I’m not much of a sports fan, and I haven’t followed basketball for quite some time. A few weeks ago, I started hearing about a player for the New York Kicks named Jeremy Lin. Even then, I just heard blurbs, and didn’t read much further. I just didn’t care.

If I had told you that I didn’t notice he was Asian, I’d be lying. As a matter or fact, it was mentioned in a few stories, since there really haven’t been many high-profile Asian players in the NBA.

This week, the Jeremy Lin story took a turn in another direction. Rather than focus on athletic accomplishments, his story has been hijacked by perceived racism and hypocrisy.

This weekend, ESPN Editor Anthony Federico wrote an article with the following headline: “Chink in the Armor: Jeremy Lin’s 9 Turnovers Cost Knicks in Streak-Snapping Loss to Hornets.” After the story was published, ESPN fired Federico and apologized profusely. Federico also apologized, pointing out that he had used the phrase countless times and meant nothing by it. I believe him.

Of course, I believe him because I’m thinking logically. Is the man really going to intentionally use an epithet in an article read by millions, knowing full well he would likely be fired and labeled a racist? I don’t think so. Not surprisingly, there are many illogical people out there. Enter Rep. Judy Chu.

During an interview on MSNBC, Chu stated the following:

“I think that the use of the term is appalling and offensive,” she said on MSNBC. “The ‘c’ word is for Asian Americans like the ‘n’ word is for African Americans.”

In response to Federico’s claim that he used the phrase many times in the past, Chu later added:

“And if he was using it all those times, that is extremely sad. The word was used since the 1880s to demean Chinese Americans and to deprive them of rights, and it is used on playgrounds specifically to humiliate and to offend Asian Americans. So I don’t know where he’s been all this time.”

Judy Chu needs to get a life. If you still doubt it, check out this exchange between her and boxer Floyd Mayweather on Twitter

The congresswoman also called out boxer Floyd Mayweather during the interview, calling him the “heavyweight champion of insensitive remarks” for his tweet last Monday that “Jeremy Lin is a good player but all the hype is because he’s Asian. Black players do what he does every night and don’t get the same praise.”

On Feb. 15, Chu tweeted: “Jeremy Lin is living the #American story – success built on hard work and perseverance. Too bad he isn’t playing for #LA! #Linsanity @Jlin7.”

Floyd Mayweather is absolutely correct. If Jeremy Lin weren’t Asian, his story would have stayed on the sports pages, and wouldn’t have become a national sensation. Remember when Tiger Woods first became famous? If he were white, he wouldn’t have been nearly as famous. Part of his story and his appeal were that he was different, and was opening doors.

As for Judy Chu, she comes off being more racist then Anthony Federico could ever hope to be. She’s from Los Angeles, but she seems obsessed with a New York Knicks player. Does she only like him because he is Asian? Does she like him better than other players because he’s Asian? These are questions Rep. Chu should ask herself.

By the way, here’s the definition of Chink from Dictionary.com:

1. A crack,cleft, or fissure.
2. A narrow opening.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo

Finally, New York voted to legalize gay marriage yesterday. It’s a development that has been a long time coming, and should further embolden those who are seeking marriage equality.

“We made a powerful statement. This state is at its finest when it is a beacon of social justice,” said New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Of course, not everyone agreed. Here are some words of wisdom from the Catholic Bishops of New York:

“We always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love,” the bishops said Friday. “We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization.”

Marriage and family will be undermined? Redefining the cornerstones of civilization? I might be wrong, but marriage is a social construction. When society changes, isn’t it normal for its institutions to also change in order to accommodate new view points? In essence, the Catholic Church is arguing that marriage should be limited to men and women because that’s the way it has always been. That seems rather simplistic to me.

At one point, interracial marriage was illegal in many places. Does the Catholic Church have a problem with this? After all, they don’t like making changes. It could “undermine” society and damage the “cornerstones of civilization.”

Here’s my view: If you don’t agree with gay marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex. Just because your opposed doesn’t mean other individuals should suffer. After all, will two men or two women getting married affect your life? I don’t think so.

New York Representative Anthony Weiner admits that he sent graphic pictures to women on the internet.

Representative Anthony Weiner admits that the picture of a crotch sent to a college student was him, and that he sent it. Besides that, he admits to exchanging photos with six women over the past three years. Weiner also said he won’t resign.

