tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54127582024-03-13T00:21:25.518-04:00ChuBlogga!Big League Chu's blogUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger386125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-18173575413006285902015-11-17T12:24:00.002-05:002015-11-17T12:26:29.494-05:00"Huddled masses yearning to breathe free" is rubbish<p>for I can write a poem too:</p>
<p>There once was a democratic republic,<br/>
whose citizens were warned of to keep it;<br/>
but then the cuckolds controll'd,<br/>
and non-muslim heads started to roll,<br/>
for immigration ran unimpeded.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-3981405549093147132015-08-28T14:43:00.002-04:002015-08-28T16:35:22.031-04:00Trumptics vs Trumptegy<div class="shortpost"><p>The <a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/">Trump</a> phenomenon is astonishing and has shocked many political nerds to their core. Although he certainly appears to be a false prophet, only recently donning the trappings and raiment of republicanism (much less conservatism), there are many positive aspects to Trump's current status as the 2016 GOP frontrunner.</p>
<p>Love him or hate him, doesn't matter. The only one capable of stopping him right now is himself - barring that, then you'd best understand him and the situation.</p>
<p>What follows is not exactly an endorsement for Trump, but an analysis of how Trump shakes up the GOP primary and how smart conservatives can take advantage of it.</p></div>
<div class="fullpost"><p>Now, it's true that he's the frontrunner. No doubt about it right now. He's the breath of fresh air that the networks love, and that also means he's sucking up all the oxygen too, diminishing the airtime that otherwise would have gone to more deserving and conservative candidates.</p>
<p>But that also serves another purpose: Trump is naturally also the biggest target. He's absorbing the brunt of the liberal and media attack. His no-nonsense, take-no-prisoners approach has allowed him to shrug off these attacks, and he's slick enough to be ambiguous as to his actual principles and policy ideas. That's all to his benefit of course, as that makes him a blank canvas onto which a viewer can project their ideology onto. Sound familiar, 2008?</p>
<p>Indulge me in throwing out a metaphor or 4.</p>
<p>If you're a gamer, particularly a MMORPG'er, you understand the concept of a tank - a character that can soak up a lot of damage, focus all the enemy attention and effort, while the rest of the team is relatively unmolested and completing the objective. That's Trump.</p>
<p>Trump is the juggernaut. He is the immovable force that bulldozes forward to wherever he wants to go. His skin, his attitude, (and his hair) are impenetrable and imperturbable.</p>
<p>Trump is the alpha male. In all things, he maintains his frame, and resists attempts to ensnare him or to force a gaffe. He'll talk about whatever he wants to talk about and deflects so masterfully <a href="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/127604348746/trump-makes-univision-do-the-perp-walk">you won't even realize what happened until you rewind the tape</a>.</p>
<p>Trump is the lightning rod which focuses all the incoming energy and channels it harmlessly into the ground.</p>
<p>Trump is the siege tower, inexorably advancing on the enemy walls, as the slings and arrows bounce harmlessly off his defenses, while protecting the soldiers behind it.</p>
<p>The benefit of this aspect of Trump's campaign is that it provides all the other candidates with cover, with breathing room. Trump takes the heat, while the others are free to respond after the fact. And while all the opposition is attacking Trump, they also reveal their attack vectors and strategies - allowing the other candidates to triangulate and counter-punch. Trump <a href="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius">can hold his own extemporaneously</a>, and <a href="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/127679591936/trump-persuasion-alert-bible-dodge">defuse the "gotcha" questions</a> with ease. Meanwhile, the other candidates are taking notes and won't be surprised when the same line of attack is used on them.</p>
<p>So a smart GOP candidate should be essentially trailing along in Trump's wake - riding his draft - following up and responding to any of Trump's missteps. But not in the sense of attacking Trump himself - for while he may not be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, he is at the very least the enemy of our enemy - but in the sense of addressing any weakness in the conservative argument. Let Trump take the heat from the media and the liberal opposition (but I repeat myself), for he is capable of defending himself through vicious counter-attack - but on the same token that also applies to "friendly-fire". You certainly don't want to also become a target of his.</p>
<p>The punditry seems to believe Trump has little or no chance of getting the nomination, despite strongly leading the field this early in the game. If Trump doesn't get the nomination, then a smart GOP candidate should aim to absorb as much of Trump's support as possible, and that means keeping criticism of Trump to a friendly disagreement as opposed to the kind of vitriol displayed between <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKkJ-K8qPXo">Rand and Christie</a>. And if Trump does get the nomination as the anti-politician candidate, I'd imagine it's to his benefit to pick a VP that IS a politician, in order to bring a little political credibility to the ticket - and that also means a candidate which didn't burn any bridges with him. Therefore regardless of whether or not Trump does get the nomination, it's best to take him, his ideas, and his supporters, seriously, and treat them with respect. For while Trump may not be the king, it is completely within his power to be the kingmaker.</p>
<p>It may be sound tactics for a candidate to go hard after Trump right now, for the GOP opposition will certainly coalesce around an Anti-Trump. That may provide a short-term gain. But the ideal long-term strategy would be to play nice, be respectful, take notes, don't make mistakes, and be poised to step up should he falter.</p>
<p>Kind of like <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/28/ex-aide-says-this-is-what-donald-trump-needs-to-do-to-keep-momentum/">Ted Cruz</a> seems to be doing. Smart guy.</p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-16911803008300327512013-01-16T21:58:00.002-05:002015-05-22T23:33:11.168-04:00No civilian needs an assault rifle<div class="shortpost">
"No civilian needs an assault rifle" is a statement often heard - and there are 2 points that must be made when addressing it:<br />
<br />
1) "assault rifle" is a nebulous term - ask 10 joe schmoes and you'll get 10 different answers. However, the common perception is that "assault rifle" means an automatic rifle used by the military that fires bullets as long as you hold the trigger down. The reality is, whenever you hear a politician say the words "assault rifle", they really mean, "scary-looking" gun.
