The opening skit on Saturday Night Live made fun of the presidential election. Mainly it is about Obama feeling confident despite the fact that he should be in big trouble. His secret weapon is Mitt Romney who keeps getting himself into trouble. This actually is close to real life. There were great opportunities for Romney to gain ground this past week. The spat between Obama and Netanyahu, the crisis in the Middle East and the Chicago teachers strike are all gold mines that Romney should have exploited. Instead he makes a stupid statement about the crisis, and failed to attack more vigorously on the other two. Now he is caught on camera disparaging 47% of the population saying that they don't pay taxes and are dependent on government hand outs. Obviously this will be used by the Obama team to show that Romney is only for rich people and that he despises half of the population. Even if this does not hurt Romney directly, it will put him on the defense for a while and make it again difficult to attack Obama where he is most vulnerable, the economy.

Romney's attack on Obama as the violence unfold in Egypt and Libya is totally wrong. The statement put out by the U.S. embassy in Egypt was before the violence started. It was meant to defuse a dangerous situation. Romney claimed that the statement was made after the attack started and it showed U.S. weakness. The timeline put out by CNN showed that was not the case but Romney refused to back down. Regardless, it shows lack of understanding of the world. It is like a hostage situation. The police can say all they want about how powerful they are but that will not stop the violence or save the hostages. It is better to try to defuse the situation. This is not weakness but intelligence. Remember Bush apologized for the spy plane incident in China. Would it have done any good if the U.S. had threatened China? Would Romney have criticized Bush for being weak?

There will always be bad guys. How many ordinary people will follow the extremists will depend on how many openings we give them. A film making fun of Mohammad is just perfect for the bad guys. The film has been around for a couple of months but nobody paid attention until right before 9/11 when an Egypt extremist brought it up and it goes viral. Obviously this was an opportunity for them to cause trouble on 9/11. Just like the preacher who threatened to burn the koran awhile back, the makers of this film are just helping the enemy recruit more followers.

Just finished watching Obama's speech. It was great delivery as usual but short on substance. There was talk that he will be more specific after the Republican had nothing specific to say last week. This is a little disappointment for me and independent voters on the fence. I think both sides are afraid that anything specific will immediately be attacked by the other side. It is interesting to me that both sides gave a nod to Bowles-Simpson in their conventions but both sides had rejected it earlier. I think Obama should have promised to enact Bowles-Simpson which is very popular among independents. I think that is one thing specific about taxes, entitlements and deficits that would not become an instant target for the other side to shoot at.

The Democrats made a mess of their platform with God and Jerusalem. I thought that the Republican had the more vulnerable platform particularly with the extreme view on abortion. But leave it to the Democrats to not be able to copy the previous platform and cannot do a voice vote correctly.

I think Ann Romney and Michelle Obama fought to a draw. Biden, I thought was slightly better than Ryan. Also Castro is a rising star and his youthful and fit look trump Chris Christie. I know looks are unfair but Obama rode his keynote speech to eventual presidential nomination. Castro can well do the same in about 12 years. Obama beats Romney because of better deliverance but not in substance. So overall in head to head the Democrats win slightly in my opinion but if someone calls it a draw I will not argue.

Of course the Democrats had a trump card the Republicans did not have: Bill Clinton. Is there any more doubt that Clinton is the best American politician since Kennedy? He is one guy who can make deep political analysis enjoyable to listen to for nearly an hour. I don't think that the Democrats and Obama can possibly ask a better speech from Clinton or anyone else. If Obama gets reelected, he owes Bill a great deal. If Biden and Hillary run against each other in 2016, Obama may have to back Hillary because his debt to Bill.

So what is the result of these two weeks. As I said before, there are only 6-7% undecided and it would take a lot to move the needle. Certainly the Democrats did not lose ground in these two weeks. I think if the job report is bad tomorrow, then it is even. If the job report is better than expected tomorrow then the Democrats get 2 point bump, mostly due to Clinton's effort. This may not sound significant and may not even show up due to margin of error of polls but it would be a couple of points that Romney would have to make up with the debates. But even in this best scenario for the Democrats, it will still go down to the wire.