This story seemed fishy from the beginnning. First, the picture surfaces, and he claims he was hacked but refuses to involve the authorities. Next he said the picture “could” be of him. Now that Other women have come forward, he feels its time to tell the truth. Of course, now he says he’s telling the truth. Are there any other facts out there that he forgot to mention? He wasn’t honest before, so why should anyone believe him now?

Weiner won’t resign, and I don’t think he should. Considering that he is married and a member of Congress, I think most people would agree that he did a stupid thing. Should doing a stupid thing disqualify you from public office? If it did, there wouldn’t be many names on the ballot.

Let’s keep the Weiner jokes coming, and feel free to criticize him for being a liar. As for any feelings of outrage or betrayal, get a life. The only person who should be outraged is his wife

Anthony Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin

Is it just me, or does Michael Bloomberg seem pretty quick to dismiss the idea of a foreign terrorist? Not only that, but he seems intent on pinning it on a conservative who might not like the recent health care bill. Not surprisingly, it looks like Mayor Bloomberg was 100% wrong.

Authorities have arrested 30 year old Faisal Shahzad who was trying to escape on a flight to Dubai. Shahzad came to the United States form Pakistan in 1999 and became a U.S. citizen in 2009. It seems that many officials, like Michael Bloomberg, are reluctant to admit that this terrorist act might have originated from a foreign country, even though there is some supporting evidence.

For one thing, Faisal Shahzad admits to creating the bomb, traveled to Pakistan for 5 months to receive training, and several people from Pakistan who know Shahzad have been arrested. Maybe it’s me, but that looks suspicious. Plus, we also have proof that Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of Pakistan Taliban, who was thought to be killed, is actually alive and making threats. The timing of the video of Mehsud and Shahzad’s attempted bombing could be a coincidence, but it deserves a close look.

It seems like many liberals were almost hoping that a conservative, anti-Obama American was responsible for the attack. After all, if they were right, it would just be more evidence of how crazy and irrational conservatives can be. All Shazad’s arrest does for me is to make me question our immigration policy even more.

“This is not good for the country. I don’t agree with it,” he said. “We love immigrants here.”

“We have to get real about the 12 million undocumented here,” the mayor said. “We’re not going to deport them. Give them permanent status. Don’t make them citizens unless they can qualify, but give them permanent status and let’s get on with this.”

Here’s my favorite Bloomberg quote…

“This country is committing national suicide.”

Could someone please tell Michael Bloomberg that Arizona’s law isn’t meant to drive out immigrants, it’s meant to make life diffficult for illegal immigrants. You know, the immigrants who come here illegally by breaking laws and demonstrating a blatant disrespect for the United States? By the way, isn’t it funny how liberals always seem to drop the work illegal? I think it’s because they know their arguments are on weak footing, so they need to twist the truth to try and distract people from their faulty reasoning.

As for Bloomberg’s remark about the United States committing national suicide, I agree with the wording but not it’s application in this situation. Deporting illegal aliens is not national suicide. In fact, I would argue that the exact opposite is true. Doing nothing will lead to a steady decline in everything that makes America great.

If you don’t think this is true, think about how unfettered illegal immigration will lead to balkanization of the United States along ethnic and linguistic lines. Think about how illegal aliens are driving down wages and taking jobs from Americans. If millions of illegal aliens were deported, millions of jobs would immediately open up at reasonable wages. This is the truth, and to use Michael Bloomberg’s words, ignoring the truth is to commit national suicide.

As I looked at the list, I noticed that 3 of the states are along the Mexican border and have a large number of illegal aliens entering the state. Well, it looks like New York and Florida are in the same boat. It turns out that California (1), Texas (2), New York (3), Florida (5), and Arizona (6) make up five out of the top six states with the most illegal aliens. Is this merely a coincidence? Could some other variable be at work? That’s certainly possible, but you must admit that it is some coincidence.

No one should be surprised by the poor participation rates among illegal aliens. We are required by law to complete the Census. Of course, why would illegal aliens pay any attention to that small detail? They’ve already trespassed into the country and possibly broken other laws such as using fake I.D., identity theft, or related crimes. What’s one more infraction?

