The LA Times editorial recently called out three Asian American California state senators for backing out of their support for repealing prop 209 which banned affirmative action.  Supposedly the three liberal Democrats withdrew their support because they received "thousands" of complaints from Asian Americans fearing that the repeal will decrease Asian American enrollments at Berkeley and UCLA.  The Times said that the debate should be about whether diversity in universities is a benefit and not whether a particular group gain or lose acceptance letters.

First, I would agree that we should argue whether diversity is important enough to justify racial and "gender" bias.  By the way, if prop 209 is repealed, then gender affirmative action can also be used.  In that case, it would benefit males as they represent less that 45% of the enrollments at Berkeley and UCLA.  I would like to see what liberal female groups think about that!  But by singling out selfish desires of Asian Americans, the Times is being dishonest.  I am sure that Latino and Black groups who want affirmative action are not doing so because of diversity but because they want increase in enrollment of their own group.  If these groups and liberal whites believe diversity is that important then they should have complained about black colleges and women colleges.  Would they come out and say the students in these colleges receive an inferior education due to lack of diversity?  Anyway, I would submit that Berkeley and UCLA is more diverse as it is compared to most elite colleges.  Its white enrollment is less than 40%  compare to some famous liberal art colleges that are 70% plus white.  Asian Americans ARE a diverse group.  There are big difference between East Asians, South Asians, South East Asians, Pacific Islanders etc.  They are also diverse in socio-economic status, immigration history and religious preferences.  They are also diverse in conservative and liberal ideology.  I would argue that a political science student at UCLA would have a more diverse experience than someone at Howard or Amherst.

I do believe that the playing field is not level.  Kids who go to private schools and have SAT tutoring have big advantage over poor kids.  So to me using affirmative action due to socio-economic status is fair.  A kid who came from a poor family and went to a bad school, regardless of race, should be given extra points against my kids when applying to college.  But Obama's kids should not have an advantage against my kids just because their parents are black.  I am sure the president would agree with that.

An aside, MSU and Michigan put up good fights.   The Big Ten could have easily gotten 3 of the final 4 spots.

Back to the serious problem in Ukraine.  Not surprisingly Russia has taken over the Crimea as expected.  There are people, including some of my friends, who think that the problem is Putin is a stronger leader than Obama.  One person even said that Obama should have sent warships and aircraft carrier into the Black Sea from the beginning.  He thinks that it is the inaction of the U.S. in Syria that emboldens the Russians.  I need to remind these people that in 2008 after we have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, showing the might of the U.S. military, the Russians invaded Georgia.  And I do not remember that Bush sent troops to fight the Russians then.  The truth is that even though we are really the only super power in the world, we cannot and should not, be the policeman of the world.  Ukraine and Georgia are too close to Russia for us to intervene.  I am sure if we decide to invade Cuba, the Russians will not be able to do anything militarily either.

The question is will Putin stop at Crimea or will he take parts of Ukraine and eventually advance to eastern Europe.  I believe the answer is no.  Crimea is majority Russian.  Even if there was no election fraud, the majority would have voted to go back to Russia.  I think Putin may go into eastern Ukraine only if there was provocation, giving him an excuse.  There is no chance that he can take Ukraine whole and it would be dumb for him to try.  And he would be committing suicide if he tries to take Poland, for example.  Unlike my friend who thinks that Putin dreams of a new Soviet Union, I think Putin just wants to put a stop to the expansion of the European Union into former Soviet territories.  But by trying to stop this expansion by force as in Crimea, Putin will pay a price.  Even China refuses to back him.  Russia will be hurt economically as well as politically.  More eastern European nations will turn more west and away from Russia as a result of this and Putin will not be able to stop the trend.

Final four prediction:  Kansas, MSU, San Diego State, Michigan.  Kansas will be the champion.

DWTS:  Davis, White and Purdy the final three with White the champion.  Non athlete dark horse:  Danica McKellar.  Is it just me or does Erin Andrew sounds like a man?

