In retrospect to a recent blog I read, I thought long and hard about the Patriot Act that was recently defeated in the Senate Halls. I thought long and hard about the underlying dilemma of the Patriot Act. Are Americans scared shit-less or are we all (us fellow Americans) crazy, introverted homebodies that would be considered sleeping giants that would not want to meddle with affairs outside the comforts of the living room?
I have often presumed that American and the Chinese are very much a like. Besides, us Chinese (Americans) aren't even considered a minority group anymore. I mean, we practically make up the majority in the Top 50 university and technological programs in the nation. Joking, aside, the Chinese were very isolationist people that shun western society until Great Britain and Portugal came in confiscated land during the Opium War and forced the Far Eastern society to not be so private anymore. In the other hemisphere, the Monroe Doctrine strived Americans to be they're own masters of their domains without interference of European influence (Namely Napoleon) Together, with destiny of the Manifest Destiny, us American grew to be expansionistic pigs. Well, the topic about McDonalds and obesity is another blog subject.
So now how are we as American respond to privacy issues? Don't forget, we're greedy pigs that shun other society out. We don't want black-boxes in our cars, we don't want pop-ups and telemarketing, and we certainly don't want big brother to check out neighbor or homes, regardless if it's part of Neighborhood Watch. So we also shun the Patriotic Act.
Personally by all means I'm opposed to the Patriotic Act, namely because I do not have the legal capacity to pick-it over with a fine-tooth comb. I understand that some practices may seem out of hand, absurd, and even like a strip-search without the cold, latex hands. I wish I had more time to read about the actual legislation turn to simple notes and paper of history, and to give more of an honest response, but the purpose of my blog today is to find out how private are we and defendable are we for our right to privacy, are afraid of the Patriot Act.
I should mention, I have read nothing but attacking articles, except for one pro-sided piece about the Patriot Act, so some misnomers and one-sided thinking is present. So, what's Jessica Simpson up to these days? Serious, we all want to know about the divorce. Who’s going to get the alimony? How about Kate and Tom, or even Bennifer?
Now how about the tragedy of Princess Diana. Now, that's privacy gone deadly. Then how about reality television? Real World Chicago, Big Brother 10, Survivor Jumanji-Style. Granted reality television is fake, but still we private Americans that shun telemarketers by storming the Do Not Call directory want our 15 minutes of fame. Now how about this, we want privacy and piece at weddings and funerals, but we announce the terms and story in the newspaper and OB. We also have webcam action for a cost of $14.95 a month for those over 18. We sign up for Martins, Safeway, Giant, and Dominick's grocery cards and other frequent diner, buyer, or seller cards with our personal information away. We use our Social Security numbers in public like a locker combination to apply for credit and more credit. The blog about debt-bleeding Americans will come soon.
So do we want to know where rapists, murders, and felons are in the neighborhood are? Yes, so screw their privacy. We want to know how our children are doing in school. Sure, until they go to college where their failures are kept from you. (HINT: Going to school for 7 years does not mean you're a doctor of gen. Ed) We want to build in new developments that will be more affordable and pleasant because they're closer to nature. So, screw you "Natural Habitat" and "Bambi"! Oh, have I mentioned that celebrities are screwed too?
So what is the comfort level for privacy? I'm willing to put an automotive black box in my car if it means lower insurance premiums. I'm willing to get a Banana Republic card if I annually get a $25 off card. I'm willing to have my library card history, purchase, and credit history check to make sure that this .aC (because my name is like the Chinese version of John Smith) isn't the one whose plotting the next terrorist attack, to killing someone, to building a bomb, or the rapist next door. Ever seen those Citibank ads about identify theft, privacy is not private anymore. What is it in it for me? To me, a Patriot Act with a value proposition will fly with me. What about you?
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Monday, December 12, 2005
Barnes and Noble
GET YOUR TEXTBOOKS HERE!!!
