Pro Russian groups have taken over government buildings in eastern Ukraine. Russian forces are lined up on the border of eastern Ukraine. What will Russia do next? Will Ukraine fight? What should the U.S. do? I don't know is my answer for the first 2 questions. My answer to the third depends how the Russians and the Ukrainians answer the first two.
My feeling is that Putin himself does not know the answer to the first question. Having aroused nationalism to make himself more popular at home he is painting himself into a corner. Any mistake by the rebels or the Ukrainians can spark a civil war and cause Russia to get involved. Is that what Putin really want? If it is, our answer should be swift. No military forces from us but arms and economic aid to Ukraine that will make Putin's life miserable. It will be his Vietnam and Afghanistan. The Russians helped the Viet Cong against the U.S. and we helped the Mujahideen against the USSR without actually sending troops. We must make it clear to Putin that if Russia invades Ukraine the end result will be like our result in Vietnam and their result in Afghanistan.
Will the Ukraine fight? Well if they don't and is willing to give up the part of the country that is Russian majority, then why should we get involved? But if they want to preserve the integrity of their country then we should help them. This was all instigated by Russia and we cannot have another country helping an ethnic group partition a nation. It would be like Mexico helping Mexican Americans take over California. But it all depends on Ukraine willing to fight long and hard to turn back the Russians by attrition. So answer to question 3 depends on answers to 1 and 2.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Sunday, April 13, 2014
With Jeremy Lin there are supporters who think that he is a greater point guard than Magic or Nash if only given a chance. Then there are detractors who think that he does not belong in the league. So I decide to look at the starting point guards in the NBA and decide where Lin fits in.
First I will admit that I am a Lin fan although I think Linsanity was a fluke and cannot be repeated. I do believe that he is not in a situation where he can possibly flourish. Houston's offense is run by Harden who holds the ball for 10 seconds and then either drive, put up a 3 pointer or passes with only a few seconds left. Lin is standing by the corner and is not involved most of the time and then is expected to hit a 3 with seconds left while in no rhythm. Look, all NBA players especially point guards, are good players. But no point guard can play well if his quickness and passing ability are not utilized. While Harden has won games with his individual skills, he also has lost them by not playing team ball. The Rockets actually have a higher win percentage without him this season, although it is a small sample.
There are some guards that I think has about the same ability as Lin but are given the control of their teams' offense and thus have better stats. John Walls was a former #1 draft choice the same year Lin came out. From the first summer league on Lin has outplayed Walls. But given the starting job in Washington and confidence of his coaches, Walls has become an all star this season. I think Lin can do the same given the same situation. Goran Dragic is even better than Walls this season. Dragic has a better shot than Lin but he is not as fast and I believe worse on defense. Dragic has been in the league longer and was learning from Nash when he came into the league. So I think if Lin was in the same offense as Dragic in Phoenix in a year or so, he can be just as effective.
The point guards that are better than Lin are Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Russell Westbrook and a healthy Derrick Rose. Also Kyrie Irving and Damien Lillard, given their young age, will be better than Lin even in the future. I would say that I would not take Deron Williams and Rondo over Lin because I think they are on the down sides of their career. There are several others that I can see where someone would argue they are better than Lin under any circumstance. I would only say those players maybe better than Lin but to me it is not definite.
So the bottom line: I hope Lin gets traded to a system where he can run the pick and roll like D' Antonio did in NY. Houston, despite having Howard, rarely give Lin a chance to run the pick and roll. He will never flourish under McHale's system. But if he goes to the right system, even if we don't get Linsanity 2, Lin can be an upper echelon NBA player.
First I will admit that I am a Lin fan although I think Linsanity was a fluke and cannot be repeated. I do believe that he is not in a situation where he can possibly flourish. Houston's offense is run by Harden who holds the ball for 10 seconds and then either drive, put up a 3 pointer or passes with only a few seconds left. Lin is standing by the corner and is not involved most of the time and then is expected to hit a 3 with seconds left while in no rhythm. Look, all NBA players especially point guards, are good players. But no point guard can play well if his quickness and passing ability are not utilized. While Harden has won games with his individual skills, he also has lost them by not playing team ball. The Rockets actually have a higher win percentage without him this season, although it is a small sample.
There are some guards that I think has about the same ability as Lin but are given the control of their teams' offense and thus have better stats. John Walls was a former #1 draft choice the same year Lin came out. From the first summer league on Lin has outplayed Walls. But given the starting job in Washington and confidence of his coaches, Walls has become an all star this season. I think Lin can do the same given the same situation. Goran Dragic is even better than Walls this season. Dragic has a better shot than Lin but he is not as fast and I believe worse on defense. Dragic has been in the league longer and was learning from Nash when he came into the league. So I think if Lin was in the same offense as Dragic in Phoenix in a year or so, he can be just as effective.
