The first GOP debate is next month.  It will be on Fox News and Fox is limiting it to the top 10 candidates in the polls.  I agree that 16 people on stage is to unruly.  Viewers will have trouble remembering who said what.  I think 10 is even too many. I would have gone a different and do what European soccer has done for decades:  multiple divisions.

I would use the polls just like Fox is doing and also what the BCS had been doing.  I would have the 1 to 4 debate at Fox, 5-8 at CNN, 9-12 at MSNBC, and 13-16 at C-SPAN.  The top three divisions can rotate for the second and third debate alas college football style.  C-Span is the minor bowl.  By the four debate there should be less than 12 left and we can regroup.  But after each of the first debate the grouping maybe different as the poll result maybe different.  This would be like the relegation of European soccer leagues where the top three in each division move up and the bottom three move down.  With only four players, each player can give the viewers a much better sense of their personality and ideas.  If they do well in a debate, they can move up or if they do poorly they move down.  If you have not move up to the top two division after 3 debates you are sunk anyway.

Right now with a lot of people on stage, thing can get messy.  Can you imagine Trump refusing to yield the floor and 9 guys trying to talk over him?  I would use soccer rules again where a moderator can issue a yellow card if someone refuses to stop after the whistle blows indicating time is up.  Two yellows means a red card and you are escorted off the stage.  This will insure more civility and more debates on issues rather than name calling.  Of course the GOP is not known to like international things so soccer rules may not work here.  So 15 yard penalties or 2 minutes in the penalty box may have to be used against anyone who does not behave!

The Iran nuclear deal is made.  Can it passes Congress?  Well, it won't pass but it probably will survive a veto override as I don't think the GOP can get two third majority in the Senate.  When this deal goes into effect, it will be part of Obama's legacy for years to come.  Actually, Obama has a few things that will be looked at by historians in the future.  Even though he may not leave office popular, I think history will be kind to him.

Whether you like them or not, presidents usually have at least one thing that defined their tenure.  FDR obviously had the New Deal,, Truman used the bomb, Eisenhower railed against the military industrial complex, Kennedy the Cuban missile crisis, LBJ the Great Society, Nixon the opening of China, Carter the Israel Egypt peace treaty, Reagan the fall of USSR, Bush1 the first Gulf war, Clinton the tech age, Bush II 9/11.  I think unpopular presidents like Nixon and Carter are looked upon as much better when their legacies are evaluated years later.  I think Obama will also be better in the years ahead although it is not a slam dunk.

Obamacare and getting out of the recession are controversial subjects that will be debated years from now.  Just in recent weeks, gay marriage won in the Supreme Court.  The U.S. embassy is set to reopen in Cuba and now the Iran deal.  There will be many people who are against these and will continue to think Obama is a terrible president.  Obamacare and the Iran deal still can blow up in his face.  But I think in the future gay marriage and opening of Cuba will be accepted as the norm. And there is no argument that the economy is better today than when he took office although one can argue that is not his doing.   So I think overall Obama is likely to be judged well in history.

The news about whether Greece will go bankrupt and be out of the Euro union has dominated the financial news in the past week.  But more important to world economy is what is happening in the Chinese stock market.  Will take a quick look at both situations today and I can discuss in more specific detail if anyone is interested.

So Greece needs another bail out and it tried to get the money without having more austerity measures dictated to them by other European countries, particularly Germany.  But it looks like they have no choice but to capitulate and do what other countries tell them to do in order to get more loans.  What is not clear to me is this:  after the first two bailouts, did the Greeks do the austerity measures that were demanded of them?  If they did, then obviously austerity alone is not turning around the economy and maybe a stimulus plan maybe better.  If they did not raise taxes and cut back public spending as they were obligated to do, then they need to do these things that the creditors demanded of them now. 

My feeling is that austerity alone will not be enough.  If salaries of public employees and pensions are decreased, the likely effect is that people will not be able to spend as much and thus the economy will not pick up.  Also raising tax when people have no income will not work either.  I mean, neither liberals nor conservatives in this country would recommend these two methods.  The GOP would decrease salaries and pensions but not raise taxes.  The Democrats would increase salaries and pensions and increase taxes.  So what is best for Greece?  I am not sure but I don't think the demands of the European union by themselves, even if followed precisely by Greece, will not enough.

