Monday, October 31, 2011

Men Are Intimidated By "X"

Dalrock once again reminded me with his post that in addition to my daily duties of Swinging Bachelorhood I have to occasionally dispense wisdom to you guys. Otherwise lord knows you would all be jumping out of tree and running into bushes. And we wouldn't want that would we?

He invokes The Word of Grerp, who should write a book (it could be like the bible! - "In Grerp's second letter to the Corinthians - "Be not a cumbersome annoyance to your husband, for he hath too much on his plate to deal witheth") which then prodded me off my lazy butt to address something I've been meaning to for a while. And that is:

"Men are intimidated by X"

"X" being one of three things that I can think of:

1. A woman taller than him
2. A "strong" woman
3. A woman that makes more money than him.

And I am here to put the kibosh on all three.

Not that men are intimidated by these factors and I somehow wish to "hide" this fact in a propagandist move. I am here to put the kibosh on it because all three are false. And nothing puts the kibosh on something better than the truth (just look at socialism, feminism, worthless degrees and the other tenets of leftism).

Here's the skinny in order of the three:

1. I don't know one guy, personally, who has said, "Oh no! Not a a TALLER woman! GASP oh GASP! You mean her legs will be LONGER THAN AVERAGE!? Horrors of horrors. How will I ever survive?"

Now, admittedly I do know of TWO GUYS in the THOUSANDS I have met in my life that did not like their woman being taller than them. This then triggered a banning of those girls wearing high heels.

But frankly, not only are these guys the minority, they are MORONS!

For the most part ladies, men care NOWHERE NEAR as much about the height of a woman as much as women care about the height of a man. Matter of fact, I think almost 40% of the women I've dated have been taller than me because frankly I want to be "that guy."

You know "that guy?" That short SOB who walks into the club with a tall drink of water that you can't get? The guy who everybody is thinking, "how the HELL did HE get HER!?"

Yeah! I'm THAT guy! It's great!

So ladies, if you think men are intimidated by taller women, eh. a REAAALLY small percent are. But otherwise, I'm sorry, if you're taller, you're just going to have to stoop to our level.

2. No, we are not intimidated by strong women. We are attracted to strong women. Women who work for a living, who support themselves. The problem is "strong" is confused in today's Moxie world with "loud, arrogant or obnoxious." Most of the girls I have dated who were truly strong simply demonstrated their strength. They didn't wave their finger, give me the hand, bark orders nor tell me every 10 minutes how strong and independent they were.

To put it in contrast in my 20's I would occasionally cross paths with a HOT young lawyer who was working at a firm a friend of mine also worked at. When invited out to various happy hours, I would have a drink or two, socialize and try to get to know this girl. It was like trying to warm up to liquid hydrogen. Every ounce of body language said, "don't you dare talk to me." She never smiled. She never would even say, "hello." The only way I would get any kind of conversation out of this girl was indirectly through group conversation. And ALL she talked about was making junior partner and how hard she worked and how nothing was going to get in her way.

Fast forward 8 years later, and I run into her at the local salsa club. This woman is now WAAAAY into her 30's. Still has that pissed off look on her face, still dressed in clothes that screamed, "I'm a super powerful woman and by god you better do what I say," and wow, is that yet ANOTHER aging 30 something woman without a ring on her finger? I didn't even bother to try to talk to her because I doubt she would have remembered me, but she sat at the bar

all alone

by herself


and not one man asked her to dance (and this was a scene where very few men are loth to approach a woman).

However, this was not because she was a "strong woman" and she "intimidated people."

It's quite simply you could tell she wouldn't be enjoyable company.

First, what guy wants to dance with a woman who isn't smiling?

Second, if you get good enough at dancing, you get kind of picky with the women you choose to dance with. I prefer women that follow. Not those that fight and can't grasp the concept of the MANDATORY lead-follow dynamics of dancing.

Third, inevitably, yes, men will want to test the waters to see if there's some dating potential. Sadly "strong" has been corrupted to mean "difficult" and "obstinate."

I'll take a strong woman, not a poser who thinks she's strong.

3. You Captain is largely poor. This is a confluence of factors including (admittedly) his impatient attitude, his inability to tolerate politics and BS, a crappy economy and largely a dying work ethic that is being replaced with enjoying the decline and the evil forces of HR that are always conspiring against us like The League of Doom. So naturally the LAST thing I would want is a woman that makes a lot of money. I mean, that's what EVERY guy is afraid of! A woman with LOT'S of MONEY! I wake up late at night, soaked in sweat because of the nightmares I have of some woman showering me with $100 bills and buying me nice things. It's horrible, I've had to go talk to a therapist several times to get my mind right. I mean, if you want to scare a man away, if you want him to run for the hills, or if you're just looking for a crafty way to dump him, don't tell him you're secretly married.


Don't tell him you have children.


Tell him you have LOT'S OF MONEY!

That'll send him packing!

Sadly ladies, this is just another example of people in the media, politics and education circles telling you what you want to hear and not the truth.

Thus behooving the question;

What is more important, your short term feelings (in which case you can tell me how evil I am and how you know this ONE girl who isn't like that, etc.), or your long term happiness (in which case you may forward this link to as many people you want)?

I'm indifferent which one you choose, because there's only one truth. I'm merely entertained by how much of a fight people put up against the truth because their feelings are so fragile.

Enjoy the decline!

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Diabetes Treatment: New Dogma, Old Dogma or Just Carbophobic Myopia?

One of the points of contention raised in my brief exchange with Dr. Ron Rosedale over on the PaleoHacks forum is the notion that insulin is a harmful drug, and that diabetes should not be treated with insulin to "cover" dietary glucose.  This will only make the diabetic sicker and move them down the path of progression of their disease.   This reminded me of the flurry of blog hit pieces on the ADA's Hope Warshaw a while back.  One of the things these bloggers took special exception to was Warshaw's use of the term dogma and calling LC "old" dogma.  For starters:
Old Dogma: Losing weight will make blood glucose levels plummet no matter how long you have had type 2 diabetes. The message that people continually hear from their providers is "If you'd only lose weight, your blood glucose would go down." And the common reply from people with type 2 is "I'll try harder with my 'diet' over the next few months, but please don't put me on a diabetes medication."
New Reality: Research shows that the greatest impact of weight loss on blood glucose is in the first few months and years after diagnosis. (Read the Look AHEAD trial results, a study about the effect of weight loss on heart disease in type 2 diabetes.) In fact, the biggest bang for the effort per pound is likely in the prediabetes phase. (The sad fact is that most people don't know that they have prediabetes.)Large studies have shown that with loss of five to seven percent of body weight (approximately 10 to 20 pounds) and 150 minutes of physical activity (30 minutes five times a week), people can prevent or delay the progression to type 2. Once insulin production is on a dwindling course (particularly after 10 years with type 2), weight loss has less impact on glucose control.
Read more »

Saturday, October 29, 2011

The Godfather

OK, Cappy Cappites.

