<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<feed version="0.3" xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#" xml:lang="en-US">
	<title>Random Thoughts</title>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php" />
	<modified>2012-02-05T08:23:35Z</modified>
	<author>
		<name>Peter Hsu</name>
	</author>
	<copyright>Copyright 2012, Peter Hsu</copyright>
	<generator url="http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/sphpblog" version="0.5.1">SPHPBLOG</generator>
	<entry>
		<title>New Blog Location</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090417-145729" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[I have a new location for my blog.  It&#039;s <a href="../blog/" >here</a>.]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090417-145729</id>
		<issued>2009-04-17T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-04-17T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>On Stimulating the Economy and the Stimulus Bill</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090203-214704" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[... and why the two really aren&#039;t the same thing.<br /><br />Maureen Dowd, the razor tongued liberal columnist for the New York Times, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/opinion/04dowd.html" target="_blank" >pens</a>:<br /><blockquote> It took Daschle’s resignation to shake the president out of his arrogant attitude that his charmed circle doesn’t have to abide by the lofty standards he lectured the rest of us about for two years.<br /><br />Before he recanted, his hand forced by a cascade of appointees who “forgot” to pay taxes, his reasoning was creeping perilously close to that of the outgoing leaders he denounced in his Inaugural Address: that elitist mentality of “we know best,” we know we’re doing the “right” thing for the country, so we can twist the rules.<br /><br />Mr. Obama’s errors on the helter-skelter stimulus package were also self-induced.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Mr. Obama should have taken a red pencil to the $819 billion stimulus bill and slashed all the provisions that looked like caricatures of Democratic drunken-sailor spending.<br /><br />As Senator Kit Bond, a Republican, put it, there were so many good targets that he felt “like a mosquito in a nudist colony.” He was especially worried about the provision requiring the steel and iron for infrastructure construction to be American-made, and by the time the chastened president talked to Chris Wallace on Fox Tuesday, he agreed that “we can’t send a protectionist message.”</blockquote><br /><br />The macro economist <a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/01/an_anti-stimulu.html" target="_blank" >Arnold Kling</a> writes:<br /><blockquote>1. Most certified macroeconomists support a large stimulus. A smaller number are opposed to any stimulus. An even smaller number support a small stimulus.<br /><br />2. The main reason for supporting large stimulus rather than small stimulus is that small stimulus efforts have a track record of failure. That&#039;s the logic that gave us the Somme Offensive.<br /><br />3. You can support a large stimulus but still have strong reservations about this bill. Certified economists I would put in this category include Larry Summers (no longer free to say so in public), Alice Rivlin, Martin Feldstein, and Jeff Sachs.<br /><br />4. The bill serves two purposes. stimulus; and Radical Reconstruction. It&#039;s not mostly stimulus, with a little bit of other stuff thrown in. It&#039;s mostly other stuff, with a little bit of stimulus thrown in. That means a ginormous amount of other stuff.</blockquote><br /><br />I&#039;m far over my head here when it comes to whether or not the Keynesian theory regarding the merits of a large stimulus in times of economic depression hold, but it&#039;s hard to ignore when Nobel prize winning economics like Paul Krugman come out strongly in favor of such a plan.  Even I, however, can understand that the portions of the bill that are destined for entitlement programs, education, health care, and other Democratic Party wish list items, aren&#039;t going to stimulate the economy.<br /><br />That isn&#039;t to say that education or health care aren&#039;t important issues that perhaps deserve federal funding (as opposed to state funding), but the abridged timetable we&#039;re working on is not the best way to accomplish much needed reforms in these areas.  Education and health care are complicated subjects that we&#039;ve been debating for years.  We&#039;re not going to solve those problems in a three week time span simply by blowing large amounts of money in their direction, and jamming through spending in those categories certainly isn&#039;t going to help the economy.]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090203-214704</id>