</div>
<div class="fullpost">
To clear up some misconceptions:<br />
<br />
First, no civilian can freely or easily own fully-automatic rifles used by the military. The majority of guns sold today, and normally available to civilians, are semi-automatic - which is a misleading way of saying that you pull the trigger once, and one bullet comes out. There is a legal process to be able to own full-auto weapons, but it is so onerous you'd probably rather go through a messy divorce. That's a real shame too, because there are few things more enjoyable than firing an Uzi on full rock'n'roll.<br />
<br />
Secondly, I wasn't kidding when I said politicans mean "scary-looking" when they say "assault rifle". The Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) from the Clinton era from 1994-2004 came up with a definition of assault weapon: a combination of 2 or more minor cosmetic features. You read that right, COSMETIC. Nothing about those features significantly altered the function of the weapon: a folding/telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash hider. You could get any of those features individually, but as soon as you had 2 or more, watch out! ASSAULT WEAPON! OOOOH.<br />
<br />
So keep in mind that politicians are stupid, and they think their constituents are too.<br />
<br />
2) "Nobody NEEDS an assault rifle", or what they really mean, "a hunting rifle is good enough", or "people shouldn't own military guns".<br />
<br />
This is where the 2nd amendment proves them wrong. It wasn't written to protect hunting weapons. It had several purposes:<br />
<br />
A) To give the states a well-regulated (prepared) militia (all citizens of military age not in the military). In order to be prepared, people had to own (keep) and be proficient in (bear) firearms.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Tenche Cox, Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress, twice explained the purpose of the Second Amendment to his fellow citizens, first writing in The Pennsylvania Gazette, on Feb. 20, 1788.<br />
<br />
"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American - the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."<br />
<br />
Coxe was explicit: the Founders held that the militia were the people, and that Congress had no power to disarm the people. Further he defined that the citizens of this Republic should have military arms, as checks and balances against over-reach by both state and local powers.</blockquote>
<br />
So the statement "nobody NEEDS an assault (military) rifle" is not only missing the point, but is actually the ANTITHESIS of what was meant by the 2nd amendment - in fact, it indicates that the writers WANTED the citizenry to be able to carry the same rifles used by the military.<br />
<br />
Let us also be aware of the fact that the military uses many types of guns - many types of guns ALSO used by civilians! So you can't even ban civilian ownership of arms used by the military, because that would consist of most types of civilian firearms.<br />
<br />
B) It was designed as a bulwark against tyranny, a final check and balance against an overreaching government.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Almost a year and a half later, Coxe wrote again to more explicitly highlight why Americans should have military arms in their possession as protection against government.<br />
<br />
He did so in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.<br />
<br />
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."</blockquote>
<br />
Even a cursory glance of 20th century history would show that federal confiscation and ban of privately owned firearms is a precursor to that government engaging the mass slaughter of its citizens.<br />
<br />
C) and finally, but perhaps most importantly, it was meant to allow an individual to protect themselves, in order that no one may infringe upon their rights:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
A decade later in 1799, Coxe wrote again in the Philadelphia Aurora as tensions arose between Federalists and Republicans:<br />
<br />
"Do you wish to preserve your rights? Arm yourselves. Do you desire to secure your dwellings? Arm yourselves. Do you wish your wives and daughters protected? Arm yourselves. Do you wish to be defended against assassins or the Bully Rocks of faction? Arm yourselves. Do you desire to assemble in security to consult for your own good or the good of your country? Arm yourselves. To arms, to arms, and you may then sit down contented, each man under his own vine and his own fig-tree and have no one to make him afraid... If you are desirous to counteract a design pregnant with misery and ruin, then arm yourselves; for in a firm, imposing and dignified attitude, will consist your own security and that of your families. To arms, then to arms."</blockquote>
<br />
America's founders also foresaw the most common and erroneous arguments that would be levied against the 2nd:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Thomas Jefferson’s Commonplace Book, written between 1774-1776, quoted from criminologist Cesare Beccaria’s 1764 On Crimes and Punishment about an armed citizenry:<br />
<br />
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.</blockquote>
<br />
Which comes as no surprise to those who are connected with reality. There's a reason why cliches such as "when guns are outlawed..." exist - and that is because it is true! It's only a cliche because people have to repeat it so often, because there are so many that are dangerously and willfully ignorant of human nature.<br />
<br />
Now, I talk a lot about guns here - because it's an area I know a good amount about, and I know how much our politicians do not know. Not only do our leaders know little about guns, they know the wrong things - their knowledge is less than nothing, is useless at best, and dangerous at worst.<br />
<br />
But this brings me to a broader point: our government knows less than nothing about something and yet wants to rule over it - be it firearms, healthcare, the internet, business, etc. Not only do they want to rule over that which they do not comprehend; but they also are largely shielded from the consequences of their actions. They shouldn't be trusted with a neighborhood lemonade stand, let alone healthcare!<br />
<br />
<span class="hattip">much thanks to <a href="http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/01/forget-bans-where-are-my-constitutionally-protected-suppressed-machine-guns/">Bob Owen's excellent article</a></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-28680811101781929712012-12-06T01:15:00.000-05:002015-05-22T23:33:17.510-04:00Bob Cost-hole<div class="shortpost">
A weekend of football is usually a light-hearted escape from reality - but every now and then reality intrudes and reminds us that these gods of the gridiron also coexist in this fallen world with us. On Saturday, Jovan Belcher brutally murdered his girlfriend, drove to Arrowhead stadium, thanked the coach and the GM, then blew his brains out rather than face justice.<br />
<br />
At the post-game press conference (following KC's hard-fought but ultimately meaningless victory), Brady Quinn shared his insight:<br />
<br />
<center>
<b>Dr. Quinn</b><br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vc-e-T39Z80?rel=0&t=20s" width="560"></iframe></center>
<br />
He may not be a great QB, but he does offer some surprisingly great advice.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to...</div>
<div class="fullpost">
<center>
<b>Bob Cost-hole</b><br />
<img src="http://www.humanevents.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bobcostasguncontrol.jpg" /></center>
<br />
During halftime of Monday night's NYG-WAS game, Bob Costas chose to get on his soapbox and use this tragedy to tsk-tsk America: specifically, the 2nd amendment gun-culture, for allowing this tragedy to happen. Quoting an article by the ever-vapid Jason Whitlock, Costas said:<br />
<blockquote>
“Our current gun culture,” Whitlock wrote, “ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows? But here, wrote Jason Whitlock, is what I believe: “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”</blockquote>
<br />
Oh really, Bob, you sanctimonious gasbag?