The point guards that are better than Lin are Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Russell Westbrook and a healthy Derrick Rose. Also Kyrie Irving and Damien Lillard, given their young age, will be better than Lin even in the future. I would say that I would not take Deron Williams and Rondo over Lin because I think they are on the down sides of their career. There are several others that I can see where someone would argue they are better than Lin under any circumstance. I would only say those players maybe better than Lin but to me it is not definite.
So the bottom line: I hope Lin gets traded to a system where he can run the pick and roll like D' Antonio did in NY. Houston, despite having Howard, rarely give Lin a chance to run the pick and roll. He will never flourish under McHale's system. But if he goes to the right system, even if we don't get Linsanity 2, Lin can be an upper echelon NBA player.
Wednesday, April 09, 2014
Couple of items in the news caught my attention. First Jeb Bush defends those who crosses the border illegally to work, calling it an act of love to provide for their children. I agree. If China was next to the U.S., my parents would have crossed over well before getting their green cards. But I guess Jeb Bush is NOT trying to get the Republican nomination for president in 2016!
The Supreme court refuses to hear an appeal from a photographer from New Mexico who was cited for refusing to photograph gay weddings. I agree with the ruling but does it really matter? I mean, which gay couple will be dumb enough to hire this person for their wedding? Do they really want their wedding pictures upside down or totally blurred? It is like the court compelling a racist surgeon to operate on me. Thanks but no thanks!
In regard to DWTS, apparently we have a big fan in LBOAYM! I agree that Davis and White are clear favorites. For the other contestants it must feel like the two players who drew Ken Jennings in Jeopardy's Battle of the Decades. You know you have no chance. The only way to beat Davis and White would be to get scores close to perfect and then have more fans' votes than Davis and White. There are a few who may get 27-30 scores but I think of those only the handicap woman may get more votes than Davis and White. Davis does have an edge over White because I believe a woman "amateur" have an edge over a man "amateur" since she does not have to lead.
The Supreme court refuses to hear an appeal from a photographer from New Mexico who was cited for refusing to photograph gay weddings. I agree with the ruling but does it really matter? I mean, which gay couple will be dumb enough to hire this person for their wedding? Do they really want their wedding pictures upside down or totally blurred? It is like the court compelling a racist surgeon to operate on me. Thanks but no thanks!
In regard to DWTS, apparently we have a big fan in LBOAYM! I agree that Davis and White are clear favorites. For the other contestants it must feel like the two players who drew Ken Jennings in Jeopardy's Battle of the Decades. You know you have no chance. The only way to beat Davis and White would be to get scores close to perfect and then have more fans' votes than Davis and White. There are a few who may get 27-30 scores but I think of those only the handicap woman may get more votes than Davis and White. Davis does have an edge over White because I believe a woman "amateur" have an edge over a man "amateur" since she does not have to lead.
Sunday, April 06, 2014
Good news! The Georgia legislature has passed a bill allowing possession of guns in places like churches, airports and government buildings. This will make us all safer in Georgia according to the bill's supporters. What better way to celebrate our heritage than to go back to our wild wild west where every cowboy carried a gun. Just ask the Indians how safe they felt.
I say the law does not go far enough. For example, at airports and government buildings you can only have guns up to security check points. If carrying guns make us safer, why do we even have check points? Why should our second amendment rights be abolished at a check point? If we can stop crimes with our guns outside, why can't we stop terrorists inside the airport with our guns? I am sure someone like George Zimmerman will protect us by going up to a real terrorist, question him, and then shoot the terrorist in self defense. If he did not have a gun, I am sure Zimmerman will not be so brave as to go up to someone so dangerous. So let people like Zimmerman and the ex-policeman, who shot someone in a theater for criminally talking on the cell phone, carry guns to protect all of us.
Lastly, why do they have check points at the Georgia legislature building? Why can't someone go into the Georgia legislature chamber with a gun? You never know if some bad guy may be in the audience and is upset about the debate on the floor and decide to attack the legislators. With good guys in the audience with guns, this type of violence will be stopped right away. So no metal detectors inside the Georgia legislature!
I say the law does not go far enough. For example, at airports and government buildings you can only have guns up to security check points. If carrying guns make us safer, why do we even have check points? Why should our second amendment rights be abolished at a check point? If we can stop crimes with our guns outside, why can't we stop terrorists inside the airport with our guns? I am sure someone like George Zimmerman will protect us by going up to a real terrorist, question him, and then shoot the terrorist in self defense. If he did not have a gun, I am sure Zimmerman will not be so brave as to go up to someone so dangerous. So let people like Zimmerman and the ex-policeman, who shot someone in a theater for criminally talking on the cell phone, carry guns to protect all of us.