		<issued>2009-02-04T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-02-04T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>On Letting Criminals Go Free</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090131-002951" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[I&#039;m as opposed to letting the guilty walk as the next guy (actually, as a conservative I&#039;m probably <i>more</i> opposed to this than your average citizen), but I&#039;m not sure I like the Supreme Court&#039;s most recent ruling.  As the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/washington/31scotus.html?hp" target="_blank" >Times</a> details, the Supreme Court appears to be on track to eliminate the exclusionary rule.  Briefly, the exclusionary rule holds that evidence conducted through police misconduct, illegal activity, or resulting from a failure to comply with applicable laws and procedures can&#039;t be used in court.  Hence, the drug dealer found with pounds of cocaine going free because the police busted down his door without getting a warrant.<br /><br />Now this all sounds quite horrible when you hear cases of a murder going free because the cops made some minor mistake, but I believe it&#039;s a necessary check because it&#039;s all we have left in our toolbag against police misconduct.  Without the exclusionary rule, there&#039;s simply no incentive for police to follow the rules:  when the break the rules and convict the guilty they are celebrated, and when they break the rules and harm the innocent the police union steps in to protect them.<br /><br />And it all comes back to unions.  If we didn&#039;t have the union, we&#039;d probably have better policies in place to keep cops under control.  At the end of the day this rather uneducated segment of the population exercises a remarkable degree of authority over the rest of us.  It&#039;s natural that they should be subject to harsher rules and regulations than the average citizenry, much like the military.  Unfortunately, unlike the military, cops are allowed to unionize.  As has been explained previously, unions have an incentive -- indeed a duty -- to protect all their members, not simply the ones worthy of protection.  Hence, the police union&#039;s efforts to protect corrupt and worthless cops.  The penalties cops are subjected to are remarkably light -- in most cases of misconduct it&#039;s simply a reprimand or unpaid vacation time.  And so, because we have a union engaged in it&#039;s standard campaign against accountability and workplace efficiency, we have to set up a judicial rule that occasionally allows the guilty to go free.]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090131-002951</id>
		<issued>2009-01-31T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-01-31T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Who Hates the Children?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090129-235942" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[Health insurance for children?  What sort of miserable human being could possibly oppose health insurance for children?  Do you also <b>hate puppies and laughter?</b>  The answer is ME.  I&#039;m opposed to the State Children&#039;s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).<br /><br />You&#039;re going to have a rough time sizing this one up because everyone loves children and wants them to be covered by health insurance, but also because the debate occurring in the media rarely mentions the actual dollar figures involved.  And I&#039;m not referring to the annual cost or anything like that, which mostly involves a number that the human mind has trouble understanding.  The question people should be asking is <i>What is the income cutoff for this program?</i>  The answer is three times the poverty level, which according to the New York Times comes out to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30health.html" target="_blank" >$66,150</a> for a family of four.<br /><br />Now I understand that $66,150 isn&#039;t comfortable for a four person family, and in some parts of the country that can be quite tight.  But $66,150 is most certainly middle class, and I don&#039;t think that government programs should be providing free health care to the middle class -- even middle class children.  The problem with health care today is that the person receiving the service (you) is completely disconnected from the actual cost of the service.  Not only is your health care covered by an insurance company, but that insurance company is probably paid for by your employer.  The result is that nobody cares how much procedures cost because someone else is picking up the tab.  And guess what happens when the consumer doesn&#039;t care about cost?  The service provider charges more and looses any incentive to run efficiently.  So the problem with health care today isn&#039;t that too many people are uninsured -- that&#039;s simply a natural symptom of the problem.  The root problem is that <b>health care costs too much</b>.  Setting up a massive government entitlement that provides free health care to middle class children further destroys any incentive for hospitals to lower costs and ensures that the cost of health care will continue to rise, until it either bankrupts the government or reaches the point where only the wealthy can afford it.<br /><br />As a side note, let me bring your attention to the provision that now allows legal immigrants to benefit.  Now having come from a (somewhat recent) immigrant background, I have deep respect for immigrants.  But I believe that special taxpayer programs should only benefit citizens, not those who choose to make this place their temporary home.  Of course, there are those who disagree:<br /><blockquote>“The bill would end an inequity that we have been trying to eradicate for more than a decade,” said Jennifer M. Ng’andu, a health policy specialist at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic rights group.</blockquote><br /><br />For those of you who don&#039;t know &quot;La Raza&quot; means &quot;the race.&quot;  I mean, seriously?  Your advocacy group is called <B>THE RACE</b>?  As in &quot;we&#039;re not even going to pretend that we support racial harmony because that would be a big fat lie&quot;?  If a white person (or even a half white person like me) were to start a similarly named group they would be lynched.]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090129-235942</id>
