Finally we have bipartisan support for something! All of the presidential candidates from both parties have a stimulus plan for the economy. Nobody has come out against a tax rebate. Maybe I am stupid but doesn't giving everybody money make our national deficit much bigger? Are we cutting spending in the military, welfare, farm subsidies and earmarks? If not, where are all these money coming from? Wouldn't this cause the dollar to devaluate further? By going deeper into debt, wouldn't that mean more of our treasury bonds will be owned by countries like China? It seems like yesterday everybody says that we should save more and not go so far into debt. Now the government is encouraging us to spend more.

I know the theory is that people get the rebate, spend it and get the economy moving and then there will be more taxes collected etc. I am not sure this will work even if the money is delivered to people quickly. I for one will deposit my rebate check in the bank. I don't have anything that I need the buy right now and so why I should I spend it. I think there are a lot of people who would do the same. I think this is part of the economic cycle and we will naturally get out of the recession in due time. Maybe 2 to 3 years. We don't have a disaster situation as in the 1920's. The world economy is basically sound. The subprime mortgage problem that ignited this mess will correct itself. As people lose their houses, the people who had been shut out by the obscene price increases in the past few years will jump in and buy. The people who were not greedy and were patient will benefit. The economic engine will move again.

This is an election year so all the politicians will be for a stimulus deal. It is not a long term solution for the challenges of our economy in the future. We should be looking at the factors that determine the economic status of our children and grandchildren, like education and energy policies. Instead of tightening our belt, we look for short term gratifications from our politicians. Well. we get what we asked for.

Taking a break from the election, I am turning to the Olympics. I am thinking of applying to be the consultant for the Chinese Olympic team. I would apply to the U.S. team but I think they will mistake me for Norm Chow and reject my application. China is anxious to beat the U.S. in the gold medal count this summer and they need a person who understands U.S. sports to help them achieve their goal. Before you call me a traitor, remember that Tommy Lasorda, Muhammed Ali and Lebron James have gone over to China to help their athletes. Del Harris was the coach of the Chinese basketball team in Athens. You wouldn't call any of these people traitors, would you?

First I would help the Chinese baseball team which is way behind Taiwan, Japan, Korea and of course the U.S. I would give the hitters the same flaxseed that Barry Bonds used. This will lead to bigger heads, arms and shoulders right away. They will be hitting homeruns in no time. I will inject the pitchers with lidocaine and B12 vitamins and right away they will throw like Roger Clemens. No use to exercise your hands in rice as Clemens claimed he had done. This does not work since the Chinese have put their hands in rice for thousands of years without producing one decent pitcher.

Even with Yao Ming the Chinese can't beat the Americans in basketball. So I will suggest that a certain former NBA referee be hired for the Olympics and I will try to hook him on mahjong. Just be sure he refs the Chinese games.

Track and field is another sport that China can't compete in with the exception of Lu Xiang. So I will bring the vitamins that Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery used to use. In no time the Chinese will be contenders in the sprints.

China is good at table tennis but not in tennis. To improve their chances in this sport I will bring with me the friends of Nikolai Davydenko to the Games and have them contact the opponents of the Chinese players. It would not matter if you lose the first set, people will still bet on you!

In football or as we call soccer here in the U.S., Chinas is not competitive. But of course that is because the final is determined by elimination rounds. I will change the format where the finalists are determined by the BCS as in American college football. I will teach coaches and writers to vote the proper way. The computers in the Olympic is already being run by a Chinese company and so the other half of the equation is no problem. China is thus guaranteed a spot in the championship Rice Bowl.

There are other ideas I have that I don't have time to mention. But all is not a lost cause for the U.S. if I help China. When I return I will have the secret recipe of worm and fungus concoction that helped the Chinese women set several long distance running records years ago. I can produce this "tea" for American athletes upon my return. The secret vitamin shots of the former USSR and East Germany will also be available. American females will break all kind of records in London 4 years from now. My dermatologists friends will also thank me for the increase in acne and hirsutism among female athletes as a result. So it is win, win situation for everybody!

Even though I won't vote Republican this year I am turning my attention to the Republicans this week because they have the only primary. The Democrats have decided to ignore the Mich primay because it was moved up without the party's consent. I think that is unfair. It would have been interesting to see Clinton and Obama slug it out there after they took turns upsetting each other in Iowa and New Hampshire. But we will have to wait till South Carolina and Nevada.

