Yesterday CNN had an article which says that Hong Kong women have the longest life expectancy in the world, 86.7 years. They have surpassed Japanese women who had lived the longest for the last 25 years. Hong Kong men comes in at 80 years, not too shabby. My take on this is that obviously Asian men sacrifice themselves in taking care of their spouses. OK, I will admit there may be other factors involved. One thing is that Asian cities tend to be very crowded so it is difficult to drive. Most people walk to a lot everyday. Tai chi which is very popular helps elderly people with balance and thus avoid hip fractures which can lead to high mortality. The Asian food is less fattening than western diet which decrease heart diseases and breast cancer in women. But there are also disadvantages living in Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia. Air pollution is worse and infectious disease tend to spread more quickly in crowded places. So given all these pluses and minuses, does Hong Kong's health system make a difference?

I think the Hong Kong system does make a difference. How much I don't know. The basic system is modeled after the British system. There are public hospitals and clinics one can go for free or very cheap. There are long waits in some specialties just like in Britain. These long waits are always pointed out by opponents of socialize medicine. Unlike the British, however, Hong Kong allows and encourages private hospitals and clinics where if you can pay, you can bypass the long wait. Unlike many countries with socialized medicine, paying to get to the front of the line is not frowned upon in Hong Kong. So emergencies and regular primary care are given to anybody quickly by doctors who are among the best trained in the world. But if want a new knee or hip or lasik surgery, you wait couple of years if you are poor or pay to get them right away if you are rich. The British and Canadians make the latter difficult for the rich. The end result is that some end up going to the U.S. for treatment. Is Hong Kong better? It is a matter of opinion but I think you can't always be completely fair and the Hong Kong system seems good to me.

This is my post Olympic review. First I would like to say that I did not like the closing ceremony. It felt like an Emmy award show. I understand that the British gave us a lot of excellent rock music but to base the entire show on that seems not to do right by the Olympic games. After all we can see the Emmy every year, not to mention the American and World music awards etc. And there were very few great British stars in person. I know Freddy Mercury can't be there but a woman taking his place? Who are the people pretending to be the Who? David Bowie didn't show up. Annie Lennox and George Michael did not sing their most famous songs. I know they are not rockers but if music is the only thing they are going to give us, at least bring on Katherine Jenkins and Susan Boyle. Given that London is maybe the most diverse city in the world, what happens to ethnic group participation? Maybe the Brits don't want to remind others of their colonial days?

They are still talking about the badminton scandal in the papers. But nobody noticed that Spain, after losing to Russia in group play, managed to lose the Brazil thus ensuring that they finish 3rd in the group. This way they would be in a different bracket as the U.S. in the knock out round. If they were 2nd they would have played the U.S. in the semi-finals. This way they don't play the U.S. until the finals. Sort of like the 76ers lost the last regular season game so they play the #1 seed Bulls who are without Rose instead of the full strength Miami Heat. The badminton players were doing the same thing as Spain and the 76ers did. It is just easier to hide it in team sports.

I noticed that South Korea gives exemptions to athletes who win Olympic medals from serving their mandatory military service. I don't know if it is a good idea to deprive your military the fastest and strongest people of your country. How about the shooters? Wouldn't they be useful. I bet they could have use their archers even though we don't fight with bow and arrow anymore. By the way West Point finished 3rd in a recent NCAA shooting championship. I think they should draft all the members of #1 and 2.

The U.S. women did much better than the men. The women won 29 golds vs 17 for the men. In fact the men were tied by Britain and China in gold medals. I think there is a more even playing field among the men in world competition. Even in basketball the world competition is getting closer. With all the stars from the NBA the U.S. had couple of scares including the final. The women, on the other hand, have benefited by Title IX. Compare to women in other countries the U.S. women have great advantages. The women's basketball team is much farther ahead of other countries than the men' team. The volleyball and water polo team did way better than the men's teams. The men's soccer and field hockey teams did not even qualify. In all these sports there are way more scholarships for women than men. UCLA used to be a power house in men's gymnastics but it does not even have a program now. Football takes up much of the scholarships for men but football is not in the Olympics. So if things do not change pretty soon we will depend on the women alone to fend off challenges from China.