		<issued>2009-01-30T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-01-30T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Obama and the Arab States</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090128-130505" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[An Op-Ed piece by Fouad Ajami in today&#039;s Wall Street Journal <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310499999722371.html" target="_blank" >takes Obama to task</a> on his new Middle East policy under the headline <i>Obama Tells Arabia&#039;s Despots They&#039;re Safe</i>.<br /><blockquote>The argument that liberty springs from within and can&#039;t be given to distant peoples is more flawed than meets the eye. In the sweep of modern history, the fortunes of liberty have been dependent on the will of the dominant power -- or powers -- in the order of states. The late Samuel P. Huntington made this point with telling detail. In 15 of the 29 democratic countries in 1970, democratic regimes were midwifed by foreign rule or had come into being right after independence from foreign occupation.<br /><br />In the ebb and flow of liberty, power always mattered, and liberty needed the protection of great powers. The appeal of the pamphlets of Mill and Locke and Paine relied on the guns of Pax Britannica, and on the might of America when British power gave way.</blockquote><br /><br />I&#039;m not sure I agree with that last sentence.  I understand what he&#039;s saying here -- that only in peace secured by power can the ideals of liberty flourish -- but the examples he cites are all of liberty flourshing within an already secure state.  Besides, back then liberty and freedom were relatively new concepts being developed and evolved.  The problem today isn&#039;t that the soil in insufficiently fertile, it&#039;s that modern governments are now acutely aware of these ideals and actively oppose them.<br /><br />Ajami&#039;s closing, however, is a potent reminder that there are two parties in any conflict.<br /><blockquote>But foreign challengers and rogue regimes are under no obligation to accommodate our mood and our needs. They are not hanging onto news of our financial crisis, they are not mesmerized by the fluctuations of the Dow. I know it is a cliché, but sooner or later, we shall be hearing from them. They will strip us of our illusions and our (new) parochialism.<br /><br />A dispatch from the Arabian Peninsula bears this out. It was learned, right in the midst of the news cycle announcing that Mr. Obama has ordered that Guantanamo be shut down in a year&#039;s time, that a Saudi by the name of Said Ali al-Shihri -- who had been released from that prison in 2007 to his homeland -- had made his way to Yemen and had risen in the terror world of that anarchic country. It had been a brief stop in Saudi Arabia for Guantanamo detainee No. 372: He had gone through a &quot;rehabilitation&quot; program there, then slipped across the border to Yemen, where he may have been involved in a terror attack on the U.S. Embassy in the Yemeni capital in September of last year.<br /><br />This war was never a unilateral American war to be called off by an American calendar. The enemy, too, has a vote in how this struggle between American power and radical Islamism plays out in the years to come.<br /><br />In another time, the fabled era of Bill Clinton&#039;s peace and prosperity, we were mesmerized by the Nasdaq. In the watering hole of Davos, in the heights of the Alps, gurus confident of a new age of commerce pronounced the end of ideology and politics. But in the forbidding mountains of the Afghan-Pakistan frontier, a breed of jihadists that paid no heed to that mood of economic triumphalism was plotting for us an entirely different future.</blockquote>]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090128-130505</id>
		<issued>2009-01-28T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-01-28T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Guantanamo</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090121-165024" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[There’s an interesting <a href="http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/a_little_confused.php" target="_blank" >discussion</a> going on in the comment thread over at McArdle’s blog (I know, <i>her</i> again?) regarding Obama’s order to suspend all trials for personnel held at Guantanamo.  If you ignore your normal ideological trolls (Obama is a communist!  Bush is a fascist!  You&#039;re a scum sucking traitor who hates America if you disagree with me!) there are actually some decent points raised.<br /><br />In particular, I’m concerned about the idea that detainees could be tried in regular federal court – that seems like a completely inappropriate venue to me.  Ideally they should be tried under a system that very closely resembles the UCMJ – the same protections that our own soldiers receive.  If you look at the current effort, the misconduct has been done by the civilian political hacks Bush put in place.  