So the Republican convention is now over. I have not seen any new polls out yet, so it is hard to say what effect the convention had on the voters. Most of the time a convention gives its candidate a boost for a short period of time. I would expect that to be the case of here and then after the Democratic convention we will probably be at the same level again. This is going down to the wire for sure!

I think Ann Romney did her job the best among the speakers. She was supposed to make Mitt more likeable and I think she did that. Chris Christie fired away as expected but I don't think he did a good job for Romney. First of all he spent most of the first half of his speech talking about himself as if he is angling for 2016 already. After Ann had talked about love, Christie went on about wanting respect rather that love. This kind of cancel each other on Tuesday. Paul Ryan fired up the base and acted as the pit bull as expected. He had lots of inaccuracies as pointed out by neutral pundits such as Medicare cut backs and unemployment rate. So overall I think he was only B or B+ as best. Romney did all right but did not hit a home run as the Republicans claimed. He had nothing specific to say and I think he wasted time in the beginning introducing himself which others, especially Ann, had done for him already. He also started late and ran late thanks to Clint Eastwood.

Speaking of Eastwood, how did he aged so fast? This can't be the Dirty Harry we used to love! His effort of being a comedian was as successful as Jackie Chan would have trying to do romance. Was it not 6 months or so ago that Republicans were complaining that Eastwood was doing a commercial for Obama on the Super Bowl? Now we can see how paranoid they are given Eastwood is such a staunch conservative. On the other hand, if you are a conspiracy theorist, you may say that Eastwood did it on purpose to screw up Romney's big night. In that case, you would also have to say that the Romney campaign was not very good in not screening Eastwood to make sure he is not Dirty!

Now about minorities in the party. They did wheel out Rubio and Rice. I missed their speeches. I will assume they did well. But Rubio can only help with the Cuban vote which Romney already has. As I said before, he would not help with other Latinos, especially Mexicans who are different politically than Cubans. Before Rice spoke, a Republican analyst on CNN said that Rice proves to the country that the Republicans are not all white country club people. Well, Rice just got into Augusta, her expertise is Russian history, she played tennis and the piano, she was also a figure skater. I don't know if you can get any more white country club than her!

The convention is not just speeches. One of the most important thing that is done is voting for a party platform. This seems to be hidden out of sight. Nobody talked about it on tv. A reporter from the local paper (not LA Times) wrote about some of it. I don't have time to check if all of these are true but some are obviously true. Like against abortion without exception even in case of rape or save the life of the mother, same stand as Todd Akin. Some members have proudly call this the most conservative platform in history. It is so out of touch with majority of Americans that the Republican national chairman had to say that this is the party platform, not Romney's platform. This makes it important to ask: what parts of the platform is Romney against? Voters have the right to know? This should be asked by the Democrats next week. Also should be asked: Having said what he did not like about Obama's policies, what policies of Bush does Romney like or dislike?

Now it is the Democrats' turn. I am sure I will find things to criticize next week. On thing I can predict: that they will not send out an aging Hollywood star to speak without an approved script.

Tomorrow is the start of the Republican convention. So I like to talk about one big issue the democrats and republicans are fighting over. Taxes. To me the American tax system is terrible. The tax code is thousands of pages long and is criticized by both sides. Yet nobody really want to make it simple because it is the tax laws, loopholes and exceptions to the tax laws that give politicians the power. By making and amending laws and creating loopholes, powerful politicians can help the people who support them. These complicated laws also keep big accounting firms and tax law attorneys in business. So if I am king I would make the following tax codes.

I would propose a flat tax maybe similar to the 16% Hong Kong has. There would be a line below which those people would not have to pay. Anything above that line everybody pays the same percentage. In order for this to work there can't be any deductions and nobody can write into law new deductions. There will be higher taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Th flat tax usually favors higher income earner. To offset that there should be no sales tax for "normal" priced products. For example a chair priced at $50 will not be taxed. But a $5000 couch would be taxed. Cars will be taxed according its mileage per gallon and sales price. A $20000 first car for a family will be taxed free. A gas guzzler or a Rolls Royce will be highly taxed. Putting money into the Cayman Islands or Swiss banks will be highly taxed as well. Sorry Mitt!

