Finally Obama went on t.v. to present his case of attacking Libya. It would seem to me that he should have done this before the first bombs were dropped. As I said before, when he said that "Kadafi must go". he did not leave himself much wiggle room. I had mixed feeling about getting into another war but I think once we are in we've got to make sure that Kadafi is going out. Obama is afraid to state the goal because Kadafi can always play rope-a-dope and try to outlast NATO. But regardless what Obama does, he is going to be criticized anyway from right and left. Witness Newt Gingrich who complained for couple of weeks that Obama did not attack Libya. Now that the operation has started, Gingrich said that he should not have done so. Given that Obama has already committed, he has to act stronger and announced that IF the Arab league believes that Kadafi should go, then the U.S. will sure to HELP accomplish that. But of course in the backroom, he should make sure that Qatar, UAE, and others are on board, even if we need to twist some arms.

Actually it may not be too bleak of a situation. Now that NATO has controlled the sky, the rebels are pushing Kadafi's army back already. So this means that a rag-tag civilian force can win in combat without much arms, can you imagine what they can do with real fire power provided by the Europeans and the Arab League? It is a matter getting these countries to supply the rebels. I think once it is clear that the rebels are well-armed, the Kadafi army will give up without NATO or American forces on the ground.

There is at least one person who is thankful for the disaster in Japan: Kadafi. For more than one week now while the rest of the world is watching the tragedy in Japan, kadafi has managed to push the rebels away from Tripoli and over take many cities as his troops move east. What should the U.S. do? Obama painted himself into the corner when couple of weeks ago he declared that Kadafi must go. Obviously, Kadafi's exit would be welcomed and couple of weeks ago the prospect looked promising. But now that Kadafi is winning and having said that Kadafi must go, Obama must take action. If he has said very little and waited like he did with Egypt, he could have just say that he will support what the Arab League is willing to do at this point. The Arab League wants the U.S. and Europe to enforce the no fly zone last week. Obama could have said that the Arab League can do it themselves. We have supplied many of these countries with modern fighter jets and they have the capability to at least start it. This way if Kadafi backs down, great. If not and the Arabs run into trouble, we can offer help later if so desired. Now even with U.N. approval we will still have to start it and coordinate it. And the problem is this: what if even without air power, Kadafi continues to advance on the ground? What if the rebels are incapable of fighting back? I think Kadafi will declare a cease fire for awhile and wait it out. When something else occurs in the world, he will strike again!

Last week an article asked why there are no looting in Japan after the disaster. Many people wrote that the Japanese culture and people are better. Well, if that is the case, why do they start two world wars and tried to colonize all of Asia? The truth is that they have good people and bad people like everyone else. But what they have developed over centuries living in a crowded nation with very little natural resources is that the good of the whole is more important than the good of the individual. That is why they lined up for food and water for hours and when the food or water ran out before their turn, nobody starts a riot. It is the same reason why their subway cars are clean without any graffiti, unlike those of the U.S. As the old saying goes in the U.S., the squeaky wheel gets the oil. In Asia, the old saying is that the nail standing out gets hammered down. Which way is better? Neither right now but if the world gets more and more crowded, then the Japanese way would probably prevail.

Wisconsin governor Walker has used the nuclear option. The stalemate is broken as the Republicans passed the bill without the fiscal issues, thus making a 20 person quorum unnecessary. So all along it was not so much about balancing the budget today, but more about busting the union. They should be man enough to admit that all along. As I have said before, I am for busting the public unions. I don't think that it is fair to the taxpayers who are paying the public employees to have unions back politicians who give them what they want. No less of a Democratic authority than FDR felt this was wrong! To be fair, no less of a Republican authority than Eisenhower, warned us about the military-industrial complex! Well, I digress. As I have said before, I don't begrudge a cop or a teacher for making $50,000 a year. What I think gets regular taxpayers mad is the crazy benefits unions got from politicians. For example, a police chief in a nearby town retired this year in his 50's. He got a pension of $200,000 a year. He then got a job as an assistant chief at the county sheriffs, and is being paid over $200,000 for that job. So he is making $400,000 a year! It is this kind of absurdity that gets people mad. Ironically, a Republican district attorney of L.A. lost the state attorney general election when he said he deserves to be able to double dip if he is elected to be attorney general and get the D.A. pension at the same time.