Those really making a difference have been the uniformed attorneys – the defense lawyers asking the hard questions and fighting the system on behalf of their clients, and the prosecutors such as Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld who have resigned in protest when they were directed to make prosecutions they felt were unfair.  Of course, those getting the glory are the ACLU and the big name firms that have &quot;donated&quot; their time as a way to latch on to all the free PR.<br /><br />At the end of the day, who better to try a soldier than a fellow soldier? Does anyone honestly believe that a civilian jury, who has never known the horror and confusion of combat, can draw the fine lines on what behavior is and is not acceptable?  The idea here should be to set up a trial system that is robust and can be applied to future conflicts, not one that is simply convenient to apply to the current problem at hand.  Can you imagine the Nuremburg trials occurring in federal court?  Of course not.]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090121-165024</id>
		<issued>2009-01-22T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-01-22T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>College Loans</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090121-091846" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[As someone suffering under $38,000 a year in tuition from UC Berkeley&#039;s Haas School of Business, the issue of college loans strikes particularly close to home.  Megan McArdle <a href="http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/cui_bono_3.php" target="_blank" >questions</a> the utility of some of the degrees people pay so much money for, and concludes that the only winner in this sad parade often ends up being the school:<br /><blockquote>The question to contemplate is who benefitted from making it easier to pursue degrees that don&#039;t get you very far?  Not Ms. Kratzer, obviously, but not the &quot;greedy&quot; loan company [that is loosing money as people default], either.  No, the beneficiaries are the schools that take peoples&#039; money in exchange for worthless degrees.<br /><br />...<br /><br />And no one ever yells at the schools--or the presumption that we should shoehorn every eighteen year old into college, rather than structuring an economy that comfortably accomodates those who are not academic.</blockquote><br /><br />This is one offshoot of our society&#039;s healthy valuation of education.  Unfortunately, it&#039;s possible to take all good things too far.  The ship repair contractors I deal with are constantly lamenting the lack of good welders and pipefitters in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Here&#039;s some hourly wage data for the San Francisco Bay Area from the <a href="http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm" target="_blank" >Bureau of Labor Statistics</a>:<br /><br /><table><tr><td>Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers</td><td>$20.70</td></tr>
<tr><td>Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters</td><td>$29.08</td></tr>
<tr><td>Boilermakers</td><td>$28.88</td></tr>
<tr><td>Electricians</td><td>$34.36</td></tr></table>]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090121-091846</id>
		<issued>2009-01-21T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-01-21T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Union Inefficiency</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090115-233129" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[I recently attended a dinner party (with delicious grilled ribs) with an acquaintance of mine who works for PG&amp;E.  Apparently at PG&amp;E there is an active drive to unionize the white collar workers -- the salaried employees earning $70k+ per year who generally aren&#039;t considered typical union targets.  As my friend explained to me, the benefits of unionization include:  no performance reviews, a mandatory 8.75% annual raise, and a pay scale solely based on seniority with a prohibition on using performance to adjust pay or as a consideration for non-management promotions.  Pay and promotions are strictly tied to the seniority scale.  &quot;I barely put in six hours a day&quot; he explained to me, before offering to set me up with a job once I got out of the Coast Guard.<br /><br /><b>WTF?</b>  Does anyone seriously think this is a good idea?  How is these even defensible?  The only reason PG&amp;E is able to survive with such horrible work rules is because they have a monopoly -- customers can&#039;t simply jump ship and get their electricity from another company.  Any costs incurred are simply passed on to consumers.<br /><br />This is the ultimate manifestation of any union.  From autos to teachers to white collar workers, virtually every union writes their contracts this way -- they all attempt to ensure salary is tied to seniority and not to performance.  How is this ok?  Why do people continue to support this?<br /><br />Just like with the auto workers, I don&#039;t begrudge anyone their salary -- I oppose the horrible work rules.  I&#039;m not suggesting that unions don&#039;t have their place.  Just study the working conditions at WalMart and you can see what happens when labor has no representation.  But does unionization have to be so very extreme?  It seems to me that if organized labor didn&#039;t work so hard to promote inefficiency and sloth -- and instead focused on raising standards of living -- the labor movement would be more popular and more powerful.]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090115-233129</id>
