Spencer Stone, the hero who took down the terrorist on the Belgium train, was stabbed outside a bar in Sacramento last week.   Maybe I am old but it seems to me nothing good comes being inside or outside a bar at 1 am.  In any case, the police are looking for two Asian men who apparently stabbed Stone.  The whole story is not out yet, but regardless there is no good reason for anyone to pull a weapon on someone else.  Just like there was no excuse for those guys who used a bat to kill Vincent Chin years ago, there is no excuse for these guys to stab Stone.

Of course, if those guys had a gun instead of a knife, Stone would probably be dead.  If this occurred in Florida or Texas. then these guys would plead self defense since Stone is a big and strong dude and would probably prevailed in a fight against them.  I wonder what the gun lobby and those who like the "self defense, no stand down laws" would say then?

I think knowing they have a weapon probably make it more likely that these guys would fight Stone.  It is just like Zimmerman would never approach Martin if he did not have a gun.  These laws are so stupid that if a little guy wants to kill a big guy, all he had to do was get into a fight with him.  Then he can claim self defense and shoot the bigger guy since it is obvious that he is in danger given the size difference.  Of course, without a weapon, the weaker guy would never instigate a fight in the first place!

Putin made a speech at the UN and then had a talk with Obama last week.  After that he started the air campaign in Syria.  Critics of Obama say that Putin looked strong and decisive as oppose to Obama.  Putin, in one week, put Ukraine out of the picture and make Russia a big player in the middle east.  Obama, meanwhile, asked Putin to attack only ISIS targets and not rebels against Assad.  Obviously, Putin refused and Obama gained nothing out of the meeting.  So Putin looked strong and Obama looked week.

Well, I say so what?  The reality is Putin's decision to help Assad is easy.  Syria has always been Russia's biggest ally in the middle east, going way back when Assad's father first came to power.  So it is natural that Putin wants to help Assad stay in power.  Since the Shiite governments in Iraq and Iran are also supporting Assad, it is a good way for Putin to gain more allies.  The U.S. options are not so clear.  We don't want Assad to stay but there are no strong, democratic rebels who we can align with.  The truth is air strikes by us will not get rid of Assad or ISIS and we don't want to put boots on the ground.  Yes, we can get rid of a dictator by force.  But after our human sacrifices, is there a stable and democratic government to take the dictator's place?  Well, obviously we can't say yes after Afghanistan and Iraq.

So let Putin enjoy his spotlight.  I think down the road it would backfire on him.  He is making enemies in the Muslim world by his bombing.  Remember we saved Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from Saddam Hussein and even that gave rise to al Queda against us.  You will see more Muslims from the former Soviet republics join ISIS.  If he gets alignment with Iraq and Iran, Sunnis will be enemies of Russia.  As Russia learned in Afghanistan in the 1980s, power does not equated to victory.  I think the U.S. should just sit back and let Putin be the bad guy to the Muslim world.  We should concentrate on humanity aid.  It does not make us look tough but it is better for the long run.

The pope has finished his trip to the U.S.  Everywhere he went he was a rock star.  I am not Catholic but I like this guy.  He speaks his mind but not down at other people.  He could have lived lavishly but he chose a simple residence.  He rides not in limos or SUVs but simple cars.  He is an important figure but does not act like one.  I hope he heads the catholic church for many years to come.

As popular as the pope is, he is being criticized by both sides of the political spectrum.  This shows how divided we are.  We can't even acknowledge a great man if he disagree with us on one or two things.  Wall Street is upset at him because they think that he is calling for the redistribution of wealth.  They call him a socialist.  I think catholic teaching demands that he speaks and advocates for the poor.  He is not anti-capitalism.  On the other end, liberals are upset that he is not for gay marriages and abortion.  Nobody could have become pope if he advocated those changes.  This is what he believes.  He made it clear that he would embrace those who are gay and those who have had abortions.  I don't think it is reasonable that one man can and would make changes that are so drastically different to the church.

I may not agree with pope Francis on everything but I do have great respect for him.  I think his critics should look at the whole man and not just the things that he disagree with them.  But I am not holding my breath since politics in this country is just preaching to the choir.

