The term anchor baby has been tossed around by GOP candidates lately.  As usual, it started by Trump.  As usual, that helped Trump in the standings among GOP voters.  But when Jeb Bush used the term, it backfired on him.  His retraction to say the term applied to Asians only made things worse for him.  I am sure there are Asian groups who are offended by the term.  I don't look at it as an offensive term.  After all, anchor on a relay team is the best runner usually.  The anchor on a newscast is the highest paid.  So the anchor by itself is not bad.  The implication of term is, however, inaccurate.  It implies that the baby being born in the U.S. is an U.S. citizen and thus can protect the parents from deportation.  That, of course, is not true.  In case of Asians, the parents are not trying to avoid deportation.  They are usually wealthy Chinese who just want an outlet for their kids in case the communist country reverse its economic course.  It would also give the kid a better chance of obtaining an education in the U.S. if so desired in the future.

Chinese women giving tourism birth in the U.S.is nothing new.  It maybe illegal only in the sense that it circumvent tourist visa laws.  It has been overlooked in the past, particularly in California.  It is not an economic drain for the U.S. in that these women are paying Americans to house and feed them.  They spend money while in the U.S.  They and the baby then leave the country.  They are not picking up welfare checks.  Eventually the kid may come back for high school and college.  They may cost the education system money at that point but I am sure they would be paying to live here and the parents may even buy houses here.  So it hard to know what the full economic impact would be.  If the U.S. wants to stop this, it can do so by shutting down the so called birth hotels in California and other places popular to Chinese visitors.  No need to change the constitution regarding birth citizenship.  It is also not a problem worthy of a presidential debate!

We have a lot of problems in this country but pointing the finger at immigrants is unfair.  There are studies that say illegal immigrants are a drain to the economy and there are studies that say they are positive.  But as I always say, where there is a demand, there is a supply.  To clear up the question, just arrest the people who hire illegals.  There are only two reasons why a business must hire illegals:  they can't make a profit with American workers or there are not enough Americans willing to do the job.  If legal pressure cause the owners to change the practice then we will find out if either of these things are true.  If neither are true then businesses will thrive.  If either is true, then the businesses will fail without illegal immigrants.  In either case, illegal immigration will come to a halt and we will find out what the true economic impact of illegal immigrants are.

A few weeks ago I wrote about the Greek bailout and the Chinese financial market's big decline.  Now the Greeks have kowtow to their European debt masters and accepted the bailout.  They have agreed to worse measures than if they didn't revolt in the first place.  I hope the best for the Greeks  but I don't see how these measures are going to get them out of trouble in the near future.

The Chinese market was stabilized for a short time but it is declining again.  This has spooked the rest of the world, including the U.S. stock market.  China has gotten so big now that when it sneezes, the world catches a cold.  But while this may linger for a while, China does have the largest foreign reserves in the world and should be able to withstand this down turn.  It just make market reform that much more difficult.  As far as the U.S.'s concern, our indicators show that we are due for a correction in the market anyway.  But the price to earnings ratio are not very high and unemployment is down.  So I think the market will recover in the near future.  I may be wrong and we head for a recession and that will hand over the election to the GOP nominee.  But I am going out on a limb and say this won't happen and I have backed that up by investing $5000 tomorrow in the market because I think it is a reasonable time to buy.

Joe Biden is being pushed by some of his supporters to run.  They set the deadline of Oct. 1st  because the first Democratic debate is Oct. 13.  It would be difficult to get all ready for a debate in less than two weeks if you have not decided by then.  My feeling is that if he does not decide by Labor Day, I don't think he will run.  With two passed failed attempts, the unpopularity of Obama generally, and the recent loss of his son, I don't think he has the stomach to do it.

If Hillary fails, how about Al Gore?  I do think that is a good possibility if the Democrats are desperate.  I think a lot of people think he got robbed the last time and wished that he would have become president instead of Bush.  So they may vote for him as a compensation.  He can also point out that he was an integral part of the Clinton administration that had a budget surplus.  In other words he can claim he is Bill second without the scandal!  I don't think he wants to run but he would be a good plan B for the Democrats.