I keep getting hounded to watch the damn Godfather series.

Is it worth it, or do my spidey senses tell me it's another crap production from the 1970's condoned by pot-induced 1970's Hollywood's elitists with all of its Oscar winnings and nominations?

It really just does not look appetizing.

My Carbon Dioxide Sane-Asylum

Well folks, here in the NorthEast U.S.of.A we're having a snowstorm!  That's right!  This time last year I was getting in some last minute VitD sessions in the back yard, but as of now there's around 5" of snow here.  Global warming?  Ha!  Don't get me started on that fiasco!!  :-)

My 10' lilacs are bent over to the ground as they still have their leaves.  My big maple looks to be OK but weighted down.  I managed to bring quite a bit of wood up onto our covered deck and to the small pile nearby that's covered with a tarp before this started.  It's supposed to be in the mid 40's tomorrow so this should all be gone almost as quickly as it came.  I'm just hoping and praying that the one limb of a tree at the corner of our lot (that they didn't cut when they came around over the summer for every other leaner on the block despite this one leaning on the power lines) holds.  It's really leaning big time over the street with all it's leaves in their grandeur.   I've shoveled the walk once and will need to do it again when hubby is set to arrive home.  In my sneakers no less b/c winter boots?  Where are those?  Gloves?  But meantime the fire's roaring!  

Hope y'all folks in the general vicissitude stay safe and warm!  Happy Saturday :-)

Are You a Citizen or a Commie

For obvious reason your Captain does not necessarily believe the bottom building block, but it is still interesting to see;

Friday, October 28, 2011

Keep the Leptinade flowing! I'm going to die from my glucose anyway ...

A few general thoughts on this whole "safe starches" tangent into Ron  "Everyone's a Diabetic" Rosedale's contentions.  I was prompted to look into many of the claims of Rosedale by a short conversation I had with him over at PaleoHacks that can be found scrolling down to his responses here.  When one goes and reads the Facebook links in the root post, it is clear that Rosedale's views are pretty extreme as regards blood glucose levels, diabetes, etc.  It comes down, really, to viewing all blood glucose, leading to any level of glycation, as harmful.  Basically through Rosedale-colored glasses we see circulating glucose as always harmful and to be kept minimal both in circulation and as cellular fuel as much as possible for optimal health.  He also advocates getting virtually no glucose from your diet, relying, instead on your liver for all glucose needs.   Glycation debilitates, deteriorates and ultimately kills you, and in Rosedale's opinion, there's no "safe" level of glucose and its insidious glycation that causes no harm.  

As such, Jimmy Moore published a rebuttal to the rebuttal of sorts by Rosedale in response to Paul Jaminet of Perfect Health Diet.  Now, I think it's probably known to most of my readers that Paul is perfectly capable of responding eloquently to this, and I most certainly do not want to be seen as stepping on any toes.  But I think Jimmy's massive data dump blog posts -- liberally speckled with various uncalled for responses from LC luminaries -- deserve as many dismantlings as bloggers out there are willing to put up.  Law of numbers and all that, and hopefully some of this nonsense can be dispelled before we layer even more myths on a list that is already too long in low carb circles.

And so, with my previous post, I decided to focus on this notion that there is no such thing as a safe starch because there's no such thing as a safe glucose level, and look at some of the references Rosedale provided to make the case that this is "clearly" so.
Read more »

Thursday, October 27, 2011

For the Patron Saint's Name of Frick

Long ago in my past there was a girl.

This girl was madly in love with me, and I say that not because I'm trying to brag, but because it's true. She was in love with me.

However, she could not reconcile her Christian beliefs with what I viewed to be a wonderful life.

My "wonderful life" I made quite clear was my future wife and I sitting on a beach, her in a french maid outfit, serving me a martini sans children gallivanting around Europe in a convertible eating at the finest restaurants and dancing in the Italian and French Rivieras.

Of course, she contested the french maid outfit thing and said and I quote, "And your views of the perfect marriage. Me just dressing up in a sultry lingerie outfit while you sit there and drink ALCOHOL! I can't think of anything more degrading."

Naturally it didn't go anywhere and she is currently engaged to what I am reliably informed to be a pansified beta male who is a "good church going Christian."

Now, lessons aside from the importance that women start to learn and acknowledge male sexuality for what it is, if they ever do decide they really want to have a serious chance at a happy marriage, the lesson to learn here is how to use Frederick's of Hollywood to your advantage men.

In short, Fredericks of Hollywood is an OUTSTANDING way to test whether a girl is worth dating or not. Understand women who like to dress up in lingerie, dress sexy, wear whatever outfits are SUPREMELY more confident in themselves and are more stable than women who view it as some kind of torture or servitude and whine and complain about it, OR use it as a means to extract resources out of you. The woman who just wants to dress up in lingerie for her own benefit, OUTSTANDING. The woman who wants to wear sexy lingerie to make you happy, OUTSTANDING EVEN MORE! You will find those women who are "pro-lingerie" are the ones you want to date (obviously), but not just for sexual reasons, but because of mental and maturity reasons.

There is however one problem with the Frederick's of Hollywood lingerie thing. You need to actually be reasonably sexy to pull it off.

Somebody tell the patrons of Frederick's of Hollywood that:

Glucose Assessments, Safe Starches and Interpretations

Before I serve up any more leptinade here at the Asylum, I wanted to share some broader thoughts on the analyses and implications of various measures of blood glucose levels as relates to normal and non-T1 diabetics.

The Common Measures:

1.  Fasting Blood Glucose (FBG):  Usually after at least a 10 hr or 12 hr fast.  The implication of this is that it is a measure of basal glucose levels.   Probably more than any other parameter, this one is subject to any manner of fluctuations and can vary 10-20 points mg/dL or more from just one aberration in eating the day before.  Also the degree of activity and length of time since awakening can dramatically alter FBG as can one's stress levels, medications (even an aspirin) and sleep patterns.  This is not going to make as much of a difference with an untreated frank diabetic as their overactive glucose production by the liver likely dominates.  But for the non-diabetic, it is easy to have a "bad day" exceeding prediabetic thresholds.  
Read more »

Time for Keynesians to Put Up Or Shut Up

Tracking Presidents Obama and Bush side by side and the economic growth experienced during each corresponding quarter an interesting picture is starting to form. Both inherited recessions (Obama more so than Bush), both got out of them, both experienced a marginal recovery, but right about now is where Bush got the "largest tax cut in history" passed through congress and Obama is going to flog the dead horse once again with his latest bribery/stimulus package to bail out idiot humanities majors from their student debts.

Regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum, Obama and the Keynesians have their work cut out of them. While marginally beating Bush in quarters 3-8, Bush starts to dominate in quarters 9-10. And if the graph were to be continued past where Obama is currently at, the growth doesn't slow down. It's now the 11th hour for Keynesianism.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Some Spiked Leptinade with My Science Krispies Please!