Barnes & Noble.com Home Page
aC. Sidebar
In my history of cheapness and thrift, B&N has been my primary source of textbooks at DePaul and Northwestern. College bookstores are definately over priced, but B&N offers very competitive rates. Plus, I'm a B&N member, so I can get you an additional 10% if you want.
Barnes & Noble.com Home Page
aC. Sidebar
In my history of cheapness and thrift, B&N has been my primary source of textbooks at DePaul and Northwestern. College bookstores are definately over priced, but B&N offers very competitive rates. Plus, I'm a B&N member, so I can get you an additional 10% if you want.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Crazy Deers
Five Deer Leap to Deaths From W.Va. Garage
Tue Dec 6
Either they misjudged the distance or they couldn't take the traffic. For reasons that mystify authorities, five deer that made their way onto the top of a five-story parking garage suddenly leaped to their deaths Sunday.
Police Cpl. Steve Cox found the does' bodies on a service road to the Charles Town Races & Slots, next to a security van they'd narrowly missed.
"They took the plunge," he said. "It was just absolutely weird."
A woman called police when she saw the deer falling, and Cox said he found scratches and animal hair on the fifth floor, indicating that's where they had been.
It's unclear how the deer got into the garage, but Cox said they may have become frightened after getting trapped. Cars moving through the garage may have spooked them, he said.
Or they could have been fooled by trees that can be seen from the top of the garage, mistakenly thinking they were close to home.
The carcasses were given to passers-by for butchering.
aC. Sidebar
The interesting thing about this story is the pleasantry of deer meat. At least it's not road kill, or should I say, self-inflicted plunge. I wondering if deer taste like chicken?
Tue Dec 6
Either they misjudged the distance or they couldn't take the traffic. For reasons that mystify authorities, five deer that made their way onto the top of a five-story parking garage suddenly leaped to their deaths Sunday.
Police Cpl. Steve Cox found the does' bodies on a service road to the Charles Town Races & Slots, next to a security van they'd narrowly missed.
"They took the plunge," he said. "It was just absolutely weird."
A woman called police when she saw the deer falling, and Cox said he found scratches and animal hair on the fifth floor, indicating that's where they had been.
It's unclear how the deer got into the garage, but Cox said they may have become frightened after getting trapped. Cars moving through the garage may have spooked them, he said.
Or they could have been fooled by trees that can be seen from the top of the garage, mistakenly thinking they were close to home.
The carcasses were given to passers-by for butchering.
aC. Sidebar
The interesting thing about this story is the pleasantry of deer meat. At least it's not road kill, or should I say, self-inflicted plunge. I wondering if deer taste like chicken?
Monday, November 21, 2005
Comic of the Week
aC. Sidebar
Make sure your son or daughter isn't bring home to his or her's room:
a) His or Her 40-yld gym or language arts teacher
b) Psycho 18-yld with 50 guns at home, who plays Grand Theft Auto and like trench coats
c) Barbie or Miss Teen of Little Town of Paw-Paw type that's superfacial and has a face of a ghost
d) His or Her's First, Second, or equivalent cousin or other family members
e) Pee-Wee Herman or R. Kelly
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Math Formula of the Week
Bayes' theorem
Simply put, Bayes’ theorem gives the probability of a random event A occurring given that we know a related event B occurred. This probability is noted P(AB), and is read "probability of A given B". This measure is sometimes called the "posterior", since it is computed after all other information on A and B is known.
According to Bayes’ theorem, the probability of A occurring given B will be dependent on three things:The probability of A occurring on its own, regardless of B. This is noted P(A) and read "probability of A". This measure is sometimes called the "prior", meaning it precedes any other information – as opposed to the posterior, defined above, which is computed after all other information is known.
The probability of B occurring on its own, regardless of A. This is noted P(B) and read "probability of B". This measure is sometimes called the normalising constant, since it will always be the same, regardless of which event A one is studying.
