I have always believe that the dramatic increase in the price of oil is not just due to supply and demand. I mean the price has almost double in one year and the demand certainly has not gone up that much. As I mentioned before a lot has to do with speculation in the futures market. Some has to do with the weakness of the dollar. But I had no way of figuring exactly how much each factor was worth. Today on ABC news some expert quantify this for me. I don't know how accurate these figures are and I am sure even the best economists can't be sure. The current price is over $135 per barrel. According to their calculation, if it is just a matter of supply and demand the price should be about $75 per barrel. This would be about 7% increase from a year ago which is reasonable given the increase in demand. But this report said that specualtion adds $30 to a barrel and the weakness of the dollar adds $20. This still leaves $10 due to various causes. I think this is a reasonable calculation. One news item that show that speculation had an impact was that last week China announced that it would decrease subsidy to gasoline and thus increase retail price. This would eventually decrease demand. But the demand obviously did not decrease overnight as the price increase had not gone into effect yet. Nevetheless the next day the price went down more than $4 per barrel, indicating that the speculators are anticipating the decrease in demand and thus lower the bids. A true supply demand market would not have changed the price that quickly.

In a related item, three law school professors wrote in the LA Times that we should sue OPEC for fixing prices. I already wrote before condemning Congress for suggesting we should sue OPEC. Of course, Congress is made up mostly of lawyers and so we should not be surprise. Think about it, what right do you have to demand that someone sell something they have for a price that you like? If we have the oil reserve like they do, would we sell it to other countries at a price they want, as much as they want? Eventually the oil will run out and countries like Saudi Arabia are trying to maximize their profit just like anyone else would. They have an interest of not letting price go so far up that other countries would turn to alternative energy sooner. What makes anyone think that they would pay even if they lose in court? They would just ignore us and make more deals with China and India. We have three ways to drive down OPEC prices: make quick progress in alternative energy, decrease usage, or use military force. You decide.

I don't think the allegations from former referee Tim Donaghy that referees purposely made call that ensure a 7th game in the 2002 playoffs are credible. The NBA always have a reputation that the game is not called fairly and thus can be fixed. I think everyone would agree that the stars get the call 90% of the time when going up against a mediocre player. In a game where a lot of the fouls can be called either way, it is a big advantage for the stars. Most of the time it is not a directive from the league to help a player but referees are human beings who give the better player the benefit of the doubt. So I don't buy that there is a conspiracy theory. If there was, I would think the Knicks would be doing much better.

But I do have trouble with the way Yao Ming had been treated since coming to the NBA. Before Yao the European players who came to the league always seem to get the worst calls. Maybe it is because they play the game differently than the American players and the referees are not use to seeing their moves. When Yao started in the league, I thought he was getting favorable treatments. This is in contrast to other foreign players before him. I always suspected that since China is a big market that the league is trying to get into, they want Yao to succeed badly. While he was adjusting to the pace of the NBA some of the awkward moves that can be called fouls or travels were ignored. Was there a directive? Who knows. But when Yao got to superstar level, he did not get the calls that would be expected for a superstar. Certainly the things that Shaq got away with, Yao did not get away with in the last couple of years. Could there be a directive to let him be good, but not too good?

Well, maybe this is all speculation and nonsense. Let's get back to watching the NBA finals between the Kevin McHale Celtics and the Jerry West Lakers!

p.s. since last night when I wrote this and could not get it publish for some reason, the Celtics have won the finals. Paul Pierce is named the MVP but we all know that Kevin McHale is the real MVP!

Finishing up on the vp situation from the last blog before moving on to a lighter topic today. While I agree with LBOAYM about Obama not picking someone from the midwest, one should consider Ohio governor Ted Strickland. Ohio is an important swing state and Strickland was a Clinton supporter. Plus a senator-governor combination is generally better than a ticket with both being in the same type of office. In McCain's case I think he will strongly consider Romney because he would be helpful in Mich. and Mass. Romney also has lots of money. But I think they don't like each other much and the conservatives are not sold on Romney. Huckabee will help with the south but if McCain can't win the south himself, he is not going to win anyway. Huckabee would be a liability outside of the south. I don't see Rice as a viable candidate because that would validate Obama's claim that McCain would be Bush's third term. I see Charlie Crist, the governor of Florida and the governor of Minnesota, whose name escapes me now, as the likely candidates for McCain. By the way, Anthony Zinni got mentioned today by David Gergen on CNN as a possible candidate, the first I have heard of that in the media.

