screen resolution of 800x600 or greater is recommended
profile pic   ChuBlogga!
Offended? Intrigued? Female? Contact my manager.

    Here begins your journey into the mind of everybody's favorite asian, and I don't mean Jet Li.
What follows is the somewhat inane, mostly irrelevant, and self-important ramblings of a man on the brink of madness.
Welcome... to the Chu.

-Visit Extraordinary Convergence for political commentary-
increase the chu
Monday, November 16, 2009
 Hines Ward is my Kryptonite    [L]

This is going to be about fantasy football, so if you're not interested feel free to skip this article. Seriously, it's not even about fantasy football in general, but one of my teams in one of my leagues, so the chances of you being interested are fairly remote. Talking about your fantasy football team is like talking about your dreams: Very few people care.

Then again, if you enjoy a good fantasy football yarn then go right on ahead.

I felt the need to rant, and to share a miraculous discovery with the fantasy football world:

Hines Ward is my bitch.

Let me explain.

In one of my 3 leagues (the most serious and competitive one) I drafted Hines Ward in the 8th round. Being a Bengals fan, I wasn't particularly happy with it, but he was the best WR on the board at the time, and my fandom doesn't run deep enough to where I would cripple my fantasy team (or so I thought).

So, much like when I voted for McCain, I held my nose and drafted Ward.

Week 1 went by without incident, I started Hines Ward vs TEN for 14.4 pts, and that was the right call, as none of my other WRs did better.

But as the weeks went by, I started noticing a disturbing trend:

Week 2
Sat Hines Ward @ CHI for 9.8 pts
Started Brandon Marshall vs CLE for 6.9 pts
Would've lost anyway

Week 3
Sat Hines Ward @ CIN for 11.2 pts
Started Mario Manningham @ TB for 8.2 pts
Would've won anyway

Week 4
Started Hines Ward vs SD for 18.4 pts
Should have started Brandon Marshall vs DAL for 20.2 pts
Would've won anyway

Week 5
Started Hines Ward vs DET for 19.6 pts
Should have started Brandon Marshall vs NE for 24.4 pts
Would've lost anyway

Week 6
Sat Hines Ward vs CLE for 30.4 pts
Started Brandon Marshall @ SD for 8 pts
Would have won the matchup if not for Ward

Week 7
Started Hines Ward vs MIN for 0.8 pts
Should have started DeSean Jackson @ WAS for 33.6 pts
Would have won the matchup if not for Ward (and another choice)

Week 8
Sat Hines Ward on BYE
Made the right call (but duh)

Week 9
Sat Hines Ward @ DEN for 21.6 pts
Started Brandon Marshall vs PIT for 20.8 pts
Would have won the matchup if not for Ward

You got that right:
in only 1 of 8 weeks Hines Ward was playing did I make the right call.

Every time I started him, I sat his superior. Every time I sat him, he wasted away more points on my bench. My decision to start/sit Ward has cost me 3 games, which I desperately needed with my record at 3-5-1.

Which brings us to Week 10.

It was a crucial week for me in fantasy, as I needed a W in order to have a shot at getting into the playoffs - but also in reality, as my beloved Bengals visited the Steelers for control and potential championship of the AFC north.

I knew going into it that whatever decision I made with Ward, it would be the wrong one. Counting on the history we shared, I started him knowing that he would stink it up, but also knowing that I was potentially sacrificing my fantasy season by putting a dud in my lineup.

Hines Ward vs CIN got me 5.2 pts.
Brandon Marshall @ WAS and his 33 pts sat on my bench, wasted.
I lost by 14 pts.

It was worth it.

Labels:



Sunday, November 08, 2009
 Apple: Technical Fascism    [L]

Vox Day has been on an anti-Apple roll lately.