Missed Jeopardy today and found out Arthur Chu lost!  I understand he lost big on the daily double.  So all the complaints about his strategy of getting the daily doubles are nonsense.  If you can't come up with the correct answer, then the strategy actually hurts you.  I understand that a graduate student from Ann Arbor beat him.  So Michigan may not win so much in football anymore but we dominate in ice dancing and jeopardy!

Chu said that the 12 games were taped over 3 days back in November.  So stamina and consistency are almost as important as knowledge and quickness.  It makes the absurd streak of, I think, 74 games by Ken Jennings so much more impressive!

Hilary Clinton is calling Putin's invasion of Crimea similar to Hitler because in both cases the excuse was to protect their own people.  Of course this is a hyperbole because Nazi Germany was capable of invading all the countries around it while Russia, even if successful in Crimea, will not be able to push westward.   Sure, Russia is still powerful militarily but it has shown an inability to defeat even weak opponents and then occupy their territories.  Witness their debacle in Afghanistan and Chechnya.  Able to push toward Poland, Romania etc?  I don't think so.  The occupation of Crimea will be a bad move for Russia.  It will make Russia even more despised in the former Warsaw Pact nations.  Russia's influence, which is what Putin tried to increase by propping up Ukraine's pro Russia factions, will decrease with this strategic error.

Having said that the situation is still very uncomfortable for the Ukraine people.  You can never know exactly what a powerful dictator next door will do next.  Without any military options, the U.S. and Europe are promising billions to Ukraine to help it get out of its debts and make the pro western government more popular in eastern part of the country.  But most of the debts that Ukraine owe is to Russia.  So if you give Ukraine money, wouldn't the Russians indirectly benefits?  I say hold the money but have the Ukraine offer to sell Crimea to Russia.  This is a way to save face for both sides.  Ukraine will not have surrender Crimea due to force.  Russia will get Crimea, which it had given to Ukraine years ago, back without firing a shot.  This way Russia can say that it only wants to acquire Crimea back to protect the majority Russians living there and was not being the aggressor.  Ukraine gets rid of an area where their people are a minority without suffering any humiliation of defeat.  Win win for both sides and the U.S.

I am under no illusion that the above will be accepted by both sides.  But the idea here is that conflicts occur often not because someone really needs a land but usually because both sides are too macho to back down.  Once Putin made the decision to put soldiers into Crimea, he can't just back down even if he has no intention of expanding toward western Europe.  The Ukrainians don't want to give up Crimea because that will make them look weak, even if Crimea is not that important to leaders in Kiev.  But the longer the stalemate, the longer someone, maybe just a soldier, will make a mistake and ignite a war.  All those tough, empty threats coming out of politicians in Washington are not going to help but can also escalate the conflict.  So the best solution is that someone will need to find a way for both sides, particularly Putin, to save face.  I put up one idea, anyone else has a better one?

Came across several articles about Jeopardy champ Arthur Chu last week and decided to watch Jeopardy for the first time in years to see for myself.  Chu has been criticized for "gaming" the system by jumping from one category to another and not going from lower value clues to higher value clues in that order.  This was supposedly to find the daily doubles before the other contestants and thus pile up the score.  From what I read, I don't see anything wrong with these strategies.  He was also called obnoxious and arrogant and for that I had to see for myself. 

In the five games I watched, I can't see anything he did on the show that was improper other than could have dressed better and get a better hair cut.  And if those criteria make a bad contestant then many went before him were just as guilty.  As for his strategies, none are new.  My all time favorite Chuck Forrest started jumping around in the 1980s and he is considered one of the all time greats of this game.  The bottom line is:  Chu wins because he is quicker on the buzzer and knows more trivia than his opponents so far.  If he had just gone down each row in order, he would have won all these games anyway.  No less authority than Forrest, Ken Jennings, and Alex Trebek have come out and say that Chu plays the game right.

So is all these internet hate Chu gets due to racism.  I do not think it is 100% because some are due to old Jeopardy fans who like the tradition of slow play going down each row in order.  Some fans also like to play along and Chu's quick style may not be to their liking.  But there are many mean spirited criticisms of Chu that obviously are race related.  Chu takes the high road but he answers those mean spirited people with humor.  Read Jennings' interview with him on the internet and you will find an articulate man with very good insight about society in general.  He is certainly not a nerd who sits in the basement memorizing trivia.  So I salute him not just as a great Jeopardy champion but a great human being with a great perspective about life.