There are arguments about whether Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps is the greater Olympian. If you are talking about life time achievement then there is no argument, Phelps win easily at this point. If Bolt 3 peats in 2016 then we can open the discussion. If you are talking about this Olympic I would say Bolt since he went undefeated in a more glamorous sport. In fact I don't think Phelps is the best male swimmer this year. I would pick Sun Yang of China who won the 1500 and 400 free plus silver in 200 free. He also anchored China's 4x200 relay to a bronze medal. All of those had never been done by Chinese men before. In individual events Phelps won 2 gold and a silver also. But he also finished 4th in one event. He got 3 medals in relays but the U.S. would have won those without him. China would not get the bronze without Sun. Sun also broke his own world record in the 1500 and beat Ryan Lochte in the 200. There is a big difference between the distances of 200 and 1500 and I don't think anyone had done that well in such different distances.

Did anyone notice that when the Japanese gymnastic coach went to the judges to protest the score that put Japan in 4th place in the competition, he was holding some American money in his hand? Since he is Japanese and is in England why would he be holding American money? I guess the greenback is still the international money of trade or bribe.

I predict that Brazil's economy will shrink in the next 4 years due to China decreasing its demand for soybean and raw materials. This will lead to speculation and worry that Brazil will not be ready by 2016. Eventually Brazil will pull it off and everybody will have a great time. I will have learned the samba by then.

In regard to the last comment on the last blog: No, the complain about Obama changing the welfare law is unfounded. He was just giving the states more flexibility to administer the work laws. This was requested in the past by GOP governors. It is another example of taking things out of context which both sides are guilty of.

Mitt Romney has picked Paul Ryan to be his running mate. By making the choice now ahead of the convention, Romney appears to be changing strategy. He has decided that he can no longer just point the finger at Obama's record and win. By selecting Ryan, who has made extensive proposals on social security, medicare and medicaid reforms, he will have to put out specific ideas to the voters. If your running mate has put out specific proposals, you can't just say things like "I am going to create a million jobs and cut the deficit" without telling us how you are going to do it.

The Democrats like the Ryan choice because now they have something specific to attack. It is hard to know how this will play out. I think in most states, the vp choice will not make much difference. Ryan can energize the Republican base and the Tea party people to be more enthusiastic for Romney. I think that Ryan will only make a difference in two states: Wisconsin where Ryan would help Romney and Florida where he would hurt him because the large number of seniors who don't want big changes in their social security and medicare. Since Florida has 29 votes to 10 for Wisconsin, I think Ryan will be a negative for Romney overall. A better choice, politically, would be Rob Portman of Ohio since that is a toss up state with more votes than Wisconsin and Portman would not alienate the seniors in Florida.

This is my special Olympic blog. Four years ago I wrote how I would help the Chinese Olympic team achieve success by being a "special consultant". It obviously worked as China won the most gold medals and finished second in total medals. Having seen the controversy over the U.S. uniforms being made in China, I decided not to be a consultant for China this Olympic for fear of backlash. If Harry Reid wants to burn the U.S. uniforms made in China, he may want to burn me at stake! The whole thing is ridiculous. Unless Reid and others have no clothes made from another country, they should shut up. The USOC needs sponsor money and gets some from Ralph Lauren. Ralph Lauren needs to make a profit so they send the work overseas. This is the capitalist system. Unless you want government sponsor Olympic teams and state owned enterprises, this is the way it is. It is not the fault of the USOC or Ralph Lauren. By the way, China makes its own uniforms but the wool is purchased from Australia because it is the best deal. If the U.S. can make it cheaper I am sure Chinese athletes will be wearing "Made in USA".

