going well, he and his advisors are geniues. When things are going badly, they are idiots. Economics, like football strategy, is not an exact science. That is why there are completely opposite strategies coming from very smart people. Alan Greenspan was considered a genius by both Republican and Democratic presidents. But I watched a PBS documentary recently where it showed that Greenspan and others completely disregarded the dangers of derivatives. What president would have heed the warnings of lower rank economists over the opinion of Greenspan? The economy will determine the fate of the president. He depends on his advisors. He must hope that they don't make any mistake. The advisors, in turn, need to be very lucky.

Rutger student Tyler Clementi's suicide is certainly a tragedy. His roommate Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei, by posting of Clementi's sexual acts on the web, are certainly guilty of invasion of privacy. But this is not a hate crime, as liberal groups are saying. This is something stupid that 18 years old do in this age of the internet. Kids send embarrassing pictures and information about themselves thru the internet all the time without thinking about any consequences. If kids don't even worry about consequences to themselves, why would they think of others? Liberals have complained that young people sextexting should not be charged with pornagraphy. I agree with that. So I don't understand why this case would even be considered a hate crime.

Many lessons can be learned from this. Obviously people should learn about the consequences of posting things. Once it is done, it can't be erased. (Maybe I should think before I write any more!). Second, we must figure out how to tell kids that if something bad happenes, it is not the end of the world. While this invasion of privacy is horrible, it did not kill Clementi. I don't know if Clementi reached out for help but if someone he trusted could have tell him that this would not ruin his life, maybe he woud have chosen to live. The same with the girl who was fooled by an adult woman into thinking that a boy had dumped her over the internet.

One more thing that I thought of. That is, all this worry about Big Brother. Well, we are the Big Brother. Our privacy and freedom may be less restricted by the government than by ourselves! Technology gives, technology takes!

A few days ago the GOP voted against a defense bill with 2 significant bills attached to it. While I am for the defense bill and the two riders, I agree that it is wrong to attach laws that may not pass on their own into bills that would pass for certain.

The original defense bill is a no brainer. It raises the pay of the soldiers slightly and provide additional money for the wars. Both parties would have voted for this. The Democrats attached two bills to this. One is to give legal status for children of illegal immigrants who are going to college or are joining the military. This makes sense to me since we don't punish children for what their parents had done. These young people who are bright enough to go to college or brave enough to fight for us, are exactly what we need. The second one is to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell law of the military". I always say that if anyone is willing to fight for us, I don't see why we would want to discriminate against them.

Having said all that, I still don't think that laws that are totally unrelated to each other should be in the same bill just because the majority thinks that it is easier than to pass them individually. I know the GOP did the same in the past when they were in power. I am sure the Democrats complained bitterly then. Each bill should pass on its own merit. There are many times one will see bills that are distasteful passed because they are riding on a bill that both party want to pass as quickly as possible. This is not right. So while the GOP are hypocrits because they had done this before, the Democrats are wrong by trying to pass two bils on the back of a popular bill this time.

I don't have any problem with the Tea party trying to win seats in Congress. Some of the candidates like Rand Paul are not bad. But some are just awful. Take this Christine O'Donnell who has won the GOP nomination for senator out of Delaware. I don't really have problems with her so called dabbling in witchcraft as she put it in Bill Maher's show 11 years ago. She didn't really claim she was a witch and this happened many years ago. No witch hunt needed here. But the fact that she has not had a real job in several years and living on money from previous campaign donations surely should not give anyone confidence that she is capable of being a senator. I understand there is a backlash against incumbents and "inside" politicians but it is obvious that this person is not qualified. All she says are pedestrian things like "restoring America". What the hell does that mean? She doesn't give any idea what we are restoring or how. She refuses to answer any charges against her and only says that she has not done anything wrong. How can anyone vote for someone like that?

I am not saying that the GOP mainstream or the Democrats don't have their unethical people. Charles Rangel won his primary and will be reelected even though he is under ethical charges. But I mean if you are against government crooks, why are you so easily pursuaded by crooks outside the government trying to get in. I mean I can say all those rhetorics such as smaller government, lower taxes, restoring America, bring back morality to the country etc. You should all send me money so that I can run for office and spend the money afterward for myself.

Israel and the Palestinians are finally back to the peace table. The odds of success, of course, are slim. But that is no excuse for not really trying in the past several years. As I have said before, unless there is peace in the Middle East, we will NEVER be free of terrorism no matter what else we do. The continuation of this conflict is the most important avenue for extremists to recruit terrorists. Without peace, Israel will never be safe and the Palestinians will always live in inhumane conditions.

Despite the long odds, there are some reasons for optimism. Namely the 3 people that are most important in these negotiations. Netanyahu is a conservative. He may lose his right wing supporters if he makes concessions. But he must realize that he is in an unique position to do something historic. Whatever peace agreement he makes will have more legitimacy than one made by say, Simon Perez. This is like Nixon going to China, or closer to his home, Begin making peace with Egypt. Will Netanyahu do it? Well, even Ariel Sharon was changing right before he got a stroke. So hopefully Netanyahu will make a transformation also.

Will Abbas be braver than Arafat and make peace? He is a moderate and so whatever he does will be attacked by Hamas anyway. So he may as well ignore them and take a plunge toward history. He may lose his life if he makes peace. But he will be a legend in history if does.

Then there is Hilary Clinton. She is untested in these type of negotiations. But she has the advantage of being there when Bill Clinton almost got a deal done. She must have learned from his successes and failures. This is also her chance to make history and I got feeling she will go all out for it.

There are bound to be road blocks all over the place. Hamas already started the attack. As I said, the odds are still long. But there are a lot at stakes here both for the world in general and the 3 participants in particular. Hopefully they can come through.

Obama was right about Muslims having the right to build a mosque near ground zero. He is also right in questioning the wisdom of doing so. What was wrong is that he didn't say both of these comments at the same time. By saying one thing to a Muslim audience and another thing when people attacked him makes him look wishy-washy. It was a no win situation for him politically and he could not have kept silenced on the subject forever. So he should have just say the right things at the same time. It is absolutely true that religious freedom means that Muslims have the right to build anywhere they please as long as they follow the usual zoning laws. It is also true that given the emotional situation, it is extremely insensitive to do so. If Obama had said both of these to the Muslim audience, he may still be attacked from both sides, but he would have been right and also courageous.

I don't know why anyone would listen to an idiot like Newt Gringich. He is immoral, given his treatment of his wives. Now he comes up with statements such as a mosque near ground zero is like Nazis building next to synagogues or Japanese building at Pearl Harbor. I am quite sure there are Japanese buildings at Pearl Harbor. Every Nazi group would be a threat to Jews while most Muslims are not a threat to America. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but not freedom of hate groups.

Obama should have told his Muslim audience that instead of building a mosque, which they can build anywhere else in New York, they should build a center for peace at this property near ground zero. The center should denounce violence and reach out to other religions. This will help the image of Muslims immensely. He may get a negative response. But so what? It would have been the right thing to say. People say that we can't build a church at Mecca. It is true. But are we not suppose to be a better nation than Saudi Arabia? Muslims say that there would be no controversy for a church to be built at the site. It is true. But shouldn't believers of a great religion be sensitive to feelings of others and reach out to them? So why isn't there anyone taking the high road?