I have finally regain consciousness after witnessing Michigan almost losing to Akron.  This goes to show that there is not that much difference between the so called power houses and the doormats.  It is also difficult to predict how 18-22 years olds play one week to the next.  For that matter from 1 hour to the next.  Witness UCLA sleep walk through almost half the game to only wake up and score the last 38 points of the game.  Of course, having lost a teammate the week before and playing at 9 am west coast time could have big effect on a team. 

The Pac 12 beat the Big Ten in 3 out 4 meetings yesterday.  Wisconsin should have won to even it up.  The ending was poorly officiated.  It was difficult to tell if the Wisconsin qb had taken a knee before putting the ball on the ground.  But the officials should have called something and let the replay official sort it out with the clock stopped.  Instead nobody called anything and the ASU player just lied on top of the ball so that the clock ran out. 

Now that Cal has a coach that run the up tempo offense, it is now accusing other teams of faking injuries to slow it down.  Last season it was Oregon accusing Cal (and others) of faking injuries.  I never thought that faking an injury is bad sportsmanship.  I mean, if my lungs are burning, I am injured!  Anyways it is difficult to tell who is faking.  One thing they can do is make the player go off the field for 3 plays instead of 1 like it is now.  Or they can have 3 injury timeouts per half, like the old 20 second timeouts in basketball.  If they used those up and a player is injured, they will have to use the regular timeouts.  This way, they will be less likely to fake an injury so that they can save their timeouts.

I thought Obama made a very good speech tonight.  He went over almost all points about why we should not bomb Syria.  I think that is about as well he could have done.  It did not change my mind.  I am still against it and I think the majority of the people are still against it.  He may have moved the needle his way a bit but not enough.  I think he should try to use the diplomatic opening that the Russians provided and try to save face.  It will also save us a lot of money and grief.

As I have said before, a lot of countries have more stake in stopping the war in Syria than us.  The Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan do not like instability in the middle east.  Turkey has its hand full with refugees pouring in over its border with Syria.  Israel cannot be happy with Syria having and using chemical weapons nearby.  Add to this list is Russia.  They don't want to world turn from apathy to against Assad.  They realize if Assad loses and the rebels take over, they are going to be against the Russians.  It is to their security concern that the chemical weapons are in check.  So they will try to make this work.  It is a good opportunity for Russia and the U.S. to cooperate now and get over the Snowden incident.

I had been on vacation and thus did not write anything recently.  I also have not been following the news much.  Just found out that Obama was getting ready to bomb Syria but then decided to let Congress debate and vote on it.  I also heard that Newt Gingrich is against bombing.  Well, what do you know?  I agree with Gingrich and disagree with Obama.  Must be something in the water in Michigan!

Obama painted himself into the corner by saying that using chemicals crosses a red line.  But it is a red line that I don't understand.  After 2 years and 100,000 dead and no intervention, now 1000 dead from a sarin attack crosses the line?  I mean, what is the difference between getting blown up by a bomb or killed by sarin?  You are dead either way.  And do we know where the chemicals are made and stored?  How do we know that our own bombs won't cause more collateral deaths than the sarin attacks themselves?  Isn't a death from a cruise missle same as a death from sarin?

The Arab League has called for intervention from the UN.  Knowing Russia and China will veto, it is basically asking the U.S. to intervene on its own.  Hey, how about doing it yourself?  It is a regional problem and they should deal with it themselves.  Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan all are stronger than Syria militarily.  Why should we get involved in this civil war in which neither side will be friendly to us once it is over?

Incidentally if this red line is drawn by international law as Obama puts it, why did the U.S. looked the other way in the 1980s when Iraq used chemicals against Iran?  Was it because Iran was our enemy then and Iraq was our friend?  Also if after bombing Syria for a while and Assad stopped using chemicals and go back to killing his own people with conventional weapons only, do we declare victory while the next 100,000 are being killed?

So I am against Obama on this one.  But I do agree with him in seeking Congressional approval.  I do not agree with those who say that Obama appear weak by not pulling the trigger now.  It does not take courage to send the greatest military to fight.  McCain, who has been calling for intervention long before this, now asks Obama what is the strategy and exit plan.  Well, why doesn't McCain tell us what exactly what he would do?  In the Congressional debate, I want the hawks tell us how they envision we can be successful in this.  I doubt anyone can.  I think New Gingrich is the voice of reason here!

