Karl Rove said that Hillary Clinton may have brain damage from an injury.   He defended himself by saying that a presidential candidate's health should be under scrutiny.  He is right about that but Clinton has not declared her candidacy.  I mean, are we going to make Chris Christie's obesity an issue now before he is a candidate?  At least Chrisitie is in office right now.  Clinton is a private citizen.  This sort of attack may fire up the base but to independents it seems like Rove is scared that Clinton will be the nominee.  If Clinton does have brain damage why would Rove be scared that she runs?  You mean your candidate, whoever he or she will be, cannot beat a brain damaged person?  If she is incapable of being the president, it will come out in the campaign.  She may get herself disqualified by, for example, not remembering which 3 cabinets she would get rid of if she becomes president.  So by attacking Clinton now, Rove just makes himself look scared of Clinton.

I predict that Amy will win DWTS.  I would agree that Davis is the best dancer left but I think the difference in skill is so small between the two that Amy will overcome that with the voting.

The movie about Dan the Korean adoptee is now on YouTube.  Look for aka Dan on YouTube.  The movie is broken down into 7 segments of about 15 minutes each so there is interruption with the flow as you click for the next segment.  There is also some repeated scenes.  But the excellence of the movie makes these minor annoyances irrelevant.  Please be sure to check it out.

There is an Indian-American running for governor here in California.  His name is Neel Kashkari.  He has no chance of winning because the latest poll shows that he is only favored by 2% of the voters vs Jerry Brown who has 47%.  He even trails another Republican, Tim Donnelly, whohas 10%.  Even though he has no chance of winning and based on what I read, I don't agree with him on several topics, I will keep an eye on him.  This is due to the fact he is an unusual candidate and I want to see if his unorthodox candidacy can at least beat his Republican opponent in the primary and give Brown a run in the general election.

First of all, Kashkari has never run for office, so he is not a career politician.  Despite not known by the electorate, he is endorsed by the likes of former governor Pete Wilson, Congressman Darrell Issa and Mitt Romney.  Trained as a mechanical engineer, he eventually got his MBA and a job at Goldman Sachs.  It was at Sachs that he worked under former Treasury secretary Hank Paulson.  Paulson tabbed Kashkari to be in charge of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in 2008.  A life long Republican, he voted for Obama in 2008 and stayed at the helm of TARP after Obama took office.  He left to work for Pimco in 2009.  He voted for Romney in 2012.

I find Kashkari's story interesting because he uses his work at TARP on his resume as a badge of honor.  His Republican opponent, of course, says that no Republican should vote for someone in charge of TARP and voted for Obama.  Most Republicans have accused Obama as a socialist for TARP, not mentioning that it was Paulson's idea under Bush that TARP got started and it was run by a Republican even when Obama took over.  Many Republicans say TARP was a waste of tax payer's money.  But now a Republican running for office with backing of moderate Republicans, is saying that TARP saved the financial market.  There is argument on both sides but if Kashkari beats Donnelly, will other Republicans support Kaahkari?

The other thing about Kashkari is that, unlike most politicians, he does not speak in vague terms.  He has already written what he would do if he was governor.  Now I don't agree on some of the things he say such as no raising of the minimum wage and no corporate income tax for 10 years for any company that move to Californiia. But he isputting it out there for discussion as oppose to someone who says:  "I am going to create jobs".  Kashkari also does not mince words.  He told a mix crowd at Berkeley that reversing the ban on affirmative action as advocated by Democrats is just a way of saying there are too many Asians at Berkeley.  He is not afraid of being politically incorrect.

So he has a lot of people on both Republican and Democratic sides mad at him.  By the way, his remark about not raising the minimum wage came right after Romney said that it is reasonable to raise the minimum wage.  So Kashkari is not afraid to antagonize one of his own big name supporters.  So to sum up, he has no chance of winning.  But I am hoping he will have a decent showing even though I am not sure if I would vote for him.  But having both sides attack him while bring concrete ideas for discussion, makes Kashkari a candidate that I am interested in following.

This past week Neal Rubin of the Detroit News tried to rewrite history.  He published an article on the 1982 case of the killing of Vincent Chin.  To summarize the case:  Chin was having a bachelor party at a strip joint when two unemployed auto workers, mistaking Chin to be Japanese, hurled racial epithets at him.  A fight ensued but was broken up.  All involved were thrown out of the bar.  The killers, Ebens and Nitz then got a bat out of their car, hunted Chin down the street and beat him to death.  For this murder, the killers were given probation, no jail time.  The case pulled the small Asian community of Detroit together to protest.  It drew national attention but the fact remains that these two killers got away with murder.

Now for unknown reason, Rubin claims evidence show that Chin is partially at fault by throwing the first punch.  This is a complete lack of logic.  Not only has Rubin failed to prove who started the fight, it is absurd to assign fault to the victim in this case.  Let's say a slur was aimed at that person's race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, would it not be reasonable for that person to stand up for himself?  It would be totally understandable that a black, Latino, Jewish or gay person may throw the first punch in this situation. Sure, a monk may not respond to a slur but I would think that no monk would be in a strip joint.  So if you are calling someone names in a bar, aren't you the one looking for trouble in the first place?  But let say Chin started the fight, it does not matter when it comes to assigning blame because that fight in the bar was OVER when they were kicked out.  If Chin had gotten hit, fell and hit his head and died in the bar, one can argue that accidents happen in a bar fight.  But the truth, and nobody disputed this:  Ebens and Nitz had time to cool off after leaving the bar but they chose to get the bat and hunt Chin down.  A lot of time had passed for them to change their mind but they chose to use a weapon!  So this was pure murder and you can't rewrite such history.  Chin is being slurred once again 32 years later.