The  first Christian. I mean Republican party, debates are over.  I did  not see much of the JV game but I understand Carly Fiorina came out best.  That is bad news for veteran politicians like Perry and Graham who should have been able do better than the inexperienced.  Fiorina is not a viable candidate since she couldn't even do the job at Hewlett Packard.  So I don't see anyone from the JV moving up to the varsity.

The varsity game started out with a bang.   Trump was the only one who raised his hand to not pledge that he would support the eventual nominee and not run as a third party candidate.  This seems to give credence to the idea that he is really a secret democrat embedded to mess up the Republicans.  Asked why he donated to Democrats like Clinton, he said basically that he used the system to get favors later on although he did not specify which favors he got with his money.  The question is:  if he games the system as a private person, wouldn't he also game the system even more as president?

I think overall John Kasich did the best followed by Marco Rubio.  Neither is likely to win.  Kasich is too well unknown and too moderate.  Rubio is too young and Hispanic.  Jeb Bush was mediocre, again not giving a concise answer (to an expected question) to the Bush war.  Bush, Christie, Walker, Cruz and Huckabee were in the middle pack.  Paul and Carson were at the end.  Trump maybe just ahead of those two but clearly did worse than the other 7 in my opinion.

Boston is out of Olympic bidding.  So it is logical that LA will be the U.S. bid for 2024.  I think they will have tough competition with Paris, Rome and Hamburg in the ring.  So I propose a brand new idea for Olympics.  Join hosting with LA and SF.  SF was behind Boston and LA when the USOC decided on Boston last time.  So I don't think it can win on its own.  But I think giving SF some events would make it very interesting.  For example:  the open swim can be to Alcatraz.  Mountain biking can be in the hills of Berkeley.  Triathlon near the Golden Gate.  An LA Olympic is going to be spread out anyway so why not spread it out 380 miles north?  The infrastructure of LA is much better than the Bay area for multiple sports but I think giving SF some events would boost the chance of the U.S. winning the bid.

I think the NFL is right about upholding Brady's suspension. The fact that he destroyed his cell phone right at the time he was supposed to meet investigators make it seem like he had something to hide.  I mean if it was pictures of another supermodel then it would have only enhanced his reputation and so it is likely it had something to do with deflategate.  So just take the punishment and then come back to prove he is still the best big time qb in the NFL!

The first GOP debate is next month.  It will be on Fox News and Fox is limiting it to the top 10 candidates in the polls.  I agree that 16 people on stage is to unruly.  Viewers will have trouble remembering who said what.  I think 10 is even too many. I would have gone a different and do what European soccer has done for decades:  multiple divisions.

I would use the polls just like Fox is doing and also what the BCS had been doing.  I would have the 1 to 4 debate at Fox, 5-8 at CNN, 9-12 at MSNBC, and 13-16 at C-SPAN.  The top three divisions can rotate for the second and third debate alas college football style.  C-Span is the minor bowl.  By the four debate there should be less than 12 left and we can regroup.  But after each of the first debate the grouping maybe different as the poll result maybe different.  This would be like the relegation of European soccer leagues where the top three in each division move up and the bottom three move down.  With only four players, each player can give the viewers a much better sense of their personality and ideas.  If they do well in a debate, they can move up or if they do poorly they move down.  If you have not move up to the top two division after 3 debates you are sunk anyway.

Right now with a lot of people on stage, thing can get messy.  Can you imagine Trump refusing to yield the floor and 9 guys trying to talk over him?  I would use soccer rules again where a moderator can issue a yellow card if someone refuses to stop after the whistle blows indicating time is up.  Two yellows means a red card and you are escorted off the stage.  This will insure more civility and more debates on issues rather than name calling.  Of course the GOP is not known to like international things so soccer rules may not work here.  So 15 yard penalties or 2 minutes in the penalty box may have to be used against anyone who does not behave!