There are kinks that need to be worked out but you get the idea. Since I am not really the king, there is also 0% chance of something like this ever passing.

Yesterday CNN had an article which says that Hong Kong women have the longest life expectancy in the world, 86.7 years. They have surpassed Japanese women who had lived the longest for the last 25 years. Hong Kong men comes in at 80 years, not too shabby. My take on this is that obviously Asian men sacrifice themselves in taking care of their spouses. OK, I will admit there may be other factors involved. One thing is that Asian cities tend to be very crowded so it is difficult to drive. Most people walk to a lot everyday. Tai chi which is very popular helps elderly people with balance and thus avoid hip fractures which can lead to high mortality. The Asian food is less fattening than western diet which decrease heart diseases and breast cancer in women. But there are also disadvantages living in Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia. Air pollution is worse and infectious disease tend to spread more quickly in crowded places. So given all these pluses and minuses, does Hong Kong's health system make a difference?

I think the Hong Kong system does make a difference. How much I don't know. The basic system is modeled after the British system. There are public hospitals and clinics one can go for free or very cheap. There are long waits in some specialties just like in Britain. These long waits are always pointed out by opponents of socialize medicine. Unlike the British, however, Hong Kong allows and encourages private hospitals and clinics where if you can pay, you can bypass the long wait. Unlike many countries with socialized medicine, paying to get to the front of the line is not frowned upon in Hong Kong. So emergencies and regular primary care are given to anybody quickly by doctors who are among the best trained in the world. But if want a new knee or hip or lasik surgery, you wait couple of years if you are poor or pay to get them right away if you are rich. The British and Canadians make the latter difficult for the rich. The end result is that some end up going to the U.S. for treatment. Is Hong Kong better? It is a matter of opinion but I think you can't always be completely fair and the Hong Kong system seems good to me.

This is my post Olympic review. First I would like to say that I did not like the closing ceremony. It felt like an Emmy award show. I understand that the British gave us a lot of excellent rock music but to base the entire show on that seems not to do right by the Olympic games. After all we can see the Emmy every year, not to mention the American and World music awards etc. And there were very few great British stars in person. I know Freddy Mercury can't be there but a woman taking his place? Who are the people pretending to be the Who? David Bowie didn't show up. Annie Lennox and George Michael did not sing their most famous songs. I know they are not rockers but if music is the only thing they are going to give us, at least bring on Katherine Jenkins and Susan Boyle. Given that London is maybe the most diverse city in the world, what happens to ethnic group participation? Maybe the Brits don't want to remind others of their colonial days?

They are still talking about the badminton scandal in the papers. But nobody noticed that Spain, after losing to Russia in group play, managed to lose the Brazil thus ensuring that they finish 3rd in the group. This way they would be in a different bracket as the U.S. in the knock out round. If they were 2nd they would have played the U.S. in the semi-finals. This way they don't play the U.S. until the finals. Sort of like the 76ers lost the last regular season game so they play the #1 seed Bulls who are without Rose instead of the full strength Miami Heat. The badminton players were doing the same thing as Spain and the 76ers did. It is just easier to hide it in team sports.

I noticed that South Korea gives exemptions to athletes who win Olympic medals from serving their mandatory military service. I don't know if it is a good idea to deprive your military the fastest and strongest people of your country. How about the shooters? Wouldn't they be useful. I bet they could have use their archers even though we don't fight with bow and arrow anymore. By the way West Point finished 3rd in a recent NCAA shooting championship. I think they should draft all the members of #1 and 2.