On Apple's supposed technical superiority:
As a libertarian, I despise technological fascism as much, possibly more, than the political variant. After all, as has been pointed out many times before, the Apple "1984" ad is probably one of the most ironic in history.
[...]
Anyhow, since introducing the Macintosh, the Apple method has always relied upon limiting your options and controlling your behavior while loudly declaring that they are doing precisely the opposite. The reason Apples have been inferior game machines since 1983 despite the one-time popularity of the Apple II as a gaming computer - I still have my //e - is that the game industry is full of people who like to be at the forefront of technological development and aren't willing to put up with someone telling them that you will be stuck with X video card and Y amount of memory whether you like it or not.
[...]
People often get so caught up in the hype of Apple that they fail to see the inferior utility behind the sleek, sophisticated, and superficial design.
[...]
The truth is that Apple products have usually been tailored for technological retards.

Then he quotes some excellent British snark:
When I sit down to use a Mac, the first thing I think is, "I hate Macs", and then I think, "Why has this rubbish aspirational ornament only got one mouse button?" Losing that second mouse button feels like losing a limb. If the ads were really honest, Webb would be standing there with one arm, struggling to open a packet of peanuts while Mitchell effortlessly tore his apart with both hands. But then, if the ads were really honest, Webb would be dressed in unbelievably po-faced avant-garde clothing with a gigantic glowing apple on his back. And instead of conducting a proper conversation, he would be repeatedly congratulating himself for looking so cool, and banging on about how he was going to use his new laptop to write a novel, without ever getting round to doing it, like a mediocre idiot.


Friday, November 06, 2009
 I do not think it means what you think it means    [L]

Stimulus, eh?



Tuesday, September 01, 2009
 Notes on Ted Kennedy    [L]

From twitter and various discussions:

It's not my place to judge a man's heart, but the US is much better off without a Kennedy wielding the power of govt.

To which a fellow Christian responded:
"I bet the American Church would be drastically different if we loved and served the poor with the fervor of Kennedy.

Also, when I die, I hope there aren't followers of Christ who post publicly that the world is better off without me."
And this displays a problem with a Christian liberal mindset: it seems to make no distinction between Christian charity that flows out of an individual's own desire to be like Christ, and the abuse of govt authority that takes the fruit of man's labor and gives it another BY FORCE.

Which one is love and which one is evil? Giving 30% of your hard-earned wealth to any charity you wish, by your own will, or having 30% taken out of your hands before you see it and having it given to those who you would not have given it otherwise. And it's not just money here - keep in mind that wealth is representative of our time, our LIFE. (See Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand)

What would be our opinion of God if He didn't give man a choice to love Him? Is love true if we had no choice in the matter?

Do we really want the church to look like Ted Kennedy ran the government? Then have Apex enforce a 30% tithe on its entire congregation. Give funds to any people groups that will join the church and vote you back into office year after year. These people won't believe in Christ they don't care as long as you're giving them free stuff. Have snoops look into every single member's balance sheet to determine if they're telling the truth and properly tithing. If people refuse to pay, go into their house with guns, kidnap them, throw them in the janitor's closet for a couple years, and garnish his wages (or his family's) for the amount due plus interest. Increase tithe amount by 3-5% every year. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I make no judgment calls on the person of Ted Kennedy - the power to look into the hearts of men is beyond me.

But I can see his actions - and as a legislator he did a lot of evil.

Is forced charity the same thing as charity? How can fellow Christians justify politics that force charity at gunpoint and call that good?

To which a fellow Christian responded:
"the real question to ask is why aren't Christians being charitable without being forced?"
A Christian who chooses to be uncharitable is sinning - but forcing that believer to be charitable and removing their choice doesn't mean that they aren't sinning.

Government is not a tool for making men holy.

My issue is with Christians who confuse God's command to help others in need with a mandate for the government to tax me and give handouts to special interest groups, who would probably be much better off without it.

I do not believe it is godly to elect a government that passes laws to confiscate the fruit of my labors in order to distribute it to the shiftless and self-proclaimed needy and do so under the guise of charity.

