Obama went on tv tonight in an attempt to reassure Americans about the threat from terrorists.  I don't think it changes anything.  Those who are against him will say the same things and those on his side will not change their tunes.  There are no good and easy way to do this.  This will continue into the next presidency.  And whoever is elected will not have any better idea than Obama.  If someone like Trump gets elected, God forbid, he will find that rhetoric will not get rid of ISIS and in fact plays right into terrorists hands and increase their ability to recruit.

You know, there are a lot of Americans who are angry that more is not done about ISIS.  There are also a lot of Americans who have great fear of terrorism.  But despite what happened in California this week, terrorism have not cause many deaths since 9/11.   The chances of getting killed from terrorism is miniscule compared to the chances of getting murdered by fellow Americans.  So how come those people who are angry at Obama are not a thousand times more angry about the people who don't want to stop gun violence?  You don't want to stop people who are on no fly lists from getting guns?  Really?  Obama may sound careless when he described ISIS as a jv team.  But we are not living in the most dangerous time as people suggest.  Remember the 1960s when we were frightened of what the USSR will do to us?  Compared to the USSR, ISIS is jv.  Also 50,000 Americans died in Vietnam during that time.  So the chances of Americans dying due to a conflict was much greater then.  It was also greater during the Iraq war under Bush than now.  So let's have some perspective.  It took a long time to get rid of the threat from the USSR.  It will take a long time to get rid of the threat from ISIS who by the way came into existence thanks to our invasion of Iraq.

Hope everybody had a great Thanksgiving.  Not surprising news today: Kobe Bryant announces that this will be his last season.  It would be shocking if he had decided to keep playing.  Now, it would also be more gracious if he will tell Byron Scott to play him just a few minutes per game.  It makes no sense for him to play 30 plus minutes a game and then sit out one of two back to back games.  He is not helping the team win anyway and it would be much better for the team to give more minutes to the young players.  It is a cliche to say that father time always win but it is true.  I remember Willie Mays looking absolutely terrible in the outfield his last season.  Kobe is like that now with his shooting percentage around 30 and jacking up 3 pointers at a rate of less than 20 percent success.  Play about 5 minutes each half and bow to the fans.  That will be a good farewell tour.

Speaking of farewell tour, the same may happen to Ichiro next season.  He has signed for another season with the Marlins.  It looks like he is trying to break Pete Rose's all time hit record when combined with the hits he got in Japan and in MLB.  Ichiro has obviously declined in the last couple of seasons.  If he continues to decline early next season, it may not be worth it to stick around just to break the record.  I don't want to see him struggling below 250 for a whole season.  Even if he breaks the record, it is not a record recognized by everybody.  As Rose points out:  if they count Ichiro's hits from Japan, then they should count Rose's hits from the minors.  It is an argument where there is no right or wrong.  Whether Ichiro breaks the record or not will have no baring on the excellence of his career.  Remember, Ichiro is not just a great hitter but also one of the greatest outfielder of all time and had one of the greatest throwing arm.  So the last thing I want to see is him fumbling around in the outfield like Mays did at the end.

I am going to comment on two subjects today.  It will be obvious after reading this blog today that you can see why I can never run for political office.  I would be crucified from the left and right because one side will disagree with me wholeheartedly on one subject and the other side will disagree with me on the other subject.

First subject is student protests in liberal schools over microaggression.  I am not talking about Missouri where there appears to be legitimate reasons for the protests and subsequent resignation of the president.  There is a history of discrimination there.  But in liberal schools the anger over microaggression is disturbing to me.  Of course being called the n word or Chinaman is very hurtful and those words should not be spoken in a college.  But now people are complaining about minor misspeak by white people.  The dean at Claremont college resigned after agreeing to help students "who don't fit our mold".  Now she obviously misspoke but I don't think she is racist by any means and she is probably a person who really wants to help minority students.  It is like a person gets upset if a white person ask where he is from.  I would answer Detroit to that question.  But if someone really wants to know my ethnicity, it is no big deal.  If someone says that I dance well for an old Chinese guy, I don't get all upset.  If I think he is really trying to say Chinese can't dance, I would enlighten him by telling him to look up Victor Fung, who maybe is the best male ballroom dancer in the world!  We can't get too sensitive and forget the big picture: to be treated fairly.  We should not get mad at others for being slightly insensitive or misspeak.

Now I want to thank the mayor in Virginia who brought up the interment of the Japanese when he talked about Syrian refugees.  Now this is not microaggression, this is racism.  There was no evidence of any treason acts by the Japanese Americans.  If fact the Japanese Americans were about the most decorated in WWII.  Using one of the black eye in our history to back up your discrimination now?  Wow!  In fact this type of thing is exactly what ISIS wants to happen.  Killing a few westerners does nothing for ISIS compare to the paranoia it causes us.  Acting scared and discriminatory will help the bad guys recruit more fighters in our own land and be much more dangerous than letting vetted refugees come in.  Somehow the people born in this country built by immigrants is afraid of immigrants.

The French terrorist attack brings sadness and sympathy for the victims.  The news that one of the perpetrator had a Syrian refugee passport must send chills to the refugee community.  The door for them to get into Europe maybe shut as a result of this.  Even if countries like Germany are still willing to allow refugees in, there will be less kindness and more hostility from the native population toward the newcomers.

Lindsey Graham says that there will be another 9/11.  Isn't this saying the obvious?   No matter how good our intelligence and prevention strategies are, the terrorists only have to make it through the defense once!  We have to be 100% right and that is not possible for any nation.  We are in better position than Europe in that we have a lot less people going to the middle east and come back as possible terrorists than France for example.  Europe is also a lot closer to the middle east than the U.S.  But as I said, one mistake is all it takes.