In my Nov. 9, 2006 blog I talked about athletes in politics. Al Franken's endorsement by the Democrats to run for senator from Minn. got me thinking about entertainers that may be interesting politicians. So here are 10 that I thought about, in no particular order. None of them will likely or should win offices. People who are actually serious about running such as Fred Thompson or Warren Beatty are not considered here. Arnold and Ventura were already mentioned as athletes in 2006 blog and are not eligible here.

1. Oprah. Anyone can come up with this one. The most powerful woman in America already, she easily wins the female and black vote anytime she wants.

2. Jackie Chan. Ability to get out of trouble and avoiding attacks is a big asset in Hong Kong politics.

3. Carlos Mencias. This totally political incorrect Hispanic believes in equal opportunit-- He trashes all ethnic groups alike. He is a little too vulgar for me but he is hilarious. His Bud light commercial is great.

4. Bono. A serious man when not performing, Bono does a lot of humanitarian work. Bush met him about his work but was confused because he wanted to see Cher.

5. Stephen Colbert. A liberal pretending to be a conservative. I still don't know why Bush invited him to speak at a dinner. Didn't he realized that Colbert was a fake Republican?

6. Charles Barkley. Always wanted to be governor of Alabama. Can't afford to take a pay cut from TNT though. Has compelling story if he keeps gambling: from rags to riches back to rags.

7. Tina Fey. A very funny woman who looks dorky enough to be an intellectual while wearing those glasses.

8. Darrell Hammond. Does a great Bill Clinton. But he also does Al Gore. Can package himself as a recycled Gore and get the environmental vote.

9. Conan O'Brien. Being tall and an alumnus of Harvard help. Maybe a target of the Mafia for replacing an Italian-Jay Leno.

10. Martin Sheen. Already played a president on tv. More intellectual than people realiz, he is studying at either Oxford or Cambridge now. Has to try to keep his son Charlie out of trouble. Has to explain why he changed his name. He is short. Ok, too many negatives, back to acting!

Who should Obama pick as vp? Pros and cons of Clinton as vp has been dissected over tv and newspaper ad nauseum already. I am against it but if other people have the opposite opinion I can certainly understand it. Frankly I don't know who would be of any help to Obama in the election. I think it will be up to him to win the voters over in the swing states. At best a vp candidate from one of the swing states may help him at that particular state. He will win or lose the election on his own merit.

But having said that, who would I like to be vp? Joe Biden was my favorite to be president in the beginning so obviously I would like him to be vp. But since he got only about 0.5% of the votes while he was running he does not seem likely to be picked.

Anthony Zinni is a retired 4 star marine general who has diplomatic experience especially in the Middle East where he served as envoy to Israel and Palestine. He has written books and taught in colleges such as Duke (where he is now), VMI and Berkeley. He was a Republican at one time and voted for Bush in 2000. He called that one of the biggest mistakes in his life. He was a strong critic of going to war in Iraq from the beginning. This is from a man who had warned about terrorism especially the harboring of bin Laden by the Talibans before 2000. He understood the war would not make us safer. He warned about trusting Chalabi and other Iraqi expatriots who were leading us into the "Bay of Goats", a reference to the Bay of Pigs in the 60's. As a result of the Bush administration going to war in Iraq instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan, he left the party and has been an advisor to Obama in foreign affairs. I have seen him on tv and he is an excellent speaker who sounds very intelligent. His drawback is that he has never run for public office so there is no way to judge his ability on the campaign trail. He was born in Pennsylvania, a swing state, for what that is worth.

Jim Webb is a first term senator from Virgina so he has at least won political office before. Virginia is also a state that Obama would like to take from the Republicans and can possibly do it as he did great in the primary there. Webb is also a retired marine general who was a hero in Vietnam. He speaks fluent Vietnamese and is married to a Vietnamese woman who went to U. of Michigan law school. Like Zinni he has a son in the military. Webb's son returned from Iraq last year. Despite the loyalty he has for the military, Webb is totally against the war. He has teamed up with Obama to try to pass legislation to improve benefits for veterans.

Webb and Zinni are American military heroes who may help Obama with the people who question his "strength". Biden would help Obama with people who question his experience. Biden has never gotten much national support despite his experience. So who knows if any of these guys would do anything for Obama. I am just throwing out these 3 names because I believe these people are men of integrity and intelligence. They would never be elected president on their own but I rather that one of them be one heart beat to the presidency than the multitudes of politicians.