There are no good options on Egypt.  The only leverage we have is the monetary aid which many politicians are calling on Obama to stop funding.  Obama is reluctant to do this because in the short term it will have no effect on the Egyptian army but may have negative effect on us!

The problem with cutting off aid is that most of the money is in the form of a fund deposit which is used by the Egyptian army for the purchase of military hardware from U.S. manufacturers.  So this will indirectly hurt U.S. businesses right away.  But the Egyptian army may not need those arms right away.  For example, they may not need to buy any sophisticated fighter jets to combat their own civilians right now.  In the meanwhile Obama is getting lobbying pressure from arms manufacturers and the states where they are located.  Given the minimal effect cutting off funding will have on the Egyptian army, it is no wonder that Obama is reluctant to cut off funding.

The reason that Egypt gets so much aid from the U.S. in the first place is because it made peace with Israel.  But why do we supply arms to both Israel and Arab countries?  In the past we had provided arms to the Shah of Iran, then Saddam Hussein to fight Iran, and the Afghans to fight the Soviets.  And how did these aids help us?  We would have been better off providing funds for Arab and Israeli youths to come to America as foreign exchange students.  An Arab kid would stay with a Jewish family and vice versa.  I believe that when these young people go back home, they will be less likely to be enemies of each other when they become adults.  Some of these kids will become leaders of their homeland.  Wouldn't that be better than giving both sides bombs?

Christie tells the members of his party that you have to be practical.  Taking extreme views means that you are not going to win.  And if you don't win, your views do not matter.  This reminds me of               Kennedy who once said that the first duty of a politician is to get elected.  I think Cristie is right.  Of course, right now he is appealing to New Jersey voters.  Will he still take such a strong centrist position when he is pushed by the right?

It seems like the extremists on any side are the best friends of the other side.  Take Egypt
, for example.  The Muslim Brotherhood had power.  But the extremists would not just run the country but had  to be merciless against their enemies.  This led to protests and led to the army taking over.  Of course, the army is now doing the same thing and thus lead to endless violence.    Whenever one side goes overboard it will only help the cause of the other side.  Maybe our politicians should keep that in mind.

News:  Alex Rodriguez suspended till 2015.  It is about time and well deserved.  The only problem with the suspension given to A Rod and Ryan Braun is that they have such big contracts that they will get millions after the suspension is over.  Even if  a life time ban is too harsh, I think that voiding the rest of the contract is an appropriate punishment.  If one got better stats from peds which led to big contracts, then those contracts should be voided.  The player should have to prove his worth without peds to get another contract.

Sure the integrity of the game is important.  But I worry about the use of steroids by big stars is driving the use of these drugs among young athletes.  A Rod and others are still idolized by young athletes and seeing them prosper even after getting caught will do nothing to deter the youngsters from trying peds. 

From the previous blog comments:  I don't think that Rand Paul will win the nomination but he will make it difficult for any moderate to win.  I agree that Christie is a good candidate.  I don't think Rubio can win either.  He is a LINO--Latino in name only as oppose to RINO--Republican in name only, the term given to moderates by the extremists in the Republican party.  So I don't think Rubio will win the majority of the Hispanic votes.  I doubt Huntsman will run again as he is too moderate for his party and he does not have the blue state appeal of Christie.  Christie vs Clinton is still the best matchup.

Bradley Manning is acquitted of the most serious charges and thus won't be sentenced to life without possibility of parole.  Eric Holder has promised that Edward Snowden will not get the death penalty.  I think both of these decisions are reasonable.  I don't think that these two guys intended to be traitors and deserve a second chance.  I do think that they deserve some punishment.  How much?  I am not sure.  One thing I am sure is that these two guys are not heroes as painted by their supporters.  Manning was a soldier.  When you are a soldier you cannot unilaterally decide to go against your country even if you believe that it acted irresponsibly.  In Snowden's case, his supporters say that what he did was civil disobidience.  This brings to mind someone who goes against the government but is willing to go to jail to prove his point.  Well, Snowden tried to escape.  And he escaped to China and Russia.  And he is trying to get asylum to places like Venezuela and Bolivia.  Not exactly the bastions of freedom!  So to me these two are not heroes by any means.