I don't agree with Graham that we should put 10,000 troops on the ground now to fight ISIS.  Even if we and NATO forces can defeat ISIS, it will not eliminate threats.  We won the first Gulf War and that led to al qeada, and we took out Hussein and got ISIS.  When we defeat one group another props up because it is perceived that we are in the middle east to kill Muslims.  Look at Russia fighting in Syria and right away was targeted.  I say let the middle east sort itself out.  Besides putting premium on intelligence, we should also have counter offense against internet recruiting by terrorist groups.  For example, greater effort to show that 50% of young recruits from western countries ended up dead in the middle east.  These efforts will not eliminate threats but I know having our soldiers die in the middle east will not stop the threats either.

The leaders of China and Taiwan met in Singapore this past week.  There were protests in Taiwan and many supporters of Taiwan were uneasy over this historic event.  The leaders of the two sides had not met since the Nationalists fled to Taiwan.  It is understandable that there is fear and distrust of the communist government in the mainland.  But the truth is that the two sides have been having increasing economic and social ties gradually.  I think continue and increase engagement of the two sides is good.  I mean, if China decides to try to take over Taiwan then ignoring China would not change that.  By increasing trades and tourism between the two  sides, there will be less tension and make it less likely that aggression will occur.  So I think Taiwan's president Ma Ying Jeou is doing the right thing by meeting Xi Jingping.

Anyone watched SNL yesterday?  I didn't watch it but looking at some of the skits on the internet, I found the Trump show to be rather boring.  I am sure the ratings will be good but I don't think it helped the reputation of SNL or Trump.  I would not have bothered protesting the show, it gave it more publicity and does not change anyone's opinion anyway.

Opted to watch the World Series instead of the GOP debate last week.  It doesn't seem like it change anything even though people say that Marco Rubio did the best.  Of course previous good performances by Fiorina only temporary gave her a boost.  Now she is an also ran again.  So I don't think these debates are doing much to the race.  The big news coming out of this is that the GOP is so upset with the moderators from CNBC that they are boycotting NBC.  It seems to me if they want softball questions, they should just have all the debates on FNC.  Oh, I forgot that Trump got into fight with a woman moderator for Fox.  Hey, if they think NBC is biased, then why is Trump going on Saturday Night Live?

Frankly, I am surprised how poorly Jeb Bush is doing.  If no scandal occur, I don't see anyone in this field can beat Clinton.  Well, with maybe the exception of Rubio.  I don't see the GOP nominating a Hispanic. But if Rubio is nominated and he picks Kasich or Christie, then there is a reasonable chance of beating Clinton.  With Florida and either NJ or Ohio going to the GOP column, Rubio may pull it off.  Of course, I did see Scott Walker coming out of toss up state of Wisconsin.  That was over before it got started.  But at least Rubio has done well in the debates, unlike Walker.

China is getting rid of the one child policy.  Now couples can have 2 children.  The one child policy caused lot of bad things like forced abortion.  But it did stabilize China's population.  It is no longer needed however.  With increased prosperity and urbanization, Chinese couples are wanting less children.  So eventually no policy will be needed.  And it is a sure bet that in the very near future, India will surpass China as the world's most populous country.

Hey, the big election is over!  I am, of course, talking about the Canadian election.  Justin Trudeau, the son of the former prime minister Pierre, has led the liberal party to victory over conservative Steven Harper.  This ends the ten year reign of Harper.  I am not an expert in Canadian politics so I am hoping that anyone living near the Canadian border may have insight about this election.  Meanwhile, I have a few comments.

I remember that Trudeau's parents were compared to the Kennedys.  So this would be like John Jr. surviving and becoming president.  Pierre was 30 years older than Margaret.  She was obviously much better looking than him.  So I guess Justin must take after his mother since supposedly his good looks help him get elected.  So how much is looks and name have to do with this election or did the election simply turn on people's view of Harper?

Harper and Obama did not see eye to eye over things like Keystone, strategy in the Middle East and climate change.  So Obama is probably happy that Trudeau won even though he won't have much time to work with him.  While I can't say that Canadians and American voters are the same, I think they are similar.  So going for the more liberal agenda would please the Democrats.  For example, Harper had cut spending and Trudeau has promised to go into deficit to stimulate the economy.  But of course, the voters in Canada might just got tired of the Harper administration after ten years and want a change,  That would be bad omen for the Democrats.  So will see what happens next year.

I think it would be a mistake for Biden to get into the race now.  Clinton did well during the debate and I don't think that Biden or anyone else can take the nomination from her.  If she had stumbled during the debate then Biden may have had an opening.  But she did not stumble so if Biden gets in now he would lose badly.  Then if a big scandal comes out on Clinton that forces her out, Biden would not be looked upon as a savior if he had lost whole bunch of primaries.  I think the only chance for Biden is to stay out and be a good soldier for the party.  Then if something happens to Clinton, then he would be coming in unscathed.

It is funny that Trump blames Bush for 9/11.  I don't think he understands the world and why things happen.  But if he wants to blame his own party, go ahead.  I wonder if he blames FDR for Pearl Harbor!  But Jeb defends his brother by saying that he kept us safe.  How? By going into Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan?

Can the GOP elect a new Speaker?  Moderates like Paul Ryan doesn't want the job and I don't see how the 40 or so rebels in the House can elect one of their own.  More dysfunction up ahead!

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.