Lastly, why do they have check points at the Georgia legislature building? Why can't someone go into the Georgia legislature chamber with a gun? You never know if some bad guy may be in the audience and is upset about the debate on the floor and decide to attack the legislators. With good guys in the audience with guns, this type of violence will be stopped right away. So no metal detectors inside the Georgia legislature!
Sunday, March 30, 2014
The LA Times editorial recently called out three Asian American California state senators for backing out of their support for repealing prop 209 which banned affirmative action. Supposedly the three liberal Democrats withdrew their support because they received "thousands" of complaints from Asian Americans fearing that the repeal will decrease Asian American enrollments at Berkeley and UCLA. The Times said that the debate should be about whether diversity in universities is a benefit and not whether a particular group gain or lose acceptance letters.
First, I would agree that we should argue whether diversity is important enough to justify racial and "gender" bias. By the way, if prop 209 is repealed, then gender affirmative action can also be used. In that case, it would benefit males as they represent less that 45% of the enrollments at Berkeley and UCLA. I would like to see what liberal female groups think about that! But by singling out selfish desires of Asian Americans, the Times is being dishonest. I am sure that Latino and Black groups who want affirmative action are not doing so because of diversity but because they want increase in enrollment of their own group. If these groups and liberal whites believe diversity is that important then they should have complained about black colleges and women colleges. Would they come out and say the students in these colleges receive an inferior education due to lack of diversity? Anyway, I would submit that Berkeley and UCLA is more diverse as it is compared to most elite colleges. Its white enrollment is less than 40% compare to some famous liberal art colleges that are 70% plus white. Asian Americans ARE a diverse group. There are big difference between East Asians, South Asians, South East Asians, Pacific Islanders etc. They are also diverse in socio-economic status, immigration history and religious preferences. They are also diverse in conservative and liberal ideology. I would argue that a political science student at UCLA would have a more diverse experience than someone at Howard or Amherst.
I do believe that the playing field is not level. Kids who go to private schools and have SAT tutoring have big advantage over poor kids. So to me using affirmative action due to socio-economic status is fair. A kid who came from a poor family and went to a bad school, regardless of race, should be given extra points against my kids when applying to college. But Obama's kids should not have an advantage against my kids just because their parents are black. I am sure the president would agree with that.
An aside, MSU and Michigan put up good fights. The Big Ten could have easily gotten 3 of the final 4 spots.
First, I would agree that we should argue whether diversity is important enough to justify racial and "gender" bias. By the way, if prop 209 is repealed, then gender affirmative action can also be used. In that case, it would benefit males as they represent less that 45% of the enrollments at Berkeley and UCLA. I would like to see what liberal female groups think about that! But by singling out selfish desires of Asian Americans, the Times is being dishonest. I am sure that Latino and Black groups who want affirmative action are not doing so because of diversity but because they want increase in enrollment of their own group. If these groups and liberal whites believe diversity is that important then they should have complained about black colleges and women colleges. Would they come out and say the students in these colleges receive an inferior education due to lack of diversity? Anyway, I would submit that Berkeley and UCLA is more diverse as it is compared to most elite colleges. Its white enrollment is less than 40% compare to some famous liberal art colleges that are 70% plus white. Asian Americans ARE a diverse group. There are big difference between East Asians, South Asians, South East Asians, Pacific Islanders etc. They are also diverse in socio-economic status, immigration history and religious preferences. They are also diverse in conservative and liberal ideology. I would argue that a political science student at UCLA would have a more diverse experience than someone at Howard or Amherst.
I do believe that the playing field is not level. Kids who go to private schools and have SAT tutoring have big advantage over poor kids. So to me using affirmative action due to socio-economic status is fair. A kid who came from a poor family and went to a bad school, regardless of race, should be given extra points against my kids when applying to college. But Obama's kids should not have an advantage against my kids just because their parents are black. I am sure the president would agree with that.
An aside, MSU and Michigan put up good fights. The Big Ten could have easily gotten 3 of the final 4 spots.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Back to the serious problem in Ukraine. Not surprisingly Russia has taken over the Crimea as expected. There are people, including some of my friends, who think that the problem is Putin is a stronger leader than Obama. One person even said that Obama should have sent warships and aircraft carrier into the Black Sea from the beginning. He thinks that it is the inaction of the U.S. in Syria that emboldens the Russians. I need to remind these people that in 2008 after we have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, showing the might of the U.S. military, the Russians invaded Georgia. And I do not remember that Bush sent troops to fight the Russians then. The truth is that even though we are really the only super power in the world, we cannot and should not, be the policeman of the world. Ukraine and Georgia are too close to Russia for us to intervene. I am sure if we decide to invade Cuba, the Russians will not be able to do anything militarily either.