So what happens now? There will be lawsuits, of course. There are going to be attempts to recall lawmakers from both sides. I don't know what the majority of people in Wisconsin think but I have a feeling that even if the majority believe that Walker was right in the first place, I don't think they like him to use the nuclear option without any negotiation. Somebody on a talk show think that this is a plan for Republicans to defeat Obama in Wisconsin next year. I think that is far-fetched. The Republicans won big last year there because of the frustration over the economy. I think people of Wisconsin will have regrets about voting out people like Russ Feingold who was one of the best biparisan politician in the country. Even though the unions are defeated now, I think they will be energized for the 2012 campaign because they know that another defeat will mean the end of the road for them. The Democrats can campaign that the Republicans made the middle class the scapegoat for the economy and that the people who caused the financial crisis, the rich Wall Street folks, not only that none of them are in jail but most are making more money than before. So it will be interesting to see how that shakes out.

Paul Wolfowitz was on CNN today talking about the situation in Libya. Predictably, he criticized Obama for not being tougher on Kadhafy. This comes from someone of the Bush administration which declared that Khadafy was no longer a terrorist because he had renounced terrorism and would not pursue nuclear weapons. Wolfowitz also wants Obama to stop standing by dictators and be more supportive of democratic movements throughout the region. Of course it is the people on the right which is cautious about the victory for freedom in Egypt, fearing that more radical leadership would emerge in place of Mubarak. Wolfowitz also would not come out and say that we should renounce Saudi Arabia which has the most oil.

I think the revolution will win out in Libya and reforms will be made in Bahrain but I don't think it will spread to Saudi Arabia and Iran at this time. Iran will use force on their own people and will hold out for now. The economic problems that started in Tunisia and Egypt do not apply in Saudi Arabia. Most Egyptians were living on $2 a day, this does not apply to Saudi Arabia. I also think that the Saudis will try to stabilize oil prices because if oil goes out of control, food prices will go up and there will be more instability in the region which the Saudis do not want.

China also do not want instability. I am sure the leadership is watching this closely. There are mild protests right now which the government can control easily. But this is at a time when China has the greatest economic growth of any country in the world in the last decade. They have subsidize food and energy prices to keep the masses happy. If there is an economic collapse, there would be great deal of trouble for the government. When that time comes, how will the U.S. react? What if China decides to sell all the U.S. bonds they hold? So it is time to try to decrease the deficit and also decrease our dependence on oil. Otherwise when the governments of China and Saudi Arabia are in trouble so will we.

There are several things I want to talk about regarding the Wisconsin situation. First, I agree with the moves by the governor. It is obvious that this is not just about saving money but about busting the public unions as well. I agree with this because I don't believe that public unions should have the right to bargain. The unions can and do spend lots of money to help people who are favorable to them get elected. These officials are not spending their own money but taxpayers' money. I have no problem with private unions negotiating with businesses. The officers of the company have to watch their bottom line and if they give away too much the company can go under. In the case of a government, it cannot go under and ultimately taxes have to be raised. The private unions cannot help elect the people they negotiate with but the public unions can. So this is an unfair advantage.

Having said that, I am also against corporation's ability to almost spend an unlimited amount on an election as the supreme court ruled last year. Where the unions have an unfair influence on state and local government with their money, the corporations have too much influence on the federal level with their money. The supreme court ruled that corporations and unions have freedom of speech. But this means more money means more freedom. To me that is wrong.