I found out that Phelps and Lochte are only competing against each other in the 200 and 400 IMs. They are favored to win the other two they entered. So if they are on all three relays then they each can win 7 golds but both can't win 7. I predict that they would split the two IMs and win 6 each.

The U.S. women are favored to win. China is not as strong this year and Romania figures to be the top competition. Gabby Douglas is coming on real strong and that will help the team but she can very well beat Wieber for the all round title. The U.S. men are also very strong. They have that guy from M whose name I forgot how to spell. Japan is the clear favorite as China had retirements from Beijing and couple of recent injuries that knock out couple of their stars. See what happens when I am not a consultant?

Some guy in my dancing class vehemently said that ballroom dancing should NOT be added to the Olympics. Most of the class disagree with him as expected, but I agree. While I found out that dancing requires athleticism of a kind I don't have, I don't think it should be a competitive sport. It is too subjective and at the highest level it is impossible to tell who is really better. It brings too much politics into it as have figure skating and ice dancing. I don't like those sports either. Too a certain degree so are gymnastics and diving but there are more obvious errors and strength moves with these sports. And since they have been there for a long time and are popular they should stay. But to bring in new sports like ballroom dancing, I don't think so. By the way I like sports where you can play defense and mess up the other team. I would make a good defensive player in ballroom dancing if it is allowed like in most other sports!

I also don't like golf being added. It is basically a rich man sport, more so even than tennis and so a poor country has no chance in it. Luck also plays too much of a role. Witness all the different people who won majors lately. Even Tiger at his best won only about 20% of the time. So to be an Olympic winner in golf would not mean the best golfer unlike Usain Bolt is considered the fastest man in the world.

Of course I am also the guy who wonders why swimming has any strokes besides free style. I mean in a race on land, you don't have events like running backward or run like a butterfly. Race walking should also be eliminated. All those officials along the route just to make sure nobody runs? If someone is chasing you in life would you walk instead of run or use the breast stroke instead of free style to get away? So as you can see if I am king of the Olympics a lot sports may be eliminated and very few new ones would get in.

I know what Sports Illustrated's Sign of the Apocalypse for this week is going to be: Cal tech being sanctioned by the NCAA. Cal tech is cheating like the football powerhouses? They don't even have a football team. Their basketball team won a conference game for the first time in God knows how many years last year and it was big new in LA. They even had a press conference to discuss the victory. I went to one of their basketball game a few years ago because they were playing a school near my house. I just wanted to see how bad they were. They had Asians on the team that I was better than when I was in college. I was annoyed that the local school hardly subbed their starters even though they were up about 40 points. Then I found out later they actually started their scrubs and kept the regulars on the bench the whole game to keep the score down! So now I wonder if Cal Tech will have to vacate their one conference victory last year. What has the world come to?

I see that the Knicks got Raymond Felton and Stephen Smith is all over Jeremy Lin saying that the Knicks lost confidence in him when he did not play the last playoff game so they are not going to match Houston's offer. As I said before Stephen Smith is an idiot and if the Knicks feel that way then they are idiots also. The Knicks were not going to beat Miami with Lin or even Kobe Bryant so why risk a young player's career by playing him when he is not 100%? That is just so stupid! But the Knicks must have doubts about Lin because otherwise they would have offered first, say, 15 million for 3 years and then if Lin wanted to test the market then it would not be their fault if they don't match. Now I think they were not all sure that Lin would be worth a multiple year contract. So once again Lin is being slighted.

But this time he is wanted by someone. I think Houston may be a better fit. He would be the main focus there unless somehow they get Dwight Howard. In NY Carmelo Anthony and Amare are going to hog the offense anyway. I don't think that Jason Kidd would be such a good role model. He just got arrested for drunk driving and don't forget his brush with domestic violence a few years back. If Felton is good enough why did the Knicks traded him a couple years ago? He also had a bad year this past season. I think the Knicks are going to be totally dysfunctional. Houston does not have much a roster left, having lost Scola, Lowry and Camby. So I think Lin will run the offense there and the expectation will be low. So there will be less pressure. So it may be a blessing in disguise.