The question is will Putin stop at Crimea or will he take parts of Ukraine and eventually advance to eastern Europe. I believe the answer is no. Crimea is majority Russian. Even if there was no election fraud, the majority would have voted to go back to Russia. I think Putin may go into eastern Ukraine only if there was provocation, giving him an excuse. There is no chance that he can take Ukraine whole and it would be dumb for him to try. And he would be committing suicide if he tries to take Poland, for example. Unlike my friend who thinks that Putin dreams of a new Soviet Union, I think Putin just wants to put a stop to the expansion of the European Union into former Soviet territories. But by trying to stop this expansion by force as in Crimea, Putin will pay a price. Even China refuses to back him. Russia will be hurt economically as well as politically. More eastern European nations will turn more west and away from Russia as a result of this and Putin will not be able to stop the trend.
The question is will Putin stop at Crimea or will he take parts of Ukraine and eventually advance to eastern Europe. I believe the answer is no. Crimea is majority Russian. Even if there was no election fraud, the majority would have voted to go back to Russia. I think Putin may go into eastern Ukraine only if there was provocation, giving him an excuse. There is no chance that he can take Ukraine whole and it would be dumb for him to try. And he would be committing suicide if he tries to take Poland, for example. Unlike my friend who thinks that Putin dreams of a new Soviet Union, I think Putin just wants to put a stop to the expansion of the European Union into former Soviet territories. But by trying to stop this expansion by force as in Crimea, Putin will pay a price. Even China refuses to back him. Russia will be hurt economically as well as politically. More eastern European nations will turn more west and away from Russia as a result of this and Putin will not be able to stop the trend.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Missed Jeopardy today and found out Arthur Chu lost! I understand he lost big on the daily double. So all the complaints about his strategy of getting the daily doubles are nonsense. If you can't come up with the correct answer, then the strategy actually hurts you. I understand that a graduate student from Ann Arbor beat him. So Michigan may not win so much in football anymore but we dominate in ice dancing and jeopardy!
Chu said that the 12 games were taped over 3 days back in November. So stamina and consistency are almost as important as knowledge and quickness. It makes the absurd streak of, I think, 74 games by Ken Jennings so much more impressive!
Chu said that the 12 games were taped over 3 days back in November. So stamina and consistency are almost as important as knowledge and quickness. It makes the absurd streak of, I think, 74 games by Ken Jennings so much more impressive!
Thursday, March 06, 2014
Hilary Clinton is calling Putin's invasion of Crimea similar to Hitler because in both cases the excuse was to protect their own people. Of course this is a hyperbole because Nazi Germany was capable of invading all the countries around it while Russia, even if successful in Crimea, will not be able to push westward. Sure, Russia is still powerful militarily but it has shown an inability to defeat even weak opponents and then occupy their territories. Witness their debacle in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Able to push toward Poland, Romania etc? I don't think so. The occupation of Crimea will be a bad move for Russia. It will make Russia even more despised in the former Warsaw Pact nations. Russia's influence, which is what Putin tried to increase by propping up Ukraine's pro Russia factions, will decrease with this strategic error.
Having said that the situation is still very uncomfortable for the Ukraine people. You can never know exactly what a powerful dictator next door will do next. Without any military options, the U.S. and Europe are promising billions to Ukraine to help it get out of its debts and make the pro western government more popular in eastern part of the country. But most of the debts that Ukraine owe is to Russia. So if you give Ukraine money, wouldn't the Russians indirectly benefits? I say hold the money but have the Ukraine offer to sell Crimea to Russia. This is a way to save face for both sides. Ukraine will not have surrender Crimea due to force. Russia will get Crimea, which it had given to Ukraine years ago, back without firing a shot. This way Russia can say that it only wants to acquire Crimea back to protect the majority Russians living there and was not being the aggressor. Ukraine gets rid of an area where their people are a minority without suffering any humiliation of defeat. Win win for both sides and the U.S.