		<issued>2009-01-16T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-01-16T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Our Congress</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090114-134206" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[A friend forwarded me this joke the other day:<br /><br />An Indian walks into a cafe with a shotgun in one hand pulling a male buffalo with the other.  He says to the waiter, &quot;Want coffee.&quot;<br /><br />The waiter says, &quot;Sure, Chief. Coming right up.&quot;<br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.peterhsu.org/pics/waiter.bmp" width="120" height="119" border="0" alt="" /></center><br />He gets the Indian a tall mug of coffee.  The Indian drinks the coffee down in one gulp, turns and blasts the buffalo with the shotgun causing parts of the animal to splatter everywhere, and then just walks out.<br /><br />The next morning the Indian returns.  He has his shotgun in one hand, pulling another male buffalo with the other.  He walks up to the counter and says to the waiter &quot;Want coffee.&quot;<br /><br />The waiter says &quot;Whoa, Tonto!  We&#039;re still cleaning up your mess from yesterday.  What was all that about, anyway?&quot;<br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.peterhsu.org/pics/indian.bmp" width="235" height="307" border="0" alt="" /></center><br />The Indian smiles and proudly says &quot;Training for position in United States Congress:  Come in, drink coffee, shoot the bull, leave mess for others to clean up, disappear for rest of day.&quot;<br />]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090114-134206</id>
		<issued>2009-01-14T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-01-14T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Let&#039;s Drive Away People Who Can Make This Country a Better Place</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090112-231812" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[A classmate of mine in my MBA program at Berkeley is afraid that when one of the six people in her group at Barclay&#039;s Global Investors are laid off tomorrow, the casualty will be her.  At class we suggested that this would give her the opportunity to transfer into the full time MBA program and avoid paying the higher evening MBA tuition.<br /><br />She responded that her immigration status didn&#039;t allow her to enroll as a student full time -- this despite the fact that she&#039;s been in this country for 12 years.  She even raised the possibility of going back to Korea.  Here we have a 12 year resident, one of the smarter people I&#039;ve met, an incredibly decent human being, and someone who adds tremendous value to our society.  And our immigration system is on the verge of sending her packing.]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090112-231812</id>
		<issued>2009-01-13T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-01-13T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Lincoln Again</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090112-165139" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[From his <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mal&amp;fileName=mal3/436/4361300/malpage.db&amp;recNum=0" target="_blank" >second inaugural address</a>:<br /><blockquote>Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman&#039;s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said &quot;the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.&quot;<br /><br />With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation&#039;s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.</blockquote>]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090112-165139</id>
		<issued>2009-01-13T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-01-13T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Immigration</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090111-223243" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[There&#039;s been a recent trend at the Justice department to find criminal statutes to prosecute illegal immigrants with, rather than simply deporting them.  This of course is quite different than arresting someone for a crime, and then discovering they are an illegal immigrant.  In this case, the discovery is made that the person is an illegal immigrant and then a search is undertaken for a crime that they can be charged with.  Examples include stretching the definition of identity theft to include an illegal who provides a false social security number to an employer.  Most of these prosecutions involve a departure from how the law is traditionally applied, and involve massive plea bargains (with up to 40 people being sentenced at a time) extracted from individuals with minimal command of English and very little idea how our justice system works.<br /><br />I think putting these people in jail instead of shipping them back across the border is a waste of my tax dollars, but the NYT carries it a step further in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/12prosecute.html" target="_blank" >arguing</a> that such prosecutions are taking resources away from much more important crimes:<br /><blockquote>Immigration prosecutions have steeply risen over the last five years, while white-collar prosecutions have fallen by 18 percent, weapons prosecutions have dropped by 19 percent, organized crime prosecutions are down by 20 percent and public corruption prosecutions have dropped by 14 percent, according to the Syracuse group’s statistics. Drug prosecutions — the enforcement priority of the Reagan, first Bush and Clinton administrations — have declined by 20 percent since 2003.