The next time you hear someone tell you that illegal aliens bring a positive benefit to America, remember this article. Remember how the U.S. will need to pay Census workers up to $25 per hour to track down those who didn’t fill out there forms, and how many of these individuals happen to be from states with large numbers of illegal aliens. Also remember how many of the people who don’t fill out the Census will be the ones who use the resources denied to their state because of their lack of participation.

Do you still think illegal aliens have a positive net benefit?

If you take a close look at the 2009 New Jersey Governor’s race, one interesting fact stands out. Chris Christie spent $11.4 million, while John Corzine spent $27 million. Of that $27 million, $25.3 million was his own. Not only did he lose despite out-spending his opponent by nearly 3 to 1, but nearly 94% of his campaign was self-financed. This tells me that he would have likely lost in a landslide if he were a man of modest means. Actually, if he were a man of modest means, he probably wouldn’t even be looked at as a legitimate candidate. If you don’t think so, just look at his lack of fundraising. Most people would agree that a strong candidate also needs to be strong fundraiser.

In a way, John Corzine’s loss is a win for those sickened by multimillionaires who try to buy elections. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was able to purchase his recent win, but Corzine’s loss gives me hope that voters will begin to look past the glitz and money.

After spending $74 million on his first mayoral campaign and $85 million on his second, Bloomberg went ahead and spent $102 million to win this years mayoral race. If you’re keeping track at home, that’s a whopping $183 for each vote. What would possess someone to do such a thing?

Most would agree that there are a plethora of ways to improve the city outside of politics, and he’s not doing it for the money, since the job only pays $85,000 annually. That leads me to the answer that you’ve probably known all along: Ego. A desire to see his name in the newspaper, his face on TV, and to be recognized where ever he goes. Or perhaps the position is just a toy for the guy who has everything.

Whatever Michael Bloomberg’s reason is for wanting to be Mayor, no one can deny that the campaign system is broken, and that people like him damage it further. Michael Bloomberg also shouldn’t take too much pride in his victory. His opponent, Michael Thompson raised a little over $8 million as of October 1st, yet despite being out-spent 13 to 1, lost by only 5 percentage points. If Mr. Bloomberg runs for a fourth term, he’ll probably need to crack the $200 million mark to buy that election.

“This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn’t just attack, it’s anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country,”

I agree with the Governor, and I’m glad he had the courage to speak out. Every Democrat I’ve seen supports having the 9/11 trials in New York City. They seem to ignore a few facts: The trial will be a security nightmare, there is a greater chance of the defendants being set free on a technicality, and it has the potential of being a recruitment tool for terrorists. Plus, the 9/11 attacks were an act of war which call for a trial before a military tribunal. This should be common sense, but when you are interested in impressing foreign countries with your fairness, and also putting the Bush Administration on trial, judgement can sometimes be clouded.

I suspect that Governor Paterson’s remarks are at least partially related to some alleged problems between him and the President. That might very well be, but it’s hard to deny that this trial has the potential to risk the lives of many more Americans, and jeopardize convictions.

The five terrorists are war criminals. They were part of the planning of the 9/11 attacks that resulted in the death of nearly 3,000 Americans. Since they are war criminals, they should receive military trials. Many liberals are thrilled with Eric Holder’s decision, since it will result in what they perceive as a process that is more fair and transparent. They seem to forget that the terrorists will turn the trial into a circus, a great deal of evidence won’t be admissable, and intelligence information could be exposed.

Of course, the typical liberal doesn’t care. It will give them yet another opportunity to put the Bush Administration on trial. Do you remember them? They were the people who captured the terrorists and kept the United States safe for nearly 8 years. To them, the safety of Americans is all well and good, but it certainly can’t come at the expense of the “rights” of terrorists who aren’t citizens and seek to kill as many Americans as possible. Speaking of killing Americans, what about security problems? Won’t this just increase the risk of another terrorist attack in New York and place the safety of those involved in the trial in question?

Eric Holder seems to believe he has enough evidence to guarantee a conviction. He might be correct, but has he considered the defense attorneys that will stop at nothing to call evidence into question and cause a mistrial? This must have entered into his decision, but of course, the risk must be taken in order to assure fair treatment for the terrorists and a glowing opinion of us abroad. Isn’t that really the most important thing?