Snowden revealed that the U.S. spies on other countries!  That caused a ruckus in Europe against the U.S. for a few days.  Obama came out and said all nations spy.  He is right.  I would not want my country to not spy on other countries.  This is not an ideal world and if we are going to survive we have to protect ourselves.  I hope we act more responsibly and more fairly than other nations.  But I would be upset if my country is not doing what every other country is doing.  Notice there was very muted response from other governments over this revelation.  Even China and Russia had very little to say.  I guess you don't throw stones if you live in a glass house!

Young guys like Snowden and Manning can be more easily manipulated by bad guys than older folks who have more experience in the world.  Unfortunately in cyber wars we depend on young guys who are way more technologically advance that old folks like me.  Right now there are young men in China on computers battling with our young guys over the internet.  In a free society it is very difficult to keep our young guys in line.  But we have an advantage that in a country like China where it is more difficult to take secrets out of the country, the restrictions and monitoring also stiffen the creativity of the young hackers.  So in a sense the two systems may be on trial in this battle over cyber space.

Although not unexpected, there was still sadness when I heard that Detroit has declared bankruptcy.  If I feels strongly that Detroit can turn around after bankruptcy, I would feel much better.  But there is no light at the end of the tunnel even if the legal proceedings go Detroit's way.  The best Detroit can hope for coming out of this is get rid of large amount of debt and decrease its pension obligations significantly.  It still would not bring in the revenue the city needs.  I mean, all the auto makers are raking in good profits this year but it has not done anything for the city itself.  So what happens with next downturn in the auto industry?  It is still a catch 22:  business won't come to the city without great improvement in services but if there is no business to provide taxes, services won't improve.  Dave Bing was a successful businessman but even he couldn't do anything for the city.  What will happen after bankruptcy?

I know they are trying to get rid of abandoned houses, moving people out of certain areas of the city and trying to start urban farms.  I don't know if any of these things would help.  I can't say I have any ideas that would work but I am throwing one out there.  Can they let border cities absorbs some of the neighborhoods near the border?  For example can Livonia, Farmington and Plymouth absorb areas of west Detroit?  Southfield, Warren absorb areas north of 8 Mile Rd.   Grosse pointe absorbs and St. Clair Shores absorb some of the east side of Detroit.  I understand the areas around the River is doing much better.  Renaissance Center, the GM building, Comerica Park, Ford field etc. are already is decent shape.  Just start from those areas and rebuild outward gradually and let the fringes be absorbed by the suburbs.  So the city will be much smaller and the taxes from businesses downtown will sustain the smaller city.  Maybe business will go to northwest Detroit if Livonia police is servicing the area so the response time is not 1hour. I know the suburbs would not like this at all, particularly those that have to absorb parts of Detroit.  But even if the suburbs are doing well now, if Detroit goes down eventually the entire southeast Michigan will deteriorate.  In fact I believe the entire state needs to contribute to Detroit's revival.  I don't think a state can be great without a major city.

While vacationing in Hawaii last week, I tried to use my ipad to write my blog.  However, google noticed that I was trying to write from Hawaii and thought that someone had hacked into my blog.  Well, I am back home now and I am glad that Google thinks that this blog is important enough for someone to try to hack into.  This also shows that Google can keep track of where I am if it wants to.  As I said before, Big Brother may not be the government, but private enterprises.  Or worse, it can be private enterprises in cooperation with the government. 

I guess the big story from the mainland this past week was George Zimmerman's not guilty verdict in the killing of Trayvon Martin.  Thank goodness there has not be violence breaking out over the verdict.  I had not followed the trial carefully.  After reading about it afterward, I feel that the jury acted reasonably in coming back with a not guilty verdict.  It was a difficult case to prove beyond reasonable doubt given the right to not stand down law in Florida.  The idea that you have a law where you can start something and then claim self defense is absurd.  I mean following this logic: If a small man wants to kill a big man, all he has to do is provoke the big guy, gets hit in the face, claims that he fears for his life, and fires his gun.  Once he got hit by a big guy, it is reasonable that he feels scared for his life.  In fact, what would have happened if Martin had a gun when Zimmerman approached him.  Martin could have claimed that as a black man walking in a white neighborhood he felt his life was in danger when a white man approached him for no reason.  Would Martin have been justified if he shot Zimmerman? 