The Iran nuclear deal is made.  Can it passes Congress?  Well, it won't pass but it probably will survive a veto override as I don't think the GOP can get two third majority in the Senate.  When this deal goes into effect, it will be part of Obama's legacy for years to come.  Actually, Obama has a few things that will be looked at by historians in the future.  Even though he may not leave office popular, I think history will be kind to him.

Whether you like them or not, presidents usually have at least one thing that defined their tenure.  FDR obviously had the New Deal,, Truman used the bomb, Eisenhower railed against the military industrial complex, Kennedy the Cuban missile crisis, LBJ the Great Society, Nixon the opening of China, Carter the Israel Egypt peace treaty, Reagan the fall of USSR, Bush1 the first Gulf war, Clinton the tech age, Bush II 9/11.  I think unpopular presidents like Nixon and Carter are looked upon as much better when their legacies are evaluated years later.  I think Obama will also be better in the years ahead although it is not a slam dunk.

Obamacare and getting out of the recession are controversial subjects that will be debated years from now.  Just in recent weeks, gay marriage won in the Supreme Court.  The U.S. embassy is set to reopen in Cuba and now the Iran deal.  There will be many people who are against these and will continue to think Obama is a terrible president.  Obamacare and the Iran deal still can blow up in his face.  But I think in the future gay marriage and opening of Cuba will be accepted as the norm. And there is no argument that the economy is better today than when he took office although one can argue that is not his doing.   So I think overall Obama is likely to be judged well in history.

The news about whether Greece will go bankrupt and be out of the Euro union has dominated the financial news in the past week.  But more important to world economy is what is happening in the Chinese stock market.  Will take a quick look at both situations today and I can discuss in more specific detail if anyone is interested.

So Greece needs another bail out and it tried to get the money without having more austerity measures dictated to them by other European countries, particularly Germany.  But it looks like they have no choice but to capitulate and do what other countries tell them to do in order to get more loans.  What is not clear to me is this:  after the first two bailouts, did the Greeks do the austerity measures that were demanded of them?  If they did, then obviously austerity alone is not turning around the economy and maybe a stimulus plan maybe better.  If they did not raise taxes and cut back public spending as they were obligated to do, then they need to do these things that the creditors demanded of them now. 

My feeling is that austerity alone will not be enough.  If salaries of public employees and pensions are decreased, the likely effect is that people will not be able to spend as much and thus the economy will not pick up.  Also raising tax when people have no income will not work either.  I mean, neither liberals nor conservatives in this country would recommend these two methods.  The GOP would decrease salaries and pensions but not raise taxes.  The Democrats would increase salaries and pensions and increase taxes.  So what is best for Greece?  I am not sure but I don't think the demands of the European union by themselves, even if followed precisely by Greece, will not enough.

Far more important than Greece is China in the world economy.  First of all, even though trillions of dollars of paper money was lost in the past couple of weeks in the Chinese markets, it is not as bad for China as a whole as it looks.  The Shanghai market had doubled in the past year and so even a 40% drop still leaves it with a big gain for the year.  The problem is that it was a big bubble and it drew into the market people who are totally unsophisticated to investing and those people are losing their entire life savings.  What is also troubling is that things have stabled in the last couple of days due to the intervention of the government.  If the government's efforts do not keep thing well in the long term then it will cause big problems throughout the world.  But if the government's effort are successful, then it may create a belief that the government will always bailout investors and worse bubbles are going to happen in the future.  So I don't think that what the government did in the past week are good for the long term.

The one winner out of China's problem is Hong Kong.  The HK market did not go up like the Shanghai market did in the past year but its drop was much less than those of China overall.  It shows that the HK investors are much more sophisticated and the HK market as a whole is much more mature than those of Shanghai.  It shows that while China will eventually use Shanghai as the financial center of the country, HK is still a very important part of China's financial relations with the rest of the world in the foreseeable future.