Well, Jimmy Moore is out with another installment of his crusade against "safe starches".  Yeah, I know, I know.  He's all about learning and helping people get to the truth, moving the debate forward constructively, and above all else protecting people from potentially bad advice such as that a major staple macronutrient for 99.99% of the human population for at least the past 10 millenia and more can actually be "safe".  Sorry, but I call things as I see them, baaayybee!   

It's another long piece, and I just can't stomach reading much of Jimmy's self-delusions anymore.  But I am interested in this whole notion that somehow we're all somewhere on a diabetic spectrum and our carb-induced post-prandial glucose spikes are lining our rat poison sprinkled paths to an early grave.  The post includes a long response by Dr. Ron Rosedale, pastor at the Church of the Not-Too-Late-in-the-Day Spiked Leptinade Drinkers.  

I'm going to address a few of the cited studies and Rosedale's basic claims.  (I'll be breaking this up in parts).  
The crux of the ‘safe starches’ argument is that no harm will come of this and it is, in fact, healthy. It is acknowledged that blood glucose will elevate after eating ‘safe starches’, but will generally stay below 140 mg/dl that Jaminet says is perfectly safe. Is it?? The science writing (below) is on the wall and the answer is…clearly no.
It is important to realize that this answer is no; there is no safe intake of sugar, nor a threshold level of blood sugar below which no harm will come, and I will shortly devote a fair amount of time to show this.

Now it would have been nice for Rosedale to include links to his science ... you know, just to make it a bit easier for the curious to go check out the studies in their entirety.  But by not doing so only those pesky blogger types like moi will likely bother. 
Read more »

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Another 13% to Go

Down that is.

For Minnesota's real housing prices.

Steve Driehaus Another BA Idiot

Steve Driehaus, a congressman who just lost his congressional seat is suing his opponent for "loss of standard of living."

Well Steve, when you're so damn stupid to get a BA and then an MA in "Public Administration" you, just like every one else, is shouting out to the world;

"I don't want to work a real job. I want to have a cushy government job or political career and tell other people what to do AND have other people pay for it."

You know no calculus.

You know no computer programming.

You know no accounting.

You know nothing.

You are a worthless human that has nothing to offer society or this economy.

And you know it. That's what's funny. You know that you can't support yourself, you can't be a real man, and so you must resort to suing people to get the money you need to support yourself. You could take your efforts and learn a skill or a trade and create something useful that society wants, but no, you're going to be an OWS spoiled brat and bitch and whine and hold your breathe till your face turns blue.

A question I ask my readers:

Is the "worthless degree" starting to show itself for the genuine threat that it is? And not only the genuine threat that it is, but how it can be used as an identifier as to who is not trustworthy to be in government, let alone any other position in the US bar a waiter at MacDonald's?

I Feel Bad for Ed Kohler

Let me explain to you an element of the Minneapolis population.

They are good people.

Hard working people.

But they wedded themselves in their late teens and early 20's to staying out of the suburbs and staying in the city.

Which is like saying, "I'm not getting on that preppy suburban life boat! I'm staying on this hip Titanic where it's "real."

This unfortunately puts good people like Ed and others I know in the cross-hairs between wanting the benefits of city culture and paying for what is essentially a corrupt municipal government.

Ed has been championing the fight against government financed stadiums in Minnesota for a while now. I usually mock the state as a whole because they keep voting to tax themselves more. But it's particularly ironic when a city that is known to have property taxes increase at over 500% in a decade is now going to help finance the new Viking's stadium.

If you Minneapolitans thought your property taxes were high before.


You my fine hipster friends, have no idea how much you're going to be forced to enjoy the decline!

Hope the Sebastian Joe's ice cream is worth it.

From My Alumni News ~ Weighty Research

The publication below landed in my mailbox last week.  I've watched a video lecture or two by Dr. Friedman, who discovered leptin, but did not know he was an RPI alum!
Rensselaer Alumni Magazine - Fall 2011 (pgs. 18-25)
There's nothing groundbreaking about the article, but I thought I'd share it here.  It does make a few things about leptin clear.
Read more »

Monday, October 24, 2011

John McClane for Halloween

So I was perusing the traffic and noticed I got a "#1" hit from the Google Search;

"John McClane for Halloween."

"That's odd," I thought.

Then I clicked on the link to find it and was starkly reminded of this vintage Cappy Cap post.

It still is amazing how no more than 20 years ago you could carry a fake REAL LOOKING gun to school AND have a fake cigarette. It's also amazing I ever got my bench press above 20 pounds.

Regardless, remember kids, it's OK to emulate strong, Alpha male role models this upcoming Halloween, though I'm afraid most of you don't even know what "Die Hard" is.

Commercial Milk: Full Fat vs. Non-Fat Nutrient Comparison

Just the Facts Ma'am from for Milk

Whole, 3.5%                             NonFat w/o Vit A



Yes, fat-borne vitamins and minerals are missing from the non-fortified non-fat milk.  But (1) low fat is not non-fat, (2) most low fat milk is fortified with vitamins A&D, and (3) The differences are small unless you're talking getting large percentages of daily calories in liquid milk form.   

Sunday, October 23, 2011

No They Can't Take That Away From Me

Education, for all of its bubbly goodness, does have one advantage.

It isn't taxable and it cannot be confiscated.

I've often thought about this in that while I don't trust 401k plans or IRA's until there's a balanced budget, I try to find other investments that are not "confiscatable" or "taxable." Consumer items like bullets, booze, even cars are starting to provide more of a store of value than an investment, but education is also one of these "investments" that not only will maintain its value, but unless you convert it into earnings, it cannot be confiscated or repossessed. This allows you to mete out however much labor you wish to maintain however low a tax rate you want.

A point made more clearly here (replete with charty goodness).

Now "Logic" Is Abuse

I like how natural human behaviors when agitated (yelling, loud voice, cursing, etc.) is also considered abuse.

But yes, "using logic" on women is abuse. And just when you thought feminism has jumped the shark.

Worthless Degrees

You've been had.

And not only have you been had.

You got screwed out of $50,000 in tuition on top of it.

So what do you do now? Can't find a job. Have to live at home?

Well how about you retrace your steps and re-evaluate what you were told in your youth about "the great career" you would have. Or how you'd "go on to do great things!"

Or (and here's where you really have to open your mind), maybe accept it was an orchestrated scam that separated you from your money and all those teachers and professors really didn't give a damn about you and just wanted your money?

I can't convince you, but maybe this will.

Paperback version
as well for those without Kindles.

A Potentially Useful Weight Loss Tool?

Hat-tip to Sanjeev for finding this.  It might be helpful for those trying to lose weight in a more structured manner.    

