Monday, December 27, 2010

Glock Owner

I went to the huge gun store yesterday and went over to the Glock section, and, to my surprise, they had three Glock subcompacts. The Glock 30, 30SF, and 36 were are there. Wait a second... 30SF what the hell is that?

Apparently, there were lots of complaints about the Glock 30 grip being too large for small hands. So what Glock did was to slim down the back strap a bit:

Glock 30SF on the left

There was no price difference in any of the three pistols, so I asked the sales guy if I could put the guns through my main forms of carry.
I found that all three fit well in to my murse (heehee) pocket, and, while they were noticeably heavier, not so much as to cause me a problem.
I really noticed a difference when I put the pistols in to my preferred method of on body carry, the appendix carry position.

Example of appendix carry position

Here I really noticed the thickness difference between the Glocks and the Kahr. The Glock is a much beefier gun, so you really feel the extra metal.

Overall, the difference between the 30 models and the 36 was negligible. The 36 was definitely slimmer in my hand compared to the 30 models, but not so much as to really make a difference. I really didn't think that the changes in the SF model made much difference, but a woman in the shop said that it made a big difference when she shot the 30 and the 30SF.

In the end I bought the Glock 30SF. I wanted the extra shots, and maybe my wife would want to shoot it... Not likely, but if so the smaller grip may help her out.

After taking my new pistol home, I loaded it up, stacked the spare mag, and put everything in my murse (heehee), and went to the grocery store. After a short bit, I didn't notice the difference in weight.

So, I think this new pistol will work out well.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Bitter Dissapointment

Have you ever had something that was so increadably awesome, that you overlooked everything that was bad about it? And when you finally realized that your awesome thing actually sucked, you were depressed with your loss of awesome?

This is how I feel about my Kahr CW 45. It was so thin, so light weight, so PERFECT for conciled carry. It was everything I wanted in a pistol, except for one thing... It didn't go boom everytime I pulled the trigger. On top of that, after about 30 rounds, it would stovetop, jam, and give other issues. I went shooting yesterday, and the thing had a complete breakdown. I am so depressed. Tomorrow I will go and try to buy a Glock. I am not a huge fan of Glock, but they go boom no matter what.

So here we have the comparison:

Kahr Arms CW 36:

This is Kahr's compact .45 ACP. I don't say subcompact, because they have one smaller.

Weight:19.9 oz.
Barrel Lenght:3.46"
Magazine Capacity:6

Glock 36

This is Glock's .45 ACP subcompact "slim" pistol. Slim because it deviates from Glock's standard double stack magazine. This pistol would be the direct competitor to my Kahr CW45.

Weight:20.11 oz.
Barrel Lenght:3.78"
Magazine Capacity:6

Glock 30:

This is Glock's subcompact .45 APC. It has a double stack magazine, so it can carry twice the ammo. It pays for that in added width.

Weight:23.99 oz.
Barrel Length:3.78"
Magazine Capacity:10

Glock 39

This is a subcompact that uses Glock's very own .45 GAP round (ACP stands for Automatic Colt Pistol, GAP is Glock Automatic Pistol). The GAP was introduced to find a medium between the stopping power of the .45 ACP round and the controlability of the 9mm Parabellum and .40 round. Difference:

GAP on the left.
I am not sold on this round, and if I want to get a full frame pistol, and want to keep the same ammo for all, it would mean buying another Glock (Ok, Springfield XD has a .45 GAP, but Beretta and HK do not, and those would be the ones I would buy.)
Anyway it is an option.

Weight:19.33 oz.
Barrel Lenght:3.46"
Magazine Capacity:6

So what do we come off with?

Kahr CW 45Glock 36Glock 30Glock 39
Barrel Length:3.463.783.783.46
Magazine Capacity:66106

The things that are the most important to me are length, height, and weight. This is my CCW pistol, so I need it to fit in to my man purse, or murse for short (heehee).

So we have the Glock 30 being actually 0.002 inches shorter than my Kahr. The 30 and 36 are both 0.45 inches longer than the CW45. This is important becuase my Kahr just barely fits in to my gun pocket the way it is, I don't know if I can handle another half inch. This makes the 39 an atractive prospect.

The big looser in the width catagory is the 30. That double stack is going to force the pistol to have a fat ass, but that junk in the trunk is very important to have... I am surprised that the 36 is thinner than the 39. They have the same single stack mag, but the 39 is 0.05 inches wider. Where does the extra come from?

Every body wins in the height catagory. This pleases me, as the most room I don't have to spare is in the width. The Glocks being a mite shorter means that they will be eaiser to draw from the murse (heehee).

Weight... The 36 is only 0.21 oz heavier, and the 39 is actually is actually 0.57 oz lighter. Again the fat ass is the 30 coming in at 4.09 oz heavier. That sucks, because when you factor in the weight with a full magizine the 30 weighs 33.86 oz. That is 2.1 pounds of metal, with an additional 9.87 oz if I take a long an extra mag... and I always do. That means hauling around 9 more ounces than I am used to. It means a sore shoulder after a long day.

So what do? I am going to take a close look at the 36 and the 30 tomorrow, if I can find them. I can understand a store carrying one or the other, but two Glock .45 ACP subcompact models? Unlikely, espically since they are so similar in look and feel. Right now I am leaning heavily towards the 30. Despite the extra weight and width I realllllly like the idea of having 7 extra shots with me (6+1 in the Kahr, 7 round extended mag reload. 10+1 in the 30, 10 round reload). Those extra rounds are simply worth the extras.
I will have an update tomorrow.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

The Reason For the Season

I am going to go off on a little atheist rant for a moment. First, I love Christmas. Who doesn't like gifts, and cookies, and eggnog, and Santa? All kinds of awesome there. However, DO NOT say that I don't have a right to celebrate the holiday if I am not Christian. The holiday itself has become a cultural celebration. If you choose to put religious significance fine, but don't harsh my groove with your religious indignation. Just to throw my pot of piss in to your campfire let us look at the Christmas holiday and figure out what is truth and what is fabricated myth.

First and foremost, it is unknown when and where Jesus of Nazareth was born. There is no record of his birth. Being born 2,000 years ago in to a peasant Jewish family in a time where only the wealthy and royal had their births recorded, this is not surprising. The origins of Christmas trace back to, like most things in Christianity, Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine was a pagan. He worshiped the old Roman gods. However he found religious tolerance of the new Christian religion would be to his benefit. So, after a while he held a council at Nicaea to bring the different sects of Christianity in to a cohesive whole. From this council most of Christian tradition propagates.

Constantine wanted to unite his empire under one religion, to give the people a sense of shared culture. It also solidified his rule, as kings rule under divine providence. If you say you received the right of rule from one set of gods, the followers of the other set of gods say those gods are false, therefore we don't recognize your rule. Thus the incompatibility of religious tolerance and monarchy. Anyway...