Obama all but clinched the nomination today whent the Democratic Rules Committee voted to give Florida and Michigan half of the votes. Even if the committee had voted to give everything Clinton wanted, Clinton would not have been able to overtake Obama in pledge delegates and as I said before there was no way that the superdelegates would have overturn the pledge delegates because that would mean losing the black vote in November. As is now, after the last primaries on Tuesday, Obama would need only about 30 of the remaining 220 or so superdelegates to win the nomination. There may even be enough of them declaring their support of Obama in the next couple of days to make the last two primaries irrelevant.

If Clinton does not bow out after Tuesday and take the fight to the Credentials Committee as Harold Ickes threatened today, her legacy in the party as well as that of her husband will be severely damaged. In the interest of unity the neutral people in the party has refrained from criticizing her. But for her to drag this out when it is mathmatically impossible for her to win is dispicable. She had agreed with the party when it decided that Florida and Michigan were not going to count. That's because she had expected to win the nomination easily. When she started losing then she wanted to count those votes even though there was no campaigning and Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. If there was no campaigning Obama would not have won Iowa since Clinton was much more well-known before the campaign. And for her to suggest that Obams do not get any vote in Michigan since nobody voted for him is absurd. Does anyone in his right mind would believe that a strong black candidate like Obama would not do well in Michigan if his name was on the ballot and he campaigned? Changing the rules after the fact is like calling the games exhibitions but after they were played, with one team not even showing up, declared them to count in the standings.

The Clintons are ultimately politicians. I expect her to drop out next week to save her power within the party. Afterall, Obama may lose in November and she will be the odds of favor in 2012 then. Even if Obama wins and stays 8 years, Clinton will still be only 68 years old in 2016, younger than McCain today. So I expect Clinton to act gracefully and not burn all her bridges. She will live to fight another day.

Gas price is over $4 now where I live. Unfortunately the freeways are still crowded here in Southern California. I did notice that there are not quite as many SUVs on the road. I guess we are using cars that get 20 miles per gallon instead of 10. Our government is not doing much either to change the stituation. Bush went to Saudi Arabia to beg for more production of oil. The Saudis said no and Bush had no rebuttal. Back home Congress decided to sue OPEC for holding down oil production. To this announcement OPEC said--nothing. As I wrote in the comment section of the previous blog the U.S. is becoming more irrelevent. Who cares what Bush and Congress say. They will just ignore us. I mean they must think we are bunch of morons. Sue other people for not selling to us? Only in lawsuit happy America would someone believe that filing a lawsuit would solve everything. It just makes me angry that we have such incompetent and pandering people in our government.

It is interesting to note that we sent milliom of dollars to Saudi Arabia everyday for oil. And from which country did most of the 9/11 hijackers came from? Not Iraq or Iran. Yet did we use any leverage against Saudi Arabia? No, because we don't have any. We need their oil not the other way around. So we don't express our displeasure for their citizens attacking us but we only show displeasure when they don't produce as much oil as we would like. How is it that we complain that China don't use its leverage against Sudan?

The earthquake in China is an act of nature but the tragedy is compounded by the work of humans. Obviously China is not as advance as the U.S., Japan and Europe and so the ability to react to disaster is not expected to be world class. Come to think of it, our response to Katrina was also less than world class. But some of the deaths in China certainly could and should have been avoided. The total collapse of some of the schools are inexcusable. These were buildings erected not that long ago and should have been built much better. The race to build more and to make more profits have been costly as businesses and the government cut corners. It is not just foreigners who have lack of confidence in goods made in China, even the Chinese suspect poor quality due to greed. China is like America during the Industrial Revolution where anything goes as long as profits are made. The Olympics venues will be world class but the average Chinese are still being treated as second class citizens

Add to the misery of the death of all of those children is the fact that most of them are an only child. Due to the one child policy in China most parents only have one child. Can you imagine the pain of losing a child, the only one you have? I understand the need to control the population of China but there are just too many negatives with this policy. Killing or abandoning of female infants is obviously a tragic consequence. The only child, especially a boy, becomes a child emperor. The spoiling of the only child will weaken the Chinese adults in the future. Also with greater number of boys than girls, many men will not be able to find a mate. This will possibly lead to increase in depression and alcohol and drug abuse among future men. With less children and lack of a social safety net, who will take care of the elderly in the future. These are all potential disasters as a result of the one child policy.

With my advocating for increase in gas tax, one may think that I am a tax-spend liberal. I don't think I am. I favor a flat income tax with no loopholes. Generally I vote against bonds unless I am very sure that it is of great benefit. I especially hate those bonds that are for "public safety". See, people are more likely to vote for increase police, fire and prison fundings because they feel that these are essential. But since they are essential they should come out of the general tax only. But if politicians increase the general tax they get people upset. But by using bonds or special taxes to fund things like police or roads, then they have more for other things which the taxpayers may not want to support.