<br />
<center>
<img src="http://philchuang.com/pics/ffl/2012/costas_ojsimpson.jpeg" /></center>
<br />
John Hayward has a great <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/03/bob-costas-sucker-punches-sunday-night-football-fans-with-gun-control-lecture/">response</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
Instead of listening to Bob Costas fulminate about Constitutional rights he doesn’t think we should have, shouldn’t he be talking about banning professional football, as a growing number of liberals are doing? Belcher’s gun was the instrument of his violence, not the cause. And if we ban football, shouldn’t we seize the vast fortune Bob Costas and others have made from it, and put that money toward deficit reduction?<br />
<br />
It might be a little easier to swallow these little rants from pampered millionaire leftists if they had some “skin in the game.” But they don’t, in any sense of the word. Bob Costas enjoys professional security protection at home and work, including armed security. He doesn’t have the same self-defense needs that average people do, particularly those who live in high-crime areas. ”Handguns do not enhance our safety” is the kind of nonsense only someone who doesn’t need a handgun to enhance his safety would spew. Of course, plenty of the liberals who chant this mantra actually do own handguns, legally or otherwise; they just keep it quiet, to avoid charges of hypocrisy.</blockquote>
<br />
Now, aside from the timing and improper venue, I don't have a problem with him sharing an opinion; I have a problem with him sharing an opinion that is so quantifiably and verifiably WRONG. Rest assured had Costas espoused a pro-gun opinion that was equally vapid, I would have taken him to task for it as well.<br />
<br />
America's 2nd amendment gun culture is not only more prevalent now than in times past, but it also coincides with historically low crime rates. More guns, less crime. There are more people owning more guns than ever - something on the order of 250m+ guns in ~70% of households. Yet, violent crime (outside of Chicago) has diminished.<br />
<br />
We have DECADES worth of data showing that stricter gun control leads to more crime - one need only point to the UK, or Canada, or Australia; or even closer to home, gun-banning meccas such as NYC, DC, or Chicago; or even historically, with pre-WW2 Germany.<br />
<br />
In this day and age, using these farcical arguments for gun control is the equivalent of claiming the earth is flat.<br />
<br />
So not only were Costas/Whitlock using the same tired old cliches that are the hallmark of lazy thinkers - but they also painted with a wide brush and castigated a lot of law-abiding gun-owners in the same stroke.<br />
<br />
They are right that this is an issue of culture: but instead of blaming, say, thug culture, celebrity culture, a culture of crime, cultures of domestic violence - no, they specifically blamed "gun culture" and America's 2nd amendment. Gee, way to go NBC, hopefully this won't affect you because there's not much overlap between those who love football AND guns ... oh wait.<br />
<br />
It's like saying all musicians are horrible because Rebecca Black sang "Friday".<br />
<br />
For those of you who've been paying attention, Costas' inanity is nothing new. He is merely a common footsoldier in the long tradition of elite liberal media types who believe they know what is best for the world, despite living completely disconnected from it. He is free to espouse to his inane opinions - just as we are free to call for his sanction. Let's let him know there is a cost to stupidity - and if we're lucky, soon he'll be as irrelevant as Olbermann.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.saysuncle.com/2012/12/03/fire-bob-costas-2/">Fire Bob Costas</a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-50761178823141195622012-08-03T14:09:00.000-04:002012-08-03T15:12:06.646-04:00To Christians who now hate Chick-fil-a<div class="shortpost">
I would like to address the hand-wringing and bedwetting by Christians who are concerned about what the world may think about the Chick-fil-a support rally.<br />
<br />
<i>(Yes, I provocatively worded that intro to get you to read on…)</i><br />
<br />
Firstly, to assume that the show of support is wholly driven, or even mostly driven, by anti-gay sentiment, is a gross mischaracterization. It's understandable that some may think this way, if perhaps they only go by what the news chooses to report. But that illusion would quickly be shattered if they just talked to the people who support Chick-fil-a and asked <i>why</i>.</div>
<div class="fullpost">
<br />
<b>It was never all about being anti-gay. It's not even all about being anti-gay-marriage!</b> To be sure, there is likely a strong pro-traditional-marriage sentiment among Chick-fil-a supporters, considering that there have been referendums reinforcing traditional marriage in 32 states, and that they have ALL passed with strong majorities. But it's not just about being anti-gay-marriage or pro-traditional-marriage. It's also about people standing up for a private company that they feel is being unfairly maligned.<br />
<br />
(As an aside, I am a straight, conservative Christian, and even I agree with some of the goals of pro-gay-marriage supporters – that is, equal treatment under the law. However, I approach this from the POV that government shouldn’t be involved with marriage in the first place. Marriage should be a religious, personal, and civil matter. The government should only be involved to the minimum extent that it needs in order to enforce legal matters. Let me warn gay-marriage proponents though, that the slippery slope is real, and having the government recognize gay marriage would eventually require it to recognize polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, etc. But this is all beside my point.)<br />
<br />
This is an issue that strikes deeper than a personal opinion on gay marriage. This is deeper than even being gay! You think every single person who went to Chick-fil-a on Aug 1 was a straight conservative Christian? No, standing in line for hours, in the heat, shoulder-to-shoulder, were Christians, non-Christians, atheists, conservatives, liberals, pro-gay-marriagers, traditional marriagers, heterosexuals, and homosexuals alike! Even a cursory google search would show you that.<br />
<br />
No, a strong motivator of <b>this show of support was to stand up to the tyrants in this world that unjustly wield their political and cultural influence.</b> People were rightfully and justifiably outraged that Chick-fil-a, a private company, was targeted by public officials and the media, for holding views contrary to those in power. They also know that right now it's gay-marriage, but tomorrow it's abortion, and the day after it's religion. <u>And if there’s one thing that red-blooded Americans love, it’s to tell the government and the elites to stick it where the sun don’t shine.</u> Well, that, and apparently also fried chicken sandwiches and waffle fries.<br />
<br />
So ultimately, I believe that most of the concerns raised by Christians about the Chick-fil-a day of support are wrong by category error.<br />
<br />
Now, I don’t question the intentions of those who worried about public perception. After all, we do not want to alienate people from the redemptive gospel of Jesus Christ, people who would otherwise be receptive to it. And again, this rally was grossly mischaracterized as an anti-gay hate march. So I understand where their trepidation is coming from.<br />
<br />
But we can’t bend over in order to make the world happy with us; and in fact, I would argue that those who are implacably offended would never be happy with Christians unless we changed our biblical beliefs! Shall we then reject God to satisfy man? No, we must stand for what we perceive and determine is true.<br />
<br />
There are those who will never accept us, for they will always reject biblical truth. We cannot worry about how we look in their eyes, for they will never be satisfied until we have exchanged truth for a lie.<br />
<br />
However, for those who truly have an open mind, then this event is a perfect reason to start talking with them, and clear up the misconceptions and share the reason for the hope and joy that we have.