The probability of B occurring given that A occurred. This is noted P(BA) and is read "probability of B given A". This measure is sometimes called the likelihood, since it is the likelihood of A occurring given that B occurred. It is important not to confuse the likelihood of A given B and the probability of A given B. Even though both notions may seem similar and are related, they are quite different.
Example
To illustrate, suppose there are two bowls full of cookies. Bowl #1 has 10 chocolate chip cookies and 30 plain cookies, while bowl #2 has 20 of each. Our friend Fred picks a bowl at random, and then picks a cookie at random. We may assume there is no reason to believe Fred treats one bowl differently from another, likewise for the cookies. The cookie turns out to be a plain one. How probable is it that Fred picked it out of bowl #1?
Intuitively, it seems clear that the answer should be more than a half, since there are more plain cookies in bowl #1. The precise answer is given by Bayes' theorem. But first, we can clarify the situation by rephrasing the question to "what’s the probability that Fred picked bowl #1, given that he has a plain cookie?” Thus, to relate to our previous explanation, the event A is that Fred picked bowl #1, and the event B is that Fred picked a plain cookie. To compute Pr(AB), we first need to know:
Pr(A), or the probability that Fred picked bowl #1 regardless of any other information. Since Fred is treating both bowls equally, it is 0.5.
P(B), or the probability of getting a plain cookie regardless of any information on the bowls. In other words, this is the probability of getting a plain cookie from each of the bowls. It is computed as the sum of the probability of getting a plain cookie from a bowl multiplied by the probability of selecting this bowl. We know from the problem statement that the probability of getting a plain cookie from bowl #1 is 0.75, and the probability of getting one from bowl #2 is 0.5, and since Fred is treating both bowls equally the probability of selecting any one of them is 0.5. Thus, the probability of getting a plain cookie overall is 0.75×0.5 + 0.5×0.5 = 0.625.
Pr(BA), or the probability of getting a plain cookie given that Fred has selected bowl #1. From the problem statement, we know this is 0.75, since 30 out of 40 cookies in bowl #1 are plain. Given all this information, we can compute the probability of Fred having selected bowl #1 given that he got a plain cookie, as such.
As we expected, it is more than half. ((.75 * .5) / .625)
Simply put, Bayes’ theorem gives the probability of a random event A occurring given that we know a related event B occurred. This probability is noted P(AB), and is read "probability of A given B". This measure is sometimes called the "posterior", since it is computed after all other information on A and B is known.
According to Bayes’ theorem, the probability of A occurring given B will be dependent on three things:The probability of A occurring on its own, regardless of B. This is noted P(A) and read "probability of A". This measure is sometimes called the "prior", meaning it precedes any other information – as opposed to the posterior, defined above, which is computed after all other information is known.
The probability of B occurring on its own, regardless of A. This is noted P(B) and read "probability of B". This measure is sometimes called the normalising constant, since it will always be the same, regardless of which event A one is studying.
The probability of B occurring given that A occurred. This is noted P(BA) and is read "probability of B given A". This measure is sometimes called the likelihood, since it is the likelihood of A occurring given that B occurred. It is important not to confuse the likelihood of A given B and the probability of A given B. Even though both notions may seem similar and are related, they are quite different.
Example
To illustrate, suppose there are two bowls full of cookies. Bowl #1 has 10 chocolate chip cookies and 30 plain cookies, while bowl #2 has 20 of each. Our friend Fred picks a bowl at random, and then picks a cookie at random. We may assume there is no reason to believe Fred treats one bowl differently from another, likewise for the cookies. The cookie turns out to be a plain one. How probable is it that Fred picked it out of bowl #1?
Intuitively, it seems clear that the answer should be more than a half, since there are more plain cookies in bowl #1. The precise answer is given by Bayes' theorem. But first, we can clarify the situation by rephrasing the question to "what’s the probability that Fred picked bowl #1, given that he has a plain cookie?” Thus, to relate to our previous explanation, the event A is that Fred picked bowl #1, and the event B is that Fred picked a plain cookie. To compute Pr(AB), we first need to know:
Pr(A), or the probability that Fred picked bowl #1 regardless of any other information. Since Fred is treating both bowls equally, it is 0.5.