Any time I see Hall's name, I can't help but be reminded of my good buddy Taubes.  He is one of those "smart young biophysicists at NIH" who kept trying to set Gary Taubes straight.  See Conservation of Energy -- Biophysicist Style , Gary Taubes Names Names.  In my opinion, Taubes deliberately misleads his audience on the works of Kevin Hall (and Carson Chow) when he claims that these two still agreed with him that insulin so fundamentally regulates fat mass the whole G3P thing is ultimately irrelevant.  For starters, the "can't store fat w/o carbs" used to be a key part of his hypothesis.  For another, Taubes is left with scrambled eggs all over his face (cue Frasier episode ending theme) about the G3P issue.  This is something when supposedly answering his critics, Taubes preferred ad hominem attacks on yours truly (I'm so confused!) than to address his Newsholme & Start problem.  

Taubes insists it's still all about the insulin though, and others will have you think you're at the mercy of your cortisol, leptin, thyroid, etc.  A problem here is that no doubt there are those who are legitimately genetically predisposed towards obesity in the mix of those afflicted in the course of this epidemic.  For these relatively few, their hormonal milieu is such that their basal metabolisms are unusually slow and their substrate oxidation rates and preferences dysfunctional, etc.   This can lead to increased energy intake due to an insatiable appetite or unconquerable fatigue. In this vein, the whole Eat Less Move More, ELMM, prescription may seem cruel (and ineffective) for this small proportion of the obese.  But, it does not invalidate the "tautology". And, frankly, it does not speak to those who have become obese (including myself) as part of the wave of the epidemic.   

I note that nowhere in this program is there a place to enter one's hormonal status.  This model is based on predictions obviously calculated from "average" data.  Do hormones come into play?  Sure.  And metabolic adaptations (reductions in RMR) are highly variable, but no doubt the simulator takes observed averages of this into account as well.   Still, basically *if* one can consistently control intake and deliberately maintain a degree of activity, the result will be reduced weight for good.  

Saturday, October 22, 2011

A Swift Belt of Adulthood

But now, that would go and hurt their feeeeeeeeelinnnnnnngs.

High Protein Diet Induces Sustained Reduction in Ad Libitum Intake Despite Diurnal Leptin Compensation

I've written several hundred posts on this blog.  There are some, especially from early on in 2010, that I would really like my readers to see, and I sure don't expect folks who are just finding this blog now to go back and read everything to find some that I feel are key.  I refer to this study quite often because I think for those finding themselves gaining a little bit each year and not wanting to hop on some "diet rollercoaster", there is merit to -- especially for us women -- upping the protein as a percentage in the diet.  So when I was compiling graphics for the 24 Hour Leptin Profiles post, this study was the first I knew to go to for a graphic.  So, I'm bumping the original, adding a little emphasis to the text but not changing it, and I'll add some commentary on leptin at the end.  

Original Publish Date:  4/30/10

Read more »

Friday, October 21, 2011

Welcome to the Party Pal!

I love it when people, on their own, through logic, thought, and studying come to the same conclusions I did, albeit years ago. It not only boslters our ranks, but confirms that there is a logic and reason behind the thought for separate people to come to the same realization or conclusion.

Today's newest member to the (very important) Battle Against Worthless Degrees is Gucci.

And we welcome him to the fight with our honorary John McClane salute!

I figured I'd post this as a reminder where you can send the OWS kiddies when they complain about their degrees:

Candidate for Future Rationalization Hamster


I wonder how powerful her rationalization hamster will be 20 years from now trying to rationalize;

1. Forfeiting a good, paid-for life from a working husband
2. The poverty she will no doubt inflict upon herself for the rest of her life
3. What I will predict will be her children disowning her
4. How giving up Steady Joe for a 2 week trist with Kashmir Ala Fabio

And you people all wonder why men "go ghost" or stay in Peter Pan mode forever.

Google Giggles

Another funny from the Blogger stats page ... A phrase that landed someone here :

baby white bunny yawn

I've spent the day unclogging my kitchen sink drain that had the audacity to back up into my dishwasher and spill over into my basement yesterday!  So please bear with me if this didn't tickle your funny bone like it did mine!

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Wrong to Fire Lisa Simeone

Lisa, is no doubt a communist leftist, with a spoiled upbringing and a degree that when she declared it she essentially shouted out to the world:

"I don't want to work a real job and I want other people to pay for a career where I can pretend I'm a self-supporting and independent adult."

However, I do have to go to bat for her in that we once again have aging administrators, managers and leaders of this country thinking somehow they have the right to discipline or fire somebody for having political views. The reason I disagree with this is two-fold;

1. Obviously people should have the freedom of speech AND that includes being able to partake in the public debate on whatever and (unless it somehow directly affect their employers) they should not have to fear about losing their jobs or being disciplined for exercising that right.

2. Not necessarily a "disagreement" on my part, but more of a "wake up and smell the facts Jack." Older people have to realize the internet and the technological ability to put everything and anything up there is the PRIMARY MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AND SOCIALIZING FOR THE NEWEST GENERATION. Disciplining or firing employees because they have something on public record that an employer may disagree with politicially is not just wrong, but it is akin to eavesdropping on a conversation you were NOT invited to.

One could perhaps draw an ironic parallel here. Just as the common "feminists are standing there asking where all the good men have gone, while the blood of the men they slew is still moist on their swords" analogy, you could also say, "retirees, AARP members and older people are standing there, asking where all the taxpayer money is to pay for their social security, nursing homes and medicare, while the blood of the careers of millions of youth they slew is still moist on their swords."

Keep throwing those hurdles up for those young people trying to start a career or land a job. Oh, and also mislead them about education and make sure they indebt themselves for a worthless degree so they're off on the wrong foot. OH! And make doubly sure to crush any innovation with the constant fear that if they rock the boat or question the status quo, they'll get fired. Because remember, "the children are the future."

Hormonal & Appetite Response to Macronutrients

I came across this paper recently and thought I would share it here on my blog.  I think it is rather eye-opening as to the postprandial hormone responses to meals rich in each of the macros (and alcohol) and the ultimate effect on satiety.

This study was done in normal weight healthy humans (9 women, 10 men) in their early 20's.  They fed them a meal containing the same calories, but high in one of each nutrient.  Each subject was given each diet with a 4-8 week "washout" in between, a standard diet the day before each test day, and subjects fasted 10 hour overnight before testing.   Hormones, etc. were measured for 5 hours postprandially, and then were provided an ad libitum meal.   Here are the diets tested:

Read more »

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

The Minneapolis Business College

Hey, don't take my word for it.

Read the reviews.

When the Real World Crushes the Hippies

I'll say it again for the cheap seats;

EVERY GENERATION has its Volcker Recession. ie-when the little kiddies who were spoon fed flowers and puppies and unicorns and socialism all of the sudden are adults and have to grow up. Oh sure they go through a temper tantrum, protesting Vietnam or Wall Street or whatever bogeyman is to blame for their laziness and sloth at the time, but in the end it basically boils down to the real world hitting them upside the head and telling them they have to produce or sink.

What we have today is largely my generation and "Gen Y' throwing their tantrum. When they either have kids, realize whining doesn't pay the bills, etc. etc., or even go so far as to have an epiphany about economics, they may have a Reagan Revolution that ends this current Great Recession just like the real Ronald Reagan ended the Volcker Recession.

