edg176's Xanga

We're open!

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:48:51 GMT

Dear Friends,
I am happy to announce the opening of my new, full-time law practice, Fong & Luu. As many of you know, I have been taking cases for over a year. After receiving more inquiries than I could take on a part-time basis, I decided that the time was right for me to practice law full-time. I'd like to thank my friends and family for their support as I take my practice to the next level.

Joining me in practice is my good friend and former Asian Law Alliance colleague, Dat C. Luu. Dat is a graduate of Santa Clara Law and UC Berkeley. Dat has been working with the public sector for many years. His experiences with various cultural groups and his multilingual ability add diversity to our firm. In addition to English, Dat is fluent in Vietnamese, Mandarin and Cantonese.

Fong & Luu has a number of practice areas: real estate (including loan modification and foreclosure defense), personal injury, immigration and business entity formation. Please feel free to contact us for any of your legal questions!

Best,
Tim

Fong & Luu
3333 Bowers Avenue
Suite 130
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Tel 408-627-7810
Fax 408-457-9417

Enough is Enough.

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:08:12 GMT

Looks like the Tea Bagger folks are really kicking it up a notch and really disrupting the health care town hall meetings that Congressional Reps are holding during the summer break. Last night there was reportedly a fistfight.

There have been some posts on Daily Kos about various tactics used to keep the dialogue open at the meetings, and prevent the Tea Baggers from destroying the dialogue. What I think would work very well would be for supporters of healthcare reform to show up with drums and beat on them (in unison) whenever the Tea Baggers tried to interrupt things. You could have all the pro-reform people in matching t-shirts and American flag headbands. You'd need some chants too. I've seen this done in Korea and it's very effective. You basically get a wall of noise.

What's important is to confront the Tea Baggers and to show Americans that the people who support healthcare reform are willing to step up when challenged. Some so-called intellectuals may believe that confronting idiocy "only makes it stronger" because you can "give in to get your way." Usually that kind of commentary is followed with some kind of b.s. new age "eastern philosophy." That's pretty much ridiculous coming from the mouths of most people I've heard it from. "Giving in" implies you actually have the cohesiveness to make giving in a choice. 99 percent of the so-called intellectuals who mouth cheesy pieties about "giving in to get your way" do not have the kind of personal practice to even make it a choice. A lot of this type of talk comes from Esalen and the people there who got into aikido. Problem is they didn't really understand what was meant by "don't resist"-- you have to accept the force into you, but that's how it feels, not what you see on the outside. On the outside the person looks like they are a brick wall (to a point of course) while the subjective experience is of the power passing through you, i.e. accepting the power. In a practical real world sense, if a person is putting in their time meditating and performing certain types of esoteric practices, good luck trying to push them over if they don't want to be moved. That's a byproduct of their training. There are specific things that people do to produce the kind of resolute mindset that allows a person to self immolate or stand in front of a firehose.

Of course, a strong resolve could also be used to take decisive action to directly confront thuggery, if that is the choice a person wanted to make.

It is important for the pro-healthcare reform people (and the left generally) to show that they are willing to stand up for what they believe in .

This is because most Americans are not interested in being monks. They don't want to throw their lot in with a movement that won't be there for them when things get tough. When organized labor was successful in the US, it was because people were willing to throw their lot in with groups like the Longshoremen and the UAW. People knew that things would get ugly , but they also knew that they were part of a group that would use direct confrontation when necessary. If you don't believe me that Americans love a good confrontation, then tell me why MMA, NASCAR and football are so popular with Americans today? There are a lot of Americans who will tell you that in their view, there is about a nickel's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, so they choose the party that they think represents their values the best, and that has people who will fight for what they believe in. I'm not the only person who has observed this-- Joe Bageant has written about it extensively. There's a great bit in one of his books about his experiences talking to guys who work for a Rubbermaid plant. They have terrible health benefits and bad pay. They are proud people who want strong leadership. If the left wants to gain even some of those people as supporters, it had better show that it knows how to confront people directly.

Plus, I think the drumming and chanting in unison would be pretty fun.

Getting What You Pay For

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:53:47 GMT

Big news today is that the Senate Finance Committee has allegedly removed the public option from the healthcare reform bill. The public option would create a government backed insurance plan that people could choose as an alternative to the private insurance companies. Doctors would still have private practices, only the insurance plan would be government managed. Many people think that the public option would force insurance companies to actually compete to offer plans that are more affordable. However, what we actually know is that a public plan would be the beginning of socialism, since it would threaten the prerogatives of insurance companies, and we can't have that.

The Chairman of the Committee is Max Baucus, a Democratic Senator from Montana. As Chairman he has a lot of power to shape the bill in his committee. Let's see who his top donors are, shall we?

source.