Another problem I have with revenue enhancement by the government is the hidden taxes they put in things such as phone bills, both landlines and cellular. There are 911 state tax, funding to support Public Utilities Commission, Federal Universal Service fee, etc. Why do I have to support the public utilities commission with a charge on my phone bill? Who voted for that? Certainly not taxpayers. And what service did the federal governmen provided on my phone? By putting stuff like that without our knowledge politicians get away with increasing our tax without telling us.

Now there are some taxes that I am usually for. Cigarette taxes and alcohol taxes can increase for all I care. These are things that cause a lot of human misery but banning them in the past had not work. Maybe taxing them won't change behavior but so what have we got to lose? We should also increase tax on luxury items. Double the tax on gas guzzlers. Close the loophole we have in Calif. where yach buyers can dock it somewhere outside of the state for a few months and then bring the yacht back and do not have to pay sales tax here. If you can afford the million dollar yacht, you can afford the sales tax. So with my various stand on taxes and fees I am sure neither the Democrats or Republicans will ask me to run for office in their parties anytime soon.

With gas nearing $4 per gallon Clinton and McCain are calling for a suspension of the gas tax for the summer. Obama is calling this pandering and that this policy will not help the consumers. Obama is right on this as practically all economists say suspending the gas tax has no effect. Of course Obama has not put out any energy ideas either. The truth is no politician has the vison to really change our energy policy. And if one has the vison he or she will probably be defeated at the polls.

Couple of years ago when gas approached $3 and there was the call to lower the gas tax and drill in Alaska, I said that those are not policies that would do any good. I said that we should RAISE the tax so that gas is $5 per gallon and thus shocked the nation into really look for alternative energy and stop wasting. Well, I was wrong because now we are almost at $5 without increasing taxes and we have not been shocked into doing things differently. Alaska and lowering the gas tax are still the things on the table. We are still driving huge SUVs.

To see how inept our politicians are look at how they can't even do the things that are obvious. If you want people to decrease gas usage and increase the use of alternative energy, then it would be obvious that you raise the tax on gasoline and give tax credit for using alternative energy. Instead the oil companies continue to get tax subsidies of billions of dollars. At the same time the tax credits for buying hybrids and investment stimulus for wind and solar energy are allowed to expired. In Europe and Japan the gas prices are much higher and they invest more than us in alternative energy. But don't just blame our politicians. Remember when I said that we should raise the gas tax instead of lowering it, I also said that I would never get elected to office if I advocated that. American people expect pandering from the politicans. We would never accept bitter medicine until we are at deathbed. We get the politicians that we deserve.

I watched Jeremiah Wright on CNN on Sunday. For the most part I was impressed. He was charismatic and I can see why he had so many followers including Obama. He spoke in different accents. He sang and danced. I agreed with some of the things he said. Only two things I had trouble with. One is that he quoted a Wayne State professor's findings that whites and blacks learn differently. Whites use the left brain and thus more logical whereas blacks use the right brain and thus more creative. I have never seen such a scientific conclusion. But let's say the research show this to be true, would a white person come out and say this without getting into trouble? When people comment that blacks and whites are different physiologically and thus explain blacks superiority in running and jumping, that was considered to be racist because critics say that would imply that blacks are not as smart. I never understood why that is the case. But now a black professor say that blacks and whites think differently, there is no implications of the races not being equal? Wouldn't racists use that excuse and segregate blacks and whites into different classrooms if not schools? Differences in learning have been used as a reason for female only schools. But of course when one proposes possibility that male and female are different in science and math, that would be sexist.

The other problem with Wright on Sunday was that he was throwing Obama under the bus by keep talking about changes, which was Obama's campaign theme. This cause more people to associate the two of them even more. Then he said that Obama's denunciation of him was political. This after Obama showed loyality toward him by not denouncing him but only his words.

I did not hear all of Wright's speech at the National Press Club. I understand from the excerpts that it was much worse than Sunday. This led Obama to severe all ties with him which is the right thing to do but may be late. It seems to me Wright is purposely trying to take Obama down. If Obama is elected then the highest glass ceiling in the land would have been shattered. No longer can people like Wright or Sharpton use victimhood for their causes. It would still be an unfair world but Obama would have shown that even a black man who once used drugs can become president. It really would not matter if he got this far using his right or left brain!