Until that happens you can expect there to be a gap between what my generation is capable of and what we actually produce, just like the Baby Boomers back in the 70's;

I put it in terms of percentages because the above data was not in real terms, this shows the difference between real and potential more clearly;


Your Captain of course knows the value of a good chart and will let the picture speak for itself. He also did the added benefit coloring the 15% INCREASE in red so you can see it.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Escape LA

Net migration out of LA

I wish they have a state-wide chart to see how many producers (er...sorry) "people" are leaving the "golden state."

regardless, platinum hat tip to the boys who pulled together that chart.

Remember, the Captain is pro-"Charty Goodness."

Those NEFA are Pesky Things!

NEFA = Non-Esterified Fatty Acids aka Free Fatty Acids (FFA)
(By the way, I've just always preferred the NEFA acronym because in my head it sounds out more nicely than "ef ef ay" -- and for whatever reason, I sound it out "knee fah", though a reader once wondered about "neh fay".  I don't know there's a correct pronunciation for acronyms like this!)
On a hypothetical Metabolic SAT test NEFA are to lipids what glucose is to carbohydrates and amino acids are to proteins.  These are the forms of the three macronutrient classes that are absorbed/transported into and out of cells and circulation and the forms that enter into the energy-producing pathways.  By contrast, lipids are stored as triglycerides (aka triacyl glycerols, TAG), while carbs are stored in rather more limited quantities as glycogen, and there exists essentially no true storage depot for protein in excess of "tissue maintenance" needs.

Read more »

It Never Gets Old

Buddy of mine sent this to me. He knows Voyager Bank. He also knows that I approached them several years ago to pitch my independent underwriting services to them. What's great about my particular pitch to this bank however was that day I was pretty tired of hitting pavement to no avail so I was in a foul mood. So when I walked in, I had their financials printed off when (I think) they lost $7 million in one quarter. My sales pitch to the middle aged man was not one of honey, it was one of vinegar;

"If you had me, you guys wouldn't have lost $7 million in this one quarter."

He was visibly pissed off. He face was red, he refused to shake my hand. No doubt he was partly to blame for some of those losses.

It made the trip worth while.

Regardless, I improved the chart to remind the Board of Directors of Voyager Bank about when I paid their Eden Prairie office a visit.

Oh, and you should see the office. Marble, fancy furniture, a big screen TV with CNBC going on it and oak all over the place.

You see kids, that's the sign of a successful bank. When they spend more on leasehold improvements than they do hiring talent. As long as they have a flat panel TV going with Bloomberg, then you know your money won't need to be reimbursed by the taxpayer!

And hey, you crazy cats over at Voyager, you enjoy that decline!

Processed Dairy and Low-Fat Dairy-Phobia

I brought this topic up once or twice on Jimmy's forum back in the day.  Basically, aside from whole raw milk fresh from the cow, all dairy meets the definition of processed food.   This was usually met with absurd comparisons claiming I was equating butter with Crisco, or real cheese with Cheetos and Cheese Whiz.   Let's please put that strawman to bed right now.  I am not equating dairy products such as cream, cheese, yogurt, and butter with InsertNameBrandHere processed cheese food slices.  But make no mistake about it, you let raw milk sit around and it does not become any of the aforementioned without *some* processing.

Jimmy is apparently learning "life lessons" from TV these days and thinks Angie Harmon is clueless for promoting milk drinking in children, low fat of course.  He misrepresents what she says, but it's useless to try to correct someone Livin la Vida Low Clue.  (Harmon cites milk as one way to get essential nutrients, not the only way.)

Read more »

Monday, October 17, 2011

The Captain Protects the Royal Saudi Family Story - Part I

The more I thought about this post, the more I realized it is a very all-encompassing post, so I will try to be brief and make my observations very bullet pointy, however, it will ultimately be broken into a three part series.

I have a friend.

He owns a security company. It does everything from boring old desk security to prisoner transport.

Regardless of the gig, the reason his security firm is unique is because you typically need to be armed and you can't be of the usual loser "security guard/mall cop" variety. You need to have your head out of your ass and know just because you carry a gun does NOT make you a cop. Given my background working in the past for security (over 18 years ago!) he would occasionally call me with gigs knowing I wasn't some hot headed kid that just wanted to carry a gun when he had a gig or two open up.

So I get a call from him one night and he says, "What do you have going on this weekend?"

"Not much, why?"

"I need armed security for one of the Saudi royal princes down in Rochester when he visits the Mayo Clinic."

Kind of thrown back, I said, "What!???? Saudi Prince??? Shouldn't the Secret Service or CIA or some federal authority be involved?"

"No, unless their intelligence believes there's a real threat, they apparently outsource to private contractors."

Again, my curiosity, not to mention common sense knowledge got to me and I asked;

"Yeah, but, don't they have their own guys? Why you? Why us? I mean, no offense, but you're just some small time security operator."

And then I get the real skinny.

"Well, you see, there are 36 princes in the Saudi royal family, and this one is more or less on the bottom of the totem pole. He has no political significance and is more or less the loser of the Saudi royal family. But he has money and he's willing to pay."

Now given the WONDERFUL economy at the time brought about by our beloved leader (not to mention I do actually enjoy the occasional work with a little risk) I agreed to pick up whatever shifts were available. He tells me to bring "everything I got" in terms of armament, ammo and armor.

"Why?!??! I thought there was no threat!"

"You never know."

So somewhat concerned I pack up my 1990 Chevy Caprice Classic with an AR 15, a scoped rifle, a 9MM pistol and a 357 revolver with enough ammo to last the decade.

I arrive at the Kahler MOTEL (not the HOTEL, there IS A DIFFERENCE), meet with his contact and we are directed to a wing of the MOTEL that is dedicated to the security operations to protect the lowest-totem-pole member of the Saudi royal family.

Of course, he's not there yet. He has yet to fly in. Which means we get to transport his royal highness from the Rochester Regional Airport to the Mayo Clinic.

Now understand that I (in my foolish, American upbringing) thought "OK, one guy. Mayo Clinic. We might send a limo and there will be an SUV trailing the limo while the limo itself is packed with armed guards.

Oh no.

These guys travel in style.

Even the lowest-on-the-totem-pole-losers.

Apparently this prince (who ranks 36th on the 36 Saudi princes) needs an entourage of (are you ready????)


His WIVES (plural) his children, his support staff, his "armed guards" his consultants, his cousins, his neighbors, his relatives, his associates.

120 freaking people to transport ONE MAN TO THE MAYO CLINIC.

Let me explain this again,

One man needs the medical attention.

But he needs to haul 119 people with him.

I'm sure a convoy 3 miles long won't bring attention.

The transport was a nightmare and on a scale you couldn't imagine.

First, of the 120 people in his entourage, at least 50 needed their own personal vehicles. I was not made aware of this until we arrived at the airport and saw 50 separate limos. I asked "WHY THE FREAKING LIMOS???? Don't they just need ONE!!?"