I am under no illusion that the above will be accepted by both sides. But the idea here is that conflicts occur often not because someone really needs a land but usually because both sides are too macho to back down. Once Putin made the decision to put soldiers into Crimea, he can't just back down even if he has no intention of expanding toward western Europe. The Ukrainians don't want to give up Crimea because that will make them look weak, even if Crimea is not that important to leaders in Kiev. But the longer the stalemate, the longer someone, maybe just a soldier, will make a mistake and ignite a war. All those tough, empty threats coming out of politicians in Washington are not going to help but can also escalate the conflict. So the best solution is that someone will need to find a way for both sides, particularly Putin, to save face. I put up one idea, anyone else has a better one?
Having said that the situation is still very uncomfortable for the Ukraine people. You can never know exactly what a powerful dictator next door will do next. Without any military options, the U.S. and Europe are promising billions to Ukraine to help it get out of its debts and make the pro western government more popular in eastern part of the country. But most of the debts that Ukraine owe is to Russia. So if you give Ukraine money, wouldn't the Russians indirectly benefits? I say hold the money but have the Ukraine offer to sell Crimea to Russia. This is a way to save face for both sides. Ukraine will not have surrender Crimea due to force. Russia will get Crimea, which it had given to Ukraine years ago, back without firing a shot. This way Russia can say that it only wants to acquire Crimea back to protect the majority Russians living there and was not being the aggressor. Ukraine gets rid of an area where their people are a minority without suffering any humiliation of defeat. Win win for both sides and the U.S.
I am under no illusion that the above will be accepted by both sides. But the idea here is that conflicts occur often not because someone really needs a land but usually because both sides are too macho to back down. Once Putin made the decision to put soldiers into Crimea, he can't just back down even if he has no intention of expanding toward western Europe. The Ukrainians don't want to give up Crimea because that will make them look weak, even if Crimea is not that important to leaders in Kiev. But the longer the stalemate, the longer someone, maybe just a soldier, will make a mistake and ignite a war. All those tough, empty threats coming out of politicians in Washington are not going to help but can also escalate the conflict. So the best solution is that someone will need to find a way for both sides, particularly Putin, to save face. I put up one idea, anyone else has a better one?
Saturday, March 01, 2014
Came across several articles about Jeopardy champ Arthur Chu last week and decided to watch Jeopardy for the first time in years to see for myself. Chu has been criticized for "gaming" the system by jumping from one category to another and not going from lower value clues to higher value clues in that order. This was supposedly to find the daily doubles before the other contestants and thus pile up the score. From what I read, I don't see anything wrong with these strategies. He was also called obnoxious and arrogant and for that I had to see for myself.
In the five games I watched, I can't see anything he did on the show that was improper other than could have dressed better and get a better hair cut. And if those criteria make a bad contestant then many went before him were just as guilty. As for his strategies, none are new. My all time favorite Chuck Forrest started jumping around in the 1980s and he is considered one of the all time greats of this game. The bottom line is: Chu wins because he is quicker on the buzzer and knows more trivia than his opponents so far. If he had just gone down each row in order, he would have won all these games anyway. No less authority than Forrest, Ken Jennings, and Alex Trebek have come out and say that Chu plays the game right.
So is all these internet hate Chu gets due to racism. I do not think it is 100% because some are due to old Jeopardy fans who like the tradition of slow play going down each row in order. Some fans also like to play along and Chu's quick style may not be to their liking. But there are many mean spirited criticisms of Chu that obviously are race related. Chu takes the high road but he answers those mean spirited people with humor. Read Jennings' interview with him on the internet and you will find an articulate man with very good insight about society in general. He is certainly not a nerd who sits in the basement memorizing trivia. So I salute him not just as a great Jeopardy champion but a great human being with a great perspective about life.
In the five games I watched, I can't see anything he did on the show that was improper other than could have dressed better and get a better hair cut. And if those criteria make a bad contestant then many went before him were just as guilty. As for his strategies, none are new. My all time favorite Chuck Forrest started jumping around in the 1980s and he is considered one of the all time greats of this game. The bottom line is: Chu wins because he is quicker on the buzzer and knows more trivia than his opponents so far. If he had just gone down each row in order, he would have won all these games anyway. No less authority than Forrest, Ken Jennings, and Alex Trebek have come out and say that Chu plays the game right.
So is all these internet hate Chu gets due to racism. I do not think it is 100% because some are due to old Jeopardy fans who like the tradition of slow play going down each row in order. Some fans also like to play along and Chu's quick style may not be to their liking. But there are many mean spirited criticisms of Chu that obviously are race related. Chu takes the high road but he answers those mean spirited people with humor. Read Jennings' interview with him on the internet and you will find an articulate man with very good insight about society in general. He is certainly not a nerd who sits in the basement memorizing trivia. So I salute him not just as a great Jeopardy champion but a great human being with a great perspective about life.