The democrats walked out so that there is no quorum for a vote in Wisconsin and the conservatives are up and arm and say that this is unethical. While I am on the side of the Republicans on the bill, I don't agree with the conservatives' complaint. The quorum is a rule and the democrats are using a rule to their advantage. This is just like the republicans using filibuster to make Obama make concession on healthcare last year. In both cases the will of the majority is stifled because a rule makes it difficult to bring a vote to the floor. Obama had to figure out a different tactic and so Walker will have to do the same here. It is the rule. I don't like either rule, but what is fair for one is fair for the other.

This is a difficult problem for Obama. He is siding with unions which is going to hurt him in reelection. But he has no choice. If the Wisconsin unions are abolished, those in many other states may fall also. He needs the unions in many of those toss up states and without them, reelection becomes extremely difficult. So while he wants to be more centrist in the next two years, he has no choice but to come out in support of the unions. My position is different from Obama on this issue. But if a republican defeats Obama, I am afraid the country will be worse off because the regulation of Wall Street and other businesses will be much more lax. While I don't like the tactics of the unions, it is the Enrons, the Madoffs, the Mazillos etc. who have cause us much more pain economically in the last few years.

Another week has gone by and the Egyptian protesters are going at it with more passion than ever! If there was any doubt as to where the U.S. should stand, there should be no doubt now. Mubarak's action today makes his strategy obvious. Blame other countries (really the U.S.), delay as long as possible and hope that the protesters become violent and give him excuse to use lethal force. The protesters have shown great discipline so far of being peaceful. This is so even though they don't have a Gandhi to lead them. At this point they cannot afford to lose because if the protests stop, many of them will be targeted by the secret police afterward. So they must fight on without provoking the army.

Having seen Mubarak not so subtly blame the U.S. for interfering, Obama must go against him. He needs to signal to the army that if Mubarak survives, the enormous aids that the U.S. gives to the Egyptian army will stop immediately. The people of Egypt have spoken loud and clear and if we don't support them now, we will be look upon as being hypocritical in the Middle East and rest of the world.

Due to technical difficulties, I have not been able to write anything lately. I am still limited but will try to write something whenever I can as I have already missed opportunities with the Tucson shooting, the state of the union address etc. If anyone wants me to comment on something that already passed, please write in.

Egypt is still going crazy. Obviously it is a difficult situation for Obama because of Mubarak's support in terrorism and his keeping the peace with Israel. Whichever way Obama go, he will be criticized. But I think it is time for him to dump Mubarak and take the chance that a less friendly government will be formed. I think history tells us that support for dictators like the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein will be disastrous in the long run. I think if we cut the tie with Mubarak now the Islamic fundamentalists in Egypt are not strong enough to take over. Siding with Mubarak now and even if he survived the fundamentalists will get stronger and when Mubarak does leave there will be a even less friendly government to the U.S.

Once again I show my tremendous ability to forecast football results by predicting that the Big Ten will win 3 bowl games this postseason. I don't know why I said they will go 3-4 even though they played 8 games and I made a prediction on all 8. Anyways I predicted 3 wins and just like last year I got it right on the nose. I know one of you will say that I got Iowa and Wisconsin wrong, but they were both close games and the result could easily have been reversed. New Years day was a pathetic day for the Big Ten as I predicted. But even I couldn't have seen the shellacking that Michigan and MSU got. The Big Ten was lucky to salvage some pride because Ohio State survived a comeback from Arkansas. Jim Harbaugh: We need you to come home!

The retirement of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George reminded me of how difficult it is to be a centrist in government these days. George is a Republican who was appointed chief justice by a Republican governor. He is considered a centrist, however, and often was the swing vote on the court. To many people, usually those on the extreme right or extreme left, a centrist is wishy-washy and don't have convictions. In fact, a centrist do have convictions but he would look at each issue and judge its merit objectively. So sometimes a centrist would side with the liberals and sometimes he would side with conservatives. Of course the side he does not agree with may criticisize him. Add to that problem is the fact that 2 centrists may not agree on a particular issue. I consider myself a centrist and I disagree with George frequently. I do respect the fact that George looks at each issue carefully and rule according how he interprets the law. This is unlike conservatives and liberals whose decision on most issues are known to everybody before the argument begins.