Constantine wanted to blend the two religions as closely as he could. And the pagans had a winter solstice celebration every year. How can you celebrate an old religious holiday, while practicing another? You just say that your new holiday happened on the exact time as your old one! SWEET! You can have your cake and Santa too.

So, in actuality Christians, you are celebrating the Pagan holiday of the winter solstice, not the birth of Christ.

As an added note, the only record of Jesus being born in Bethlehem, the slaughter of the innocents, the exodus to Egypt, the Magi, and all of the other things that were supposed to have happened at that time are only found in the Bible, and conflict with one another. The simple fact is that, at the time Jesus could have been just another peasant religious nut who had delusions of grandeur. The only historical record we think we have on him is... was.... well... There aren't any historical records. Conveniently the Christians say all of the Roman records were burned up in Nero's fire. Understandable you say, it was a long time a go. BUT the Romans were perhaps the best record keepers in the ancient world. We know EVERYTHING about them, because they wrote EVERYTHING down. Seriously, they did. Yet no record survives about the hugely influential person of Jesus? You know who didn't get recorded? Unimportant people. Normal people. If Jesus existed at all, and was as influential as the Christian accounts say he was, there would have been something down on paper about him. There simply is not.

So, is it better to Celebrate the birth of a man that may or may not have existed, or to celebrate a time where we look to the best in people and express a desire for peace and freedom for all people?

Monday, December 20, 2010

Great Day

I am a lover of freedom, and equality under the law. Equality does not mean that others are more equal than anyone else. This is why I oppose all policies and laws that promote discrimination and segregation. Therefore, it is with profound pride that I read today that the policy that has discriminated against homosexuals in the military has finally been removed.

To be discriminated against because of a lifestyle choice is at the core of irrational intolerance. Does it really make a difference in how someone serves their country, does their job, flies an airplane, on who they choose to take in to their private bedroom, or which God they worship, or how?

It is good to see the country is finally ready to get past this. I applaud it, and welcome the change.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

The Face of the American Poor

Check out this picture:

This is Raymeica Kelly she is showing the two power bills that she did not get assistance in paying. Ms. Kelly has been out of work for over a year. Take a good look at Ms. Kelly. Take a look around the room she is in. What do you notice?

First... It looks like Ms. Kelly has not been missing any meals. She has money for enough calories to keep her very overweight.
If she went on a diet, she might be able to squeeze in a power bill or two.

Next... See the very large flat screen television? That is bigger than mine. She can't afford to pay her power bills, but she thinks that she can hold on to that massive television? I bet if she pawned that thing she could get at least enough to pay her power and heat bills for a few months.

Next... What is underneath the television? Microsoft XBox 360 gaming system. Multiple third party controllers. At least three games visible laying around. Each X-Box 360 game costs between $10 and $70. If you didn't get the games, could you have paid your electric bill? How many electric bills could you have paid for if you sold your XBox?

I won't speculate on what other luxury items Ms. Kelly has that she could get rid of before seeking assistance.

This is the simple fact of the American "poor." How many times have you watched a corpulent person purchase a grocery cart full of steak, while talking on their expensive cell phone, carrying a designer bag, with an EBT card? It happens nearly every time I go to the store. Why? Because Government programs provide so much for the "poor" they squander their money on these items. Why shouldn't they? It isn't like the money will be taken away from them.

It is time to change the way we do welfare once and for all.
The solution? Once you loose your job and file for unemployment, you get one month of benefits, during that time you must have had a minimum of one interview per week. After that month, you are to have one interview a week, accepting a salary 10% less than your last position. So on and so forth until a job is obtained. At which time ALL moneys remitted are paid back to the Government. These payments are garnished from wages. No more rewarding people for not working. No more endless hand outs.

Not having a job after a period of time is SHAMEFUL! It is time we made it so.


So, after the last post, you may have been thinking, Why do you get invited to Christmas parties? The answer: I make the most kick ass eggnog on the freaking planet. It is true. I am a humble guy, but facts is facts.
Good eggnog is like ice cream that has not been frozen. It is just all kinds of milk fat and eggy goodness. With the right combo of sugar and nutmeg, it is a thing of beauty. Now the following recipe actually works better if you double it, but that is a ton of nogg, use at your own discretion.
So, here you are, the recipe that will get you invited to all the parties, even if you are an intolerable asshole, just like me.
Now... You can get sick if you consume undercooked, or in this case, raw, eggs. So, take care in where you purchase your eggs, make sure they are well within the expiration date.

4 egg yolks (yes you have to separate the yolks from the whites. If you don't the texture sucks, and you don't get enough air in the mixture)
1/3 cup sugar, plus 1 tablespoon
1 pint whole milk (DO NOT SKIMP!!! Not 2%, not skim! You want the fat here. This is a holiday drink, not something you pound down every Tuesday)
1 cup heavy cream (Hells yeah!)
3 ounces cane Rum (You can use bourbon here, but I don't like the flavor that bourbon gives the mix. Make sure you use a good quality rum, and make sure that it is NOT spiced rum, No Captain Morgan.)
1 teaspoon freshly grated nutmeg (Imperative that it is freshly ground. As soon as you start to grate a spice, it looses its potency. Nutmeg is very powerful, and the flavor is absolutely essential to the drink. If you don't go with fresh nutmeg, then just drink some cream and milk with sugar, you get the same flavor and don't have to worry about the sickness from the eggs.)
4 egg whites

The drink:
In the bowl, beat the egg yolks until they lighten in color (I use a little hand mixer. Goes faster and does a better job). Gradually add the 1/3 cup sugar and continue to beat until it is completely dissolved. Add the milk, cream, rum and nutmeg and stir to combine.

Place the egg whites in a bowl and beat to soft peaks (Important that you use a good whisk here). Gradually add the 1 tablespoon of sugar and beat until stiff peaks form.

Whisk the egg whites into the mixture. Chill and serve bask in the awesome.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Progressives = Communists

I went to a Christmas party with the wife over the weekend, and I met a new liberal friend. He went nuts on me when I called him a Communist. After cooling down a bit, he asked me why I thought he was a Communist. Was it just because I called all "progressives" communist, or was there some other reason.
I was surprised... It is a rare thing that you get a progressive to ask the simple question "Why?" so this was a big deal to me. I asked him if he knew what Communism was. He said that it was a form of government where the state owns all property. I gave him full marks for knowing that, but I then persisted. I have, unlike most liberals, conservatives, and other, actually read Marx's book.

