As expected Obama spoke eloquently last night but without changing one vote in Congress. There were no really surprises. I mean everyone says that they want to improve education, increase production of clean energy, cut the deficit, defend the country and even reform healthcare. But it is impossible to get even everyone in his party to agree on any of these issues. So it is like talking to the wall. Most of the voters don't really understand these issues. Ultimately they are going to vote base on how the economy is doing.

Basically Obama will have to pretend he has the answers and keep telling the people that. Just like FDR and Reagan. I think he is trying too hard to get a consensus so liberal and conservatives in his party are able to push him around. Healthcare may be dead no matter what he does. And I have said he should forget it with this bill. But if he insists on moving forward, he should just tell his party what he wants in the final bill now and let the Republicans filibuster it. And I mean REAL filibuster. Make them stand up there and talk without food, drinks or bathroom break as in the past. No more telling the umpire we are walking this guy and no pitch is thrown. Make them actually throw the pitches. It may be a waste of time but so what? Then go out and tell everyone he is in charge and the economy will be better soon. As I said if the economy turns around and he appears to be in charge, he will be a hero. If things get worse, he will get the blame. But he would have gotten the blame anyway if he tries to get a consensus, so he may as well act like he has better ideas and is the one totally in charge.

With Scott Brown's victory in Mass. it is time for Obama to pull the plug on healthcare reform. Any attempt to prevent a filibuster by having the House allowing the Senate bill to be the final bill without any changes will be seen as an underhanded move by the Democrats and will lead to more voter revolt in November. The inability for an overwhelming Congressional majority and a president of the same party to pass this legislation shows what a gridlock and ineffective government we have. Basically the Republicans are worthless as they don't want to do anything except cut taxes for the rich, protect people with guns, glorify religion even as most of them are total hyprocrits when it comes to moral value. The Democrats are the pawns of the unions, they use white guilt to promote minority causes even when those causes are wrong. What started as an overwhelming majority wanting healthcare reform ended with a bill that is not really worth having. The republicans complain that they were not being heard. But in truth they had no ideas that were worth anything. They really only wanted to stop the Democrats from passing a bill. Their spread of rumors about death panels was unconsciousnable. The Democrats had people like Ben Nelson which fought against the public option which was the only thing in the bill that would likely bring down cost. People like him held the bill hostage for things that would only benefit their states. So with people like that no wonder we will continue to have rising cost in health insurance with more and more people becoming uninsured in the years ahead.

What has happened at USC in the past week is an indictment of big time NCAA sports. USC put its own basketball team on probation due to the investigation of O.J. Mayo who is in the NBA now. To me, if the NCAA is set up so that people would comply with the rules and punish those that don't, then why are the current team and current coach the only ones being punished when they have nothing to do with the wrong doing? Mayo is earning millions in the NBA and his coach Tim Floyd can apply for any coaching job. The current players are being sanctioned. It is totally unfair.

Of course the basketball team is being offered up as a sacrificial lamb by USC to prevent or decrease the punishment by the NCAA to the football team. It is interesting that the Reggie Bush case has been going on for 3 years and the NCAA and USC have not finished the investigation. Yet the Mayo case is resolved so fast. Meanwhile Bush is making millions in the NFL and Joe McNight, another footballer under investigation, has declared for the NFL draft. If they are found guilty, there is nothing the NCAA can do to them as they don't care about their eligibility.

Now Pete Carroll is going to the NFL. Again the NCAA can't do anything if Carroll had known about Bush and McNight. The new coach and current players are the ones who will get the penalty, if there are any. The NCAA has to make a deal with the NBA and NFL such that they would suspend the players and coaches involved if they turn pro. It is unlikely that the NBA and NFL will go along with this. Given that, why do we need the NCAA at all? We should just declare big time college teams semi-pros. We should just declare the champion of the Ivy League, where there are no athletic scolarships and the players are qualified students, the real college champions.