P(B), or the probability of getting a plain cookie regardless of any information on the bowls. In other words, this is the probability of getting a plain cookie from each of the bowls. It is computed as the sum of the probability of getting a plain cookie from a bowl multiplied by the probability of selecting this bowl. We know from the problem statement that the probability of getting a plain cookie from bowl #1 is 0.75, and the probability of getting one from bowl #2 is 0.5, and since Fred is treating both bowls equally the probability of selecting any one of them is 0.5. Thus, the probability of getting a plain cookie overall is 0.75×0.5 + 0.5×0.5 = 0.625.
Pr(BA), or the probability of getting a plain cookie given that Fred has selected bowl #1. From the problem statement, we know this is 0.75, since 30 out of 40 cookies in bowl #1 are plain. Given all this information, we can compute the probability of Fred having selected bowl #1 given that he got a plain cookie, as such.
As we expected, it is more than half. ((.75 * .5) / .625)
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Friday, November 11, 2005
Trim the mortgage-interest deduction
By Froma Harrop
PROVIDENCE, R.I. – The deduction for mortgage interest is the "third rail" of tax reform. President Reagan tried to get rid of it in 1986, but real estate interests stopped him. Now, President Bush's tax advisory commission suggests limiting its use. Good idea, I say, and good luck.
The mortgage-interest deduction is bad economic policy. It encourages consumption, rather than saving. People take out big mortgages to free up spending money. (They convince themselves not to worry about all the borrowing because the interest on the loan can be tax-deductible.) An unhealthy economic incentive, the deduction is also expensive. It cost the Treasury $63 billion last year in needed revenues. The entire budget of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development was $35 billion.
The deduction is bad social policy. It discriminates against renters, and even homeowners of moderate means. "The people who have the biggest homes, who make the most money are the greatest beneficiaries of this tax subsidy," says Nicolas Retsinas, director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. "If you rent, you don't get the deduction. Even if you own a home and have a modest income, you're likely to take a standard deduction, which means you don't get it."
The mortgage-interest deduction is a boulder in the stream of tax reform. A lot of people say they want a "flat tax" - a single rate for all incomes, with no deductions, exemptions or loopholes allowed. A flat tax could cure the annual migraine of filling out IRS forms. But there can be no honest flat tax that makes an exception for a break that benefits the well-to-do.
In recommending tax reform, Bush's advisory panel has to offset any cuts with new revenues. It rightly wants to kill the alternative minimum tax, and suggests limiting the mortgage-interest deduction as a way to replace some of the lost revenue. (The alternative minimum tax was designed 35 years ago to ensure that the rich pay their share. Not adjusted for inflation, the tax is rampaging through the middle class and has to go.)
The commission has been talking about ways to limit the mortgage-interest deduction without stepping on too many toes. Right now, Americans can deduct all the interest paid on mortgages written for up to $1 million. The panel is considering whether that cap might be reduced to the size of the biggest mortgage currently insured by the Federal Housing Administration. Nowadays, that means a mortgage of about $313,000 in expensive communities, or a national average of $244,000.
The average American mortgage weighs in at about $155,000, so this lower limit would not change the calculus for most of us peasants. However, the cap would pinch some nerves in trophy house territory. The real estate industry would not like that at all. The bigger the mortgage people can afford, the more they can pay for a house, and the more real estate brokers and developers rake in.
A more noble concern over altering the mortgage-interest deduction centers on America's wildly divergent costs of living. The median price of a home is about $220,000 in the United States, but $550,000 in San Francisco. A $400,000 mortgage, while amazing to most Americans, would not be a rarity on Nob Hill. Any proposal to limit the mortgage- interest deduction has to be very sensitive to these issues.