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-66274056478382773372011-04-12T10:23:00.004-04:002011-04-12T11:04:20.988-04:00Dell Venue Pro memory self-upgrade<div class="shortpost">So nothing had really changed since <a href="/2010/12/dell-venue-pro-vs-htc-hd7.html">my last article</a> on the Dell Venue Pro - it still crashed and froze multiple times a day. I had hoped that the latest Windows Phone 7 OS update (NoDo) would perhaps make it more stable, but it actually made my phone even more crash-prone.<br /><br />Dell (via <a href="http://twitter.com/LionelAtDell">@LionelAtDell</a>) has been promising a firmware update "soon" that would address some issues, but I have long since lost all faith in their ability to deliver fixes in a timely manner. They've been promising fixes of some sort since after LAUNCH (Dec 2010) and they haven't delivered a single thing.<br /><br />So it came time to take matters into my own hands.</div><div class="fullpost"><br />It quickly became apparent that the micro sd card included with the 16gb model was the source of (or at least the major contributor of) the Venue Pro crashes. I knew it wasn't the OS, since I had previous had an HTC HD7 which operated flawlessly. I quickly noticed the issue on the Dell Venue Pro after transferring a couple GB of music, and thereafter while anything disk I/O related was happening.<br /><br />It was also telling that those who had bought the 8GB model reported far less incidences of crashing and instability. So it looks like everybody who spent the extra $50 for the upgrade got nothing but troubles for their money.<br /><br />I had even gone so far as to swap out my first phone for a replacement created a couple months later, and the same issues persisted. My last hope for an easy resolution was for the NoDo update, which Dell originally claimed would contain the necessary fixes, but those fixes failed to materialize.<br /><br />I had had enough of waiting on Dell and their horrible customer service department, their inanities and impotent promises. What they should have done was A) verify their supplied 16gb cards were bad (easy) and B) offer to send a working replacement to affected users (again, easy). Instead they have offered no analysis, no mea culpa, no details, and no results.<br /><br />I ran across <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/blog/cell-phones/are-dell-venue-pro-issues-related-to-microsd-cards-i-turned-mine-into-a-32gb-model/5405">an article</a> by <a href="http://twitter.com/palmsolo">Matthew Miller</a> of zdnet who had replaced his stock 16gb card with a 32gb card to good effect. I had also seen several forum posts where other users had similar success, so I figured it was time to try it myself.<br /><br />I ordered a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003WGJYCY?tag=chublogga-20">32gb sandisk</a>. Reviewers had reported getting both class 2 and class 4 cards, but it doesn't really matter in this case. To the contrary, WP7 devices have been known to have compatibility issues with the higher-class cards (above C6), due to the fact that higher-class cards may have higher throughput but often have lower random r/w speeds, which are more important.<br /><br />At this point, I figured forget the warranty. Dell hasn't shown any capability to get me a working device so why do I need the warranty? So I <a href="http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=10789265&postcount=10">followed the directions</a> to replace the card, and sure enough it worked.<br /><br />Immediately following the first bootup, over the next 3 hours, I <br />A) configured the phone and OS settings<br />B) set up all my accounts (2 Live, 1 exchange, 1 gmail, 1 facebook)<br />C) installed <b>over 60</b> apps & games via WiFi<br />D) synced with my PC, copying 11 GB worth of pictures, videos, and music<br /><br />And I had absolutely zero crashes and hangups. With the old card I never would have been able to do all that and not crash in 3 days, much less 3 hours. So the upgrade was pretty much an unmitigated success. I'm definitely pleased with the results, but moreso that I have a stable phone rather than increased storage.<br /><br />Also, benchmark apps now report a healthy storage I/O speed of 3+ MB/s, whereas most people with the stock 16gb card reported a speed of less than 0.3 MB/s. My theory is the stock 16gb cards have a bunch of bad sectors, leading to corrupted data and slow r/w speeds.<br /><br />So, the moral of this story is: Forget Dell (in the vein of Cee-Lo)<br /><br />Their customer support is useless, their promises empty. I will never buy another product from them where I expect I may need their support. Thankfully, where they failed miserably the user community has stepped up admirably. I hope this post has been informative and helps out everybody else who's in the same situation.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-21683479961442536492010-12-25T20:54:00.004-05:002010-12-26T11:29:37.182-05:00Dell Venue Pro vs HTC HD7After having the DVP for 48 hrs, I have some quick observations to make. I've also had an HTC HD7 for 4 weeks, so i'll mostly be comparing the DVP against it. I won't comment too much on the Windows Phone 7 OS other that I think it's pretty great, and Microsoft has done what they can to ensure a consistent experience across all WP7 devices.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Hardware</span><br />The DVP wins hands down, the overall fit and finish is great, and feels more substantial. The quality and craftsmanship of the device is phenomenal. It looks and feels great in the hand.<br /><br />The physical keyboard works well, but the onscreen keyboard is more difficult to use than on the HD7, due to the smaller screen size.<br /><br />The overall dimensions are pretty much the same as the HD7, but a tad thicker and heavier.<br /><br />Also of concern is that the DVP seems to have 256mb of RAM, despite all pre-release information indicating it would have 512mb like all the other WP7 launch devices.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Screen</span><br />The DVP AMOLED screen looks better and really pops, but the HD7 LCD is more color accurate.<br /><br />The HD7 screen touch sensitivity is more responsive and accurate, while the DVP seems to have detection issues near the edges. The DVP also has gorilla glass, making the screen less susceptible to scratches.<br /><br />The DVP has a 4.1" screen and the HD7 a 4.3", but you can't really tell the difference unless they're side by side, and even then it's barely noticeable.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Software</span><br />Here is the achilles heel of the DVP - it crashes ALL THE TIME, sometimes while locked. The HD7 was much more stable. My DVP has crashed on me more in the past 24 hours than the HD7 did over 4 weeks. This is not a WP7 issue, as the HD7 is very stable, so it's got to be due to Dell's software and drivers.<br /><br />On the DVP, the capacitive buttons often have a delayed reaction, if they react at all. They also don't light up as much as on the HD7, nor have haptic feedback. It makes the DVP feel a lot less responsive than the HD7.<br /><br />Custom apps included with the HD7 are of better utility and quality than those on the DVP.