</blockquote><br /><br />The article details that the Justice Department has implemented a policy that they will not prosecute marijuana cases involving less than 500 pounds.  Anything less than 500 pounds is referred to local authorities, many of whom are unprepared for the sudden influx of new cases and who also lack the resources to carry the investigation further up the chain.  In other words:  to placate the anti-immigrant sector of the Republican party, we&#039;re now letting drug dealers go free.  Awesome.  Sounds like a huge win for our country.]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090111-223243</id>
		<issued>2009-01-12T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-01-12T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>On Eroding Our Nation&#039;s Security</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090111-175307" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[The New York Times has another one of its <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html" target="_blank" >famous exposes</a>, that dig into the secrets of government and bring them into the light.  Sometimes this is absolutely necessary.  All too often under this current administration information is hidden not because it impacts our nation&#039;s security, but because it might impact the political prospects of a select few or cause an ugly PR scar.  Unfortunately, it would appear that this most current information falls decidedly into the former category.<br /><br />In speaking regard the current covert program to undermine Iran&#039;s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, the article says:<br /><blockquote>Knowledge of the program has been closely held, yet inside the Bush administration some officials are skeptical about its chances of success, arguing that past efforts to undermine Iran’s nuclear program have been detected by the Iranians and have only delayed, not derailed, their drive to unlock the secrets of uranium enrichment.</blockquote><br /><br />You what really doesn&#039;t help a covert program&#039;s chances?  Being published on the front page of the New York Times.  As someone who seriously flirted with a career in journalism, I&#039;m sympathetic to the paper&#039;s desire to get the news out.  Journalistic ethics are what they are -- you have to assume that the paper <i>will</i> publish.  The people I&#039;m disappointed in are the public servants and government employees who handed this information over to the Times.  They could have no more damaged this program had they shared this information with the Iranians in exchange for money.  In that scenario, at least we&#039;d have some Iranian money for the bargain.  Instead, we&#039;re simply stuck with a compromised intelligence program.<br /><br />Given free speech, the paper probably didn&#039;t violate the law.  However, those in government who passed this classified information to the media most certainly violated the law, and should be prosecuted as such.]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090111-175307</id>
		<issued>2009-01-12T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-01-12T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Gettsburg Address</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090111-154403" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[Have you read it recently?  I stumbled up on an article that caused me to re-read these words that Lincoln spoke so long ago, and was again reminded how powerful they are.<br /><br /><center><img src="http://www.peterhsu.org/pics/Gettysburg.jpg" width="320" height="685" border="0" alt="" /></center>]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090111-154403</id>
		<issued>2009-01-11T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-01-11T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Army Video Games</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090105-215923" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[The NYT has an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/us/05army.html" target="_blank" >article</a> up a new video game experience the army is using to attract new recruits.  That isn&#039;t what caught my eye, however:<br /><blockquote>Civil liberties groups have criticized the Pentagon for its efforts to reach high school students.</blockquote><br /><br />This just drives me up the wall.  The Army isn&#039;t trying to recruit high school students -- it&#039;s trying to convince high schoolers to join <i>once they&#039;ve graduated from high school.</i>  People don&#039;t graduate from high school, wake up the next morning and say &quot;now what am I going to do with my life?&quot;  They PLAN.  If you want someone to join after graduation, common sense dictates that you talk to them while they&#039;re still in high school.<br /><br />Once you&#039;re 18, you can have unspeakable acts permanently recorded on camera, distributed to sleazebags throughout the country, and be left with only a pittance to show for it.  Joining the Army may not be all that bad in comparison.<br /><br />In fact, for the urban youth who are the subject of the NYT article, the Army may represent the only viable path towards something that resembles normal middle class life.  Without the Army they may never escape their communities and the cycle of destruction that drags so many down.  The Army represents good training, a stable income, good benefits, a solid retirement, and provides good discipline.  These individuals can then return to their community as an example to encourage others that it is in fact possible to rise above a seemingly hopeless situation.]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090105-215923</id>