Karl Marks wrote the The Communist Manifesto in 1848. In it he stated the 10 things that the Communists stand for. So I asked my new friend these simple 10 questions:
  1. Do you believe in free education for all people, provided by the Government?
    • Yes, he said. Education should be free.
      • Marx: Free education for all children in public schools.
  2. Do you believe that the FCC should reenact the "Fairness Doctrine" keep radio and television balanced? Or do you believe that "Hate" speech should be banned outright?
    • Absolutely, he said. Hate speech has no place in our society, and what goes across the airwaves should be fair and balanced for both points of view.
      • Marx: Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
  3. Do you think the Fed should have more control over the US banking?
    • This is a stupid question, he said. Everyone knows the Fed should have more control to help stabilize the Economy, so that we don't have the bubbles burst and the market crash.
      • Marx: Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly
  4. Should there be an inheritance tax?
    • Sure, the rich can afford to pay that tax, and most people won't be affected by it anyway, said my friend.
      • Marx: Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
  5. Do you believe in a graduated income tax over a flat tax or The FairTax?
    • Don't get me started on income tax, exclaimed my friend, millionaires and billionaires can afford to pay more, so they should!
      • Marx: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
  6. Do you agree with the Kelo decision of the Supreme Court?
    • The one that said the government has the right to condemn property and then let others build on that land to get better tax revenue? Yes, that was a good decision.
      • Marx: Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes
  7. Do you think that all workers should be unionized?
    • Yes! Said my friend enthusiastically, All barriers to unionization need to be removed. The Card Check legislation is the first step to this and needs to be passed as soon as possible.
      • Marx: Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  8. Should there be heavier oversight of large corporate farms? More restrictions on what they can produce?
    • Yes. Large corporate farms are evil and need more FDA oversight, and be able to unionize.
      • Marx: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
  9. Should the EPA be given more power to confiscate property to extend the Superfund?
    • Yes. The EPA needs to be given much more power to clean up places that factories have ruined, for the betterment of everyone.
      • Marx: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan
  10. Do you believe that the government has a right to take from the rich and give to the poor in the form of government assistance? Welfare and food stamps for instance?
    • In the interest of human compassion, Yes, said my friend.
      • Marx: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
After answering these questions, I stated that he agreed with nine of the 10 planks of the Communist party, and wholeheartedly endorsed their slogan. After a bit of stunned silence, my friend said that he does believe in private property and the right of free speech, and that Communists do not believe it those things. However, I pointed out, you just said that you agreed with the Kelo decision, and that the Fairness Doctrine should be started up again. These things are free or they are not, there is no grey area.
At this point my wife yanked me away from the conversation.

The moral of this story? Don't invite me to Christmas parties.
Cool beard, brah!

Comments Back On

I turned comments back on... I hope blogger has their spam filters working.

Flame away!

Monday, December 6, 2010

How Does the TSA Get Away With It?? The 9th Circuit That's How!

I finally found out how the TSA so obviously violates the fourth amendment, and gets away with it.
Back in the 1970's, the frog was put in the water. A case came before the 9th Circuit of Appeals, the United States vs Davis.
One day in 1962, Mr. Davis attempted to board a Trans World Airlines flight with a loaded revolver. This revolver was in his briefcase, which was searched by TWA staff. Mr. Davis was taken in to custody. Blah, Blah, Blah the 9th Circuit decided that passengers gave "implied consent" when purchasing a ticket. Also the concept of "Administrative Searches" came in to effect, essentially saying that searches were OK, if they were a matter of routine... Seriously.
noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft

Later, in 2005, this president was cited, again in the 9th Circuit, in United States vs. Marquez. This case dealt with Marquez trying to get some Cocaine to Alaska. He was caught and said that his rights were violated by the TSA. The Davis case was cited as the president in where the TSA has a blank check as to how and what they can search.
The interesting thing to note here is that in Davis, the gun was found by a private company, but in Marquez the coke was found by a government worker. In the decision, this was not mentioned. Whether it was ignored by the Justices, or overlooked to me is of grave concern.
What was mentioned that the searches are only legal if passengers can opt out, and choose not to fly. In my opinion, this is a simple cop out. This case should go before the Supreme Court.

There you have it.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Holly Crap... U.S. Army Now Has Smart BULLETS!

I want one!!!

Here is the concept... The first thing they teach you in any type of combat school is how to get behind cover when the bullets start to fly. Why do you do this? You want to not get shot. Your cover protects you from the bullets. When everybody gets behind cover, that is when shooting them becomes problematic. They are behind cover how are you going to get at them?
All sorts of tactics have been tried. Giving your guys powerful guns to shoot through cover (bad guys just find better cover), using explosive rounds to shoot over cover and land on the bad guys (very difficult to do and very limited range), and, my personal favorite, calling in air planes or artillery to level anything within 200 meters of the target. You can imagine that these tactics cause lots and lots of collateral damage.

The idea behind this new weapon is having the weapon do all of the math and calculations of aiming rounds so that all the good guy getting shot at needs to do is pull the trigger. That is exactly what this new weapon does. It can actually shoot around corners, over cover and through cover. The Army says that it effectively eliminates cover as being a viable tactical option in the field. Very cool... And very very scary.

Here it is:

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Tie Knots: Know More Than One

I got lots of requests to actually show how to do some of the tie knots that I have been wearing, and that I blogged about a while ago. So... I will attempt to do my best with the help of Thomas Fink.

First, the knots that I will present here are the 85 ways to tie a tie, the STANDARD way. Meaning that the tie will be made with the wide end wrapping around the narrow end. Some of the nuttier knots involve wrapping the narrow end around the wide end to create the knot. I won't show those here.

Here are the two ways you can start the knot:

Pay attention to the letters. C is for Center, L is for Left, R is for Right, O is for seam on the OUTside, and I is for seam on the INside.
So looking at the diagram you notice that you start your knots by putting you seem on the outside crossing the wide part under the narrow, or having your seem on the inside crossing the wide part over the narrow.
Notice, also, that you should start with your wide part on the Right and you narrow on the right, so that you always begin the knot by moving the wide part to the left.

Next we have six ways to continue the knot:

Pay very close attention to the notation. Where the seem is, tells you HOW you get to that next position.

Now the three ways to end the knot:

If the notation is TT there is a double wrap at the end:

So we can now start to use the above notation to represent the steps for tie knots. Let's start with one of the very simplest knots, the Four In Hand knot. Notation: Li Ro Li Co T
You will notice that this knot is simply the beginning step, Li (wide end on the left seem on the inside) followed by the finishing step Ro (wide end to the right seem on the outside), Li (wide end to the left seem on the inside), Co (wide end straight up in the center seem on the outside), T (wide end goes through the loop created by the last step, tighten the knot). Here is a step by step diagram:

Now we can get a bit more complicated. The Double Windsor knot (or the Windsor to non-Americans) has a few more steps. Notation: Li Co Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Co T
As you can see from the notation, the tie is crossed then wrapped around the "legs" at the neckline. This is done on both sides to create a symetrical wide triangle look. The step by step diagram:

Got it? So here are the 85 ways to tie a tie, regardless of aesthetics (note that only about 20 of these actually look any good):
Number is the number of the knot, and, along with any subscripts or superscripts, a unique identifier (e.g., FM7 is the half-Windsor, where FM refers to the Fink-Mao notation). Knots are ordered first by size, then by the number of centre moves C, then by symmetry s, then by balance b.

Size is the number of moves, not including T. Higher values correspond to bigger knots.

Centres is the number of centre moves C. Higher values correspond to broader knots.

