Watched most of a story on CNN about the violence in Mexico due to the drug war. The violence is spreading to America and despite Obama saying that we are going to help Mexico fight this, I don't think we will succeed. As I have said many times before: where there is a demand, there will be a supply. Our demand for illegal drugs have made the cartels rich. There is a 2 way traffic with drugs coming in and money and weapons going to Mexico. With these money and weapons, the Mexican police are outgunned and government officials are bribed. Illegal drugs are a national security problem and no amount of border control will stopped it.

I say go the way of alcohol and tobacco. Legalize drugs! I hate drugs and I am proud to say that I have never even smoke a joint. But the reality is rich free nations don't seem to be able to curb their appetite for drugs. I am under no illusion that legalizing drugs will decrease the addiction rates. I don't think the Netherland's drug addiction rates has decreased. But I don't think it has increased with legalization either. But by legalizing, we can at least take the profits away from the mob. I am also under no illusion that taxes from drugs will help in prevention and treatment as the politicians will funnel the money to elsewhere. But right now we are not getting anything and we are spending tons of money to police drugs not only here but abroad as well. So legalize now before our streets turn bloody like those in Mexico.

Just returned from Hilton Head, South Carolina, where I watched my daughter's college tennis team played 5 matches during spring break. I was pleasantly surprised by how I enjoyed the trip. I was looking forward to seeing my daughter of course, but I did not think that I would like to watch college tennis so much. I have not played tennis for a while because of my shoulder injury and with only one more child still competing, I had not thought much of tennis lately. But at Hilton Head I saw some incredible matches involving athletes who will not be going pro after graduation. They were playing for the love of the game with genuine joy, something I don't see often in pro or high level div. 1 sports. It makes me want to start playing tennis again!

In contrast to this, I saw an article about this guy started a "rock, scissors, paper" tournament for college students. It is going to on cable tv with bikini clad women and beer kegs. So we are trying to sell a kids' game with sex and alcohol. So this is how low our intellectual level has sunk to? People are actually going to watch this and think these "competitors" are athletes or geniuses who can out think their opponents? And I thought college poker tournaments was the lowest we would get!

Is Obama spreading himself too thin? Obviously, whether his presidency will be judged to be successful over the next couple of years depend on how fast the economy recovers. Many people are criticizing him for not focusing on the economy at this time. Obama is trying to put new policies in healthcare, energy, education, stem cell research, war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and foreign relations. These are ambitious programs and many people think that he should just concentrate on the economy for now. I disagree. It is not like he can spend 24 hours a day on the economy and things will turn around in a month. He promised changes and he is trying to achieve them. I don't agree with all of his ideas but I give him credit for trying to improve the country beyond the next couple of years.

The problem with trying to do all these things is that you make enemies with each program. No matter what you propose there will be people who oppose it. Today, for example, he spoke about changes he want to make in education. You know that things like merit pay and charter schools will get the teachers unions all upset. And they are among the strongest supporters of the Democrats. So you are making an enemy of an ally, never mind what he proposes make sense to most Americans. The truth is most of us are selfish, so our politicians are selfish and try to protect the interest of his district or state even though it is not for the best interest of the country.

Obama has assembled an intelligent group in his cabinet. But so far he has been the only spokesman. He is trying to sell all the programs by himself. About the only one who has been helpful in public has been Hillary. She is carrying out the foreign policies well. Tim Geithner has been of no help with trying to sell the stimulus program. Stephen Chu needs to speak out more about the importance of the energy program not only in the future but also on the economy today. Where was Obama's education secretary today? Where has Joe Biden been? Obama can't do it by himself. He needs his cabinet members to step up. He needs the Congress to be less selfish. Well, that last part we probably will never get.