In Mich. we have Romney vs. McCain in a very important state for both. McCain needs the momentum to continue afte New Hampshire and Romney need to get a win after 2 disappointing 2nd place finishes. Iraq is not a big issue here. The big issue is the economy. With high unemployment rate Mich may be a forecasting state for the general election. Remember in 92 the first Bush was expected to win reelection easily after winning the first Iraq war decisively. But the economy sunk him. It is the economy, stupid--that was the thing that concerned the voters the most. It was believed a few months ago that with the war going badly and Bush's approval ratings so low that the Democrats would win in 08 easily. But given that the surge has given Bush some good news and the possibility of the recession, the economy will probably dominate the debate soon. Unfortunately for the Republicans they are in the White House now and so will also get most of the blame for the economy if it gets worse. So the Democrats are still going to win but the economy will have more to do with who gets nominated than the war.

Eight years ago I wanted McCain for president. To me he is among the most honest of the politicians, which may not be saying much but is still important. He is one of the few that can bring together Democrats and Republicans. Thus the endorsement from Joe Liberman. The reasons why I won't vote for him this year are that he is reaching more to extreme conservatives who are not tolerant, his wrong ideas about the war, and the lack of judgment he showed when he walked the streets of Baghdad and declared it safe while wearing a bullet-proof jacket, with armed guards and helicopters protecting him. All these show me that he is losing it. But if I am still in Mich I would vote for him over Romney. Neither have any specific ideas on how to turn around the economy. Of course it is entreprenuers who create jobs not presidents. But both say that they are going to create jobs. How exactly? At least McCain is being brutally honest when he says that most of the jobs lost are not coming back to Mich. Workers will have to learn new skills to compete. Romney, on the other hand, is just pandering. He says that he will fight for every job. But how? It is just rhetoric and dishonesty. So I will root for McCain to get the Republican nomination.

Been having trouble with the computer and so have not written for a long time. Saw the big debate last night on ABC. It was entertaining with both parties involved. On the Republican side I only like Ron Paul. His libertarian views were impressive. He is obviously not going to win but at least he has stayed around longer than my Democratic favorite Joe Biden. The other 5 Republicans are all for the war which is amazing given the losses and the fact that it has no benefit whatsoever for the U.S. Paul is the only one who realizes that while there are always bad guys in the world, by doing the wrong things we are enabling them to recruit people who otherwise had no beef with us. Unless Paul is the Republican nominee I will vote Democratic this year no matter who their nominee is.

This bring up the fact that Clinton may not be the nominee. Obama has the momentum and while I thought Edwards did the best in the debate, Obama did all right as he was not hurt by Clinton's attacks. Edwards was trying to help Obama eliminate Clinton and then try to win a two man contest. This strategy helps Obama and if it works will hand the nomination to Obama. Bill Richardson was absolutely terrible. How in the world Biden finished behind this guy? With Biden out I am going with Obama. I still have trouble with his inexperience but as I said before since Brzynski endorsed him he probably has a good understanding of foreign policy. Also Bill Bradley is about to endorse him and I have respect for Bradley's intelligence. So I think that despite his youth Obama may do all right.

The Mitchell Report was ho-hum. None of the prominent names mentioned were surprising. The only question I have is "What about Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire?" Basically this is just a small percentage of the people who used steroids and HGH. If people like Ricky Bones used steroids then probably a high percentage of players used it. So if that is the case what do we think of the records of Bonds and Clemens? They faced pitchers and hitters who used steroids also. Are their records valid? Well, I would have to say no because if Marion Jones had to give up her medals then the records of the highest achievers in baseball should not be recognize if they used steroids. After all Jones' competitors probably used sterois also. Ultimately everyone can have his own opinion on this. I may be cynical but I am beginning to view sports as similar to a Jackie Chan movie; very impressive athletism but in the end it is just entertainment.