I thought today was the day that Jeremy Lin would sign with the Rockets and the Knicks will match the offer and end all speculation. But the day came and went without words other than a rumor that Lin was upset at the Knicks for not making the first offer. I find that absurd. If the Knicks had made an offer, it would be substantially less than the Rockets' offer. That would have forced Lin to take the offer and lose the chance to test the market or refuse the offer and look ungrateful to the Knicks who had given him a chance last year. So this was really a bad business decision for the Knicks and a lucky break for Lin. So there was no reason for Lin to be upset and he is intelligent enough to know that.

So far the offseason in the NBA can be described as the changing of the old guards. Jason Kidd went to the Knicks, Steve Nash to the Lakers and Ray Allen to the Heat. All moved to get a better chance to win the title. Obviously Allen got the best chance. He would not have to do too much, just shoot! His new team is already the defending champs and he won't have to log a lot of minutes. Nash will help the Lakers but they will still have trouble getting out of the West because OK City is only going to get better as their stars have not reached their peaks yet. Of course if the Lakers get Dwight Howard, that would change everything. But then there would be conspiracy theory as when the Lakers got Shaq and when they got Gasol. Kidd will not help the dysfunctional Knicks that much except mentoring Lin.

Debate about the 1992 Dream team vs this year's Olympic team. Obviously you can argue all day and cannot resolve anything. My view is that the Big Three from 92, Bird, Magic and Jordan were older at that stage than today's Big Three of James, Durant and Kobe. So today's team have a slight edge in terms of Super, Super Stars. But this team lacks size, Tyson Chandler cannot be compared to Patric Ewing and David Robinson. The 92 team had Malone and Barkley which today's team cannot match up. If Bird and Magic were at the prime then the 92 team wins easily.

So is today's Supreme Court ruling a victory for Obama? I think it is more of a blessing in disguise for Romney. As I wrote before, whichever side loses in this ruling will be galvanized for the November election. Romney already has seen contributions to his campaign jumped today. He now can complain about Obama care for the rest of the campaign whereas if the law was struck down it will not be an issue for him at all. He says he will repeal the law the day he takes office. Of course it won't be that easy even if Republicans win the senate also. Remember filibuster? Of course there is the little problem that Romney care was the blueprint of Obama care even to the letter of individual mandate. Now Romney says that he may keep provisions like no turning people away for preexisting conditions while doing away with individual mandate. It is obvious that won't work because of there is no individual mandate but you can get insurance even if you have preexisting conditions, then you would not get insurance until you are sick!

Obama care is not a great piece of legislation. But due to pull from both sides it was the only thing that could have passed. There was no upside politically for Obama. Most people have insurance so it is hard to get a majority of people to understand that reform of healthcare is absolutely necessary. Given the main goal of Republicans is to defeat Obama, this big legislation is certainly a target for the Republicans to shoot at. Of course if they have no ideas of their own that is politically viable so they don't even try. Witness Paul Ryan's idea of trying to reform Medicare, Democrats didn't even have to attack it. The Republicans' idea to improve the insurance situation is to let people buy insurance out of state! Yeah, that is really going to make a difference.

With all the Republican arguing about government interference in health care, did they not remember their roles in increasing government's role? It was Reagan who signed into law that mandate hospitals to treat people walking into ER even if they can't pay. You know somebody has to pay for that care or hospitals would go out of business. So hospitals charge people who have money more and try to get more out of private insurance. Government also has to subsidized hospitals with lots of uninsured patients or many would have gone out of business. This mandate for hospitals was supported by both Republicans and Democrats. George Bush also enacted the prescription drug law which caused billions of taxpayers money and which enriched the drug companies and insurance companies that run the program. So Republicans are like the old people who put up signs like "Keep the government out of my Medicare." It is laughable.