Well, my prediction of 4 wins for the Big Ten came true as Iowa defeated Georgia Tech tonight. So what a couple of the game prediction were wrong, the total was correct which is the most important.

I don't understand how stopping people from going to the bathroom the last hour of a flight is going to make us safer. Why can't the terrorists attack before that time? Why he has to watch the in-flight movie before he tries to blow himself up? All this is just going to make whole bunch people get up just before the last hour and create chaos. It will also make people who needs to go anxious, especially old people like me and kids. Who thought of this idea?

Frankly I am surprised they are not banning people from wearing underwear on the plane. After all when someone had a shoe bomb, we all had to take our shoes off. When someone tried to use liquid to detonate, we are not allowed to carry more than 4 oz of fluid on board. So now this guy tried to hide power in his underwear I thought logically, at least logically in the government sense, would mean at least everyone has to show their underwear before boarding. If they come up with a hair bomb, we would all have to be bald. What's next?

Now that I am bloated from eating too much on Christmas I will just write about something light: sports. Of course sports may create more arguments than politics or religion so I may be making a big mistake here. I am going to go over 3 controversies in sports this year and give my 2 cents worth and then I will make some bowl predictions.

The first controversy is about Serena Williams in the U.S. Open. I thought I wrote about it already but I don't see it in my archive. I must be getting senile. Anyway there are still some sports talk shows where her behavior is debated. There are some who said her behavior was justified due to the fact that the call should not have been made at the end of a close match. That is absurd. I understand that fouls are not called at end of close NBA games and penalties are not called at end of close NHL games. But those calls are subjective and can go either way most of the time. A line call is not subjective even though the referee can make a mistake. If Michael Jordan charges into a defender, the ref can call foul either way or not at all. But if he sees Jordan steps on the end line with the ball in his hand, he has to call it out. If the lineswoman saw Williams step on the line before hitting the serve, she is obligated to call it. I would agree her behavior up to the point where she threaten the lineswoman was no where as bad as McEnroe or Connors in the past. But I don't think McEnroe or Connors ever threatened bodily harm to officials. So I think Williams deserve to be fine more heavily. As far as supensions go, I don't think there was ever a consideration to supsend a star player so forget about that.

Some sports writer with the help of Mathematicians are defending Bill Belichick's decision to go on 4th down against the Colts. Well, I have not seen their formula for this decision so I can't say if it is mathematically sound. But I do know this: No football coach, including Belichick, is smart enough to have done that calculation in his head! He made the decision simply because he had no faith in his defense. Whether he went for it or punted, the odds were in his favor as even the mathematical formula showed the the Patriots had a greater than 70% chance of winning either way. But now his defensive players know that their coach has no confidence in them and that is bad coaching.

I like Many Pacquiao way more than Floyd Mayweather so my opinion is biased. But I think all this talk about Olympic style doping test is nonsense. You don't change the rule for a sport for one event just because one competitor demands it. If this is the case, then every sprinter will demand testing be increased for Usain Bolt, even just to hassle him. I have a friend whose son was on the U.S. field hockey team. He said he would get randomly tested 1 or 2 times a year. So if we go by Olympic rules in 3 months, by random chance Pacquiao may not get tested at all until the urine test after the fight. If Mayweather calls for boxing to change its rule so that testing is more strict for everyone, I am all for that. But to demand the rule be changed suddenly for his opponent because he say so, is arrogant.

Finally I want to point out that the college football reporter for LA Times have predicted that the Big Ten will lose every bowl game this year. I am going out on a limb to say that they will win at least one! O.K I will be more brave and say they will win 4 out of 7. The Big Ten is down (again), so everyone will take them too lightly and on any given day the weaker team, if motivated by slight from others, can pull off the upset. Witness Utah over Alabama, and Boise State over Oklahoma in BCS bowls! The four I think will win for Big Ten? Minnesota over Iowa State is easy. Penn State over LSU. Joe Paterno is a better coach than Les Miles. Witness Miles losing a game this year because he forgot to call timeout. OSU beating Oregon because OSU is improving at end of the season and Oregon does not have the home field advantage like USC had at the Rose Bowl. MSU over Texas Tech. I am not impressed with Tech's defense and I think MSU can slow down their offense. I am afraid Wisconsin, Northwestern and Iowa are overmatched although Georgia Tech may overlook Iowa and they are not that good themselves.