No, all of the family members (which numbers many when you have 6 wives) need their own limo.

The remaining 70 people were support staff and were to be herded into buses.

So when me and the security team show up at the Rochester Regional Airport at 3AM it's a MILE LONG CARAVAN to pick up his royal highness and support staff (again, what terrorist genius could possible identify this as a possible target!?)




Now, you have to understand this is not the peak of hubris or arrogance at this time.

No, it gets much worse.

For I started to notice that they actually did have 50 limos pulling up. And these limos were not your average limos. They were top of the line Mercedes limos. 2010 models. NOTHING OLDER. WHY?

because his royal highness had ORDERED ALL LIMOS IN THE THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF MERCEDES MAKE AND NO LATER MODELS THAN 2010 BE SENT THERE TO PICK HIM AND HIS ENTOURAGE UP. None of which were in Minnesota. To amass this hoity toity caravan, they had to pull across from the entire US.

These poor limo drivers (most of which were Somali or Ethiopian drivers) had HAULED ASS ACROSS ALL POINTS IN THE COUNTRY TO GET THERE ON TIME TO PICK THIS ASSHOLE UP. Plates were from New York, New Jersey, Florida, California, Nevada and only the states at the time that had vehicles such as this to even provide to his royal eminence. These poor guys drove over 2,000 miles to get to "Rochester Minnesota" to pick up this schmoe.

The insanity did not stop there.

Apparently there was a problem with our security detail. There were too many men.

HOW, OH HOW, were they to transport all the women without our evil American lusting male eyes on their homely dressed and homely-looking women? We could NOT have any males riding in the same cars with the females according to the "holy and wise word of Islam."

Of course Mohammed in his infinite wisdom back in 650 AD didn't fathom the possibility of Minnesota women who are so brainwashed to be so commie liberal leftist that they hate guns. So at the time we had no more than MAYBE 5 women with carry conceal permits to handle over 60 Saudi females.

Let the "musical chairs game begin!"

Their advisor started telling us to move some men from one car to the other. No, a man cannot be in that limo because princess #483 would be in that car. Wait?? We don't have enough women? Take your uglier men and move them to those cars with the aging Saudi females. Perhaps they won't abuse the women like we were told they would because of their America biological directives. Do you have any effeminate men that would be disinclined to approach our females? Put them in the car, but in order rank from least effeminate, with the least related females of our quite-extended Saudi royal family.

Damn Cray super computer couldn't figure it out.

45 minutes of moving around based on archaic, obsolete, head up its ass, Islamic doctrine, that just didn't jive with security realities, I was starting to think I might just shoot the damn Saudi prince myself. Apparently we played musical chairs enough that our advisor was satisfied we would not violate the laws of Allah (even though security was completely compromised).

Sure enough, the "prince" lands and chaos ensues.

His "security general" turns out to be his cousin who was a worthless idiot that only got the position because he marginally spoke English. He can't tell us anything.

The caravan of limos and buses circle the "Saudi Air" plane that just landed.

We can't make heads and tails of who is who because the Saudi youth disembarking the plane are all wearing crappy American clothes to emulate the Amber Crombie and Fitchites in this country.

And all the time we (namely 80% of the American security force) are NOT TO LOOK AT THE SAUDI WOMEN BECAUSE IT MIGHT INSULT PEOPLE!

The poor sleep depraved limo drivers tried their best and after about an hour of chaos, we finally got everybody loaded into their cars and headed to the Kahler Hotel.

You would think this would be the worst of it, but it doesn't get any better. Matter of fact, it only gets worse.

But the reason I'm writing this story is not to complain about my experience, but rather because in the end there is going to be a vital AND VERY IMPORTANT economics lesson that even I was surprised to learn.

And beyond that there is a fringe benefit lesson that our regular Saudi national friends (who must suffer under these people) could benefit from.

AND EVEN BEYOND THAT there are some VITAL security lessons the CIA, FBI, and Saudi protective forces MAY BE SLIGHTLY INTERESTED IN, because frankly, the whole damn Mayo Clinic is a soft and super cake easy target for any slightly competent terrorists to take out royalty from ANY middle east country.

Naturally, therefore, we can all benefit my experience, and you will all tune in for part II of the Captain's wonderful exploits with protecting the Saudi Royal family!

Sunday, October 16, 2011

What are Dysfunctional Mitochondria?

The confusion with this whole mitochondria-based theory of obesity continues.  I'm not sure what's driving this other than a desperate clinging to the notion that one's obesity can not be the result of one's overeating and/or sedentary lifestyle, however they came about.  The more I read on this the more bizarre it all seems, but it comes down, once again, this notion that "fat burning" is related to fat accumulation or loss.  This is nonsense.  If your body requires 2000 cal/day to meet energy needs, it's pretty much all the same to your body where it gets that energy from.  And it will always be getting its energy from some mix of substrates:  glucose, fatty acids, and yes, amino acids and ketones.  Nobody disputes that energy is partitioned and substrates are oxidized in different manners largely at the direction of hormones ... insulin and leptin having well characterized roles in this regard.

Read more »

Mitochondrial Trial Balloons

A trial balloon, for those who do not claim English as their primary language, is a term relating to "floating an idea", usually in hypothetical context, to gauge reaction.  The notion being one of plausible deniability (I never really meant to say/do that).  This is the only explanation I can come up with for why Peter/Hyperlipid is going down this whole mitochondrial dysfunction path of his.  In his most recent post, he floats the following (I've numbered the steps):
  1. Mitochondrial dysfunction leads to cytosolic fatty acid derivative accumulation.
  2. This leads to chronic hyperinsulinaemia via insulin resistance.
  3. This leads to adipocyte distension.
  4. This leads to adipocyte insulin resistance.
  5. This leads to increased plasma FFA delivery at a given level of insulin.
  6. This leads to increased cytosolic FFA derivatives.
  7. This leads to mitochondrial ATP production being normalised.
He concludes:  "The cost is increased insulin resistance. Oh, and the MECHANISM for improved ATP production is OBESITY. Call this a cost if you wish."

If I understand the premise, Peter is trying to support the notion that IR is the body's reaction to excessive fat accumulation to protect against even more fat accumulation.  This is inconsistent with the fact that numerous overweight and obese become insulin resistant yet continue to pile on the pounds for years, but it sounds appealing so let's go with it.  Do you see the problem with the above mechanism, however?  It's in the bolded statements.  If increased FFA derivatives normalized mitochondrial ATP production in step 7, why doesn't the backlog of same in dysfunctional mitochondria not stimulate their own normalization back in step 1?   Why would flooding mitochondria with more cytosolic FFA derivatives cause normalization.  This makes no sense on its face.

Trial balloon floated.
Keep trying?? 

Your Weekend Read

An outstanding piece once again by Dalrock.

You must understand that to enjoy the decline via schadenfreude, you must treat these events like sunsets. Sit back, pour yourself a drink, light up a cigar and enjoy.