I was utterly shocked to see that 8 of the 20 top contributors to Senator Baucus were healthcare related companies such as Aetna and Schering-Plough Corp. It really makes me feel good to know that Senator Baucus is looking out for the best interests of big drug companies and the insurers! These are clearly publicly spirited companies that make up about 25 percent of Sen. Baucus fundraising efforts.

If you'd like to let Sen. Baucus know how much you appreciate his public spirited defense of our-most-vulnerable private enterprise entities, please let him know! You can contact him here:
511 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-2651(Office)
(202) 224-9412 (Fax)

Or email him at:
this link

And so it goes

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:21:41 GMT

A top Chinese banker on Sunday called on the U.S. government and the World Bank to sell yuan-denominated bonds in Hong Kong and Shanghai to encourage the development of debt markets in those centers and to promote the yuan as a major international currency.
link

If the Chinese are able to pressure the US into issuing bonds in Chinese currency, things will change dramatically. My understanding is that it means that the US government would no longer be able to get the rest of the world to subsidize our borrowing.

20 Years On

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:23:34 GMT

I still remember.

Clean lines and catalogs

Wed, 27 May 2009 06:34:06 GMT

For a summer during junior high I was really obsessed with design. I'm not sure what triggered it. Perhaps it was a visit to a train museum or an Indiana Jones film. I started reading a lot of design books, and got really into Modernists like Mies van der Rohe, Bauhaus and Le Corbusier. Also, Frank Lloyd Wright, though I realized that he considered himself quite apart from the Europeans. Form was supposed to follow function, but as I dug deeper into the literature, I discovered that a lot of the homes and buildings were poorly weatherized and uncomfortable. I still appreciate the clean lines and simplicity. I don't spend a lot of time with design these days. A few weeks ago I ran across some blogs about Mid Century Modern design-- apparently it is popular again.

I've found this blog recently, and I really like it: Mid Century Modernist

Torture?

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:02:54 GMT

I'm tired of hacks talking about laws regarding torture. I watched an interview that John Stewart did with Cliff May about torture. May is the head of a neo-con group, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. May insisted that any Geneva Convention rules against torture were irrelevant because the Geneva Convention does not apply (in his view) to captured high level Al Qaeda operatives. Once he said that he brushed off international law restrictions against torture. This was disingenuous. It was disingenuous because even if the Geneva Conventions do not apply to high level Al Qaeda operatives, the Convention Against Torture [CAT] certainly does.

The CAT is a treaty that bars torture of anyone. The US actually ratified the CAT during the administration of the notoriously liberal President Ronald Reagan. Article 2, Section 1 specifically bars torture:

Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

The CAT does not allow any exceptions for exigent circumstances.

Now, some sharp commentators will doubtlessly point out that in many cases treaties are ratified by the US Government, but do not have force of law within the United States without implementing legislation. That is true-- and the US has implemented the CAT through 18 U.S.C. § 2340. Federal law bars torture by any American, regardless of location. Individuals who torture can be punished by death. Conspiracy to commit torture that results in death can result in a life sentence. Torture that does not result in death can result in a fine and/or a 20 year prison term.

So what does this mean? When May claims that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to captured high level terrorists, he may be speaking correctly. However he is misleading people because it makes it seem as if there are no international treaty obligations against torture. There are, and they are embodied by the CAT. Furthermore, federal law forbids torture by any American of any person for any reason.

There are only two reasons that May does not discuss the fact that the CAT and federal law forbid torture. There are two possible reasons-- incompetence or an intent to deceive. If he is speaking in public about torture and our obligations, then it is difficult to believe that he has not, during his preparations and research, run across the Convention Against Torture. For example, a basic human rights cram text, International Human Rights in a Nutshell. This is available online for $27.44 and at any law school library. Presumably the President of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies has access to a law library, or has friends who do. Failing that, one would think that his expense account would cover ordering a book that costs less than $30.00. I could understand if overnight shipping might break his expense account and be considered a needless extravagance, but surely he could afford the book if shipped via super saver shipping. Now perhaps the neo-con movement has fallen on such hard times that May cannot afford to buy the book via Amazon. Then perhaps he could have availed himself of a Google search. A quick search for [torture human rights laws] on Google brought up, as the fourth link the HREA website, which discusses, as the fourth paragraph the convention against torture. Maybe the neocon movement is having such a hard time that they can't even afford an internet connection. If so, I can almost feel bad for them.

What seems a lot more likely is that May is intentionally obfuscating the fact that international law does bar torture. That is intellectually dishonest and undermines his case. It is dishonest because the statement can be argued to be true, i.e. some people believe that the Geneva Conventions won't apply to high level Al Qaeda prisoners. It implies that there is no international obligation barring the US from torturing a high level Al Qaeda prisoner. However, as shown above, the CAT does strictly bar torture. Thus, if May knows about the CAT (and if he is in any way competent, then he must know about it) then he is willfully deceiving Americans about our international obligations.