Far more important than Greece is China in the world economy.  First of all, even though trillions of dollars of paper money was lost in the past couple of weeks in the Chinese markets, it is not as bad for China as a whole as it looks.  The Shanghai market had doubled in the past year and so even a 40% drop still leaves it with a big gain for the year.  The problem is that it was a big bubble and it drew into the market people who are totally unsophisticated to investing and those people are losing their entire life savings.  What is also troubling is that things have stabled in the last couple of days due to the intervention of the government.  If the government's efforts do not keep thing well in the long term then it will cause big problems throughout the world.  But if the government's effort are successful, then it may create a belief that the government will always bailout investors and worse bubbles are going to happen in the future.  So I don't think that what the government did in the past week are good for the long term.

The one winner out of China's problem is Hong Kong.  The HK market did not go up like the Shanghai market did in the past year but its drop was much less than those of China overall.  It shows that the HK investors are much more sophisticated and the HK market as a whole is much more mature than those of Shanghai.  It shows that while China will eventually use Shanghai as the financial center of the country, HK is still a very important part of China's financial relations with the rest of the world in the foreseeable future.

Now that the NBA season is completely over with the Warriors winning the championship, it is time to analyze the the career of Jeremy Lin as he comes to a cross road.  Three seasons removed from Linsanity, it is clear that Lin is not a super star as his admirers claimed nor is he a D league level player as his critics claim.  I believe that he is good enough to be a starter in about half the NBA teams and the first guard off the bench in the other half.  A lot depends on the system.  But that can be said about a lot of players.  Pau Gasol was not a good fit with a poor Lakers team the year before but yet is an all star with the strong Bulls this past season.

Lin's strength:  Very good at pick and roll.  Not as explosive as Westbrook but fast than most point guards in the NBA which is saying a lot.  (This was proven in an ESPN Sport Science program).  His decision making has improved thus less turnovers.  His problem in the past 3 years is that no pick and roll run for him in Houston and LA.  He is not good when told to stand in the corner while Kobe or Harden run the offense.  Scott's triangle offense is not a fit for Lin or many others.  The triangle is no good unless you have a Jordan or a young Kobe as Derek Fisher and Phil Jackson found out in New York this year.  Nobody can guard the pick and roll when there is a good point guard running it.  The only way to slow down a Chris Paul is to run pick and roll against him on offense and tire him out. Lin had to battle those fast guards on defense but since he is not allowed to attack them the same way on offense, the opposing point guard can save energy to attack Lin on offense.

This brings to my pet peeve of the criticism that Lin is a poor defender.  That is the excuse that Ronnie Price started over Lin.  Truth is Price and others like him cannot stop elite point guards either.  If he could, he would not be a journeyman his whole career.  Lin is not a stopper but he is not soft as Bryant and Scott implied at times.  Lin took more charges than anyone on the team this year.  How can Bryant call anyone soft when he never takes a charge and admitted that on record?  

While some will say that Lin's stats are getting worse each season, it is not true.  If you look at points and assists per 36 minutes, Lin has been consistent the last 3 seasons.  He scored more with New York per game but his shooting percentage from 3 point range is higher now.  He is also having a lot less turnovers.  So he is a more mature player and if he gets into the same offense as he did in New York he would do very well.  It would not be Linsanity 2, however, as teams know him a lot better and can defend him better.  But given the right situation, he can be very productive for the next five years.

So where to next?  The ideal situation would have been if Denver had hired D'Antoni who had said that he would be happy to reunite with Lin.  But Denver did not hire D'Antoni and while the new coach is said to favor a fast break offense, it is unclear if Denver will go after Lin.  There is talk of the Rockets wanting him back if they don't keep Beverly.  But will Lin want to go there and watch from the corner while Harden shoots all day?  I doubt it although that would be one place Lin can contend for a title.  Dallas and Philly maybe other possibilities but Philly may draft a point guard and groom him so Lin would not be there long.  Dallas runs a fast pace offense and if both Rondo and Ellis leave, Lin may have an opportunity to start for a decent team.  I think Lin will look for the best fit possible and is willing to take less money for that opportunity.  Hope he finds that right team.

Dennis Hastert, the former Speaker of the House, is being indicted for covering the sexual abuse of a minor while he was a wrestling coach.  So if I get this straight:  Hastert was basically the prosecutor of impeaching the president, Bill Clinton, over the Lewwinsky sexual scandal.  During his stint as Speaker, he managed to ignore Mark Foley's sexual scandal with pages.  Hastert had replaced Newt Gringich, who while was going after Clinton, had an affair while his wife was extremely ill.  After Gingrich resigned, his designated replacement, Bob Livingston, also then resigned after it was discovered that he too had an affair. Of course, Hastert was supposed to be the clean one but now turns out he was worse than them all!