A few days ago the LA Times had an editorial which supported the release of 17 Uighurs detained at Guantanamo Bay. The Uighurs are Chinese Muslims of Turkic origin from western China. They were detained while they were in Pakistan in 2002 after having received firearm training in Afghanistan. It is obvious that they were not enemy combatants against the U.S. as the Bush administration had claimed. I have advocated from the beginning that we should not detain people who are not our enemy lest they and the family they had left behind will become our enemies in the future. Now the cases are going through the courts with civil rights group demanding that the government let these detainees be released into the U.S. and receive political asylum. I don't think this is a good idea even though I admit that I see no good way of solving this problem myself. I just wished that the Bush administration would not have detained these people in the first place!

The Uighurs would obviously face harsh treatment if they are returned to China. They were training to be potential terrorists in Afghanistan. No other country wants to take them in now because nobody wants to anger China. If we give them political asylum we certainly would anger China. I mean if China had caught someone training to attack the U.S., would we not want to have him extradicted to the U.S.? The fact that the Uighurs are an oppressed minority in China does not excuse them from training to attack China. Someone's freedom fighter is someone else's terrorist.

Besides angering China, which may mean they will not cooperate with us against terrorism in the future, we have to consider whether these Uighurs are dangerous if released into our society. They were obviously ready to use force against China for whatever injustice they faced in China. Were those injustices worse than spending 7 years in jail? They had no reason to attack the U.S. in 2002 but what about now after we deprived them of their freedom for 7 years? So if we release them into our country, we anger China and we have to watch our back for 17 trained foreigners who spent 7 years in our prison. If we sent them back to China they will be punished severely for crimes that they have yet to committ, after we had imprisoned them for 7 years. What a mess!

Two things about racism I found disturbing last week. The first one was not actually racism in itself. It was about lack of discussion about racial relations. Eric Holder, the new attorney general, called the U.S. a nation of cowards. I thought the attorney general is supposed to be an expert on law and not on people's feelings. Calling us the nation of cowards goes way too far. The people who are not afraid to speak their mind about race usually have their own agenda. Some maybe racists, like the KKK. Some maybe extreme liberals, like Al Sharpton, who looks at every perceived injustice through racism. Certainly the majority of the country are not in these two groups. Most people are afraid to offend others and avoid sensitive subjects. This does not make them cowards, just normal people. For example most non-blacks would be afraid to stand up and say that black men need to step up and take care of the children. Can you imagine Bill Clinton, a friend of blacks, saying that? Only a black leader like Obama can say that. This does not mean Clinton is a coward.

The other item was the cartoon of a two policmen shooting a chimp with the inscription: "now they have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill". This was an obvious reference to Obama as a chimp. The writer and the editor tried to deny this saying it was just a parody. They said Obama did not write the stimulus bill so if anything the chimp was Pelosi or Reid, which they claim was not either. That is an absurd explanation. Given the long history of racists referring blacks to monkeys, the inference here is obvious. Nobody would think the cartoonist meant Pelosi or Reid as a monkey. In any case, whoever the chimp is supposed to represent, the cartoonist thinks that the person responsible for the stimulus bill should be shot. Regardless whether you like the stimulus bill or not this crosses the line.

It used to be the hope of baseball fans that Alex Rodriguez would eventually pass Barry Bonds as the homerun king and thus rid of the asterisk on the biggest record in the sport. Now we learn that A-Rod also cheated. I think the problem is way more wide spread than MLB is ready to admit. If the greatest stars of the game such as Bonds, McGwire, Clemens and Rodriguez used steroids to improve their game, would you be surprised if the borderline players use them too? I mean if the superstars are doing it, I would think almost everyone who is trying to get into the Majors or trying to stay in it will do everything he can to improve his odds.

The problem is going to stay with baseball for a long time. One of the great thing about baseball is that it is so statistically oriented. You can compare players even from different generations, fairly or not. But now we may not be able to trust the records for years to come. Can anyone say with certainty that Albert Pujos is not tainted? Or how about young stars like Ryan Howard? For me personally, it is not the records that I care about. It is that steroid use by the pros have and will continue to have influence on high school and college players. They think that they should do what the pros do. Unfortunately very few of them become pros and they are causing great harm to their bodies. To me this the greatest shame of the steroid usage by the stars.