Google Giggles

Regular readers are probably aware that every now and then I find silly Google search key words  that land folks here and highlight them in these posts.  Today's fun was:

Obi Sane

This just tickled my funny bone because of my Star Wars inspired posts on ASP.

24 Hour Leptin Profiles ... Sleep Off Your Spiked Leptinade?

In Science Krispies ... Spiked Pink Leptinade Anyone?,  I took on Dr. Ron Rosedale's claim  that "glucose spikes leptin".  The study I highlighted looked at 9-hour insulin and leptin profiles holding protein constant and essentially comparing a near-zero carb meal to a near-zero fat meal and fasting.  I've copied that graphic to this post:
A&B = women, C&D = men

OK, so we do see that the HC meal results in slightly elevated leptin, more pronounced in women, delayed about 4-5 hours after the meal vs. HF or fasting.  Over on the Perfect Health Diet blog (thanks for the shout out Paul!) , Paul Jaminet wrote:  
CarbSane partially confirms Dr. Ron Rosedale: eating carbs does raise leptin levels compared to eating fat, but it is a mild rise over an extended period of time, not a “spike.”
Read more »

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Bad Economist! Bad Bad BAD Economist!

"Yahoo Finance's economics editor."
Epic Fail on par with David Lereah.

You just have to love pseudo intellectual web sites like Yahoo News!

Fat Tissue Regulation ~ Part V: C5L2KO - Meet the New Droid, Kinda Like the Old Droid

It seems that our friend C3KO city mouse has found his country mouse cousin:  C5L2KO.  In keeping with the Star Wars saga, albeit stretching things a bit with this one, I've found the depiction of our new friend!

To catch up, C3KO is a knockout mouse lacking the ability to produce Complement 3 (C3) protein which is a precursor for production of acylation stimulating protein, ASP.  Therefore C3KO is ASP deficient.  The result of this genetic mutation is to produce a mouse that is resistant to obesity, and essentially an ASP equivalent of insulin deficiency -- Type 1 diabetes.  If you've not read about C3KO, here are the links to the two relevant installments in this series:
  Fat Tissue Regulation ~ Part II: Meet C3KO
  Fat Tissue Regulation ~ Part III: C3KO Meets Obi No Leptinobi

It is known that fat tissue expresses insulin receptors.  Indeed this has been exploited to more clearly elucidate the roll of insulin acting on fat tissue in the form of insulin receptor knockout mice, the FIRKO mouse (F = fat specific, IR = insulin receptor) to be exact.  As it is less well characterized, ASP action on fat tissue is not universally well known or acknowledged.  Indeed ASP is pretty much a TWICHOOB's worst nightmare.  It seems silly to me to even be having this part of the discussion because it is absolutely not controversial that ASP plays a critical role in clearing dietary fat into the adipose tissue.  Or, we are to believe the fat tissue itself manufactures such a hormone for no purpose related controlling its own function.  Huh?  In any case, one piece of the puzzle that was missing was how ASP works and the absence of an identified receptor.  This piece of the puzzle was found in 2005 by Katherine Cianflone's group.
Read more »

Friday, October 14, 2011

99% Morons

Sadly, I wanted to mock these people, but they do such a good job of it themselves.

These people really are that stupid that even the mockery I set forth below cannot do justice because they ACTUALLY BELIEVE taking 7 years and going $150,000 into debt to get a worthless degree is something that other people should pay for.

Anyway, here's my attempt to be as stupid as the Flea party. Please feel free to e-mail your self-pitying sobfest of Occupy Wallstreet stupidity to captcapitalism -at) yahoo dut com;

PS- IT chicks are hot.

Update - New addition

Update New addition. Can't tell if it's real or fake. The sad thing is these children are so brainwashed, even if you tried to spoof it, it could be just as real.

Science Krispies ... Spiked Pink Leptinade Anyone?

Leptin seems a very confusing hormone to pin down.  It's still relatively new, so despite there being a ton of research already, we're still in that era of lots of conflicting research and such.   As discussed previously, I think this makes leptin ripe for serving up oversized bowls of Science Krispies.  A lot of confusion also exists as regards the relationship between leptin and insulin.  Some say they work in concert, some say leptin rules insulin, and others say insulin rules leptin.  Insulin production is distinctly different in the basal and postprandial states.  How about leptin?  

Well if we believe Dr. Ron Rosedale (doing his best Joel Osteen impersonation shown at right, from over on his  Facebook page), it's leptin that rules the roost.  Rosedale posted a few advance installments of his response to the whole "safe starches" query from Jimmy Moore.  Here's one:

It appears to me that the paleo community has now been divided between a faction that backs Taubes who believes that insulin is supreme and the major cause of obesity, and a faction backed by Harris, Jaminet, Guyenet, and others who believe that insulin and glucose is less important and that leptin is more important in obesity and perhaps other diseases, and therefore eating so-called “safe starches” is OK if not even desirable. The major issue and source of confusion that I see, is that they are both half right and half wrong, but opposite halves. Taubes is right that sugars, starch, and elevated insulin are a major source of disease if not obesity that I heralded 2 decades ago, but not fully correct as to why. The Jaminet, Guyenet, Kruse, and Harris** group is right that leptin likely supersedes insulin as far as importance in obesity, diabetes, and other chronic diseases, at least in humans. However, they (not including Kruse) are quite wrong in believing that it is therefore okay to consume “safe starches” that will largely digest into glucose. Though true that leptin, more than insulin, controls fat storage and perhaps even blood glucose levels, this does not mean that raising insulin levels via glucose is unimportant. It still plays a huge role in the control of genetic expression influencing the aging and chronic disease phenotype. 
Read more »

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Escape Minnesota

In Minnesota you do NOT have to show ID to vote. You merely have to have somebody vouch for you that you are allowed to vote. Naturally when legislation is tendered to make people show ID when they vote, the left immediately rallies against it with the lamest of excuses knowing full well they rely on illegal voters to win elections. It is therefore no shock this has happened.

Hey, What Makes You Canucks So Special?

Sent to me from Craig Kamman, realtor extraordinaire.
In short Canadian housing permits. My question to my Canadian friends is how did these permits recover so quickly?

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Do carb burners live longer?

I've been looking at respiratory quotient a bit after my post series on the Ranneries paper on metabolisms of the formerly obese (Part IPart II, Part III) and found some interesting things.  One is this paper:

Resting Metabolic Rate and Respiratory Quotient in Human Longevity

In this study they compared three groups of women, I've included the table of various parameters below:
Read more »

What Would We Do Without the Harvard Business Review

Honest to the Patron Saint's Name of Frick.

I have a buddy whose brother went to Harvard to get his MBA. This is the same guy who said that he didn't learn a damn thing, but knew full well he was going there for connections. Providing further evidence that the Ivy League has essentially jumped the shark and no longer produces innovators or industrialists or entreprenuers, but instead has just become a rent-seekers club, he sent me this.

You just have to be kidding me.


Oh, DON'T make decisions that waste time?!