Couple of examples of what a centrist may do. George was the deciding vote in California approving same-sex marriage in 2008. This infuriated conservatives. Subsequently propositon 8 overturned same-sex marriage and when the constitutionality of Prop. 8 came before the Supreme Court in 2009, George voted to uphold it. This infuriated the liberals even though 2 others who voted for same-sex marriage in 2008 also voted to upheld Prop. 8. He was the tie-breaking vote to overturn a state law requiring girls under 18 to obtain consent from a parent or a judge to have an abortion. This infuriated not only conservatives but also a centrist like me. While I think women have the right to abortion, I don't think a girl under 18 should make that decision herself. Right now a girl under 18 can't come to my office to get a pregnancy test without parent approval. I can't give her a shot without notifying a parent or guardian. So why would it be lawful for someone to give her an abortion without parental notification? This is surgery where there can be complications or even death of the girl. So I disagree with George on that. But I do respect George for his overall work and I would much rather have him deciding cases than someone like Clarence Thomas or Ruth Ginsburg because I know how they are going to vote before the case starts.

Obama finished the year with some much needed victories. Sure, he is still very vulnerable in 2012 especially if the economy does not keep improving and if the Republicans nominate a moderate. But if the economy improves significantly in the next two years (a big if), then he can point to the legislations that he pushed through in the past two years as the key. As I have said before, the next two years with the Congress split, nothing will get done. So the Republicans cannot claim that they did anything if things improve. Of course, if thing go bad, then they can and will blame Obama.

Let's face it, Obama has not shown great leadership. Not the Magic Negro some had coined him during 2008. He is at least partially responsible for the Democrats getting slaughtered in the election this year. But his fault is not able to communicate his stragies and ideas to the people, not lack of understanding of what needs to be done. The stimulus program and TARP were forced moves. If he had not done them, even if the economy is exactly the same today without them, he would be roundly criticized for not doing enough. Ironically some who say that the stimulus was socialist also say that his handling of the stimulus was too slow. You know what? China's stimulus plan worked much quicker because they don't have to worry about bureaucracy of a democracy. If they want to build a road, they just do it. No legislation to pass, no arguments. His foreign policies such as the Middle East negotiations and the START treaty are all supported by experienced diplomats including former Republican Secrataries of States. Getting rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" , increased college financial aid, financial service reforms, consumer credit card protection laws are all Democratic agenda so a lot of people may not like them. But most people would understand that it is a job of a Democratic president to push them through and he did that.

Two legislations that hurt him was Healtcare reform and the extension of Bush tax cut. Healtcare reform gives his opponents an opportunity to call him a socialist. Healthcare is not an immediate crisis for overwhelming majority of the people so reform in a bad economy is going to be unpoplar. But Obama knew that we have to tackle it. My own insurance has doubled in four years and has increased again this month and I have not had a significant illness (knock on wood). So eventually the majority will feel the pain that a small minority feel today. Skyrocketing healthcare cost will also make our businesses less competitive. So Obama was right to tackle it. I don't like parts of the reform but it is a start. The problem for Obama is that both the right and left don't like parts of it and blame him, which I don't think it is fair.

The Bush tax cut extension with extending unemployment benefits and decreasing estate taxes is another legislation that both the left and right blame Obama. But again if he does not compromise then both sides will yell at him also. So it is a no win but I don't blame Obama. By the way if tax cuts are so essential for the economy, how come the economy went down after we had the tax cut? The truth is, nobody knows how a tax cut or increase will ultimately affect the economy. It doesn't matter who is the president, they use the same economists and Federal Reserve Chairman anyway.

Which brings the conclusion. Obama has not shown great leadership so far. But he has tried to do what he can. He is not better than Bush when it comes to the economy. But he has not make the horrible mistake of sending troops to Iraq. He got a lot of what he wanted to do done in the first two years. He will not get much done in the next two years with the new Congress. Whether he will be re-elected depends on the economy and if there is any more terrorist attacks, two thing probably beyond his control.