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Camera</span><br />I haven't compared picture quality yet, but the DVP takes 5-10 seconds between each shot. The DVP also takes awhile to take the shot after the button has been pressed, resulting in blurry and badly timed photos. The HD7 camera operation is much more polished, stable, and usable.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Conclusion</span><br />There is a lot to like about the DVP - but until Dell fixes the software / drivers, the DVP is unreliable for daily use. Hopefully all that requires is a software update, which could possibly be done over-the-air and not a device replacement.<br /><br />Of more concern is the 256mb RAM - are the system stability issues due to having half the RAM? Will the lack of RAM become a limitation when WP7 moves to multithreading in 2011?<br /><br />Can we consider the lack of RAM a defect, since everybody thought it was going to be 512mb? Will Dell fix it and replace the defective units?<br /><br />So many questions, and throughout the entire launch fiasco, Dell has been very tight-lipped and not very communicative, other than infrequent and uninformative tweets from their online crew. From watching <a href="http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23dellvenuepro">#dellvenuepro</a>, one gets the feeling that the various Dell representatives <a href="http://twitter.com/LionelAtDell">@LionelAtDell</a> and <a href="http://twitter.com/LionelAtDell">@AmyAtDell</a> are doing the best they can, but are not being allowed to tell or are not being told any information.<br /><br />The bottom line is, unless you like being an early adopter and can stick out the stability issues, stay away from the DVP. Although a beautiful piece of hardware, it's too unstable, and Dell's behavior to date casts serious doubt that they'll address any of these issues in a timely or satisfactory manner.<br /><br />If I had to sum it up, it's like having a beautiful Lamborghini with a busted engine. It looks great, and has great components, but it runs like crap, is in need of a serious overhaul, and the local dealer hates its customers.<br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Additional notes</span><br />I have the 16gb, and have been mostly at home using the wifi connection. Some have said they've noticed freezing issues only when wifi is enabled - i'll take notice of the wifi during future freezing episodes to see if there's a correlation.<br /><br />Also, in my stability comparison between the DVP and the HD7, it wasn't completely similar conditions, as I still had all the live tiles that came preinstalled on the DVP - so I've removed them and made the DVP start page the exact same as the HD7 - this will help narrow down the possible causes of the DVP freezing.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-30656213029961316232010-09-23T08:50:00.004-04:002010-09-23T09:20:49.522-04:00All you need to know about our governmentTake 30 seconds and really understand what this chart is displaying.<br /><br />Once you see it, YWSB, as they say:<br /><br /><a href="http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/biggest-issue-of-2010-in-one-chart.html"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZM8gT3Xg9RUlp-kaeuRzBGpvcaMY60h0atttYwig8S1YSRBxhKjH-kRcSx9AVGZoYwRIJGIRh4RnG7FE0pwxik0Xg27JokVK6PG59hKzsjArqkToTjF7j-2gh1BpLcSllPBbn/s1600/US-Total-Federal-Outlays-vs-Median-Household-Income-1967-2009.PNG"/></a><br /><br />You can see from 1967 through 2000 that the ratio of federal spending to private prosperity has been increasing consistently. That's kind of what you'd expect - that as the economy grows, so would federal spending. The spending ratio is pretty darn consistent. That's not to say it's right, but it's expected.<br /><br />I'm guessing the small bump in the early 90s is probably due to the Clinton administration, with the downtick associated with the GOP congress of the mid-late 90s.<br /><br />The jump in the early 2000's is obviously due to 9/11 and related spending, but it's still shocking. GWB's detractors were absolutely right about his increasing the size and scope of the federal government. Of course, it was mere child's play for what was to come in 2007 after the Democrat takeover of Congress, then the presidency.<br /><br />The trend is now going VERTICAL. Worse, it's also going BACKWARDS. Meaning that federal spending is INCREASING even though private prosperity is DECREASING.<br /><br /><blockquote>In mathematical terms, that's the sort of thing you see when you divide any number by zero. Applied to the chart above, that means that the relationship between the change in total government spending and the typical income earned by an American household from year-to-year is now "undefined."<br /><br /><u>In practical terms, that means government spending has become completely disconnected from the ability of the typical American household to support it.</u></blockquote><br /><br />Both parties, Republican and Democrat, are at fault - however I think you can draw the conclusion that one party in particular is excessively more so.<br /><br />Is it any surprise that the Tea Party movement exists, when we see more and more evidence of an out-of-control and disconnected government? With behavior like this, it's easy to see why the popular sentiment today is both A) anti-Democrat as well as B) anti-incumbent (even Republican).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-44426133271013395142010-08-12T14:05:00.003-04:002010-08-12T14:08:21.889-04:00Problem citizensRand Simberg <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-real-anchors/">addresses the problem of citizenship by birth</a> through the lens of Heinlein. I've been brewing a post for the past couple of years on a similar vein, now i'm motivated to revisit it and get it posted.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-85941321447358579452009-11-16T10:12:00.003-05:002009-11-16T10:35:42.635-05:00Hines Ward is my Kryptonite<div class="shortpost">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.<br /><br />Then again, if you enjoy a good fantasy football yarn then go right on ahead.<br /><br />I felt the need to rant, and to share a miraculous discovery with the fantasy football world:<br /></div><div class="fullpost"><br />Hines Ward is my bitch.<br /><br />Let me explain.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />So, much like when I voted for McCain, I held my nose and drafted Ward.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />But as the weeks went by, I started noticing a disturbing trend:<br /><br /><u>Week 2</u><br />Sat Hines Ward @ CHI for 9.8 pts<br />Started Brandon Marshall vs CLE for 6.9 pts<br />Would've lost anyway<br /><br /><u>Week 3</u><br />Sat Hines Ward @ CIN for 11.2 pts<br />Started Mario Manningham @ TB for 8.2 pts<br />Would've won anyway<br /><br /><u>Week 4</u><br />Started Hines Ward vs SD for 18.4 pts<br />Should have started Brandon Marshall vs DAL for 20.2 pts<br />Would've won anyway<br /><br /><u>Week 5</u><br />Started Hines Ward vs DET for 19.6 pts<br />Should have started Brandon Marshall vs NE for 24.4 pts<br />Would've lost anyway<br /><br /><u>Week 6</u><br />Sat Hines Ward vs CLE for 30.4 pts<br />Started Brandon Marshall @ SD for 8 pts<br /><b>Would have won the matchup if not for Ward</b><br /><br /><u>Week 7</u><br />Started Hines Ward vs MIN for 0.8 pts<br />Should have started DeSean Jackson @ WAS for 33.6 pts<br /><b>Would have won the matchup if not for Ward</b> (and another choice)<br /><br /><u>Week 8</u><br />Sat Hines Ward on BYE<br />Made the right call (but duh)<br /><br /><u>Week 9</u><br />Sat Hines Ward @ DEN for 21.6 pts<br />Started Brandon Marshall vs PIT for 20.8 pts<br /><b>Would have won the matchup if not for Ward</b><br /><br />You got that right: <br /><i>in only 1 of 8 weeks Hines Ward was playing did I make the right call</i>.