Have a happy holiday, everyone.

I am not surprised the climate meeting in Copenhagen failed to come up with a comprehensive agreement. The deal that Obama brokered with China is just a way to save face for all the powers. Of course there was no way that they were going to get a binding agreement that activists like Al Gore will accept. If we can't even pass a water down energy bill in our Congress, why would anyone think that the countries of the world, all with different ideas and needs, will come to a consensus? The U.S. wants China and India to cut down their emissions as they develop. India, China and others do not want a tough limit their energy use as they try to catch up with the west.

My feeling is that basically the developing nations have a better argument. To tell them that they have to cut back after we have increased our standard of living with our factories, automobiles and high energy use is hypocritical. Of course if India and China ever use as much energy per capita as we do now, we might as well say good-bye to earth. So we need to do better ourselves and at the same time convince the developing nations that to improve emission is to their own best interest.

I think despite the fact the Copenhagen agreement is not very good, it is a step in the right direction. I think China, for example, understands that if pollution is not controlled, their economic growth will come to a halt. There will be a high cost to the health of its population as well. I am causiously optimistic that there will be cooperation between the U.S., China and India in green energy in the future. Our survival on this planet depends on it.

Predictably Obama was hit from the left and right after his announcement of the surge in Afghanistan. I think it is the right decision although I think he took too long to make it and the setting of a time line for exit is a bad idea. I know this sounds like Dick Cheney. But I am not part of the stupid administration who abandoned Afghanistan and lied their way into an unjust war in Iraq. And forget about the crazy left wingers like Kucinich and Moore. They don't live in the real world. I don't like wars but Afghanistan is a necessary war. If we run like the Soviets did the Taliban and al Qaeda will not only run Afghanistan again but will inspire others to join them. Kabul will become the capital of terrorism. Pakistan, a nuclear power, will be in danger of falling to Muslim extremists.

Look at things from the perspective of a moderate Muslim. I believe that this Muslim felt we had a right to invade Afghanistan after 9/11. He knows that he would do the same if his country was attacked by terrorists. However, he would likely be persuaded by extremists that the U.S. is the great Satan when we invaded Iraq. To him there was no reason to invade a country that has not attacked us. Now if we pull out of Afghanistan, he will view us as a country of of no heart. We can flex our muscles all over the world, with 60,000 troops in Germany, more than that in Korea, a large base in Japan, aircraft carriers patroling all the oceans. But when the going gets tough we bail out. Maybe we should bring all those troops home from Germany and Korea etc. and save our resources and people to fight wars we needed to win? Why do we have all these troops all over the world but when we are faced with maybe 25,000 hard core Talibans we bail? This moderate Muslim will be convinced that we are a nation of lazy, materialistic people as the extremists claim. I think the Iraq war had converted many moderates into extremists. Only by helping Afganistan become a nation free of the Talibans can we recover our reputation.


It is going to be a difficult task, no doubt about it. But I think it is still a winnable situation if we are together on this. This is where I think Obama has not done as well as he should. I think he understands that this war needs to be won but he is trying not to alienate his liberal base. He will need to convince the American people that victory is necessary. Then he needs to follow yhe advice of generals McCrystal and Petreus. These guys understand that you don't win with forces alone. The added troops buy us more time but we must work with the tribal leaders to provide jobs and security. It can be done because most Afghans don't like the Taliban and they don't think of the U.S. as an occupying force. They will turn against us, however, if we are not helping them and if it appears that the Taliban will take over their villages. So we have a small window of opportunity to turn things in our favor. We must do it now!