I don't know if health care if a right. After all if you have no water or food you will die quicker than if you don't have a doctor but water and food are not free. But if the majority say that health care is a right then we can't have these patch work of insurances and mandates. We have the best trained doctors and best technologies in the world but we are mediocre in life expectancy and infant mortality. So even if you have insurance right now you know the system is broke and needs major overhaul. So it is time to stop the bickering and try to improve Obama care instead.

By the way, even though John Robert's decisions was a complete surprise, LA Times had predicted that it was a possibility because one of his friends who sits on the Appeals Court in Washington had upheld the law with the same tax reasoning. That judge was also a Bush appointee.

The news from last week that Asians are the most educated and have the highest income among ethnic groups would appear to be good news. Sure, we can take pride in our accomplishments in this country. But if the economy continues to sour and competition in getting to elite universities increases, will Asians be scapegoats for these problems? Asians had been called the new Jews before. Most believe that Jews are targeted for their faith but I believe that most of the time they are targets of discrimination because of envy. Rather than applauding the Jewish people for their successes, there are many people who believe there is something sinister about what the Jews had accomplished. So far Asians are not so dominant in businesses and other areas as the Jews are in this country. But it is worth noting that in places like Southeast Asia where the Chinese are dominant in wealth, there have been many incidences of violence against them.

I do not believe there is imminent trouble for Asian Americans yet. But last week was the 30th anniversary of the Vincent Chin case. Chin was killed by 2 lay off auto workers in Detroit because they thought he was Japanese. At that time there was fear that Japan was going to destroy the American auto industry. The question I have is: what happens if China continues to rise and Asian Americans continue to do better than the average Americans in education and wealth? I don't think America is southeast Asia or Germany. But Americans are human beings and humans have done violent acts throughout history. This is why Asian Americans should always be vigilant.

Obama announced his new policy regarding illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. This follows his endorsing gay marriages a few weeks ago. The timing of these two things at the end of his term, just before election, makes it look like a political move. I think these announcements are going to hurt rather than help his campaign. Illegal immigration and gay marriage advocates were going to vote for him anyway. There maybe a little more enthusiasm from these two groups now and maybe more monetary contributions. But there will be some independents who will be abhorred by these events. A blue collar worker in the swing states of Ohio, for example, may have been leaning toward Obama because he now has a job might now vote for Romney instead. The funny thing is Romney probably thinks similar to Obama and would not have done anything different on this issue if he is elected.

The unions overreached in Wisconsin, failing in their effort to recall governor Scott Walker. Walker had taken away much of the bargaining rights of most public unions since he took office. The Democrats were able to recall some of the legislators who sided with Walker. But by now the people are tired of recalls and with the big money coming from out of state, Walker was able to win. I think by failing to oust Walker, the unions lost more credibility. They would have been better off and waited for the next election, when the out of staters are worried about other parts of the country. Obama would not have helped and he rightly did not want to be strongly associated with a losing cause. Now he will have to decide how much to spend on Wisconsin whereas before he could have counted it in his pocket and focused resources in other states.

In California, San Jose and San Diego voted to decrease public pensions. As I have said before, I agree with decreasing the power of public unions because they can help politicians who are in charge of the union members' compensations. There is nobody representing the tax payers in that bargaining situation. But I strongly disagree with the conservatives that overpaying public employees are the main economic problem facing America today. Certainly if salaries and benefits of public employees are not reigned in, we will eventually go bankrupt. But that will be a long time down the line and not in every place in the country. Compare to the greed and gambling tendencies of the bank and Wall Street, the public employees are relatively good guys. I mean, I can understand a guy making $50,000 a year wanting to improve to $100,000. But I don't understand somebody making $10 million wanting to use unethical means to make $100 million or more. The actions of the rich, crooked people will bring down this country a lot faster than the policemen, firemen and teachers of the nation.