Sequence The instructions for tying the knot, using the notation described at the top of this page.

Symmetry (s) is the absolute value of the difference between the number of R and L moves.

Balance (b) is the number of times the winding of the wide blade switches from clockwise to counter-clockwise, or vice-versa.

Knotted status (k) Whether, when the tie is removed over the head and the thin end pulled out of the knot, a knot remains (y) or does not (n). If a knot remains, it is said to be not self-releasing; if no knot remains, it is said to be self-releasing.

Name Standard name of the knot.

3on The subscript on is short for Onassis, and it indicates his particular style of bring the wide blade behind and through the center after tying a four-in-hand. This variation can be applied to any knot but the results are all much the same.

32, 62, etc. If a knot ends with two Ts, it is subscripted 2; if three Ts, it is subscripted 3; and so on.

32r, etc. The superscript r means the tie is worn in reverse, that is, back-to-front. While this is of course possible for any knot, with some it gives unusual and pleasant results. The tie itself should be reversed before tying.

No. Size Cen. Sequence s b k Name



Lo Ri Co T





2 4 1 Li Ro Li Co T 1 1 n four-in-hand



Li Ro Li Co T Ri Co




3 5 1 Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T 0 2 y Kelvin
32 5 1 Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T 0 2 cross Kelvin  
32r 5 1 Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T 0 2 diagonal  
4 5 2 Lo Ci Ro Li Co T 1 0 n Nicky



Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T





6 6 1 Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T 1 3 n Victoria
62 6 1 Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T T 1 3 cross Victoria  
7 6 2 Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T 0 0 y half-Windsor
8 6 2 Li Ro Ci Ro Li Co T 0 1 n co-half-Windsor
9 6 2 Li Co Ri Lo Ri Co T 0 1 y  



Li Co Li Ro Li Co T




11 7 1 Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T 0 4 y  
112 7 1 Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T 0 4    
113 7 1 Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T T 0 4    
12 7 2 Lo Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Co T 1 1 n St Andrew
13 7 2 Lo Ri Co Li Ro Li Co T 1 1 n  
14 7 2 Lo Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T 1 2 y co-St Andrew
15 7 2 Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ri Co T 1 2 y  
16 7 2 Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T 1 2 n  
162 7 2 Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T T 1 2    
17 7 2 Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T 1 3 y  
172 7 2 Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T 1 3    
18 7 3 Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T 0 1 y Plattsburgh
19 7 3 Lo Ci Ro Ci Ro Li Co T 0 2 n co-Plattsburgh
20 7 3 Lo Ci Lo Ci Ro Li Co T 2 2 n  



Lo Ci Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T




22 8 1 Li Ro Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T 1 5 n  
222 8 1 Li Ro Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T T 1 5    
223 8 1 Li Ro Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T T T 1 5    
23 8 2 Li Ro Li Co Ri Lo Ri Co T 0 2 y Cavendish
24 8 2 Li Ro Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T 0 2 y  
25 8 2 Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T 0 2 y  
252 8 2 Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T 0 2   Christensen
26 8 2 Li Ro Li Ro Ci Ro Li Co T 0 3 n  
27 8 2 Li Ro Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T 0 3 n  
272 8 2 Li Ro Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T T 0 3 co-Christensen  
28 8 2 Li Co Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T 0 3 y  
282 8 2 Li Co Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T 0 3    
29 8 2 Li Ro Li Co Li Ro Li Co T 2 3 n  
30 8 2 Li Co Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T 2 4 n  
302 8 2 Li Co Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T T 2 4    
31 8 3 Li Co Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Co T 1 0 n Windsor
32 8 3 Li Co Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T 1 1 y co-Windsor 1
33 8 3 Li Co Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T 1 1 y co-Windsor 2
34 8 3 Li Ro Ci Lo Ci Ro Li Co T 1 1 n  
35 8 3 Li Co Li Ro Ci Ro Li Co T 1 2 n co-Windsor 3
36 8 2 Li Ro Ci Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T 1 2 y  
37 8 3 Li Ro Ci Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T 1 2 y  
38 8 3 Li Co Ri Co Li Ro Li Co T 1 2 n  
39 8 3 Li Ro Ci Ro Ci Ro Li Co T 1 3 n  
40 8 3 Li Co Li Co Ri Lo Ri Co T 1 3 y  
41 8 3 Li Co Ri Co Ri Lo Ri Co T 1 3 y  



Li Co Li Co Li Ro Li Co T




43 9 1 Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T 0 6 y  
432 9 1 Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T 0 6    
433 9 1 Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T T 0 6    
434 9 1 Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T T T 0 6    
44 9 2 Lo Ri Lo Ri Co Li Ro Li Co T 1 3 n Granchester
45 9 2 Lo Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T 1 3 n  
452 9 2 Lo Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T T 1 3    
46 9 2 Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Co T 1 3 n  
47 9 2 Lo Ri Co Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T 1 3 n  
472 9 2 Lo Ri Co Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T T 1 3    
48 9 2 Lo Ri Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ri Co T 1 4 y co-Grantchester
49 9 2 Lo Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T 1 4 y  
492 9 2 Lo Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T 1 4    
50 9 2 Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T 1 4 y  
51 9 2 Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T 1 4 y  
512 9 2 Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T 1 4    
52 9 2 Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T 1 4 n  
522 9 2 Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T T 1 4    
523 9 2 Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Ro Li Co T T T 1 4    
53 9 2 Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T 1 5 y  
532 9 2 Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T 1 5    
533 9 2 Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T T 1 5    
54 9 3 Lo Ri Co Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T 0 0 y Hanover
55 9 3 Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Co T 0 1 n co-Hanover 1
56 9 3 Lo Ri Co Li Ro Ci Ro Li Co T 0 1 n co-Hanover 2
57 9 3 Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T 0 1 y  
58 9 3 Lo Ci Ro Li Co Ri Lo Ri Co T 0 1 y co-Hanover 3
59 9 3 Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T 0 2 y  
60 9 3 Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Ci Ro Li Co T 0 2 n  
61 9 3 Lo Ri Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T 0 2 y  
62 9 3 Lo Ri Co Li Co Ri Lo Ri Co T 0 2 y  
63 9 3 Lo Ri Lo Ci Ro Ci Ro Li Co T 0 3 n  
64 9 3 Lo Ri Co Ri Co Li Ro Li Co T 0 3 n  
65 9 3 Lo Ci Lo Ri Co Ri Lo Ri Co T 0 3 y  
66 9 3 Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T 0 3 y  
662 9 3 Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T 0 3    
67 9 3 Lo Ci Ro Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T 0 4 n  
672 9 3 Lo Ci Ro Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T T 0 4    
68 9 3 Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ci Ro Li Co T 2 2 n  
69 9 3 Lo Ci Lo Ri Co Li Ro Li Co T 2 2 n  
70 9 3 Lo Ci Ro Li Co Li Ro Li Co T 2 2 n  
71 9 3 Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T 2 3 y  
72 9 3 Lo Ri Lo Ci Lo Ci Ro Li Co T 2 3 n  
73 9 3 Lo Ri Co Li Co Li Ro Li Co T 2 3 n  
74 9 3 Lo Ri Lo Ci Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T 2 4 y  
75 9 3 Lo Ri Co Ri Co Ri Lo Ri Co T 2 4 y  
76 9 3 Lo Ci Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T 2 4 n  
762 9 3 Lo Ci Lo Ci Ro Li Ro Li Co T T 2 4    
77 9 3 Lo Ci Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T 2 5 y  
772 9 3 Lo Ci Lo Ci Lo Ri Lo Ri Co T T 2 5    
78 9 4 Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ci Ro Li Co T 1 2 n Balthus
79 9 4 Lo Ci Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T 1 3 y  
80 9 4 Lo Ci Ro Ci Ro Ci Lo Ri Co T 1 3 y  
81 9 4 Lo Ci Ro Ci Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T 1 3 y co-Balthus
82 9 4 Lo Ci Lo Ci Ro Ci Ro Li Co T 1 4 n  
83 9 4 Lo Ci Ro Ci Ro Ci Ro Li Co T 1 4 n
84 9 4 Lo Ci Lo Ci Lo Ci Ro Li Co T 3 4 n  
85 9 4 Lo Ci Lo Ci Lo Ci Lo Ri Co T 3 5 y  