There was a segment on Sat. Night Live's Weekend Update with Seth Meyer and Amy Poehler where the two of them mock certain people's actions with the word "really?". Some of the actions of Obama and the Democrats lately deserve a few "reallys?" Three nominees by Obama had tax problems? Really? His staff couldn't have vetted these people better? Really? Bill Richardson is well known and they couldn't find all the dirt on him before the nomination? Really?

Are the Congressional Democrats really Obama's friends? They come up with a stimulus plan that include things that are easy targets for the GOP. Money for art and STD education in a economic stimulus plan? Really? You don't think the GOP would jump all over these programs? Really? These programs take up less than 1 percent of the package but distract from the whole thing. As I said before, I don't really know what programs will actually stimulate the economy to a great degree. But I know when you propose building bridges and roads and thus creating jobs, it can bring confidence to the country. When you propose programs that seem like pork, you diminish the confidence of the people.

As the leader, the buck stops with Obama. He has acknowledged mistakes with his nominations. Many presidents had nominations that did not get confirmed. This won't hurt him much. He, however, must take control of the stimulus bill. Do not let his "friends" make him a target of the GOP. Tell Pelosi and Reid to cut out the controversial programs and then dare the GOP to filibuster in the Senate. The only idea the GOP has is tax cuts. So tell the members of Congress who only want tax cuts but not spending programs that they won't get any funds from the proposed programs. Then in a few years we can see if the areas in the country that got the spending stimulus is better or worse than those areas that only got tax cuts. No GOP Congressmen will agree to that! I mean, I think every GOP governor and mayor in the country will be upset if they don't get any funds as a result of their Congressional delegation voting against the plans. In summary, Obama should do the right thing by getting rid of some of the things that seem to be pork. After that he should play hard ball with the GOP.

Obama has been working hard in his first week in office. He has already reversed some of the things Bush did. He has sent George Mitchell on a trip to the Middle East. He has gone to the Capitol to meet with Congressional Republicans to sell his stimulus plan. He has appeared on Arabic television to speak to Muslims. I don't agree with everything he has done but overall he has been much more engaging than Bush ever was. He appears to be very much in charge.

Two things I don't like about the economic effort so far. The stimulus plan spends too little on infrastructure, the one area I am all for spending. There are too many liberal spending plans in it. The Republicans are objecting and despite Obama's effort on Capitol Hill today, I don't think he will get much support from the Republicans on the bill. Of course, the Republicans can only complain as the only plan they have is more tax cuts. So even without bipartisan support, I think most of the country will be on Obama's and the Democrats' side. I don't like Tim Geithner being sec. of treasury. A guy who didn't pay his taxes running the IRS? Common! He maybe brillant but he was part of the Paulson team who worked out the bailout. If he has any great idea why didn't he present any a few months ago? He complained about China's monetary policy. In a time of global economic crisis, starting a war of words is not helpful. I think he was just trying to distract people from his tax questions. He does not seem like a good pick for Obama.

I am impressed by Obama's quick action on the Middle East. George Mitchell is a great pick although I don't know if he will step on Hilary's foot. By giving his first tv interview as president on an Arab network, it shows to the world how serious about the the region. He understands that unless there is peace between Israel and the Arab world, there will be no end on the war on terror. This is something Bush never understood. Instead of trying to be an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians right away, he invaded Iraq. The road to peace is long and filled with traps but Obama has taken the first right steps.

Michael Jordan misses an uncontested dunk. Tiger Woods whiffs a tee shot completely. Tommy Lasorda fails to finish a plate of pasta. These are the things I thought about when Obama stumbled as he took the oath today. The most eloquent politician of our time has just layed an egg. Turns out it was John Roberts who messed up the oath causing a surprised Obama to stop in mid sentence. I hope that this is not an omen of things to come during Obama's presidency. I mean following a Republican who screws up which in turn makes Obama look bad.