		<issued>2009-01-06T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-01-06T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Stanley Fish Gets His Just Desserts</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090104-173522" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[Over on his blog at the New York Times, <a href="http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/the-return-of-the-old-grouch/" target="_blank" >Stanley Fish</a> has a post up complaining about AT&amp;T&#039;s customer service.  Mr. Fish owns two homes and lives half the year at each one.  When he changes homes, he has to turn on his phone service again:<br /><blockquote>“I’ve been away for some time and my services were reduced. I’d like to have them restored to what they were when I left in June.”<br /><br />It turned out that this was not possible. Even though I had paid to retain my phone number, I was going to be treated as a new customer, which meant that I would have to answer a bunch of questions and decline services I had never had.</blockquote><br /><br />Phone companies probably don&#039;t prepare for the contingency where residential customers regularly rotate through several houses -- it is simply too small a fraction of the population that enjoys such luxuries.  When adding a new customer, it makes sense to try and sell them as many services as possible.<br /><br />The real thing that set Mr. Fish off, however, was the fact that the agent greeted him with the grammatically incorrect question &quot;With whom do I have the pleasure of speaking with?&quot;:<br /><blockquote>I should have quit when I was (somewhat) ahead, but I couldn’t resist returning to the greeting, with its double and ungrammatical “with.” I explained that the second “with” was superfluous, as the second “to” would be if the offending question had been, “to whom am I speaking to?”, or the second “about” if the question had been “about what are you worrying about?”<br /><br />Somehow that didn’t make much of an impression on her. She said that her instructions were to greet callers in that way and that she would continue to do so. I replied that it was scandalous that a multi-billion-dollar world-wide telecommunication corporation would order its employees to commit an egregious (and comical) grammatical error millions of times a day.<br /><br />She said, “I’m sorry you feel that way.”<br /><br />I lost it. <i>It has nothing to do with feelings</i>, I ranted. <i>It is a factual matter as to what is and is not syntactically correct.</i></blockquote><br /><br />Is it just me, or is there something wrong with taking out your frustrations with a multinational corporations on the nearest poor slop getting paid $9 an hour who happens to work for that company?  After all, she obviously has no control over her employer&#039;s actions.  It reminds me of a similar situation at San Diego airport the other day.  Fog had grounded the planes the night before and the next morning flights were still slammed, with stranded passengers desperately trying to get out.  Every single passenger service counter at each gate in the terminal had a line, as harried agents rushed to reroute passengers as quickly as possible.  It took me over 40 minutes to advance 4 places in line because a man at the front refused to accept what the agent was telling him.<br /><br />&quot;Why can&#039;t I wait until the 3 p.m. flight to Portland?&quot;<br />&quot;Because that flight is full, sir.&quot;<br /><i>**Five more minutes of haggling**</i><br />&quot;I don&#039;t understand why you&#039;re trying to route me through Oakland.  There&#039;s a flight at 3 p.m. to Portland.&quot;<br />&quot;Sir, the flight at 3 is full.  The trick right now is getting out of San Diego, and there&#039;s a flight from Oakland to Portland at 2:30 p.m. today.&quot;<br /><i>**Continue ad nauseum for several more minutes**</i><br /><br />It was as if the man thought that the agent was holding out on him -- that, like a street vendor, it was possible to wear the man down and get a better deal.<br /><br />In the end, as Mr. Fish discovered, taking out your frustrations on the nearest customer service agent isn&#039;t always the wisest plan:<br /><blockquote>She changed the subject by informing me that the social security number I had given when she asked for it was not the number she had on record. I asked her to change it, but she pleaded incapacity: “No, I can’t do that. I’ll connect you to the department where they can.”<br /><br />That was a promise made subsequently by five other people as I was repeatedly transferred to someone who told me, “No, I can’t do that.” Everyone I talked to assured me that within seconds I would be talking to the right person. My last interlocutor took pity on me, and although he too was not the right person, he knew someone in his division who was and said he would talk to him directly. When he came back, it was to tell me that the social security number on record was in fact the one I had given him. The whole thing had been a wild goose chase.</blockquote><br /><br />Oops!  I&#039;m sure it was just an honest mistake...]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry090104-173522</id>