As I said before, I am not a fan of the winter Olympics.  But since the games are over and thank goodness no terrorist attacks, I will make some comments.  I had predicted that the U.S. would beat out Russia for the medal count.  I was wrong but it was not fair.  I had no idea that Russia would get 6 medals from non Russians.  "Viktor" Ahn, a former South Korean short track speed skating star was enticed by the Russians to represent them.  Ahn had injury issues in recent years despite being a big star in South Korea before.  He was left off the Korean team and so he took the Russians' offer.  He won 3 individual medals plus a relay gold medal for Russia.  Then an American Vic Wild decided to do snowboard for Russia because they gave him more money.  He wins 2 gold for them.  So that is 6 medals for non Russians and the difference between Russia and the U.S. was 5 medals.  So I would have been correct if real citizenship was enforced.  To be fair the Russians did lose a gold medal to Switzerland because one of their guy, nicknamed "I Pod", won the half pipe for Switzerland after having represented Russia in the past.  So it would have been a tie between U.S. and Russia but the U.S. would have won on gold medal total under "fair" competition.

Speaking of fair, I think that Yuna Kim should have won.  It was a close competition and not highway robbery.  But I think that even though the Russian had more jumps and thus technical difficulties, she did double footed one of the landing.  This should have made the technical part much closer and Kim wins based on artistic performance.  I understand there is home court advantage in any sport but the fact that one of the judges is married to the head of the Russian skating federation and another judge had been found guilty of cheating in the past, does make this outcome more suspicious.  By the way Ashley Wagner did all right but her complaint about being robbed seems absurd.  Who cares if she is 6th or 7th?  Controversial decisions are common place in figure skating.  If not for one of those decisions, Wagner would not have been in Sochi in the first place.

The Winter Games keep adding sports and events to fill the schedule and try to get younger viewers.  An old person like me have little interest in these sports.  If I had any interest I would have watched the X Games.  If they need more sports for the Winter Games, I would suggest that they move wrestling and the martial arts sports to the Winter.  The Summer Games have too many sports according to the IOC.  These sports are indoors and can be done in winter or summer.  It would fill out the tv schedules better for the Winter Games and give these sports more exposure than they are receiving in the Summer Games.

Couple of rich people's statements last week makes me wonder if being smart is a prerequisite for becoming wealthy in this country or that once you became rich you have lost all perspective.  Tom Perkins, a venture capitalist, said that people should only be allowed to vote if they pay taxes and it is one vote for each dollar a person pays.  He also said that the assault on the rich today is like the Nazi's assault on Jews.  Frankly I do not know of anyone who is assaulting the rich today that can send Tom Perkins to the gas chambers.  I am shocked that no Jewish group has come out to attack Perkins for making light of the Holocaust.  Asked in what way are the rich being assaulted, Perkins cited higher taxes under Obama.  I think that a lot of Jewish people who perished under the Nazis would have been glad to pay Perkins' tax rate.  As for one dollar one vote idea, I always thought that this nation was created under the idea that all men were equal.  So Perkins believe that if you pay a million dollar in taxes and I pay a thousand, then he is one thousand times greater than me.  I think he needs to go back to high school history class.  And with the one person one vote system we have now, there are many millionaires in Congress but no one on welfare is in either chamber.  So in what way are the rich being underrepresented now?

Then there is Bud Konheim, CEO of a luxury retailer.  He claimed that people at the poverty level in this country would be rich in 99% of the world.  He set the poverty level at $35,000.  I am sure a lot of poor people in this country, not just in other parts of the world, would be happy to be making $35,000.  But of course by making this argument in the first place shows how absurd his thinking is.  I am 5 ft 5 in tall.  I am taller than overwhelming majority of the people in the world. (Don't forget women, old people who have shrunk, and of course children).  This fact does not make me feel tall, nor would anyone consider me to be tall.  A person making the minimum wage in this country cannot take his money and buy food and housing in Africa some place.  He has to eat and live here!  To make such statement just makes me wonder how this guy got rich in the first place.