I am sure Obama is glad to be on the way home to face the economic crisis, the healthcare debate and Sarah Palin's book. He is glad to be out of Asia because this was his most difficult foreign trip since becoming president. While he was received warmly by the masses in Asia, he was not the rock star that went to Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Other than getting support from Russian president Medvedev on Iran, he didn't get much of anything else, especially in China.

Obama's critic is all over him for appearing weak on the trip. They even criticized him for bowing to the emperor of Japan. This is absurd. Bowing is a form of politeness in much of Asia, especially Japan. The old saying, "when in Rome do what the Romans do", apply here. I mean, what about Bush kissing the king of Saudi Arabia and holding his hand? I find that way more gross! But in all seriousness there is a sense of American power abroad eroding even before this trip. In the past the American president will have been able to work out agreements that he wanted before leaving home. This way it looks like he accomplished something on the trip. Now other contries are not afraid to tell the U.S. "no" ahead of time. I think Obama knows that he had to repair a lot of damage from the past and he cannot show up arrogant and demand things.

The economic crisis also makes it hard for Obama on this trip. In the past American officials can tell China and others that if they want economic growth they have to follow the U.S. With China being our lender now, we can't afford to lecture. As a result Obama did not get anything in regard to Iran, North Korea or the Chinese currency situation. China depends on Iran for oil, and the U.S. depends on China to buy our treasury bills, so why would China offend Iran to please us? China holds a lot of American dollars, so why would it increase the value its currency vs the dollar so that its investment value immediately decrease? Given this situation why would China listen to Obama about Tibet?

There is one good sign that I have not seen anyone talk about. That is Obama was allowed to speak to students in Shanghai. Even though the town hall style meeting was not broadcast on Chinese national tv, it could be seen over the internet without censorship. The setting is significant because Shanghai is where Fudan University is located. The three top universities in China are Peking, Quinghua and Fudan. The first two are both located in Bejing and are where most of the Chinese leaderships came from. Peking is most conservative and Quinghua is more technological. Of the three Fudan is by far the most liberal and has the most relations with international intellectuals. Fudan annually hosts a conference for college students from the Pacific rim which includes the U.S., Russia, Cananda, Australia in addition to Asian countries. My daughter attended the conference couple of years ago and said that there were very open discussions about human rights, Taiwan and Tibet. Chinese professors were openly critical of their own country on these issues without fear of censorship. I think if the future leaders of China come out Fudan instead of Peking or Quinghua, then I think China will become more democratic. The fact that China allowed Obama to speak near Fudan instead of Bejing is a good sign I believe.

Recently my wife and I attended the San Diego Asian Film Festival. We took in 5 movies over a 2 day period. The films we saw, in the order we saw them were: " All About Dad", "The Real Shaolin", "Yang Yang", "Whatever It Takes", and "Shades of Ray". I will rate to a scale of up to 5 and comment on each one.

"All About Dad" is about a Vietnamese American family and is a familiar story of values of parents vs the dreams of children in an Asian immigrant family. For the most part it is a very funny movie. The audience laughed loudly throughout the movie. I like the movie a lot despite the fact the main character, the youngest son who just finished his first year in college, reminds my wife and I of our own youngest child. As usual the Dad is the bad guy. More about that later. I give this movie a 4.2 out of 5.

"The Real Shaolin" is an documentary about 4 people trying to master kung fu in one of the Shaolin schools in central China. The main characters were an American, a Frenchman, a Chinese fighter trying to make it in Sanda, a Chinese version of kickboxing, and a young orphan growing up in the temple trying to become a kung fu monk. It has a lot of funny scenes but also lots of heartbreaking events. I thought it was the best of the 5 movies I saw. I give it a 4.6.

"Yang Yang" is about a half Taiwanese, half French girl growing up in Taiwan with her mother, step father and half sister. She is a high school track star, coached by her step father. She falls in love with her half sister's boyfriend. The first half of the movie was decent as the tension of the love triangle builds. But ultimately the story went flat. It was the weakest of the five movies and I give it a 3.0.