Very few people on the list responded to the report. The only two prominent names denying the allegations were David Justice and Roger Clemens. I believe Justice a lot more than Clemens. First of all Justice came out swinging right away but Clemens took 5 days before responding. If you are not guilty, why wait? Justice also retired at about the right age where Clemens kept going and kept going. Just like Bonds, I find it hard to believe that a player can improve in his forties. Like Bonds, Clemens also looks a lot bigger than you would expect by aging alone. As for the few that admit guilt they usually use the excuse of using HGH to recover from injury. This include Peitite and Fernando Vina. I don't believe these excuses. These are very good players who were probably trying to be great players. Now I would have sympathy for the life time minor player who just want to get into the majors. It is a wrong thing to do but very understandable.

Now that a new intelligence report says that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program back in 2003 people are asking if we should change our strategy toward Iran. To that I say -what strategy? Calling for sanctions and threatening war is not a strategy. Iran was never a threat to start world war III as Bush claimed. Iran can't threatened us, just as Iraq was no threat before we invaded. I am tired of people who talk about not backing down from Hussein or Iran because Europe once appeased Hitler and he ended up causing WWII. But Germany was the strongest nation in Europe. If England and France were to try to preempt Hitler they would have lost quicker. It is always easier to defend than to attack. Iran and Iraq had no power to attack us. Even if they had nuclear weapons they would not have used them because they would have been destroyed quickly afterwards. Hussein and Ahmandinejad were not suicidal.

Bush says that there will not be any strategy changed since Iran is still dangerous. Well, it does not matter what Bush says because hard sanctions are not going to happen. Russia and China has a way out now and will not go along with tougher sanctions. The question for me is "is this report even accurate?" Given the previous reports on Iraq turned out to be way off the mark, who would believe that this report is correct? My view has always been that Iraq and Iran would not use nuclear weapons but they may still try to get them. While Iran can't win a nuclear war, nuclear weapons is a deterrent against American attack. See North Korea. So I do not believe that they have no nuclear weapons program at all. If Bush was smarter, I would have thought that by going public with this report, it gives him a chance to back up from his WWIII comments and be able to start a diplomatic course. But I doubt it that he even thought about this.

The thing that frustrates me is that we believe that any one intelligence report should have great influence on our policy. We should focus on the long term, not react to any change in intelligence. I would not have gone to war on Iraq based on those false reports nor will I change my thinking about the Middle East based on this report. The number one priority in the region is always Israel and the Palestinians. Unless peace is attained there terrorism from that region will always be a threat. Seven years into the Bush administration there is finally an effort to bring the two sides together. This should have started in 2001 right after his election, even with 9/11. Afghanistan was a necessary move but Israel-Palestinians negotiation should have restarted at least 5 years ago. If we were to be scared of nuclear attack from a Muslim nation, it was going to be from Pakistan. Iraq and Iran would not have helped terrorists with nuclear weapon even if they had them. But Pakistan has them for sure and there are religious fundamentalists who are not controlled by the government. So what do we do? Attack Iraq and worry about Iran while paying Pakistan to help us in the war on terror. If terrorists get hold of the bomb in Pakistan, are we going to bomb our ally on terror? Is that a policy that will make us safe?

The LA Times have an article today about the supporters of the top 3 democratic and top 3 republican candidates. It only gave 4 examples of the supporters of each of the candidates. Obviously it does not give a complete pictures of who is supporting whom but it does give some insights of where the candidates are seeking support. I will rate each supporter from -3 to +3, depending on if I like their views and if they are good for the country in my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt because I generally don't like union and corporate supports because they are all about self-interests and not about the good of the country. There are no corporations like Countrywide on this list so it would appear that I am against liberals a little more. Also I don't have much respect for the opinions of entertainers or athletes unless I have heard of their views and find them intelligent. With those cautions in mind, here are the lists:

Hillary Clinton supporters: 1. Walter Mondale-- a far left liberal who got destroyed when he ran for president. rating -2
2. Jan Perry-- African American LA city councilwoman, again a strong liberal. Rating -2
3. Barbra Streisand-- Far left liberal who doesn't make much sense. Rating -3
4. American Federation of Teachers--Big union which doesn't help the education of our children. Rating -3

John Edwards supporters: 1. James Denton--actor, don't know much about him. But I hate Desperate Housewives, which he is in. Rating -2
2. Lar Ulrich--The drummer of Metallica, don't know much about him Rating -2
3. United Steelworkers and United Mineworkers of America. Rating -3
4. David Obey--Chairman of House Appropriation Rating -2