		<issued>2009-01-05T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2009-01-05T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>En Route to Hawaii</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry081220-190230" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[<b>Small boy</b>:  What&#039;s wrong with your arm?<br /><br /><b>Old man</b>:  I lost my arm in Vietnam.<br /><br />The old man then shuffled on.]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry081220-190230</id>
		<issued>2008-12-21T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2008-12-21T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Quotes Worth Reading</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry081215-205827" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[From a friend&#039;s <a href="http://therevolutionaryact.blogspot.com/2008/12/safety-in-bangkok.html" target="_blank" >blog</a>, on the danger to foreigners in Thailand:<br /><blockquote>...in the US, several people died and women miscarried in WalMarts on Black Friday being stomped to death by angry shopping mobs. Exactly zero foreigners have died in Bangkok from these protests. You had a better chance of being hurt shopping the day after Thanksgiving than I did watching the overgrown boys in cargo shorts and backwards baseball hats throw back shots here in Bangkok.</blockquote><br /><br />From this past Sunday&#039;s NYT, on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/movies/14head.html" target="_blank" >Clint Eastwood</a>:<br /><blockquote>Despite what you might have read on Wikipedia, Mr. Eastwood is not a vegan, and he looked slightly aghast when told exactly what a vegan is.</blockquote><br /><br />And while we&#039;re on Thailand, make sure you read <a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12724832" target="_blank" >this</a> article by the Economist.]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry081215-205827</id>
		<issued>2008-12-16T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2008-12-16T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Investments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry081130-160639" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[I was researching opening a brokerage account when I read the following description:<br /><blockquote>With a Margin Account, you can buy and sell most of the same types of securities as you would in a Cash Account, but you&#039;ll have the added advantage of leveraging your investments.</blockquote><br /><br />Ummmm... no thank you!<br /><br />If people a lot smarter than me are loosing money by the truckload in the stock market, I&#039;m not arrogant enough to believe that trading on borrowed money is a wise personal choice.]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry081130-160639</id>
		<issued>2008-12-01T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2008-12-01T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Efficient Markets</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry081129-153414" />
		<content type="text/html" mode="escaped"><![CDATA[I participated in a <a href="http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/fish_gotta_swim_birds_gotta_fl.php" target="_blank" >comment thread</a> over at Megan McArdle&#039;s blog, one of my new favorite places on the web.<br /><br />What they are describing is generally called a &quot;negative externality.&quot;  A negative externality is where you do not bear the full cost of your economic activity:  it is borne by another individual, group of individuals, or society as a whole.  Environmental issues lend themselves to easy illustrations of this, but noise pollution from a bar could also be classified as a negative externality.<br /><br />The key point here for libertarians is that <b>markets do not function efficiently in the face of negative externalities.</b>  If I&#039;m producing widgets for $5 and selling for $10, but Joe and Bob incur $15 of damage to their property every time I produce a widget, then society is operating at a net loss.  If you don&#039;t have an efficient market, then you don&#039;t have all of the much-touted benefits of capitalism.<br /><br />In general, there are two ways to deal with negative externalities:<br /><br />1)  You can <i>regulate</i> them.  This involves either prohibiting certain activities (NO loud music after 2 a.m., etc) or setting caps (max carbon emissions per year, etc.).<br /><br />2)  You can <i>price them in</i>.  In the widget example, this would mean that the gov&#039;t imposes a tax on me of $15 to compensate Joe and Bob.<br /><br />Libertarians and conservatives tend to reflexively act against anything that calls for more government involvement.  The problem here is that many confuse a useful tactic (less government regulation) with the strategic goal (an efficient market).  If you achieve the former at the expense of the latter, it really doesn&#039;t count as a win.]]></content>
		<id>http://www.peterhsu.org/oldblog/index.php?entry=entry081129-153414</id>
		<issued>2008-11-29T00:00:00Z</issued>
		<modified>2008-11-29T00:00:00Z</modified>
	</entry>
</feed>