As I have said before, if Zimmerman was not carrying a gun, he would not have approached Martin.  He would have waited for the police.  Pro gun people believe that guns and self defense laws will save innocent people from danger.  But in this case, Zimmerman was never in any danger.  But an innocent man did die because Zimmerman had a gun.  Ultimately the so called innocent people like Zimmerman will not be safe with a gun and a law backing him.  Once REAL criminals, not a guy just walking down the street, realize that there are regular people carrying guns out there, they will up the ante and carry ak47s.  They may even shoot first before committing the crime.  Worse yet, an innocent person like Martin may walk the streets carrying guns himself.  He may shoot first and talk later.  So eventually we will have "non-criminals" shooting at each other.  It will be the wild wild west again.  So are we an advanced civilization or not?

Will the justice dept. file civil right charges against Zimmerman?  They may do it due to political pressure but I don't think they have a good case.  It is not clear at all that Zimmerman approached Martin because he was black.  This is not like the Vincent Chin case where the killer hurled racial slurs at Chin prior to killing him.  Even that conviction never led to jail time for the killers.  So I don't think Zimmerman will go to jail for Martin's death.  A civil lawsuit will probably successful but the family only can win money from Zimmerman.  It is likely Zimmerman will declare bankruptcy and avoid paying much.  It seems that they should have charged Zimmerman with harassing Martin which would be a no doubter.  Maybe it would not mean much jail time but Zimmerman should have been found guilty of at least harassment.

This is a tragedy and will be repeated in the future unless these so called stand down laws are repealed.  These laws violate the spirit of self defense and lead people to confrontations instead of avoiding confrontations.  The same with the right to carry guns for "protection".  It leads to more unnecessary confrontations and as a result avoidable tragedies.

Dwight Howard chooses Houston over LA.  Not a surprise here as the Lakers are only going to be older next year whereas Houston was going to improve even without Howard as their main guys are all young and have not peak yet.  Don't hand the Rockets the trophy yet though.  I think that they are only going to be #4 in the west.   I think the Clippers, Thunder and Spurs are going to finish ahead of them as I think it will take at least a year for them to jell.  While the Spurs are eventually going to be too old, the Clippers and Thunder are just about as young as the Rockets.  How each team improve will determine who will be the king of the west.  Then, they have to beat the heat and possibly Nets.  So yes, Howard will help the Rockets, particularly on defense, but it is no sure thing that Howard will get his ring in Houston.

So what about Jeremy Lin?  I think it will be better for his career if he is traded.  But that will be hard to do as his contract kicks in big time after next season.  Who wants to pay him 10 million in 2014-15?  If he stays in Houston his role may diminish next season and he won't be able to develop to his capability.  Lets face it, Houston's offense this past season consists of fast breaks, quick 3 pt shots and failing that, Harden drives the lane.  In the half court, Lin stands to the side as the other 3 players while Harden shoots the 3, drives to draw a foul or drives and kicks out to a 3 pt shooter.  Lin's ability to run the pick and roll is of no use when Harden is on the court.  That is why the best game Lin played last year was when Harden was out and Lin scored 38 against the Spurs.  With Howard there Harden will give it up some to Howard inside, but that means even less touches for everyone else, including Lin.

There is talk that Houston is better off with Patrick Beverly as point guard.  Well, if it is the Harden, Howard show then it does not matter who is the point guard anyway.  But Beverly is not as good as Lin if Harden is out.  Beverly will NEVER get you 30 points in any game.  He is a great hustler and is a good backup.  But even his defense, which everyone consider better than Lin, is not as good as it appears.  Remember, Lin plays against the starting point guards like Chris Paul, Russell Westbrooke and Tony Parker whereas Beverly comes in against back ups so he is going to look better in comparison.  In fact, if Houston does not make any more trades, I think it would be better for Lin to come off the bench.  That way, he will run the offense when Harden is out and is going against backups.  He will save energy as Beverly will chase people like Parker.  Lin's total will be down but his points and assists per 48 minutes will increase.  He will actually get more chance to run the team.  There is no shame to be a 6th man, just ask Ginobili, and Jason Terry.