As predicted the Ducks and Rangers, the top team in each conference, failed to make the Stanley Cup finals.  The Lightning made it even though they should have been eliminated in the first round by the Red Wings.  Such is the luck of the NHL playoffs!

What has happened to the Tigers?  The only team the Angels seem to be able to beat is the Tigers!  When is Verlander going to show up?  And is the real Anabel Sanchez going to show up?

On this Memorial Day everybody says thanks to the veterans who served and sacrificed for us.  It is not unusual for people who pass soldiers at airports to stop and say thanks for serving.  Sometimes we even pick up a check for a military person at a restaurant.   But I am thinking that to really honor the sacrifices of the military, we need to be sure that in the future, they are deployed for the right causes.  Afghanistan yes, Iraq no for example.

Jeb Bush took several tries in answering the question of whether he would have gone to Iraq as his brother did.  That is a question that should have been anticipated.  Yet Bush took several tries before finally saying that he would not.  In one "answer", he actually said that to ask the question was disrespecting those who served.  I think sending them to Iraq under false pretenses was way more disrespectful.  Maybe Jeb has really learn the lesson.  But apparently Rubio and Walker have not.  They are advocating more military action in the Middle East now and maybe boots on the ground.  I think they also should be asked about Iraq.  On the Democratic side, Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq war so she should be asked the question as well.

Couple days ago a coalition of more than 60 Asian American groups filed a federal complaint against Harvard over its admission policies.  The groups claim that Harvard uses quotas to keep Asian Americans students population lower than expected based on SAT scores and grades.  I think this is an old story but it is interesting that white students have bought up more suits in the past comparing to Asian Americans even though in most schools it takes a higher SAT and grades for Asian Americans to get in than whites.

I think there is no doubt that qualified Asians are getting the short end of the stick with admissions at prestigious schools like Harvard.  The people who run these schools want to show that they are committed to diversity and thus will try to do anything to make their ethnic stats look palatable.  I don't have any problem with affirmative action based on socio-economic status.  But I bet a black kid from a rich family with the same score will have a better chance to get into Harvard than an Asian kid from a poor family. 

If there is discrimination against Asians, what is the effect of this discrimination?  Well, other than loss of pride of not getting into Harvard, not much.  The truth is getting into a prestigious school or not have little effect on a person's life.  Chances are if you were qualified for Harvard but didn't get in, you will end up at a good school.  And if you do well there, your futures is bright.  This is particularly true if you are in chemistry, physics, math or engineering.  There is no affirmative action at the graduate level.  You are either good at these fields or not.  So say if you end up at your "safety" school of Michigan or UCLA and graduate with a degree in engineering, you will command a good salary or can get into a big time grad school.  Maybe that is why individual Asians don't bring suits on their own.  Might as well concentrate in studying at the college you ended up with and become successful four years later!

Just last week I was talking to my brother in law about deflategate.   I said even though the report was kind of wishy washy,  I believe that New England did deflate the balls and that Tom Brady had to know about it.  After all, the person who would benefit from this would have to be Brady.  There was no reason for the Patriots employees to do this if Brady did not want it.  So I propose that Brady be suspended for 4 games.  Today it was announced that Brady will be suspended 4 games.  There were also draft choices lost and a million dollar fine.  But obviously the most important is Brady's suspension.  I thought 4 games would be a big punishment because with no experienced back up, I think that there will be a 2-3 games swing as a result of this.  So when Brady comes back they may have a difficult time making up the standings in the remaining 12 weeks.  They may not make the playoffs as a result of this.

Having handed out the punishment I am waiting to see if they change the ball situation. Why don't they have the same balls for both teams?  Tennis players don't get to use their own balls when they serve.  Pitchers don't have their own balls to throw.  So this can easily have been prevented if both teams use the same balls.

British prime minister David Cameron's Conservative party won an unexpected majority in the national election three days ago.  Polls for several months had pointed to a close election with neither the Conservatives nor chief opposition the Labor party getting a majority.  Even though I am no expert on British politics, I am going to make a couple of observations.

Cameron won election in 2010 after the world financial crisis made it impossible for the ruling Labor party to stay in power.  Since then the UK, as the U.S., have made a good recovery.  But like the U.S., the citizens of the UK are not convinced that the recovery is fast enough or permanent.  Social unrest and terrorist threats are actually worse in Britain than the U.S.  So given that Obama's ratings have been low and the Democrats had been shellacked in the last mid term election, it would not be surprising that the Conservatives maybe in trouble. 