The U.S. women did much better than the men. The women won 29 golds vs 17 for the men. In fact the men were tied by Britain and China in gold medals. I think there is a more even playing field among the men in world competition. Even in basketball the world competition is getting closer. With all the stars from the NBA the U.S. had couple of scares including the final. The women, on the other hand, have benefited by Title IX. Compare to women in other countries the U.S. women have great advantages. The women's basketball team is much farther ahead of other countries than the men' team. The volleyball and water polo team did way better than the men's teams. The men's soccer and field hockey teams did not even qualify. In all these sports there are way more scholarships for women than men. UCLA used to be a power house in men's gymnastics but it does not even have a program now. Football takes up much of the scholarships for men but football is not in the Olympics. So if things do not change pretty soon we will depend on the women alone to fend off challenges from China.

There are arguments about whether Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps is the greater Olympian. If you are talking about life time achievement then there is no argument, Phelps win easily at this point. If Bolt 3 peats in 2016 then we can open the discussion. If you are talking about this Olympic I would say Bolt since he went undefeated in a more glamorous sport. In fact I don't think Phelps is the best male swimmer this year. I would pick Sun Yang of China who won the 1500 and 400 free plus silver in 200 free. He also anchored China's 4x200 relay to a bronze medal. All of those had never been done by Chinese men before. In individual events Phelps won 2 gold and a silver also. But he also finished 4th in one event. He got 3 medals in relays but the U.S. would have won those without him. China would not get the bronze without Sun. Sun also broke his own world record in the 1500 and beat Ryan Lochte in the 200. There is a big difference between the distances of 200 and 1500 and I don't think anyone had done that well in such different distances.

Did anyone notice that when the Japanese gymnastic coach went to the judges to protest the score that put Japan in 4th place in the competition, he was holding some American money in his hand? Since he is Japanese and is in England why would he be holding American money? I guess the greenback is still the international money of trade or bribe.

I predict that Brazil's economy will shrink in the next 4 years due to China decreasing its demand for soybean and raw materials. This will lead to speculation and worry that Brazil will not be ready by 2016. Eventually Brazil will pull it off and everybody will have a great time. I will have learned the samba by then.

In regard to the last comment on the last blog: No, the complain about Obama changing the welfare law is unfounded. He was just giving the states more flexibility to administer the work laws. This was requested in the past by GOP governors. It is another example of taking things out of context which both sides are guilty of.

Mitt Romney has picked Paul Ryan to be his running mate. By making the choice now ahead of the convention, Romney appears to be changing strategy. He has decided that he can no longer just point the finger at Obama's record and win. By selecting Ryan, who has made extensive proposals on social security, medicare and medicaid reforms, he will have to put out specific ideas to the voters. If your running mate has put out specific proposals, you can't just say things like "I am going to create a million jobs and cut the deficit" without telling us how you are going to do it.

The Democrats like the Ryan choice because now they have something specific to attack. It is hard to know how this will play out. I think in most states, the vp choice will not make much difference. Ryan can energize the Republican base and the Tea party people to be more enthusiastic for Romney. I think that Ryan will only make a difference in two states: Wisconsin where Ryan would help Romney and Florida where he would hurt him because the large number of seniors who don't want big changes in their social security and medicare. Since Florida has 29 votes to 10 for Wisconsin, I think Ryan will be a negative for Romney overall. A better choice, politically, would be Rob Portman of Ohio since that is a toss up state with more votes than Wisconsin and Portman would not alienate the seniors in Florida.

This is my special Olympic blog. Four years ago I wrote how I would help the Chinese Olympic team achieve success by being a "special consultant". It obviously worked as China won the most gold medals and finished second in total medals. Having seen the controversy over the U.S. uniforms being made in China, I decided not to be a consultant for China this Olympic for fear of backlash. If Harry Reid wants to burn the U.S. uniforms made in China, he may want to burn me at stake! The whole thing is ridiculous. Unless Reid and others have no clothes made from another country, they should shut up. The USOC needs sponsor money and gets some from Ralph Lauren. Ralph Lauren needs to make a profit so they send the work overseas. This is the capitalist system. Unless you want government sponsor Olympic teams and state owned enterprises, this is the way it is. It is not the fault of the USOC or Ralph Lauren. By the way, China makes its own uniforms but the wool is purchased from Australia because it is the best deal. If the U.S. can make it cheaper I am sure Chinese athletes will be wearing "Made in USA".