Barack Obama supporters: 1. Eric Garcetti--LA city Councilman and son of Gil Garcetti the prosecutor who blew the O. J. Simpson case Rating -3
2. John Conyers Jr.-- Michigan Congressman and a strong liberal Rating -2
3. Zbigniew Brzezinski--Former national security advisor and one of my most respected man in foreign policy. Obama is often criticized, including by me, that he lacks experience. So this means a lot that an experienced diplomat like Brzezinsi endorses him. Rating +3
4. Oprah Wifrey--Influential but I don't think she really knows what she is talking about. Rating -2

Rudy Giuliani supporters: 1. Pat Robertson--Crazy televangelist Rating -3
2. Steve Forbes--Conservative rich guy but I like his flat tax idea. Rating +1
3. Pete Wilson--former Calif. governor. Moderate Republican who wasn't much of a leader. Rating 0
4. Bo Derek--Come on! Claims to be a conservative republican but took off her clothes in the movies. How hippocritical! Ratings would be a -3 but since she was good looking when I was young, gets upgrade to a -1

John McCain supporters: 1. Republican for Environmental Protection. Sounds like an oxymoron! I would like to learn more. Rating 0
2. Former Prisoners of War--Supports McCain for obvious reason. Rating +1
3. Sam Brownback--Conservative Kansas Senator who dropped out of the race himself when he realizes that he doesn't know any issues except for abortion and creation of the world. Rating -3
4. Curt Schilling--Rich athletes are a big minus in my book. Plus he was for the war. It is easy to be for the war when you don't have to fight. Rating -3

Mitt Romney supporters: 1. Rick Caruso--Mall developer. Rich guy and I hate malls. Rating -3
2. Orrin Hatch--Utah Senator who is Mormon. I think Hatch is a fair Republican most of the time. Rating +1
3. Meg Whitman--Chief executive of e-Bay. Rich person made money on shopping. Not my cup of tea. Rating -3
4. Bob Jones III--Chancellor of the university of the same name. The university finally ended its ban on iterracial dating in 2000. Rating -3

So if my tally is correct the following is the final score: Clinton -10, Edwards -9 Obama -4 Giuliani -3 (although should have been -5, see Derek score) McCain -5 Romney -8

This is of course an exercise of no importance. But with all the negative scores, either the country is in real trouble or I am too much of a cynic. Feel free to give your opinions.

Last week in the business section of the LA Times there were 2 articles next to each other that caught my eyes. One was about Yahoo going to pay families of two Chinese journalists that were jailed after Yahoo had given their names to the Chinese government. The journalists had used Yahoo services to share material advocating democratic reform. Yahoo caved in to the Chinese government and as a result Jerry Yang received a tongue lashing from a Congressional hearing the week before this article. Yahoo was called moral pygmies by a Congressman. It is difficult to defend Yahoo but Yahoo is not first U.S. company to kowtow to the Chinese government in an attempt to gain market share in China. I am sure that bribery, kick backs and technology transfer by U.S. companies are frequent happenings in China. What happened to the old saying "When in Rome, do what the Romans do"? Sure, China's legal system are not up to standard, but what is Yahoo suppose to do? Risk going to jail themselves and lose the market? Didn't the Chinese journalists think that their e-mails are not so private?

The article next to it was about privacy in America. Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence said in a speech "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that." Well, that's interesting. If you use Google in America and you can't be sure of your anonymity, then why would a journalist in China believe that he is safe by using Yahoo in China? Kerr also said that "Privacy is a system of laws, rules and customs with an infrastructure of inspector general, oversight committees and privacy boards on which our intelligence community committment is based and measured." Wow, so it is basically up to the government to decide what is private for us. The Bush administration is asking that telecom companies should be granted immunity for assisting the government in its warrantless spying program. Mark Klein, a former AT@T technician, said that the program involved domestic communications, not just foreign, and the numbers were enormous--much higher than the government leads us to believe. If this was true, wouldn't these telecom companies be moral pymies as well?