He is either incompetent or a liar. Either way he is a hack.

So the next time someone who watches too much TV snidely tells you that "well the Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrorists," just tell him that the Convention Against Torture certainly does.

Tax Protesters

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:51:35 GMT

There were some protests today all over the US, orchestrated by an outfit called "FreedomWorks." I heard one guy on the radio saying that he objected to paying taxes when he "doesn't get anything for his money."

I heard that and I thought , really? You don't get anything?

I guess clean water, food that isn't full of mercury, highways, national defense, buildings that don't fall down, medicare (so you don't have to pay all your parents' medical bills when they have a triple bypass), social security (so your parents don't have to eat dog food) , kids toys that aren't coated in lead paint, breathable air (because we don't put lead in our gasoline anymore), cars that don't kill you (because the inside is all chrome which looks great but stabs you in the face when there's an accident), are worthless. I almost forgot-- storm drains and sewers that don't dump raw sewage into your work parking lot when it rains.

Maybe if you are a John-Galt-like small business owner who can provide all those things for himself ,that stuff is lame. There is that whole FDIC thing too, insuring bank deposits so that people have confidence in the bank. But maybe some people don't believe in banks, because they are keeping it all in gold in their house.

Some people are just really spoiled. They should try living somewhere with no taxes and no services.

Get it Together

Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:10:26 GMT

Last week a BART police officer shot and killed Oscar Grant III. Last night, a protest at Fruitvale BART station in Oakland (where the shooting took place) turned violent when a group of the protesters broke off and started smashing and destroying local stores and parked cars.

I am generally just angry over this entire episode. Who am I angry with? Just about everyone. Let's run down the list:
1. The people fighting on the BART train
The officers were apparently responding to people fighting on the train. No footage of that has surfaced yet, but if it's true those people are idiots. Sure, it's fun to go out and get lit on NYE. But please don't go picking fights with people. That's lame, and it led to.
2. The officer who shot Grant
What the hell was that about? I've watched a couple of videos. At best it looks like the guy had an accidental discharge. That is, he put his finger on the trigger and pulled it by accident. This can happen when people are poorly trained. I understand that the newspapers are saying the officer might have mixed up his pistol with a Tazer. Even if that's true, it's still a massive training failure which resulted in someone dying. Basic firearms safety rule-- don't put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire. We haven't heard anything about whether Grant had a weapon-- and I'm thinking if he had one that night, it would be on the news already. Now let's face it, Grant was no angel. Media reports indicate that he had some kind of criminal record. Despite that, there was apparently no reason for the officer to shoot him. Perhaps we'll find out that the officer thought Grant was reaching for a weapon. No word on that yet. And nothing like that seems to show up on the video.
Worst case scenario is the shooter flipped out and shot out of anger. If that's the case ,then the State should lock this guy up permanently.
3. The idiots on SFgate.
I'm not going to link to it, but there are lots of people on SFgate talking about how Grant "deserved" to die for struggling with the cops and for having a criminal record. Right. So now it's the death penalty for resisting arrest and having a criminal record? How is that right? The fact is that just because someone has a criminal record, doesn't make them less deserving of the protection of the laws. Plus , Grant had a kid, who now will grow up without a father. Certainly someone can argue that Grant would have been a bad father. Well the fact is that we'll never know now since HE'S DEAD. That's the whole idea of "equality before the law." Now someone is going to accuse me of being "soft on crime" and not sufficiently supportive of law and order. No. The only reason government has any legitimacy at all is based on the idea of treating everyone equally when they are accused of a crime or detained by law enforcement. Allegedly that's the basis of our system. If people aren't happy with that, that's okay. But in that case, they should stop pounding hteir chests about "America the land of the free" and just admit that they would probably be happier if they could put an American equivalent to Francisco Franco in power to defend the prerogatives of American settler blood and soil.
4. The people who planned the Fruitvale rally
Come on, in the Bay Area everyone knows that the morons from the "Revolutionary Communist Party" like to show up and hijack any and all demonstrations. Early reports have these knuckleheads leading a splinter group away from the peaceful rally, to smash stuff. Whoever planned the Fruitvale protest should also have had rally security to keep those RCP morons clear of the entire thing.
5. The RCP morons
Way to go guys, you lead people to smash minority owned businesses and the cars of innocent people. I used to live in that neighborhood. It was very ethnically diverse-- black, Asian , Latino, white and so on. Actually although there were problems there were also decent people just trying to get by, and business owners who supported community events of all kinds. Also, what about the people who depend on their car to get to work every day? The RCP people really piss me off for a variety of reasons. Beyond their wrong headed political religion (masquerading as a historical truth) , they also are total fail. In decades of trying they have totally , epically failed to meet any of their goals. I guess I should be happy about that.
6. Anyone else smashing and breaking stuff
Again, having lived in the neighborhood, I can guarantee that most of the people whose stuff got smashed actually SUPPORT justice for Grant and his family. So what's the point of breaking stuff?
I guess that's what is making me so angry. I don't understand why people keep setting up protests and marches to "send a message." Seriously? Enough of that. If people are going to march they should have a GOAL beyond "sending a message." That "sending a message" garbage goes on at all levels in the United States, from the government on down, and I fail to see exactly what it accomplishes beyond a bunch of posturing.
7. BART
For totally mishandling this. Their announcements were evasive and did not do enough to assure people that anything was going to be done about the situation.
8. People calling for the disarming of BART police officers.
Are you kidding me? And what are they supposed to do when they confront a person who is armed and dangerous on the platform or on the train? Hug them? Police officers are a necessary part of society, because there are always going to be some seriously sociopathic people that will not hesitate to harm others unless restrained, or sometimes, shot. It is a difficult and necessary job and I respect those who do it. And I also expect that officers will protect their own, because the nature of the job requires a person to have absolute trust in his or her colleagues. At the same time it is the role of the general public, of citizens, to question the police force and to demand investigations when someone is shot in highly questionable circumstances.