I found out that Phelps and Lochte are only competing against each other in the 200 and 400 IMs. They are favored to win the other two they entered. So if they are on all three relays then they each can win 7 golds but both can't win 7. I predict that they would split the two IMs and win 6 each.

The U.S. women are favored to win. China is not as strong this year and Romania figures to be the top competition. Gabby Douglas is coming on real strong and that will help the team but she can very well beat Wieber for the all round title. The U.S. men are also very strong. They have that guy from M whose name I forgot how to spell. Japan is the clear favorite as China had retirements from Beijing and couple of recent injuries that knock out couple of their stars. See what happens when I am not a consultant?

Some guy in my dancing class vehemently said that ballroom dancing should NOT be added to the Olympics. Most of the class disagree with him as expected, but I agree. While I found out that dancing requires athleticism of a kind I don't have, I don't think it should be a competitive sport. It is too subjective and at the highest level it is impossible to tell who is really better. It brings too much politics into it as have figure skating and ice dancing. I don't like those sports either. Too a certain degree so are gymnastics and diving but there are more obvious errors and strength moves with these sports. And since they have been there for a long time and are popular they should stay. But to bring in new sports like ballroom dancing, I don't think so. By the way I like sports where you can play defense and mess up the other team. I would make a good defensive player in ballroom dancing if it is allowed like in most other sports!

I also don't like golf being added. It is basically a rich man sport, more so even than tennis and so a poor country has no chance in it. Luck also plays too much of a role. Witness all the different people who won majors lately. Even Tiger at his best won only about 20% of the time. So to be an Olympic winner in golf would not mean the best golfer unlike Usain Bolt is considered the fastest man in the world.

Of course I am also the guy who wonders why swimming has any strokes besides free style. I mean in a race on land, you don't have events like running backward or run like a butterfly. Race walking should also be eliminated. All those officials along the route just to make sure nobody runs? If someone is chasing you in life would you walk instead of run or use the breast stroke instead of free style to get away? So as you can see if I am king of the Olympics a lot sports may be eliminated and very few new ones would get in.

I know what Sports Illustrated's Sign of the Apocalypse for this week is going to be: Cal tech being sanctioned by the NCAA. Cal tech is cheating like the football powerhouses? They don't even have a football team. Their basketball team won a conference game for the first time in God knows how many years last year and it was big new in LA. They even had a press conference to discuss the victory. I went to one of their basketball game a few years ago because they were playing a school near my house. I just wanted to see how bad they were. They had Asians on the team that I was better than when I was in college. I was annoyed that the local school hardly subbed their starters even though they were up about 40 points. Then I found out later they actually started their scrubs and kept the regulars on the bench the whole game to keep the score down! So now I wonder if Cal Tech will have to vacate their one conference victory last year. What has the world come to?

I see that the Knicks got Raymond Felton and Stephen Smith is all over Jeremy Lin saying that the Knicks lost confidence in him when he did not play the last playoff game so they are not going to match Houston's offer. As I said before Stephen Smith is an idiot and if the Knicks feel that way then they are idiots also. The Knicks were not going to beat Miami with Lin or even Kobe Bryant so why risk a young player's career by playing him when he is not 100%? That is just so stupid! But the Knicks must have doubts about Lin because otherwise they would have offered first, say, 15 million for 3 years and then if Lin wanted to test the market then it would not be their fault if they don't match. Now I think they were not all sure that Lin would be worth a multiple year contract. So once again Lin is being slighted.

But this time he is wanted by someone. I think Houston may be a better fit. He would be the main focus there unless somehow they get Dwight Howard. In NY Carmelo Anthony and Amare are going to hog the offense anyway. I don't think that Jason Kidd would be such a good role model. He just got arrested for drunk driving and don't forget his brush with domestic violence a few years back. If Felton is good enough why did the Knicks traded him a couple years ago? He also had a bad year this past season. I think the Knicks are going to be totally dysfunctional. Houston does not have much a roster left, having lost Scola, Lowry and Camby. So I think Lin will run the offense there and the expectation will be low. So there will be less pressure. So it may be a blessing in disguise.