Heck, even the handout recipient is worthy of charity, I still don't believe that makes it a concern of the gov'ts - this is where the Church needs to step in - and amazingly, before the gov't got involved, it very much was.

It's not at all surprising that when the gov't starts doing charity that people abdicate their own responsibility to be charity.

I can say this about Ted Kennedy, he never killed a man.

Ted K was the epitome of lib pols: life of privilege, above the law, unaccountable, shameless, charming, amoral, abuser of power

RT @IMAO_ Maybe we should name a term limits bill in honor of Ted Kennedy.

"It’s safe to say that there is not a single outrageous anti-gun position TedK has failed to support in his long career." [link]

Labels:


Instead of forcing everyone else to be "charitable", liberals can always contribute themselves to finance their government programs. However, with an average of less than $2 million collected each year, it's pretty safe to say that liberals would rather force others to finance their "charitable" spirit, or they don't have as much faith in the efficiency of government programs that they espouse (as evidenced by rich liberals who support raising taxes to support government programs, but who set up their own charitable foundations instead of giving to the government, presumably done because they want to spend their money the way they want to without any being wasted by the inefficiency of the government).

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtFinance

How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?

Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

By Blogger jajangman, at 9/08/2009 10:15:00 AM      


^^^ speak up ^^^


Wednesday, July 08, 2009
 Worth sharing    [L]

Neal Boortz just read this letter from Dr. Anne Wortham on the air (emphasis mine):
Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul's name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America.

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival - all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America. Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them. I would have to be wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration - political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that "fairness" is equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead - and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the president of the United States, the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over - and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person. So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America. Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to - Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left - for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

November 6, 2008


Can you tell she is an Ayn Rand fan? I certainly picked up on a lot of the same concepts and ideas (denial of reason, belief in irrationality, etc).

Labels:



Friday, June 05, 2009
 I wouldn't trust the government to predict the sun rising in the east tomorrow    [L]

I'll let the graphic below speak for itself (click on it to get to the article):



Yup, that's right, not only are the unemployment numbers worse than Obama's economic team predicted after the TARP, but they are worse than their prediction WITHOUT TARP!

Labels:



Thursday, May 14, 2009
 FairTax misconceptions    [L]

An author of one of the blogs I peruse had some wild misconceptions about the FairTax - unfortunately this seems to be pretty common - but as somebody who actually, you know, read the book, I figured I'd take a shot at correction.

Now, in order to make this work, this Consumption Tax... you can't just hand it all to the retailers. This has to be tracked individually. Which means everyone from the moment of birth must have a Social Security Number, or some other National ID card with related number. Everything you do will be monitored, tracked, recorded, and taxed. You buy a carton of eggs and a gallon of milk, that is going to be recorded. You buy a new car or a new gun. That's going to be recorded. The IRS will not go away... they will be up your backside.


AFAIK, there is no requirement for tracking who purchases what - only that a sale was made, and that a tax was collected. This already happens in the routine course of business! There would be no extra personal information associated with the sale other than what we're already comfortable with (credit cards, reward cards, etc.) In fact, personal privacy will INCREASE - the IRS will not go away, but their scope becomes dramatically reduced, because they are no longer needed to collect income taxes! They don't need to collect them, so they don't need to know your income, they don't need to audit you, etc. They simply become a federal version of what states do with their sales taxes. However, the IRS will still need to know some personal information, such as your address, as they will be required to send out the prebate checks.

The prebate checks actually put the poor at an advantage compared to those above the poverty line. The prebate checks will be calculated (and here's where the possibility of things going screwy is the highest) based on the estimated consumption taxes a person or family would pay for their cost of living expenses. The reason its called a prebate, and not a rebate, is that you get this money in advance of the month ahead, rather than after the fact! Sure, it's inefficient in that a person may actually get compensated MORE than what they spend in taxes, but that's highly preferable to getting reimbursed after they spent their money. So anybody living at the poverty level effectively pays 0% in taxes. What's nice about this system is that you don't have to be at the poverty level to do this - you could earn a million dollars a year, but if you're frugal with your money you pay no taxes. But how many millionaires do you know spend the minimum to survive?