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

I Know! Let's Prevent Our Law Abiding Employees From Carrying Guns!!!

My wife works in a state run hospital. It is situated down town in a crappy part of town. It is the only trauma center in the city, so when two gangs have a shoot out, all the wounded come to this ER. It is also the only place for those without insurance to get free baby deliveries. So all of the gangs bring their baby mommas to the hospital. Mostly to see my wife... She is an OB/GYN doctor.
While the gang bangers', and other miscreants' baby mommas are busy pushing out their spawn, they are out in the parking lot car jacking and holding up the doctors, nurses, and technicians that just got done caring for their friends.
Two weeks ago the hospital was put on lock-down as the Police had a shoot out with an armed gang member in one of the hospital's cafeterias.
What does the hospital administration do? Specifically inform all staff that carrying concealed weapons, even for licenced CCW holders, is strictly prohibited and will be punished by immediate termination. This is a No Tolerance policy.

So, despite all of the crime in their area and in their parking lots, the administration has told their staff that they are not to take measures to protect themselves. This is supposed to create a "safe" work environment.

This is about as stupid as you can get. It is tantamount to South Korea throwing away all of its weapons so that the people feel safe. Meanwhile, the North rolls through the country like locusts on a corn field.

I was at the hospital last weekend to take my wife to a meeting. While she went up to the floor I stayed in the lobby. While there, two groups of people converged and began shouting and pushing one another. Things started to heat up, to the point where I had my hand on my .45 ready to pull. Thankful the Police arrived, they are on constant patrol inside the hospital, and forced the groups to disperse. They simply went in to the parking lot and began their fight.
I asked my wife about this when she got done with her meeting, and she replied with a shrug, that this kind of thing happens so often that it really isn't anything to talk about now.

Even in a hostile environment such as this hospital, and this one is far from the worst, employers will not allow their employees to carry firearms in to the workplace. In my opinion this is the height of idiocy. It is not the law abiding citizen with a CCW license you need to worry about. It is the disgruntled crazy former, or soon to be former, employee who cares nothing about breaking the law, let alone your stupid policy, that you need be concerned about. Disarming your employees only leaves defenceless targets cowering behind their desks for the crazy to pick off with impunity.
What is the proper response to an assailant who has opened fire? Ask the Police. Ask the military. They both respond with aggressive counter fire to bring the bad guy down. 100% of the time they will NOT say, that they would cower behind some flimsy cover and stay there until the bad guy comes to finish us off. Yet, this is the policy of businesses, even when the threat of violence is very very real.

TSA Enhanced Screenings

The TSA is busy doing all sorts of groping and grabbing. They strictly refuse to profile people to find out the most likely to be the kind that would blow up airplanes. But that would mean firing most of the worker drone workers, union people now, and hiring some skilled workers, who actually care about the safety of the airplanes. Anyway, the new Republican class is starting to make waves about these screenings. What are they saying about them? Are they saying that the screenings are a violation of the Fourth Amendment? Are they saying that the screenings are ineffective against finding the explosives that will be used? Are they saying that the TSA is simply security theater? No. They are saying that you don't know the sexual orientation of the screener doing the groping. Seriously. They are worried that they might be touched on the pee pee by a gay man.

For the love of Pete, you can not catch the gay from hand to pee pee contact. And really... Get over yourself. What are the odds you get a gay man who is in to obese dudes with a rod up their ass? The screeners, gay and straight, hate the grabbing as much as you do, probably more. Just think what happened at that meeting where the higher ups told the TSA union morons what they had to do. "Happy Thanksgiving, and we now have to touch the passenger's junk." "Wait wat?"

The real solution here is to get rid of the TSA, and hand security back over to the airlines. They are the ones who are ultimately on the hook for the safety of their flights, and it is time that the government backs away. The TSA was a massively bad idea to start with, and we are not making it any better. Time to cut and run while we still can.


They walk in to the gym, talking large and with a strut. Most of the time they smell like cigarettes. A good number already have a fight scheduled, all that do the fight is in about two weeks, most likely sooner.
They start out the warm up balls to the walls, slow with in 30 seconds, and in a minute they are sucking wind, asking for a water break and we haven't even started shadow boxing yet.
Before practice their talk was large, about fights they won, and techniques they pulled off. During practice they show an ability to eat jabs and throw winding looping punches that are easily avoided and countered. They throw kicks off balance, and eat them like they are candy.
They profess to be submission kings, and to have wrestled "all of their life." On the mat they show an amazing ability to give up more submissions than if they were actually allowing you to submit them.

Why? I don't get it. People don't automatically assume that they can run a marathon with less than two weeks training, even if they ran a mile once or twice. Why do they believe that they can step in to the ring and fight, even if they had a street fight or two. It makes little sense. Yet, last night I saw a guy with his chest puffed up walking in to the gym with a swagger, and I knew what he was up to. I can understand the trainers taking him in. His money is as green as everybody else's. They get the first month's dues and set him loose. They know that the vast majority of these guys will not stay past the first month, so take his money and feed him to the wolves.

I guess that I have a problem with all of this because I love combat sports, and this kind of behavior only serves to stain their reputation. Promoters who put up these fights are what give the sport such a bad name. If this guy walks in to the ring with a trained guy he will bust his wad with in 30 seconds, then gasp for breath as his opponent mauls him. If he steps in with another like him, the fans will be treated to two guys winging hay-makers for 30 seconds, then push on each other for the rest of the fight. Fun for the fans, I guess.

Promoters should only schedule fights with legitimate gyms. You still will get the mauling, but at least you will know that the fighters will have a little bit of gas in the tank, and some halfway decent technique behind them. The problem is that most promoters are little more than street slime themselves, looking to make a buck not on the sport, but on the blood and trauma of the fighters.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

The Fourth Amendment

You're Doing It Wrong!!