These two guys proves Warren Buffett's point.  That is just because you are good at something and also was lucky to be successful, it does not make you a better person.  Buffett said that if someone puts him in the jungle somewhere, he would not survive.  He was just lucky that investing pays off well in this country.  I agree with him.  I consider myself a hard working, self made immigrant.  But if I grew up some place else, under different circumstances, I would not have done anywhere as well.  So yes, I know there are irresponsible people who take advantage of the system and blame the rich for their problems.  But it is fair to say that those who have made it rich, depended on the system to help make them succeed.  They did not do it by themselves.  If they think they can create wealth without the system, then I suggest that Perkins and Konheim be dropped off in the jungles somewhere with a couple of welfare recipients and see who survives better.  I will bet on the welfare recipients.

The Lakers' Robert Sacre was allowed to continue playing after committing his 6th foul the other day.  The Lakers was down to 4 players if Sacre was disqualified.  This was due to the fact that they had only 8 players dressed because of injuries  Then 2 of the 8 were injured during the game.  Then another player had fouled out before Sacre.  The rule was that a team must have 5 players on the floor so Sacre was allowed to stay in and the Lakers were assessed a technical free throw.  This seems like a small price to pay to avoid playing a man short.  Seems to me this loophole can be exploited.  Say Kobe Bryant had pick up his 5th foul, you may want to send all the bench players to the lock room with fake injuries and then if Bryant picks up his 6th foul, he would be able to stay in the game.  I think this rule needs to be revisited.

This reminds me of a dream I had several years ago.  I dreamed that I was in Boston Garden watching the Pistons play the Celtics.  The Pistons ran out of players due to injuries and they announced they need someone from Detroit to play for them.  Naturally I ran to the floor and got in the game.  I realized that I can't guard any of the Celtics and can't block them out for rebounds.  So as soon as the Celtics take a shot, I would run to the other end, hoping the Pistons get the rebound and I can cherry pick.  This actually worked in the dream and I scored several layups.  Then with a few seconds left and the Pistons down by 1, Laimbeer fired a pass to me but as I went up for the layup and win, I got a horrible cramp on my right calf,.  I fell to the floor and missed the shot.  At this point I woke up all mad.  I then realized that I did have a cramp on my right calf which took several minutes to go away.  Lately I have been having sciatic attacks on that same right leg.  I wonder if this is the consequence of playing in that game.  Curse those Celtics!

Went to a movie premiere last night.  It is a documentary about a Korean adoptee going back to Korea and finding his biological parents. In my opinion, this is a great movie. It was produced and directed by Asian Americans.  They all did an excellent professional job.  I laughed and cried throughout the movie. Men sitting by us also cried.  It is a movie about love, family and identity.  I think all these are universal values.  Full disclosure:  the young man in the movie went to middle and high school with my son and they are still great friends today.  So I knew parts of the story before hand but I was still surprised how the movie brought out such emotion in me and others.  The movie will be shown on Korean tv as a four part mini series.  After that they plan on putting it on YouTube.  But I think it can go farther than that.  It has yet been officially named.  I will write when it is distributed in the U.S.

Saw a picture in Chinese newspaper of Li Na accepting an award from the governor of her native province after winning the Australian Open.  Her face tells it all:  no smile.  The article says the Chinese sports federation regard her success as a result of the training and nurturing China gave her.  It is laughable.  Li was a mediocre player until she broke away from the restraint of the Chinese system.  Other athletes who have done most of their training outside of China include Sun Yang, who trained in Australia, and Lu Xiang who trained in the U.S.  I am not sure that they would have become world champions if they stayed in China.  I think the rigid Chinese system hurt many athletes and more should be going abroad to improve their skills.

Happy New Year, everybody!  Time to watch the Super Bowl.  I have taken Denver since NE lost but I don't really have a horse in this one.  Just hope it is a good game!