How much more effective would the protest have been if people had marched down to the DA's office, PEACEFULLY demanded a meeting with the DA and refused to leave until he came out and promised to bring the case before a grand jury? Or bring an indictment? Or if people had PEACEFULLY marched to BART headquarters, demanded to meet with the BART police and management, and refused to leave until they could meet?

Thoughts on Victory II: America the Ideological

Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:29:27 GMT

[This is a work in progress. I welcome comments and criticism.]

The United States is a profoundly ideological nation. It is often said that America is a pragmatic nation that eschews ideology.

However a closer look at the United States shows that the US is a nation founded in ideology. It is only within the last 40 years that the United States has lived up to the promise of its founding. Thus, we can say that the US is also a young democracy. This is because the nation accepted a norm of excluding significant numbers of people from political participation prior. The people of the United States have just elected a President who , as a candidate, skillfully tapped into the current iteration of America's ideology. Not all people in the world accept equality before the law and the pursuit of happiness as goals.

At the outset, the men who founded the United States declared

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence were a fundamentally radical break with the tradition of the divine right of kings. The idea that all men were equal before the law was equally radical. Furthermore, the idea that government's purpose was to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was far different from a monarchy, where the subjects exist to serve the glory of the rulers, and where large swathes of the nation were the property of the ruling family.

Even though the Founders had high aspirations, the United States in significant ways, failed to live up to the words of the founding documents. Human beings could still be the property of the ruling class, as many of the Founders were slave owners. When they came together to write the Constitution, they enshrined slavery in the document with the 3/5 compromise. The infamous compromise counted slaves as 3/5 of a person, for purposes of calculating the total population of a state. The population was important because the number of Congressional Representatives was [and is] calculated based on population.

The 3/5 compromise stood in tension with the words of the Declaration, that "all men are created equal." How Africa-American be subject to slavery if they were created as equal? Moreover, what of the great aspirations of the Constitution's drafters, to "establish Justice" "promote the general Welfare," and "secure the Blessings of Liberty?" And what about women?

For many years, the Declaration and the Constitution sounded good on paper but were not implemented in practice. No amount of July 4th hagiography and self-aggrandizing chest-beating can change that fact. Cynics (some might call them the clear eyed) could easily point to the United States and point out that regardless of aspirations, we failed to live up to its promise.

And yet, people kept hope. Women struggled for and claimed the right to vote. People of all ethnicities, marched and fought to be recognized as equal, and as part of the great American experiment in democracy and equality. It is no small thing to note too, that many whites also saw the inherent contradictions between the words and the deeds of our nation. They too joined the struggle to forge a United States that lived up to the lofty language of our foundational texts.

It simply is not the case that there is no ideology in the United States. There is , at the core, a belief system in fairness and equality before the law regardless of income level, ethnicity, religion or gender. You can recognize this when you look around the world and see countless examples where this view is not accepted. Some of those places include the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s , where ethnic cleansing and executions were a way of life. Another example would be the Iraq of today, where various groups kill each other over differences in religion. Often people consider national identity to be intrinsically bound to blood and ethnicity. This is true even in Western Europe, often considered by many leftists to be a beacon of tolerance. In 2005 the suburban ghettos of France exploded in riots, based in part on the sense of alienation felt by non-white French residents.
French residents and citizens of African descent have been excluded from wider French life. French society is clearly having a difficult time accepting that people of immigrant origin are equal partners.

The United States is a young democracy with an ideology flexible enough to accept people of immigrant origin as equal partners. The real challenge is for Americans to recognize how very ideological we really are.