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

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

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.

Gasp...

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.

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....

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.