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Which brings us to Week 10.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Hines Ward vs CIN got me 5.2 pts.<br />Brandon Marshall @ WAS and his 33 pts sat on my bench, wasted.<br />I lost by 14 pts.<br /><br />It was worth it.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-43164383110168158812009-11-08T12:54:00.003-05:002009-11-08T13:04:13.934-05:00Apple: Technical FascismVox Day has been on an anti-Apple roll lately.<br /><br /><a href="http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/11/philosophy-of-design.html">On Apple's supposed technical superiority</a>:<blockquote>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.<br />[...]<br />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.<br />[...]<br />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.<br />[...]<br />The truth is that Apple products have usually been tailored for technological retards.</blockquote><br />Then <a href="http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/11/on-macintossers.html">he quotes some excellent British snark</a>:<blockquote>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.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-25137814727473500972009-11-06T10:00:00.000-05:002009-11-06T10:01:22.020-05:00I do not think it means what you think it meansStimulus, eh?<br /><br /><a href="http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/october-job-losses-accelerate-again-10-2/"><img src="http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/stimulus-vs-unemployment-october-dots.gif"></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-21431304264331898402009-09-01T13:29:00.004-04:002010-05-19T15:25:46.428-04:00Notes on Ted KennedyFrom twitter and various discussions:<br /><hr/><strong>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.</strong><br /><br />To which a fellow Christian responded:<blockquote>"I bet the American Church would be drastically different if we loved and served the poor with the fervor of Kennedy.<br /><br />Also, when I die, I hope there aren't followers of Christ who post publicly that the world is better off without me."</blockquote>And this displays a problem with a liberal Christian 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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Do we really want the church to look like Ted Kennedy ran the government? Then have the church 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, but 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. <br /><br />I make no judgment calls on the person of Ted Kennedy - the power to look into the hearts of men is beyond me.<br /><br />But I can see his actions - and as a legislator he did a lot of evil.<br /><hr/><strong>Is forced charity the same thing as charity? How can fellow Christians justify politics that force charity at gunpoint and call that good?</strong><br /><br />To which a fellow Christian responded:<blockquote>"the real question to ask is why aren't Christians being charitable without being forced?"</blockquote>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.<br /><br />Government is not a tool for making men holy.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Heck, even if 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.<br /><br />It's not at all surprising that when the gov't starts doing charity that people abdicate their own responsibility to be charitable.<br /><hr/><strong>I can say this about Ted Kennedy, <a href="http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2009/08/26/in-memory-senator-edward-kennedy/">he never killed a man</a>.</strong><br /><hr/><strong>Ted K was the epitome of lib pols: life of privilege, above the law, unaccountable, shameless, charming, amoral, abuser of power</strong><br /><hr/><strong>RT <a href="http://www.twitter.com/IMAO_">@IMAO_</a> Maybe we should name a term limits bill in honor of Ted Kennedy.</strong><br /><hr/><strong>"It’s safe to say that there is not a single outrageous anti-gun position TedK has failed to support in his long career." [<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d28-American-gun-owners-remembering-a-different-Ted-Kennedy">link</a>]</strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-56766585443904095672009-07-08T10:43:00.004-04:002009-07-08T10:51:50.884-04:00Worth sharing<a href="http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/07/hows-this-for-a-close.html">Neal Boortz</a> just read this letter from Dr. Anne Wortham on the air (emphasis mine):<blockquote>Fellow Americans,<br /><br />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. <span style="font-weight:bold;">I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">I cannot join you in your celebration.</span> 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. <span style="font-weight:bold;">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</span> (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. <span style="font-weight:bold;">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</span> - political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.<br /><br />I would have to believe that "fairness" is equivalent of justice. <span style="font-weight:bold;">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.</span> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <span style="font-weight:bold;">The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over - and that Fonda won.</span> 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. <span style="font-weight:bold;">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!</span> You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. But <span style="font-weight:bold;">you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left - for the chance to feel good.</span> There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.<br /><br />November 6, 2008</blockquote><br /><br />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).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-15856045289978950502009-06-05T16:13:00.002-04:002009-06-05T16:16:39.590-04:00I wouldn't trust the government to predict the sun rising in the east tomorrowI'll let the graphic below speak for itself (click on it to get to the article):<br /><br /><a href="http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/the-may-unemployment-numbers-are-here-and-worse-than-predicted/"><img src="http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/stimulus-vs-unemployment-may2.gif?w=460&h=280"/></a><br /><br />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!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-49926633411005608142009-05-14T15:44:00.003-04:002009-05-14T15:49:16.322-04:00FairTax misconceptions<div class="shortpost">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.