I have always believe that the west someday will meet the east. A country like China, while still authorative, will gradually be more free. The economy is almost totally capitalistic today. It is a more open society than the one I saw 10 years ago. It still has a long way to go but is coming toward us. Our own society on the other hand, is becoming more restrictive. Due to fear, at least some of it unjustified, we are willing to become a less free country. Whether you believe that warrantless spying, secret detention locations, or the torturing of suspects to get information is justified or not, it is obvious that we are moving in the direction of China. I predict that in 25 years there will be little difference in the freedoms of the two countries.

Lee Corso of ESPN got it right by warning that Michigan may be upset by Wisconsin. Dah! That is not an upset pick. Michigan is probably the worst team in history with an 8 game winning streak. The talent level of the two teams are about equal and Mike Hart and Chad Henne are injured. The game was played in Wisconsin and Mich. is the favorite? If Appalacian State can beat Mich. in Ann Arbor, how can losing to Wisconsin on the road be an upset? The talking heads would be more impressive if they predicted that Illinois beats Ohio State.

I don't know what is an upset anymore. The Big Ten teams are the easiest to upset. Of course Mich. losing to Appalachian State was the worst but what about Mini-soda, which has no fiz on offense and no pop on defense. They have won one game. They lost to Florida Atlantic, or is it Florida Pacific? Afterall Florida is not very good in geography. South Florida is located closer to central or north Florida. Miami might as well move to Ohio and see if it can beat the other Miami. But I am going off subject here. The Big Ten teams would finish in the bottom of the Pac Ten. I mean who would beat USC except a power house like Stanford? And who would beat UCLA, except for Utah and the one win wonder Notre Dame? Having been sunk by Navy ( I waited 40 plus years to write that) and bombed by Air Force, will ND ever win another game? When is the last time ND, Mich. and Ohio State all lost on the same day? This sure is one crazy season in football. Can't wait till basketball to start to get some normalcy in the world.

What? Mich. State loses to Grand Valley State? Ohio State loses to Findlay? And Kentucky got raked over by a gardner named Webb? It is not even March Madness yet! You think maybe tennis players and NBA referrees have money on these games? The world is going crazy in sports. Pretty soon you are going to tell me that 250 million people in the world watched an NBA game because two Chinese guys are playing. I think I will watch more predictable sports like horse racing.

Couple of authors wrote into the LA Times supporting the idea that pharmacists should be able to prescribe medicines. They say that pharmacists know more about pharmacology than physician assistants and nurse practitioners who are allowed to prescribe. The flaw of this reasoning is that pharmacists don't examine the patient. Making the right diagnosis is the most important part of prescribing treatment. I don't know how you can make the right diagnosis without examining the patient. They point to the morning after pill which someone can purchase without a prescription just by talking to the pharmacist. According to them the next logical step would be to allow medicines for migraines and cholesterol to be sold behind the counter. This does not seem logical to me. If a woman comes in and say that she needs emergency birth control, there is no need to examine her to see if she really had sex last night. But over the years I have had many patients who come in and tell me that they have migraines but upon further questioning and examination, I found that the cause of their headache was not migraines. Treating cholesterol requires ordering and interpreting test results. This is not something pharmacists are trained to do.

It is legal for doctors to dispense medications. I choose not to do so for two reasons. First I believe that pharmacists play a very important role in assuring the safety of the patient. Just like any human being, I make mistakes. When I make a mistake on my prescription a pharmacist usually would point it out to me. If I dispense the medicine myself, this layer of protection is lost. So if a pharmacist prescribes and dispenses, wouldn't that layer of protection be lost? The second reason is that it gives an appearance that I may prescribe more to make a greater profit. Most of the doctors who dispense and most pharmacists who would prescribe are probably honest. But some would be dishonest. If the government and the patients think that one step shopping is the best way to go, then I guess I may have to dispense as well to keep up with the times. I hope it won't come to that.

The authors of the article are economists. While I understand that economics teach us that free market usually works the best, it is not the case here. When the person who provides the product is able to tell the buyer what and how much to buy, free market forces are not at work. More people prescribing and dispensing will lead to higher and not lowe healthcare costs. Believe me if you can walk into a pharmacy and get medicine without being examined, you will see more advertising by pharmaceutical companies to encourage people to do so. These companies will also pitch to the pharmacists who unlike most doctors who only prescribes will have more incentive to sell more. With more medicine taken, more complications will certainly follow and there will be more healthcare spending. So the economic calculations by these authors are totally wrong.