The Chin case mobilized the Asian community.  We were not successful in getting justice for Chin then.  But we are a bigger and stronger community now.  We cannot let anyone insult us in the media today.  The Chin case has mobilized us again 32 years later. We have way more economic power today than 32 years ago.  If we get no apology from Rubin or the Detroit News, it is time to plan economic boycott and other pressures against them.

Well, Donald Sterling deserves a blog post of his own instead of being a comment from the Bundy post.  So here it goes.  I know I always say innocent until proven guilty.  But if he is not the guy in the tape, then why isn't he denying it?  So I think he is the one on the tape and the NBA investigation should not take any time longer than asking Sterling if he has any defensive statement.

I never liked Sterling.  He is one of those guys that tries to buy fame and accolades with money.  At least once a month he takes out a full page ad in the LA Times blowing his own horn about charity giving.  He would "honor" people for their charity work with galas but at the same time implying how much his foundation is helping these people.  Ironically plenty of minorities are featured in these galas including Magic and other black athletes.  So I don't know why Sterling would tell his mistress not to associate with blacks since he associates with them to make himself look good.  Various charities and famous people are happy to be featured in his ads because I believe that he showers them with money.  In a couple of weeks, the NAACP was scheduled to give Sterling a life time achievement award!

As I said before, when someone is successful in business or something else, it does not make him smart or a good person.  You can't buy everything, specially respect.  Old rich guys have trophy wives.  In this case, a trophy mistress.  But like any trophy, if you buy it, it is meaningless.  In fact people laugh behind your back because that young woman is just taking your money and making you look like an old fool.  It is like buying a tennis trophy.  Nobody will think that you are good in tennis, just that you are shameless.

Back to racism.  Sterling had been sued by minorities in the past for not renting his apartments to them.  So he may be a racist.  But then he was sued for racial and age discrimination by former Clipper GM Elgin Baylor.  That suit was tossed and rightly so.  Baylor had like 20 years at the helm and the entire time the Clippers were the laughing stock of the NBA.  Any owner would have fired him a long time ago.  If Sterling is a racist, why was he so loyal to Baylor?  And what about all those black leaders, including NAACP and Magic.  Didn't they have a clue that Sterling was a racist all those years?  Or did money kept these people from saying anything until this episode goes public and all these people had to express shock and outrage?

Finally, why was there even a talk of Clippers boycotting the game yesterday?  How is forfeiting going to help?  These players are paid millions to represent the team and the city, not to represent Sterling.  How would disappointing the fans help?  I was angry at some pundits, mostly white, who said that the Clippers played poorly yesterday because they were distracted or down emotionally.  Come on, if someone in the family died, I can see a player would be affected.  Racist comments from an 80 year old is going to affect a pro player?  I would have used it as a motivation to play better!

The NBA, I don't think, can make Sterling sell the team.  They can suspend him.  But so what?  He is not running the team anyway.  The only thing that can hurt him is to fine him, say a million.  This should be used in a charity to improve race relations.  Money can't buy respect and it won't make people's impression of Sterling any better.   But at least it will get him out of the news. 

Cliven Bundy is the guy in Nevada whom the government accused of owing one million dollars in fees for cattle grazing on public land.  The government decided to sent armed federal agents to roundup Bundy's cattle.  This made a lot of people angry because they think it is government bullying the little guy.  So bunch of people showed up with guns to protect Bundy from the government.  Not wanting to escalate this into another Waco, the government has backed off.  After becoming a hero among conservative politicians and pundits, Bundy goes off and started saying things like black people are better off being slaves than being on welfare.  These remarks made him toxic to the conservative movements and people like Rand Paul are quickly distancing themselves from him.  There are still a lot of people with guns protecting Bundy at his home right now.

First, the government could have handled this a lot better.  Have they not arrested people for not paying before?  And the one million dollars may not be accurate since I don't see why they let that much accumulate before showing up.  I mean, I am sure the IRS will not let me accumulate a million in back taxes before coming after me.  But in any case, why does this guy thinks that he should be able to feed his cattle for free?  And all those people who are supporting him, don't some of them own businesses?  And how would these business owners feel if their competitors got free resources from the government to compete against them? That would be a government over reach, wouldn't it?  By grazing for free, wouldn't Bundy be getting welfare from the government?  Why are people like Rand Paul not against this type of welfare in the first place?

I am not labeling Bundy a racist yet.  He is obviously wrong to say slavery is better than being on welfare.  I mean, if he loses in court, he will find out first hand that welfare is a lot better than slavery.  He will lose his free grazing land which was essentially welfare to boost his income and then he will have to pay the government money so he may be working for nothing which is similar to slavery. 

I won't label Bundy a racist until I have info about how he treats people of other races.  I know of people who treat others equally without regard to race but are outspoken about government policies such as welfare.  I do agree with them on some issues.  For example, single mothers get more money than  those who are married with the same number of children.  This encourages parents not to get married or get divorced if they are married.  This is unhealthy for the family and the community.  It is possible that Bundy only meant to criticize certainly policies but at the same time treats everybody equally.  He may just have a problem expressing himself.  I am not betting on this but innocent until proven guilty, right?

I am sure there will be more debates on Bundy but I am sure that Bundy is happy that Donald Sterling is replacing him in the news!  More on that one after I get more info.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.