I thought the speech was good but not great by Obama's standard. Of course he has set a very high standard. He said all the right things today and looked presidential but I don't think he aroused the people as he had done in the past. Of course, given the enormity of the challenges, it is hard to instill confidence in people on one speech alone. A lot of work ahead of him and his hair will grow even grayer.

I thought Rick Warren tried to be inclusive in his prayer. He asked God to forgive us if we do not treated everyone equal. This seems to be a bone thrown to the gay supporters. I think that shows Obama's idea of reaching out to conservatives is a good one. Warren did use Jesus' name at end of the prayer so it certainly was not a neutral religious theme. But he is a Christian preacher so I don't expect him to deviate much from his regular prayer. Overall a great day and I think the smooth transition of power with a huge celebration will make us look good in the eyes of the world.

Obama is getting criticism from both Democrats and Republicans for his economic stimulus plan. Everybody is talking like he or she knows the best way to turn around the economy. As I have said many times before: nobody really understands economics. It is not an exact science. It is not like chemistry where if you put 2 hydrogen atoms with an oxygen atom, you will always get a water molecule. Nobody knows what plan will get us out of the trouble we are in now, not even the best economists. So even as I don't agree with everything in Obama's plan, I find the criticisms to be of no value except for political purposes.

It is not surprising that the Republicans criticize the Obama plan. They are the opposition after all. It is also reasonable to question the huge amount of money that will be spent. We will run a big deficit with this. Of course we already ran a huge deficit under Bush so it is hard to say that the Republicans are the fiscal conservative they claim to be. And the bailouts, which are of questionable value, was the plan of the Bush's treasury secretary Paulson.

Pat Buchanan argues that Obama should act like Regan during the economic crisis of 1980s rather than like FDR during the Depression. It is a reasonable argument that we may not have come out of the Depression because of FDR's alphabet soup programs which we learned in high school history. Some historians have claimed that the Depression only ended with WWII. Buchanan said that Regan's supply side economics of tax cuts and letting the private sector do the work got us out of the crisis faster. But for every Buchanan, the Democrats can find an economist who says the opposite. For example the situation in 1929 was much worse than 1980s and if WWII stimulated the economy, it was the government and the military that did the stimulating by buying weapons, ammunition, planes, ships etc. In the 1980s the tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%. With the Bush tax cut it is around 35% now, so even if we cut to 28% like Regan did, do you really think it would stimulate growth quickly? And the Bush tax cut has not help the economy and has produce a record deficit. Regan did improve the economy but also left such a big deficit that Bush #1 had to raise taxes even though he had infamously said: "Read my lips, no new taxes." This led to his loss to Clinton.

So why do the Democrats want to go against their president? They don't like tax cuts and think that Obama is caving in to the Republicans by adding tax cuts and credits to his bill. They also want more spending, believing that 800 billions or so is not enough. I agree that tax cuts won't do much right now and tax rebates won't do anything at all. Witness the rebate last year which stimulated nothing. But spending for the sake of spending will not be effective. We are going into big deficit and our children will pay for it. Instead of arguing over how much, we should be looking into how we spend the money. As I said before, infrastructures in the country are in bad shape. So the money we spent there, even if doesn't help the economy as much as we hope, will at least provide us with better roads, bridges and communication systems.

Ultimately there is a limit of what anyone can do. It is usually being at the right place at the right time that makes one a hero. Alan Greenspan was the idol of both Republicans and Democrats when the economy was doing well. Now everybody says he made a lot of mistakes. Even he acknowledges of not seeing the disaster that was looming. FDR and Regan were both at the right place at the right time for them. Their plans were totally different. But they both were able to give confidence to the nation. I think that was the main difference between them and their predecessors, Hoover and Carter. If Obama can continue to inspire confidence his plan will succeed in the eyes of history, whether or not it is the right plan.