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

I Want One!!!!

Typically I am not a fan of laptop or tablet computers. They have lots and lots of problems that PCs just don't have. On top of that, they are much slower than a desktop purchased for the same money, at the same time. However... This thing is just cool:

It is the new Dell Inspiron Duo. It is a combination of the iPad style app driven, touch screen tablet and a standard laptop computer. This is the kind of thing that I have been looking for. A low cost (maybe) low power system (2GB RAM max, on a nicely powered N550 dual core Atom CPU).
This is not going to be your favorite gaming system, but it is about perfect as a carry around box, which is exactly what the tablet market is about. Something that you can do documents on, but is used primarily for email and Internet applications.
The fact that it carries Windows 7 is a great bonus, because, unlike the iPad, I can use remote desktop to connect to my beefy home server box to do anything that needs serious hardware.

The Inspiron Duo is expected to be out later this month for pre-orders.

More pics:

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Idiots, This Country Haz Dem

People of California, really??? Jerry Brown again? You didn't get enough of Governor Moon Beam in the 70's? You had a clear choice California, a return to solvency and to prosperity, or a dive straight down the rabbit hole to bankruptcy and red tape... You all took the red tape. You deserve what you get, and I will work hard so that the rest of the country does not bail your stupid asses out.

People of Massachusetts, really??? Barney Frank?? There are a few people we can name that are directly responsible for the housing meltdown. Frank is one of them. You people could have sent a clear message that you weren't going to take the corruption any more. You chose to say that you don't care about the mismanagement of Fannie Mae, you don't care about the ethics and corruption of Frank. The horrible thing is that what Frank does DIRECTLY affects my life. I pay for your ineptitude. Thanks Mass, right back atcha.

Praise the Baby Zombie Wiccan Jebus that there were not enough idots to sweep Christine O'Donnell to victory... How she ever got nominated is beyond me. Have the sense to nominate someone who actually has read the Constitution, and knows what the Kelo decision was before you vote next time Delaware.

Idiots did not prevail in Kentucky or in Florida! Rand Paul and Marco Rubio walk in to the senate! Now, if we could just get the idiots to start looking at these guys for President rather than the idiot's choice of Sara Palin we will be on our way from destroying the idiocracy!

Monday, November 1, 2010

What Is "Luck"?

"You have had a lot of luck in your life so far." Said my dad during a recent visit to Dumbfuckville. It got me wondering. What is luck? I am a somewhat vocal skeptic in all things religious, yet even the hardest core Atheist, still believes in, or will mention luck. So what is it?

I would like to think my life has turned out the way it has because of cold rational decisions that I have made. But that is not true. For absolute certain, my life is what it is because of the choices I have made. This is the universal truth. What is not true about my above statement is that not all of my decisions have been cold and rational. Is luck when you make an emotional choice, or an irrational one, and it turns out well for you?

One such emotional choice was who I chose to spend the rest of my life with. When we met, we were both young. She was barely 21 years old, I had just turned 25. About 13 months after that we were engaged, and 8 months after that were married. This was a decision I made with my heart, not my head. The woman I met could barely speak English, she had been born in to a culture alien from my own, and we had drastic personality differences. After 9 years 11 months, the woman I married is not the woman that I currently live with. The woman I married was shy, had no self confidence, and was perpetually worried about everything. I realized that she had drastically changed from the woman I married in her second year as a medical student. She entered an essay contest in Neurology. The favorite to win this contest was a young man who entered medical school after getting a PhD in Neurology. When she brought me her paper to proof read, just like she did when her papers were little more than "See Jane run.", I couldn't understand a word of it. The language was advanced, the terminology was, for me, indecipherable. She went on to win the contest. A woman who could not read a newspaper not 5 years previous beat a PhD in his own field, in HIS native language.
My beaming aside, this choice of wife was undoubtedly a good one. It was the most important decision in my life. Was it "lucky"?

A close friend made a very similar choice to mine about the same time as I did. His choice was not a foreigner, but he made his choice with his heart, not his head. Just as I did. He divorced a few years later. His net worth was halved, his children were ripped from him, and he was saddled with half of the debt that she primarily ran up. He now has to forfeit a large percentage of his income to this woman, in the name of child support. Was this simply "unlucky"?

In my career, I have been just the opposite. I have made cold hard choices, sometimes accepting lower pay for the opportunity to lean skills. I left the field of study my degree is in to participate in what I knew was the next revolution in business. I have stayed at a company knowing that my compensation was beneath my market value, because I knew it was safe. Was this "luck"?

I have friends that have been just as calculating, just as careful, and have come up being laid off time and time again. Is he simply "unlucky"?

What is "luck"? Is luck when you make a choice with some element of risk and it pays off for you? Is something more lucky when you make a choice based on your emotions and not the facts? In fighting there is a saying that there are no lucky punches. You threw the punch it landed, no luck involved. Yet, we have all seen where men are getting beat from pillar to post, let one wild unaimed bomb in desperation, land it and win the fight.

I believe this: Luck does not exist. It, like religion, is a construct of man. It is nothing more than man attempting to put a name to something that he can not control. It is also a coping mechanism for those who have made poor choices to feel better about themselves for failing (I am not a failure, they are just lucky.)
Believing in luck, in my opinion is the same as believing in hope. Hope kills pilots. So does luck. Isn't it strange that those who work hard, make good choices based on the facts, and make more calculating choices than emotional ones seem to be "luckier" than the rest of us? The simple fact is that fortune, "luck", smiles on the prepared.

I admit that I have made choices that have not been based on rational fact. Like when I bought a car that I could not afford, but it was so damn pretty! More often than not, those choices were "unlucky."

However, no matter how rational your choices are, there are certain situations that do not break your way. Unforeseen issues that cause great hardship, or great joy. These things are just what they are. You had no control over them, accept that. What you do have control over is how you react to the issue, and amplify your joy, or mitigate the disaster. Spend less time worrying about luck, and never EVER put your life in luck's hands.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

More Reasons to Hate Social Security

I was listening on the radio and some interesting statistics on life expectancy were mentioned... In the United States of America, black men have the shortest life expectancy (69.7), followed by white men (75.7), then black women (76.5), lastly white women (80.6).
(Source CDC)
I found it surprising that white women were expected to live almost twelve years longer than black men.

The current age of retirement, the age you need to be at before you can get your full Social Security benefits is 65. That means that black men only receive benefits for about 4.5 years. White women on the other hand receive benefits for nearly 16 years. Again a 12 year difference.
What does this mean in money terms? Well, a black male can expect to get a rate of return on his Social Security of 0.73% while a white woman can expect 2.2%. The rate of return are so horrendous that alone should be a reason to round file the entire program.

It got me thinking... Social Security is a massive ponzi scheme that relies on the taxes of people working currently, to support the retired. Of course, this is highly illegal for anybody but the Government. It is good to be the king.
Anyway, by looking at the figures above and knowing how Social Security is funded, we can say with mathematical certainty, that Social Security is a massive wealth redistribution scheme. Taking money from young black men and giving it to old white women.