<br /><br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote><br /><br />And this is different from these retailers collecting sales tax, how?</div><div class="fullpost">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.<br /><br />I'll leave the question of what this means for private sales of new items (ie cottage industry) to someone else.<br /><br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><blockquote>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?</blockquote><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br /><blockquote>FairTax is a pretty much a direct tax on our GDP... 30% on our GDP.<br />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. <br />Fair Tax would damage our economy like a kick to the nuts. After it was already taken down to its knees.</blockquote><br /><br />Except that <br />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.<br />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?<br /><br /><br /><br />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.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-63479657451879687042009-02-03T14:45:00.002-05:002009-02-03T14:46:38.643-05:00Make them eat their own dogfood!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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Maybe they'd think twice about passing laws when they actually have to live under the same laws the rest of us do.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-9538842137307107252008-12-05T08:52:00.002-05:002008-12-05T08:53:24.445-05:00Hah! 3Plaxico Burress shows off his new touchdown dance<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMEEb9zYvztIvhnnNPdj02-bXF6CdhTWVzOtFZlArfSKYYgPo8lIGOqCQSv1fka_FfcJiYE37vbaSgptR4MssztfHk4xWwNFlqp7pKMB-igQXHPbhk0VnMJsJROBJGoHYSV5sMIg/s1600-h/plaxico_dance.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 306px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMEEb9zYvztIvhnnNPdj02-bXF6CdhTWVzOtFZlArfSKYYgPo8lIGOqCQSv1fka_FfcJiYE37vbaSgptR4MssztfHk4xWwNFlqp7pKMB-igQXHPbhk0VnMJsJROBJGoHYSV5sMIg/s400/plaxico_dance.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5276303686766129458" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-30358726126531408632008-10-31T09:09:00.003-04:002008-10-31T09:11:56.035-04:00Hah! 2<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiVC_BLjCD0uYbZJ1BkhBzkO3xQSH6vLbuUMIW7f-Lv09yvfabR6weGCd5AvATssH0DpBz3fqXkzYw45cD_xrO_8v1OGHIUoJb1V-Yzh5DwC2e6hVyhaeaVwhlE0yPXekiiM08kg/s1600-h/halloween_democrat.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 344px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiVC_BLjCD0uYbZJ1BkhBzkO3xQSH6vLbuUMIW7f-Lv09yvfabR6weGCd5AvATssH0DpBz3fqXkzYw45cD_xrO_8v1OGHIUoJb1V-Yzh5DwC2e6hVyhaeaVwhlE0yPXekiiM08kg/s400/halloween_democrat.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5263304753554682258" /></a><br /><span class="hattip">Blatantly stolen from <a href="http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/single/19524/">TOS</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-71518867633245846232008-10-21T13:11:00.001-04:002008-10-21T13:12:25.098-04:00Hah!<img src="http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w253/BonesB/Hypocrite.jpg" />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-48018831369499433852008-08-29T13:26:00.003-04:002008-08-29T13:30:42.793-04:00It's.... Sarah Palin?!McCain's running mate <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_veepstakes">is Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin</a>.<br /><br />Brilliant political move by McCain, as it has a good chance of luring Hillary supporters away from the Democrats' affirmative action candidate. But is it a good move for conservatives?<br /><br />Here's <a href="http://democracy-project.com/?p=3206">Top 10 reasons for Sarah Palin as VP</a>.<br /><br />The stately <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/08/fred_thompson_on_palin.asp">Fred Thompson is on board</a>, so I'm sold.<br /><br />And I even may be <a href="http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/08/29/more-palin-on-guns/">falling in love</a>...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-12640243852050053212008-05-17T19:46:00.010-04:002008-05-19T09:05:15.127-04:00Card-carrying NRA memberI've been an NRA member for almost a year now, thanks to Taurus' free year deal. However, I actually had to carry my NRA card with me today because I went down to Louisville for the <a href="http://www.nraam.org/">NRA's Annual Meeting</a>. It was pretty nifty getting to see just about everything to do with guns, and being able to ask the company representatives questions about their upcoming products.<br /><br />My notes:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ruger-firearms.com/">Ruger</a>: If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then <a href="http://www.kel-tec-cnc.com/p3at.html">Kel-Tec</a> should be feeling very flattered by Ruger's <a href="http://www.ruger-firearms.com/LCP/">LCP</a>. The construction seems a lot nicer and the overall build quality better than the P-3AT, at an equal MSRP. The LCP also has a slide lock of dubious functionality, as it doesn't hold open on an empty mag. Kel-tec may be forced to refresh their P-3AT line to compete with Ruger (much like Springfield had to do with the XD after the S&W M&P).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.springfield-armory.com/">Springfield</a>: Their main feature this year was the new <a href="http://www.the-m-factor.com/home.html">XD(m)</a> line. Where the original XD borrowed heavily from the Glock design, the XD(m) borrows a bit from the S&W M&P and adds other improvements in. The XD(m) is both performance-enhanced as well as ergonomically-enhanced, kind of aiming at both the run-n-gun as well as the ccw crowd. It is performance-enhanced with a match-grade barrel, lessened trigger-reset, extended magazine release, and higher round capacity (16rds in 40 S&W). It is ergonomically-enhanced with a frame redesign, cut-down slide (very melted/rounded feel), interchangeable backstraps (a la M&P), melonite finish. It doesn't have an ambi-safety like the new XDs have, but i'm guessing they have it in the works. In handling it, my overall impression is that it felt halfway between a Glock and a Walther.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.magpul.com/">Magpul</a>: Couldn't find them at first, but there was a Magpul rep at the <a href="http://www.bushmaster.com/">Bushmaster</a> booth. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpul_Masada">Magpul Masada</a> is now the <a href="http://www.bushmaster.com/press_release_013108.asp">Bushmaster ACR</a>. Magpul designed it, and they sold the rights to produce them to Bushmaster. Interestingly enough, the rep was actually a Masada designer - unfortunately Magpul was at another gov't/DoD exhibition across town. The ACR is nice in that it doesn't require any tools to field-strip, is very modular and can be easily adopted for multiple roles. Bushmaster is planning for Q1 2009, but the Magpul rep encouraged us to pester them in chances of getting it earlier, perhaps by November. Also unfortunately, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpY86MLRi8s">the flip-out smg</a> did not make an appearance.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sigsauer.com/Default.aspx">Sig-Sauer</a>: If I can't wait for the ACR, well then the <a href="http://www.sigsauer.