Of course Republicans can attack Obamacare but then the British health system is way more socialistic than Obamacare and there is no call from Cameron and conservatives to get rid of it.  I think rather than comparing to the U.S., the British election should be compared to the recent Israeli election.  That election polls also pointed to a close race with Netanyahu probably losing.  Turns out Netanyahu won despite low ratings for his economic and general performance.  Netanyahu won because of scare tactics about his opposition will be dangerous for Israel's security.  Right or wrong, this proved to have worked.

Cameron warned about Labor's close ties with Scottish separatists and the European Union.  He arouse fear about immigration problems with Labor in charge and that the UK will lose its independence to the European Union if Labor wins.  Right or wrong, this tactic also worked.

Cameron is not a conservative extremist.  He will try to keep the Scottish in the UK.  And with Scotland having had a negative vote on independence last year, he can easily decline to have another referendum in the near future.  He has promised a vote on staying in the European Union by 2017 to placate the conservative voters.  I don't think he wants to bolt from the Union but if the UK does leave, it will be a blow to Europe and Britain itself.  Meanwhile, I don't think the relationship with the U.S. will change.  Like Thacher-Regan and Blair-Clinton, Cameron and Obama have a good working relationship and it won't change with this election result.  But maybe Obama should have learned from Cameron and Netanyahu and asked the electorate:  Do you want to go back to recession and war under the previous administration?

While lamenting Pacquiao's loss to Mayweather, I was thinking how he would have ranked among Asian male athletes in my life time.  I think if Pacquiao had won I would have ranked him number one.  Even with the loss, Pacquiao would still be in the top ten.  So I am going to put up my list of the top ten Asian male athletes during my life time up to this point.  I am only doing a male list because frankly, Asian females have done a lot better than males in international sports.  Just look at golf where the Asian females are dominating whereas males have just made some progress in being competitive.  The lone exception being Tiger Woods whom I am putting on the list even though most people consider him to be black.  The truth is that Tiger is 50% Asian so he qualifies to be on my list.

The same reasoning that I am doing only a male list means that I am not going to put up names of table tennis players, badminton players, gymnasts, figure skaters, divers, and short track skaters.  All of these sports have way too many great Asian male athletes so it is not unusual for an Asian male to succeed in these sports.  So that is why Apollo Anton Ono is not listed since there are many Koreans, Japanese and Chinese short track skaters who have done well.  So in no particular order (too difficult to rank from 1-10 since each sports are so different) here is the list:

Sadaharu Oh--all time home run hitter.  Question of whether he would have been a star in the MLB.  But he did well against American pitching in exhibition games and given that Japanese players have done well in MLB in recent years, I believe Oh would have had a Hall of Fame career in MLB.

Ichiro--He makes my point for Oh easy.  He is a certain Hall of Famer.

Yao Ming--A pioneer in the NBA for Chinese basketball player.  His career was cut short but he is a certain Hall of Famer.

Michael Chang--Won a grand slam and rose to as high as umber 2 in the world.  A Hall of Famer.

Tiger Woods--Nothing needs to be said.

Liu Xiang--Won Olympic gold in 110 hurdles.  First Asian to win in track and field sprints.  Also held world record in the event.

C.K. Yang--Silver in Olympic decathlon to Rafer Johnson.  He actually beat Johnson in 7 out of 10 events but lost because Johnson, with his powerful body, trounced Yang in the three throwing events.  Yang held the world record for the decathlon as well as the indoor pole vault world record.

Sun Yang--Won Olympic gold in 400, 1500 freestyle and silver in 200.  There have been Asian male swimmers who have done well in swimming but Sun's feat is incomparable.  It is almost like a record holder in the mile beats Michael Johnson in the 400 and finish a close second to Johnson in the 200.  Nobody has done that in swimming, Asian or not.

Jeremy Lin--Not quite the accomplishments of some of the others on the list since he is not even an all star in the NBA.  But he plays a position that is the most difficult and most athletic in his sport.  Also consider that China, which is the best in Asian basketball, has only produced big men to the NBA, I think it is safe to say that Lin has done something worth of being on this list.

Many Pacquiao--Despite the loss, he is a sure Hall of Famer and the second best pound for pound figher of his generation.

So this is my list.  I am sure there can be argument for inclusion and exclusion on this list.  So bring it on!  If I had to pick the number one I would pick Liu Xiang.  I know it is an event that takes less than 13 seconds to run.  But it is also an event that no Asian male or female had come close to be world class before Liu. Even Tiger has lost to Asian males in the PGA tour.  When he won in Athens, Liu famously said that he won not only for China but for the Asian race.  It maybe stereotype, but it is the truth for whatever reason.  So with the risk of offending all great Asian male athletes, I pick Liu Xiang as my all time great.