Now that the NBA season is completely over with the Warriors winning the championship, it is time to analyze the the career of Jeremy Lin as he comes to a cross road.  Three seasons removed from Linsanity, it is clear that Lin is not a super star as his admirers claimed nor is he a D league level player as his critics claim.  I believe that he is good enough to be a starter in about half the NBA teams and the first guard off the bench in the other half.  A lot depends on the system.  But that can be said about a lot of players.  Pau Gasol was not a good fit with a poor Lakers team the year before but yet is an all star with the strong Bulls this past season.

Lin's strength:  Very good at pick and roll.  Not as explosive as Westbrook but fast than most point guards in the NBA which is saying a lot.  (This was proven in an ESPN Sport Science program).  His decision making has improved thus less turnovers.  His problem in the past 3 years is that no pick and roll run for him in Houston and LA.  He is not good when told to stand in the corner while Kobe or Harden run the offense.  Scott's triangle offense is not a fit for Lin or many others.  The triangle is no good unless you have a Jordan or a young Kobe as Derek Fisher and Phil Jackson found out in New York this year.  Nobody can guard the pick and roll when there is a good point guard running it.  The only way to slow down a Chris Paul is to run pick and roll against him on offense and tire him out. Lin had to battle those fast guards on defense but since he is not allowed to attack them the same way on offense, the opposing point guard can save energy to attack Lin on offense.

This brings to my pet peeve of the criticism that Lin is a poor defender.  That is the excuse that Ronnie Price started over Lin.  Truth is Price and others like him cannot stop elite point guards either.  If he could, he would not be a journeyman his whole career.  Lin is not a stopper but he is not soft as Bryant and Scott implied at times.  Lin took more charges than anyone on the team this year.  How can Bryant call anyone soft when he never takes a charge and admitted that on record?  

While some will say that Lin's stats are getting worse each season, it is not true.  If you look at points and assists per 36 minutes, Lin has been consistent the last 3 seasons.  He scored more with New York per game but his shooting percentage from 3 point range is higher now.  He is also having a lot less turnovers.  So he is a more mature player and if he gets into the same offense as he did in New York he would do very well.  It would not be Linsanity 2, however, as teams know him a lot better and can defend him better.  But given the right situation, he can be very productive for the next five years.

So where to next?  The ideal situation would have been if Denver had hired D'Antoni who had said that he would be happy to reunite with Lin.  But Denver did not hire D'Antoni and while the new coach is said to favor a fast break offense, it is unclear if Denver will go after Lin.  There is talk of the Rockets wanting him back if they don't keep Beverly.  But will Lin want to go there and watch from the corner while Harden shoots all day?  I doubt it although that would be one place Lin can contend for a title.  Dallas and Philly maybe other possibilities but Philly may draft a point guard and groom him so Lin would not be there long.  Dallas runs a fast pace offense and if both Rondo and Ellis leave, Lin may have an opportunity to start for a decent team.  I think Lin will look for the best fit possible and is willing to take less money for that opportunity.  Hope he finds that right team.

Dennis Hastert, the former Speaker of the House, is being indicted for covering the sexual abuse of a minor while he was a wrestling coach.  So if I get this straight:  Hastert was basically the prosecutor of impeaching the president, Bill Clinton, over the Lewwinsky sexual scandal.  During his stint as Speaker, he managed to ignore Mark Foley's sexual scandal with pages.  Hastert had replaced Newt Gringich, who while was going after Clinton, had an affair while his wife was extremely ill.  After Gingrich resigned, his designated replacement, Bob Livingston, also then resigned after it was discovered that he too had an affair. Of course, Hastert was supposed to be the clean one but now turns out he was worse than them all!

As predicted the Ducks and Rangers, the top team in each conference, failed to make the Stanley Cup finals.  The Lightning made it even though they should have been eliminated in the first round by the Red Wings.  Such is the luck of the NHL playoffs!

What has happened to the Tigers?  The only team the Angels seem to be able to beat is the Tigers!  When is Verlander going to show up?  And is the real Anabel Sanchez going to show up?