Admittedly, the way the prebates are handled seem to be a concession to the poor (rather than being completely fair), however I argue its drastically better than the methods currently in use for compensating the poor for being poor. It's not ideal, but it's negligable, and if it helps the FairTax get passed then so be it.

Everyone that sells any goods or services become Tax Collection Agents. All those people would have to register with the .Gov or they can't be in business. If they neglect their collection duties, they are in big Federal trouble. This gigantic invasion of privacy is something I find distasteful.


And this is different from these retailers collecting sales tax, how?
Almost all businesses (i'm excluding private sales for now) already have a mechanism/framework for collecting state sales taxes, unless you happen to live in a state w/o sales taxes (lucky you). So how difficult would it be for a a business to report federal sales tax as well as the state sales tax which they are already doing? I must admit I do not remember what the FairTax's policy is on private sales, but as long as an item is USED (ie not new) the FairTax should not apply to it. FairTax only applies to NEW items at its final POS.

I'll leave the question of what this means for private sales of new items (ie cottage industry) to someone else.

If you put money into savings or if you have paid into social security, when you pull it out to spend it, you will have been double taxed on it.


FairTax COMPLETELY REPLACES the federal income tax. So the salary you earn has not yet been taxed! Therefore funds going into Social Security come from the FairTax in the first place. It's a little strange here as the consumption tax goes into SS, and when you get your SS check and spend it, a portion of it goes back into SS - however i'm not sure that's that big of an issue.

The tax rate for the "Fairness" is about 30% and the rate calculation is so vague, it's too easy for the government to raise it.


And this is different from how the federal government determines income tax rates ... how? Imagine no income tax brackets. Imagine how much easier it would be to set tax levels, when all the gov has to adjust is a single rate, instead of hundreds of income brackets! Again, this is another place where things can go screwy, because here it's up to the public to keep an eye on the gov and make sure they're not a) spending like drunken sailors and b) raising the tax rates for no good reasons.

The Fair Tax doesn't do anything to address the fiscal responsibility of the .Gov to manage the money and control the spending... this is like using your Debit Card instead of your Checks... your still spending it... your just transferring that money a different way.


Believe it or not, this is actually a FEATURE of the FairTax as it is written. Sure, it'd be nice to throw in a balanced budget amendment, but adding that in there would exponentially increase the difficulty of getting it passed (as if it wasn't going to be hard enough). That's why the FairTax is simply written as a replacement for the federal income tax, and that's it.

And now for another big reason to avoid the Fair Tax – A whole new economy will spring up almost over night... The Black Market. Organized Crime will be be the regulation there, the Mob, whoever. The Black Market will be able to service you for everything you need... Smuggling will become huge. As a result, ordinary people would easily become Tax Dodging Criminals. Or are you going to tell me that just because the tax is Fair everyone is going to all the sudden become completely and perfectly honest?


I don't buy this argument. Think about how much money is spent at Wal-Mart, Best Buy, car dealers, grocery stores, malls, etc. Businesses like those never be able to skirt the law and get away with not collecting the consumption tax. Now think about the percentage of the overall economy that these businesses represent - I'm no economist, but my WAG is that they represent the non-trivial portion of it. My point is that, yes, there may be black market profiteers willing to risk it all by skirting the tax, but they would represent such a small portion of the economy that the impact would be trivial.

As a bonus, think of all the illegals living and working in the US right now. How much is the federal gov't collecting from them? NOTHING - because they work under the table and don't file income taxes. But illegal workers, drug dealers, and the like still buy food, supplies, diapers, dvds, electronics, cars, etc. - so under the FairTax, for the first time, the fed gov would actually collect from them! As a bonus, because the illegal immigrants are not registered with the IRS (like all of us hard-working citizens who pay income tax), they don't get a prebate, making it harder for them to live/work in the US illegally. They would actually be ENCOURAGED to become a legal citizen, instead of today where there is a huge advantage in being here illegally. (Now I realize that the legal immigration process here is f'd up, but that's another discussion).