Regarding the case of the Muslim boy who was arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school, I have questions for many people.  First, did the boy do this just to impress the teacher or was there any other motives?  I don't know of many kids who would go out of the way to do extra work that is not related to what is being taught at school.  Listening to him talk, he does not sound like a nerd who sits in the basement making things to please a teacher.  Maybe I am stereotyping, but I am not ready to accept that he is a pure victim of discrimination without further facts.

Next question is, if the police thought that the clock maybe a bomb and they want to act out of extreme caution as they said, why did they not evacuate the whole school?   Was the bomb squad called?  If they did not do those two things, how can they say they are acting out of caution by arresting the boy?  And they had to handcuffed a kid and then interrogated him for one and half hour without his parent or lawyer present?  Seems to me they were trying to intimate the boy into confessing something so they can justify their actions.

Then we have Obama who invited the kid to the White House.  Really?  Without knowing more facts?  There are a lot of people who got discriminated against everyday.  What is the big hurry for the invite?  Same with MIT and others who want to show love to the kid.  What if we found out that there was publicity seeking?  I think the school, police and liberal institutions all over reacted for different reasons.

So the next GOP debate is in a few days and it is near where I live.  But I will not attend.  I don't need to hear more Obama bashing, immigrant bashing, China bashing and Trump insulting everybody.  Did you see where Trump insulted Fiorina's looks but then said he is talking about her persona?  If he meant her persona, why did he said her face?  This comes from a guy whose hair is the butt of jokes everywhere and whose face is not exactly attractive.  I mean, doesn't he own a mirror?  Of course, this is a guy who questioned McCain's bravery when he kept trying to get out of going to Vietnam.  Since the McCain comment did not hurt him, I suppose criticizing the looks of the only female candidate will not hurt him either.

About the China bashing.  I saw an interview on tv where they asked people in China if they knew Trump and if they do, what do they think of his comments about China.  Most of those interviewed had no idea who he is.  For those that do know him and know about the China bashing, they don't seem to care.  Some just think that is the politics of the U.S. and some think that in a way it means China has become important and a worthy rival of the U.S.  They said that in the past, China was irrelevant but now the bashing means that they have arrived.  They care more about the continued advancement of China than what the U.S. thinks.  Maybe we should learn from this and put our own house in order instead of blaming China and immigrants for our problems.

I don't understand how some GOP candidates are supporting the clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage license to gay couples.  Regardless of her personal belief, she has to follow the law as a government official.  She cannot say she answers to a higher law, the law of God.  This would be same argument for Muslims who want to follow Sharia law.  I am sure the GOP or Democrats would not support that.  If it is against her religion to do the job, she should resign.  Unless she agrees to issue the licenses or resign, she belongs in jail.

The same reasoning goes for the Muslim flight attendant who refuses to serve alcohol because it is against her religion.  I don't drink myself and I believe that there is too much alcohol consumption in this country.  But since serving alcohol is part of the job of a flight attendant, I don't see why the airline has to accommodate her.  As with the clerk, nobody has a right to a job that he/she cannot fulfill completely.

The term anchor baby has been tossed around by GOP candidates lately.  As usual, it started by Trump.  As usual, that helped Trump in the standings among GOP voters.  But when Jeb Bush used the term, it backfired on him.  His retraction to say the term applied to Asians only made things worse for him.  I am sure there are Asian groups who are offended by the term.  I don't look at it as an offensive term.  After all, anchor on a relay team is the best runner usually.  The anchor on a newscast is the highest paid.  So the anchor by itself is not bad.  The implication of term is, however, inaccurate.  It implies that the baby being born in the U.S. is an U.S. citizen and thus can protect the parents from deportation.  That, of course, is not true.  In case of Asians, the parents are not trying to avoid deportation.  They are usually wealthy Chinese who just want an outlet for their kids in case the communist country reverse its economic course.  It would also give the kid a better chance of obtaining an education in the U.S. if so desired in the future.