Recall that the funds that you "invest" in Social Security is not actually yours, thus when you die the money in your Social Security "account" goes to the government. If you are married there are some "survivors" benefits that go to your spouse, but when she/he kicks off, Uncle Sam walks away with the rest. So, even though young black men put more money in to Social Security, there is no provision for them to bequeath those funds anywhere, but to the Government. Uncle Sam doesn't care that you have a favorite nephew, or a grandson that you want your money to go to. Uncle Sam couldn't care less if your granddaughter or niece wants to go to collage. It doesn't work like that.

If you were to walk up to someone and say that you have this really cool Government program to take money from young black men and give it to old white women, you would be run out of town on a rail as a horrific racist. But that is the exact system that the Democrats are continuing to push on the American people. Why? It gives them power over your retirement, thus power over your life after you stop working. I have a very difficult time even fathoming why people like Social Security so much, just look at the rate of returns! If you invested in the safest, Government guaranteed investment there is, the U.S. Treasury Bond (T-Bill) you are getting nearly 3%. AND you can give it to who ever you want after you take the eternal dirt nap. What's more, you get that money no matter what happens in Congress.
Congress could tomorrow pass a law that abolishes Social Security. Just shitcans the whole program. What happens to the money you "invested"? Gone. It wasn't yours anyway it was given to the current participants of the program. The current participants would be left high and dry. Thanks for playing, go die on the street now.

Why do we put up with this crap? Time to call Social Security what it is, a tax. Time to say, sorry young people, but we have to give your money to those over 55 because they didn't plan ahead. We are going to let you put your money in to a private account, though, so you will get more out of it. Let Social Security go the way of the dinosaur. Give the people back the freedom to plan for their own posterity. End this ridiculous RACIST program.

Social Security and Race NCPA

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Defending Christine O'Donnell (groan)

She is a moonbat. She is not really the sharpest knife in the box. But I have to come out and defend her on this one...

In a debate with her opponent for Senate, Chris Coons brought up that Creationism (groan) should not be taught in Public Schools. Christine asked "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" Coons replied that it was in the First Amendment. Here Christine gave her typical deer in the headlights look and sputtered "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

As we all slap our foreheads in dismay that such a moron could have actually won the nomination from a major party, I have to give her a little credit here. The Separation of Church and state is actually not specifically written in to the Constitution. It is implied from the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise clause.
Here is the text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Did you catch that? The separation of church and state is derived from Congress not being able to interfere with the practice of religion nor the establishment of a religion.
If you read specifically the text of the First Amendment, you see that there is no clause saying that religion and the state are separated, you only see that the Congress can not impede the practice or the establishment of religion.
Why was this done? It was done to ensure first that the United States of America would be free from state sponsored religious persecution. It was also done to prevent any foreign religious leader (the Pope) from taking power in the United States.

What Christine should have done was to ask Coons the exact text that creates the separation of church and state in the Constitution. If he could do it, ask him how teaching Creationism (groan) would violate the Establishment and Free Practice clauses of the Constitution. This can then lead in to one of her strength and greatest criticisms of the Coons and the Left, that of Activist Judges. If she is pressed on the issue, she could have brought up that there was no problem with voluntary religious practice in Government until the modern "progressive" New Deal liberals made it to the SCOUS in the late 1940s and 1950s. Even the author of the Constitution, James Madison signed religious proclamations during his presidency(Tom Jefferson, however did not).

Instead we had the Democrat Coons score points by having her and, by association, the Tea Party look like extremist idiots.
Christine deserves to loose. She doesn't have the brain power to roll with the likes of Coons, she will get rolled in the rough and tumble of Washington where she will be a target for both sides of the isle. Coons, like a prison bitch, will simply hide behind his Democrat daddies.

Men's Fasion

I recently took a job where the dress code is casual professional. What is that? It means that you can come in shirtsleeves (this means no jacket, but dress pants, and tie). So my very fashion conscious wife took me shopping. I found that nice clothing is expensive. I also found that my particular build, the shop guy called it trim athletic, is also very difficult to shop for. My waist to shoulder ratio combined with my chest diameter puts me in a unique category of man. I am strictly speaking of off the rack clothing. The last time a bought a suit it was tailor made, and, believe me, there is NOTHING in this world that fits or looks better than tayor made clothing.

I can not wear the suits and shirts that are typically sold for men that have my particular waist size. They don't fit me in the shoulders, and my chest pops buttons. I can not wear the suits and shirts that are typically sold for men with my shoulder and chest size. They are too large in the waist and I look like I am swimming in a lake of fabric.

What to do? The store we went to had custom altering at no charge. The solution was to buy the shirts that fit my shoulders and chest, then have the tailor remove excess fabric in the waist area. The result was pure magic. The wife really hit it out of the park.

With all of this nice new clothing I started to notice changes in behavior around me. A man with nice clothes and tie is treated very differently at all kinds of places that a man who walks in looking... well, looking like I typically like to look.
The clothes carry with them an ingrained reputation. Sales people pay much more attention to you, your opinion in conversation carries much more weight.

On top of all this I began to notice subtle differences in the way that others look at men dressed all basically the same. You have two men standing side by side one wearing high quality clothing that is tailored to fit well, the other wearing a shirt and slacks that he got from a discount store. The attention and credibility is immediately given to the man in the better clothing. Even if the man is of a lower work rank than the other poorly dressed man. The better dressed man is given the respect, and thought of as the "go getter."

I also noticed that if you stand two men together, wearing identical clothing, the only difference being the tie knot that they are using, the man with the tie knot that fits his shirt will be the one that gets the respect and thought of as the superior.

Tie knots have kind of fascinated me over the last few months. I knew how to tie what is known as the Half Windsor knot. It is a smaller asymmetrical tie knot.

Unbenounced to me, this knot is one of the four classic tie knots, the other three being the Four in Hand

The full Windsor

and the bow tie (you know what a bow tie looks like).

These three (the bow tie is almost comical in a business setting) are the knots that are recognized as being the best knots for a business setting. One that is making a big run is the Pratt knot. This knot is asymmetrical knot that is smaller than the full Windsor, yet larger than the half windsor or the Four in hand.

The tie knot should be large enough to cover the gap in between the two "wings" of the collar. A small gap (narrow collar)means a small knot, half Windsor, or the Four in hand. A large gap (spread collar) means a larger knot, full Windsor or the Pratt. The worst thing that can happen when wearing a tie is that the knot is too small for the collar. If you can see the part of the tie that goes around your neck, your knot is too small.

In my research I found that there are a ton of different knots. Right now the medium size knots are in vogue, with the larger knots, the full Windsor in particular, being associated with the super wide collars of the 80s and 70s.

According to some web sites, the classic tie knots are for everyday or business wear. In a social setting, you are supposed to want to make a bigger impression, so you use a more elaborate knot. If you want a good look at the elaborate tie knots, check out The Matrix movies. They have all kinds of funky knots in those movies. My personal favorite out of the Matrix and the super fancy world is the Atlantic knot. It is like a full Windsor knot turned inside out.