FairTax is a pretty much a direct tax on our GDP... 30% on our GDP.
You've heard the phrase that you tax what you want to reduce? Think about that. This would kill us as a nation. Look at how many business out there live for 2 seasons, Christmas and Tax Returns.
Fair Tax would damage our economy like a kick to the nuts. After it was already taken down to its knees.


Except that
1) The FairTax will be calculated so that the price of goods remains consistent. Whatever rate they set for the sales tax will be close to the rate of federal income tax embedded in the cost of each product.
2) If the price of goods remain consistent, and all of a sudden everybody no longer pays federal income tax... (for me in 2008 that would be equivalent to a 23% raise). What do you think happens to the economy when everybody gets 23% raises?



Now admittedly I've only read the first book, so I may be misinformed as well, but I found the arguments and logic presented by the FairTax to be very sound and even rooted in reality. I truly believe it is a "fair" tax (even if it is a tad skewered in favor of the poor) and worthy of honest discussion.

Labels: ,


I couldn't agree more. Going off of the "tax collection agents" argument, an additional point is that any business that has employees already is a tax collection agent, but for payroll taxes! A sales tax would be much easier to administer than payroll. One flat rate, one place to file each month, and that's it.

Also, speaking as someone who files sales tax in multiple states, you are correct. Any business that has to collect sales tax would already have the processes in place. All they would need to do is collect an additional 23% to send to the fed.

By Blogger Rob, at 5/16/2009 08:34:00 PM      


^^^ speak up ^^^


Tuesday, February 03, 2009
 Make them eat their own dogfood!    [L]

In the software industry, the phrase "eating your own dogfood" is taken to mean that a company uses its own software to do its work. Microsoft uses Microsoft products to develop future Microsoft products. You would hope that Intuit employees would use TurboTax to do their own taxes, and likewise, that the Ford CEO would drive a Ford, or more literally that an Iams employee would feed their own dog Iams products. And not because they would be getting them at an employee discount - but because they believed that their product was the best and worthy of their own use. Would you eat at a restaurant where the head chef never ate what he cooked? Would you buy a parachute that the manufacturer wouldn't use himself?

Now what if we could apply this practice to our politicians? What if we could make them eat the dogfood they force upon the rest of us? What if Barack Obama had to send his kids to public schools? What if Tom Daschle had to pay all his taxes honestly and timely? What if Hillary Clinton had to go to Canada and experience universal health care before attempting it in the US? What if Nancy Pelosi couldn't have bodyguards with firearms? What if Ted Kennedy had to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes? What if all politicians had to be audited by the IRS every single year?

Maybe they'd think twice about passing laws when they actually have to live under the same laws the rest of us do.

Labels:


Good points. On another note, you might enjoy my YouTube series titled, "Quick Questions For Gun Control Advocates." I ask direct questions and sometimes use a little humor to get my point across.

Here is a link to my playlist. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1EF58BC51B8F23CE Feel free to rate, comment and pass along my videos to others.

By Blogger Keith Walker, at 2/03/2009 03:24:00 PM      


I could not agree more.

By Blogger Rob, at 2/08/2009 06:26:00 PM      


^^^ speak up ^^^


Friday, December 05, 2008
 Hah! 3    [L]

Plaxico Burress shows off his new touchdown dance

hahahaha! That's gotta hurt...

By Blogger Rob, at 12/05/2008 07:39:00 PM      


A pistol in the waistband of sweat pants? What was Plaxico thinking? Probably the same thing his mother was when she named him.

By Blogger Keith Walker, at 12/06/2008 11:25:00 AM      


^^^ speak up ^^^


Friday, October 31, 2008
 Hah! 2    [L]


Blatantly stolen from TOS