Chinese women giving tourism birth in the U.S.is nothing new.  It maybe illegal only in the sense that it circumvent tourist visa laws.  It has been overlooked in the past, particularly in California.  It is not an economic drain for the U.S. in that these women are paying Americans to house and feed them.  They spend money while in the U.S.  They and the baby then leave the country.  They are not picking up welfare checks.  Eventually the kid may come back for high school and college.  They may cost the education system money at that point but I am sure they would be paying to live here and the parents may even buy houses here.  So it hard to know what the full economic impact would be.  If the U.S. wants to stop this, it can do so by shutting down the so called birth hotels in California and other places popular to Chinese visitors.  No need to change the constitution regarding birth citizenship.  It is also not a problem worthy of a presidential debate!

We have a lot of problems in this country but pointing the finger at immigrants is unfair.  There are studies that say illegal immigrants are a drain to the economy and there are studies that say they are positive.  But as I always say, where there is a demand, there is a supply.  To clear up the question, just arrest the people who hire illegals.  There are only two reasons why a business must hire illegals:  they can't make a profit with American workers or there are not enough Americans willing to do the job.  If legal pressure cause the owners to change the practice then we will find out if either of these things are true.  If neither are true then businesses will thrive.  If either is true, then the businesses will fail without illegal immigrants.  In either case, illegal immigration will come to a halt and we will find out what the true economic impact of illegal immigrants are.

A few weeks ago I wrote about the Greek bailout and the Chinese financial market's big decline.  Now the Greeks have kowtow to their European debt masters and accepted the bailout.  They have agreed to worse measures than if they didn't revolt in the first place.  I hope the best for the Greeks  but I don't see how these measures are going to get them out of trouble in the near future.

The Chinese market was stabilized for a short time but it is declining again.  This has spooked the rest of the world, including the U.S. stock market.  China has gotten so big now that when it sneezes, the world catches a cold.  But while this may linger for a while, China does have the largest foreign reserves in the world and should be able to withstand this down turn.  It just make market reform that much more difficult.  As far as the U.S.'s concern, our indicators show that we are due for a correction in the market anyway.  But the price to earnings ratio are not very high and unemployment is down.  So I think the market will recover in the near future.  I may be wrong and we head for a recession and that will hand over the election to the GOP nominee.  But I am going out on a limb and say this won't happen and I have backed that up by investing $5000 tomorrow in the market because I think it is a reasonable time to buy.

Joe Biden is being pushed by some of his supporters to run.  They set the deadline of Oct. 1st  because the first Democratic debate is Oct. 13.  It would be difficult to get all ready for a debate in less than two weeks if you have not decided by then.  My feeling is that if he does not decide by Labor Day, I don't think he will run.  With two passed failed attempts, the unpopularity of Obama generally, and the recent loss of his son, I don't think he has the stomach to do it.

If Hillary fails, how about Al Gore?  I do think that is a good possibility if the Democrats are desperate.  I think a lot of people think he got robbed the last time and wished that he would have become president instead of Bush.  So they may vote for him as a compensation.  He can also point out that he was an integral part of the Clinton administration that had a budget surplus.  In other words he can claim he is Bill second without the scandal!  I don't think he wants to run but he would be a good plan B for the Democrats.

The  first Christian. I mean Republican party, debates are over.  I did  not see much of the JV game but I understand Carly Fiorina came out best.  That is bad news for veteran politicians like Perry and Graham who should have been able do better than the inexperienced.  Fiorina is not a viable candidate since she couldn't even do the job at Hewlett Packard.  So I don't see anyone from the JV moving up to the varsity.

The varsity game started out with a bang.   Trump was the only one who raised his hand to not pledge that he would support the eventual nominee and not run as a third party candidate.  This seems to give credence to the idea that he is really a secret democrat embedded to mess up the Republicans.  Asked why he donated to Democrats like Clinton, he said basically that he used the system to get favors later on although he did not specify which favors he got with his money.  The question is:  if he games the system as a private person, wouldn't he also game the system even more as president?

I think overall John Kasich did the best followed by Marco Rubio.  Neither is likely to win.  Kasich is too well unknown and too moderate.  Rubio is too young and Hispanic.  Jeb Bush was mediocre, again not giving a concise answer (to an expected question) to the Bush war.  Bush, Christie, Walker, Cruz and Huckabee were in the middle pack.  Paul and Carson were at the end.  Trump maybe just ahead of those two but clearly did worse than the other 7 in my opinion.