This knot is full of awesome.

There are many web sites out there for making tie knots. The problems I have run in to were that finding how to tie knots, depends mainly on you finding out what the name of the knot is. That is the hard part...

There is only one site that has virtually all the tie knots you could ever want... the problem is that the diagrams on how to tie the ties are awful.
Encyclopedia of Tie Knots

Brooks Brothers has some of the best animations on how to tie several knots:
Brooks Brothers Tie Knots

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Democrat Has Revelation?

Illinois Democrat congresswoman Jan Schakowsky has a revelation of sorts...

Interviewer: Where in the constitution does it give congress the authority to mandate that I purchase health insurance?

Rep. Schakowsky: You know .. if you .. (waves her hand and walks away from the camera, then turns back) .. I don't see where it is in the constitution that is says that we can build a national highway system

Interviewer: Well actually the Constitution says post offices and post roads, ma'am

Rep. Schakowsky: I don't see where it says we can do civil rights legislation. I don't see where it says we can do Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. If we can do Medicare, if we can do Medicaid, I would say it is pretty well established that the United States of America can address health care.
Ok, so she doesn't have a revelation. But she has a point. There IS no provision in the Constitution that says that they can do Civil Rights, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. If the interviewer was prepared, he should have said, "THAT'S RIGHT!!! WHY DOES CONGRESS OVERSTEP ITS CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES!" It was a perfect "gotcha" moment.

Oh, well.

Friday, October 8, 2010


Holly poop on a stick!!! Lamborghini has a direct line to the sexy. This is their Sesto Elemento concept that was reveled at the Paris Auto Show.

Just wow.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

What Freedoms Have You Lost?

What freedoms have you lost? Good question As a review, let's look at two parts of the Constitution that tell the Fed Gov what they can do:
Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):
  1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
  2. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
  3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
  4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
  5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
  6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
  7. To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
  8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
  9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
  10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
  11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
  12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
  13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
  14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
  15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
  17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
  18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Sound good? Now the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Got all that? Those 18 things are all the Congress has laid out for it to do. The 10th Amendment makes it so that it would take an amendment of the Constitution before anything other than those specific 18 things can be done. Just to be through, what can the Executive do? Article 2 & 3
Section 2
  1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
  2. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
  3. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3
  1. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
That's it and that's all. The Executive is also bound by the 10th Amendment. The Executive Branch can do no more.

So, after looking at all of that. What freedoms have I lost? Just to name a few obvious ones, Any of the "Czars" that the Executive has created that have to do with subjects other than specified, the Department of Education, etc. The social welfare programs, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, FDIC, etc., etc., etc.
These programs are reserved to the states, not the Fed Gov.
What freedoms have I lost? How about the freedom to be left alone by the Fed Gov? Instead, now I have them intruding in nearly ever aspect of my daily life. Read the document. Then read the ruling in the Supreme Court Case: United States v. Darby Lumber Co. This is the case that essentially nullified the 10th Amendment, and opened the flood gates of power for the Fed Gov. It needs to be overturned.

Things You Find Digging In The Mud

Digging at the WTC Ground Zero site continues as construction progresses. Lots of things have been found in mud. This site was actually part of the Hudson River at one point, and people have been putting in land fill for centuries. So you find things when you dig there. Things like bones of animals, bones of humans, shoes, plates, cutlery, a 60 foot Hudson Sloop... wait wat?

In July the remains of a 60 foot Hudson Sloop were found at the WTC site. Seriously. A shipwreck from the 18th century was found underneath the World Trade Center.

The ships ribs being pulled out of the mud at WTC Ground Zero

I commonly think that the United States really has very little history. That is normal for a guy like me. I grew up in the West where the first settlement (permanent settlement, not nomadic peoples) were constructed only about 120 years ago. For the most part, these "old" structures were torn down and newer buildings built in the 1970's and 80's during those decade's urban renewal programs. However the eastern United States has been settled since 1585 (Spanish in Florida had the first permanent settlement that year), and specifically New Amsterdam in 1625 (the Dutch even built canals in to the city). History is there. Sure the Grand Palace in Belgium had been completed for nearly a century before the first buildings were built in the US, sure the Great Buddha (Daibutsu) in Nara, Japan had been finished for nearly a millenia. But History is there.

Map of New Amsterdam, notice the canals!

It is simply fascinating to me that little more than 200 years passed by between the sinking of this ship, and the construction of the WTC above it. The people living and working above had no idea that the ship was there... Hell, when I was there in May of 2001, I had no idea it was there. Things like this I find infinitely cool...

For now, the ship was removed and its timbers are being preserved by scientists. Perhaps we will learn the name of the ship, and can find some documentation on what it was carrying... Coooooooooooool....

Monday, October 4, 2010

Three Things That Should Scare the Poop Out of You...

Three things that should scare the ever living crap out of you... That is if you believe in freedom and personal property.

First, the 1% tax on all financial transactions. What's that you say? Check it out:

Get rid of all of the filler and the liberal feel good crap and you have HR4191. A tax on all financial transactions. What does this mean? Let's make the math easy and say that HR4191 passes and we get a 1% tax on all financial transactions. You are a follower of Dave Ramsey, and the first thing you do with your paycheck is to pay yourself. You put $100 in to a savings account. But you only see $99 appear in your account. Why? $1 went to the IRS. But wait... Your company putting in your $1,000 paycheck, this is the net amount after taxes have been withdrawn, but you don't get $1,000, you get $990. That night you go out to dinner and pay for a $100 meal... whoops... It is now $101, gotta pay that transaction tax!
It is a method of squeezing more and more out of the American people. Seizing more and more of their money. Taxes now are not just income taxes. The Government double and triple dipping us already with their tax systems. This is another dip in to money that they already believe belongs to them.

Next, remember those tax differed IRAs? Remember your pretax 401(k)? Remember your after tax Roth IRAs? You use those vehicles to fund your retirement with all of the income tax benefits. Democrats are using the Argentinean model of claiming that "middle class" Americans need security in their retirement, and that the "rich" are unfairly funding their own retirement with their extra income. So... The Government needs to take some of that money, that they don't really need anyway, and give it to those who didn't do such a good job of saving.
File this one under direct income redistribution, and seizure of private property.

Finally, a man was shot on his jet ski on a lake that straddles the Mexico and US border. This is not an isolated incident. Reports are now coming in of pirates, yes pirates, on this lake hijacking, boarding, and robbing people on this lake. When the authorities come calling, they simply retreat to the Mexican side of the lake. Apparently this lake is a well known place where drugs and illegals are smuggled across. It is also popular with tourists. Tourists have money. A lake is a big place. Good spot to kidnap, rob, and kill.

These things should frighten you. The first two are outright seizures of private property. The last one is the act of sovereignty violation. All three will be allowed to go forward under the current administration/congress.