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=35&productid=114">Sig 556</a> is still nice.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.dsarms.com/">DSArms</a>: When I was first looking at battle rifles, I originally wanted a <a href="http://www.dsarms.com/prodinfo.asp?number=SA58ELITE">FAL from DSArms</a> but after seeing them at the exhibition, I found them too heavy for my tastes.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.hornady.com/">Hornady</a>: They had good reps there who sold me on their <a href="https://www.hornady.com/shop/?ps_session=88c434c4db6f7415bb24c79830490a8a&page=shop%2Fbrowse&category_id=d12e69ab3325862ec67131f0d9a3aa1b">Lock-N-Load progressive press</a>. I gotta say that they were very helpful and informative, unlike some of the other exhibitors at the show. I'll probably pick one up, $450 for the press, $50 for a shellplate & dies.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.crimsontrace.com/">Crimson Trace</a>: I talked with a rep about their <a href="http://www.crimsontrace.com/Home/Products/KahrArms/LG461/tabid/307/Default.aspx">new laser grip</a> for the <a href="http://www.kahr.com/PA-1_9mm_mk.html">Kahr MK9</a>, and if they had plans for a <a href="http://www.kahr.com/PA-1_9mm_pm.html">PM9</a> laser grip: good news, it's in development and we can expect it in 12-18 months.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.taurususa.com/">Taurus</a>: They introduced a new slimline pistol coming out in November. It's the PT709SS/709B, 8+1 capacity, 3" barrel, 6" OAL, very short SA trigger, manual safety, very slim and all the edges had a melted feel. My only concern is the manual safety and the hair-trigger, but otherwise it looks like it'd be a great gun for the ladies in our lives.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.vortexoptics.com/">Vortex</a>: if their <a href="http://www.vortexoptics.com/riflescopes/view/vortex-strikefire-red-dot-riflescope">Strikefire</a> lives up to expectations, it will be awesome. It's 1x magnification (comes with a thread-on 2x lens), both red and green mildot, comes with mounting ring. Should be in stores in a month w/ a street price of ~$120. Much to my dismay, they didn't have a working demo model for me to play with, but i'm already sold on it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.leupold.com/">Leupold</a>: Holy crap, their scopes are BRIGHT and CLEAR. When I start looking into rifle scopes, I'll definitely start with them first.<br /><br />NRA: there's an NRA WINE club?<br /><br /><br />Notable sightings:<br />Ted Nugent, Glenn Beck, Oliver North, Wayne LaPierre, Ronnie Barrett, Todd Jarrett, the guy from Midway USA who shows up on American Rifleman, and the host/editor of American Rifleman.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-39432883849005578862008-02-11T16:18:00.001-05:002008-02-22T11:48:13.216-05:00It was worth a shot<blockquote>To: Chipotle Investor Relations<br /><br />As a loyal customer, it occurred to me that if I want to ensure that Chipotle's longevity, then perhaps I should help out and buy some stock. So I did.<br /><br />But, as a loyal customer (and now part owner), I have to wonder if there's any sort of extra benefits to being a stockowner.<br /><br />Like say, one free burrito per year per 2 shares of stock, or something like that :) For me, that would be 14 free burritos a year, which may sound like a lot until you consider that I probably consume 65 of your burritos per year.<br /><br />Anyways, consider it? :)</blockquote><br />Their response:<blockquote>Thanks for your interest in Chipotle, and for being a Chipotle<br />stockholder. Unfortunately, stock ownership does not come with any kind<br />of free burrito benefits. That's just not possible.<br /><br />Best...</blockquote><br /><br />Awww....Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-7915238480451236552008-01-23T10:21:00.000-05:002008-01-23T10:40:06.577-05:00The lesser of evilsWell, now that <a href="http://fredfile.fred08.com/blog/2008/a-statement-from-fred-thompson/">Fred's out of the race</a>, I find myself having <a href="http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/01/i_get_emails_freds_out_so_what_1.php">to seriously evaluate the remaining candidates</a>, hold my nose and vote for the least disappointing candidate.<br /><br />Then again, why vote for the lesser of evils?<br /><br /><br /><br />Other links:<br /><br />Kathryn Jean Lopez of NRO <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjM3NzRkNjg4YjQyNmNiODQ3NjA4NzA0MDA3ODhiOTA=">eulogizes the Thompson campaign</a>:<blockquote>‘We need to deserve to lead. And this is what this is all about; it’s about deserving to lead.”<br /><br />That was Fred Thompson on Saturday in South Carolina during a sincere, passionate, well-grounded speech that sounded like his farewell to the campaign trail. With his announcement Tuesday afternoon that he has withdrawn his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president, we now know it was. It was a bittersweet moment for any conservative who had been watching his campaign and wished it had been a more effective one earlier in the process. It was also a moment for the ages — one that every civics class in America should reflect upon: Politics is about policy and service to this great nation; that’s what makes the campaign worthwhile. That’s why you put up with the trophy-wife slanders and Chris Matthews’s questions.<br />[...]<br />There’s no doubt we’ll be seeing him again — he’s too invested in this country he loves for us not to. Thank God for Fred Thompson. May he inspire more to serve. And may he encourage us to rethink our may-the-man-with-the-best-soundbites-win electoral process.</blockquote><br /><br />Jim Geraghty on <a href="http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTViMjBiMGNiOTExMjQ0MTJiNTQzM2Q5MTg4ZTQ1MTI=">what Fred should have done</a>:<blockquote>He Should Have Punched More Hippies.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5412758.post-47874835983719746472007-12-30T00:17:00.000-05:002007-12-30T00:20:14.534-05:00FrederalismThis clip from Fred should do a good job of stealing support from the R-o-n P-a-u-l's constitutionalist followers.<br /><br /><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf?enablejs=true&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffredthompson%2Eblip%2Etv%2Frss&file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip%2Etv%2Frss%2Fflash%2F337582&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fblip%2Etv%2Fscripts%2Fflash%2Fshowplayer%2Eswf" width="400" height="255" allowfullscreen="true" id="showplayer"><param name="movie" value="http://blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf?enablejs=true&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffredthompson%2Eblip%2Etv%2Frss&file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip%2Etv%2Frss%2Fflash%2F337582&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fblip%2Etv%2Fscripts%2Fflash%2Fshowplayer%2Eswf" /><param name="quality" value="best" /></object><br /><br /><span class="hattip">Blatantly stolen from <a href="http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/12/video_fred_thompson_on_federal.php">RWN</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0