But should we even bother thinking about the details at this point? The odds are not wonderful that Congress will summon the courage to trim this deduction. If the past is any guide, the meekest attempt will fire up the real estate industry's propaganda mills. Soon, Americans not even remotely affected by the proposed changes will believe in their bones that they are losing some beloved tax deduction.
That's a cynical view, but unavoidable. Our government seems incapable of asking the smallest sacrifice of the biggest incomes. Here is a tax break that favors the upper brackets while hurting economic growth, and we can't get a consensus in Washington that it is a bad thing.
Reagan was right on this one. And so is Bush's tax advisory commission. Is there a brave political soul out there looking for a good policy?
PROVIDENCE, R.I. – The deduction for mortgage interest is the "third rail" of tax reform. President Reagan tried to get rid of it in 1986, but real estate interests stopped him. Now, President Bush's tax advisory commission suggests limiting its use. Good idea, I say, and good luck.
The mortgage-interest deduction is bad economic policy. It encourages consumption, rather than saving. People take out big mortgages to free up spending money. (They convince themselves not to worry about all the borrowing because the interest on the loan can be tax-deductible.) An unhealthy economic incentive, the deduction is also expensive. It cost the Treasury $63 billion last year in needed revenues. The entire budget of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development was $35 billion.
The deduction is bad social policy. It discriminates against renters, and even homeowners of moderate means. "The people who have the biggest homes, who make the most money are the greatest beneficiaries of this tax subsidy," says Nicolas Retsinas, director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. "If you rent, you don't get the deduction. Even if you own a home and have a modest income, you're likely to take a standard deduction, which means you don't get it."
The mortgage-interest deduction is a boulder in the stream of tax reform. A lot of people say they want a "flat tax" - a single rate for all incomes, with no deductions, exemptions or loopholes allowed. A flat tax could cure the annual migraine of filling out IRS forms. But there can be no honest flat tax that makes an exception for a break that benefits the well-to-do.
In recommending tax reform, Bush's advisory panel has to offset any cuts with new revenues. It rightly wants to kill the alternative minimum tax, and suggests limiting the mortgage-interest deduction as a way to replace some of the lost revenue. (The alternative minimum tax was designed 35 years ago to ensure that the rich pay their share. Not adjusted for inflation, the tax is rampaging through the middle class and has to go.)
The commission has been talking about ways to limit the mortgage-interest deduction without stepping on too many toes. Right now, Americans can deduct all the interest paid on mortgages written for up to $1 million. The panel is considering whether that cap might be reduced to the size of the biggest mortgage currently insured by the Federal Housing Administration. Nowadays, that means a mortgage of about $313,000 in expensive communities, or a national average of $244,000.
The average American mortgage weighs in at about $155,000, so this lower limit would not change the calculus for most of us peasants. However, the cap would pinch some nerves in trophy house territory. The real estate industry would not like that at all. The bigger the mortgage people can afford, the more they can pay for a house, and the more real estate brokers and developers rake in.
A more noble concern over altering the mortgage-interest deduction centers on America's wildly divergent costs of living. The median price of a home is about $220,000 in the United States, but $550,000 in San Francisco. A $400,000 mortgage, while amazing to most Americans, would not be a rarity on Nob Hill. Any proposal to limit the mortgage- interest deduction has to be very sensitive to these issues.
But should we even bother thinking about the details at this point? The odds are not wonderful that Congress will summon the courage to trim this deduction. If the past is any guide, the meekest attempt will fire up the real estate industry's propaganda mills. Soon, Americans not even remotely affected by the proposed changes will believe in their bones that they are losing some beloved tax deduction.
That's a cynical view, but unavoidable. Our government seems incapable of asking the smallest sacrifice of the biggest incomes. Here is a tax break that favors the upper brackets while hurting economic growth, and we can't get a consensus in Washington that it is a bad thing.
Reagan was right on this one. And so is Bush's tax advisory commission. Is there a brave political soul out there looking for a good policy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