"Whatever It Takes" is a story of a Chinese American business man, unfulfillled in his work, becomes a principal at a new South Bronx magnet high school. It shows him and some dedicated teachers trying to help minority students overcome odds to go to college. It is suppose to be a story of tough love but I find the main character bending over too much for the students. There was still some very poor discipline given that the students supposedly want to go there instead of their neighborhood school in order to better themselves. The main student the film followed was obviously smart but she flunk almost all of her classes because she never did her homework. Despite that she got into Dartmouth's summer program. There were some kids who did much better but were only mentioned in passing. I guessing showing someone who succeeded because he/she studied everyday was not as interesting as someone who worked very little but somehow got chosen by some ultra-liberal institution. I give this film a 3.7.

"Shades of Ray" is about a half Pakistani man who proposed to his white girlfriend but while he waited for her answer, falls in love with a half Pakistani woman his father had set up for him. This was supposed to be one the big film of the festival as it stars Zachary Levi, star of TV show "Chuck" and Brian George who played Babu in Seinfeld. It was very funny but I find it hard to believe that a Pakistani man who married a white woman would insist that his son marry a Pakistani woman. The same with the girl's father. Also while Levi was funny, he acts and sounds too much like Seinfeld. I never saw "Chuck" so I don't know how he usually acts. I like Seinfeld but I would not want him to play a romantic role. I give this film a 4.0.

Overall it was good to see many talented Asian actors, directors and producers show their stuff. It is very difficult for Asian actors to get roles in Hollywood, especially Asian males. Even in "Shades of Ray" both Levi and George are not South Asians. The director Jaffar Mahmoud was at the film festival and he explained that he interviewed every South Asian actor in LA to cast the main character. He just couldn't find the right person. I can accept his explanation that he had to find the best person for the role. But if a South Asian can't play the role of a South Asian, what can he possibly play? One of the actors in "All About Dad" say that there is no decent role for Asian males and that he is thankful he has an engineering degree from Michigan State.

Which brings up my final point. Why is it that the dad is always the bad guy in films of conflict within an Asian family? I am sure that there are dads who are prejudiced but I don't believe that if one is married to someone of another race that he would try everything he can to stop his son from doing the same. Why is it that when an Asian man tells his son that studying hard is more important than trying to make films as the dad in "All About Dad" did is old fashion. But when an Asian man tells his black students that in order to make it out of the slum they have to study hard, then he is a hero? The message is the same but if you deliver it to your own son, it makes you look bad. But if you deliver it to your minority students you look great. I am sure the actor that got his engineering degree is glad that he listened to his Asian dad!

I read an article in LA Times recently about a fight in the Chinese community in Southern California over the use of traditional vs simplied scripts in Chinese language schools and in public schools in the area that offer Chinese courses. Traditional script is how Chinese have been written over thousands of years. It is distinguished by a series of complex strokes that makes for beautiful calligraphy. It is still the official writing in Taiwan and Hong Kong. The simplified version was introduced by the communists in China about 50 years ago to make it easier for the rural mass to become literate quicker. It is supposed to be easier for a child to learn than the complex traditional version.

In the past the Chinese America community was dominated by immigrants from Hong Kong and southern China. Then the Taiwanese came. Since all of these groups use the traditional version there was no controversy. Now there is a big influx of mainlanders who grew up using the simplified version. Obviously they want their children to learn the simplified version. So now school officials are caught in the middle. It is really too bad because it tears the Chinese American community apart over something as beautiful as Chinese writing.

My own feeling is that I want the traditional writings to survive. I am biased because I learned the traditional version. I also feel that the tradition is more beautiful. It has more, pardon the pun, character. I doubt that the simplified version is that much easier to learn. If you want easy, use alphabet! But I am also realistic, with the overwhelming population of China and its increasing influence in the world of commerce, the simplified version will eventually prevail. Just like Cantonese will give away to Mandarin in Chinatowns here and eventually even in Hong Kong, traditional scripts will lose out. It is too bad but it is reality.