Oh, I'm sorry, I went to the Carlson School of Management where they told us to make decisions that DID waste time. But then again, that's why Harvard is so much better than your average Big 10 University.

You see kids, this is one of those important differences that will set you apart from the rest of the morons when you go to a Yale or a Harvard and not one of those braindead "public" universities. You get pearls of wisdom like;

"Don't make decisions that waste time."

You aren't going to get that at the U of Florida or Penn State.

No, you have to go to the Ivy League to get that wisdom.

Does ANYBODY in the non-corrupted private sector hire these morons any more? And if so, why????

Mitochondrial Function and Dysfunction

Below is a wonderfully simple depiction of the mitochondria that depicts one of the points I've been trying to raise above the current internet noise about mitochondrial dysfunction.  That being that when it comes to carb burning (glycolysis) the initial steps occur outside the mitos while fat burning (ß-oxidation) occurs within the mitos.  However both create Acetyl-CoA, and from that point on, metabolism and energy production is the same.  

Read more »

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Science Krispies ... with a Tall Glass of Leptinade!

Yes folks, Science Krispies are best enjoyed with tall cold glass of Leptinade, stevia sweetened of course.

Last week over at PaleoHacks, I've gotten to know a bit more about someone I'd heard much about on Jimmy's forum, but never really bothered to look into.  Dr. Ron Rosedale, author of The Rosedale Diet.  I have a post in mind on some of his claims but we'll see if it floats my boat to post it up.  It was an odd coincidence that I was also skim reading through the copy of Nora Gedgaudas' PBPM book a friend bequeathed to me, and came across the section on leptin resistance, complete with referencing and a quotation from none other than Rosedale.   And when at PaleoHacks, there's no avoiding "The Quilt", aka Jack Kruse Neurosurgeon!  (Whenever I see his name I imagine some movie announcer booming Neurosurgeon! in action hero voice, with Jack as Dr. Evil flipping epigenetic switches on Mini-Me).  Jack's stance on everything seems to boil down to either you're leptin resistant or you're sensitive, and all manner of things can be explained with this simple wave of the hand.  Can't lose weight?  Resistant.  Eat 50g protein within an hour of waking and in a few weeks you'll be able to walk on water eating 10,000 calories a day of dark chocolate covered macadamia nuts while losing weight, all thanks to having reclaimed your leptin sensitivity!  It's a wonderful philosophy to have because it explains everything!
Read more »

Monday, October 10, 2011

Not too shabby for a couple with deranged metabolisms

Gotta brag a bit.  On Saturday afternoon my husband got the bug to rent a log splitter so we could split the remaining wood from last year.  The hitch sleeve was rusty so it took a bit to even get the hitch on, but by 3pm we had the splitter and went to town.  Had built a small pile in a couple hours then showered and went out with friends.  I thought for sure I'd be sore yesterday but not really.  We gave the neighbors a break and didn't start until noon (plus we didn't want a visit from the police!).  We worked for about 5 hours (not constantly).   

The big pile ... around 7' high x 12 x 10'
Read more »

Warning: This food contains starch. Consult your doctor before consuming!

In the comments section of Jimmy's "safe starch" post, Jimmy had this to say:
I'm still concerned with the use of the phrase "safe starches" because people will think that is universally true--and it may not be. Perhaps calling them "potentially safe starches" with the caveat that you should be checked by a physician to determine if they are safe for you or not would be better.
Has low carb dogma really come to this?  Where a couple of scientists with some health issues work them out with what appears to me to be exhaustive research, share their results with others in the form of a book, and are basically being accused of possibly harming people by suggesting that some starches are safe?
Read more »

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Herman Cain the Real Conservative

Anybody who is intellectually honest knows the real racists in the country are liberals and leftists. And I don't say that to be accusatory or a partisan. I say it because it's true. The reason why is liberals and leftists are obsessed with race. You have to fill out EEOC forms, declare what race you are, when reporters interview people "race" is always a factor.

Race race race race.

Whether they are NEGATIVELY or POSITIVELY disrciminating does not matter, the definition of racism is treating somebody differently (for better or worse) based on their race.

So when polls like this one come out, it once again shines a bright light as to who the real racists are (not to mention hypocrites).

The reason Herman Cain is very popular amongst conservatives is not the color of his skin. It's his character. He is the only non-politician out there. He is a real man who has had a real job. He didn't inherit the world like Romney. And he speaks bluntly and truthfully and doesn't sugar coat anything. He is honest. And it is because of these things he SHOULD be the Republican nominee.

He just happens to be black.

And it doesn't phase one conservative.

It does however show who is judging people by the color of their skin and not their character. It also belies the hypocrisy of anyone using the insepid term "Uncle Tom."

Some thoughts on Diet and Cancer

I am not a doctor.  I've never had cancer, though I've had numerous close to me diagnosed and have actually studied it quite a bit.   So with Jimmy's Crap on the Jaminets fest going on over on his blog, lots of opinions on diet for cancer, ketogenic specifically, and Paul's "dangerous" recommendations are being bantied about.  I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Shou-Ching Jaminet is a cancer researcher!   But I guess she's only responsible for Paul's white rice consumption, and has no bearing on Paul-the-astrophysicist's understanding of molecular biology.   Yeauh right.  :-(
Read more »

Saturday, October 8, 2011

We Will Be the 99%

So Grerp sent me this.

I am now accepting your own "99%" photos and we shall post them here. Make sure they are as ludicrous as the real ones...which will be hard.

You can send them to CAPTcapitalism (at) yahoo dot com

Projected Marriage Rate

Them is pretty strong correlation coefficients. Though I believe the trend is linear and not exponential.


Friday, October 7, 2011

The next time I marinate or brine ...

... a piece of meat, I'm going to do it in 2 hour dips, 3X per day,  into diluted brine or marinade.  Also, I'll be rinsing in between my dips.  Normally I marinate or brine for upwards of 12 hours in fairly concentrated mixtures or solutions.  Still, I am convinced this will produce the same texture or flavor penetration.

Do you think this will work?   
Read more »

Unemployed Unicorns

Once again, going to point out that until the housing market recovers, you can expect unemployment to stay high.

By the way, how's that 9.1% unemployment treating you democrat-voting youth?

Maybe you can go and "occupy" something. That'll turn the economy around!

On a related note "after receiving a masters degree in literature."

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Recession Medicine

This song makes it almost impossible to NOT enjoy the decline. And I'm not a fan of country;

Fat Metabolism in Formerly Obese Women: Part III Energy Expended During Exercise

Continuing on from Part I and Part II:

Fat metabolism in formerly obese women
Ranneries,  AJP-Endo, 1998.

Overview:  An impaired fat oxidation has been implicated to play a role in the etiology of obesity, but it is unclear to what extent impaired fat mobilization from adipose tissue or oxidation of fat is responsible. The present study aimed to examine fat mobilization from adipose tissue and whole body fat oxidation stimulated by exercise in seven formerly obese women (FO) and eight matched controls (C).  They measured:
  • Lipolysis in the periumbilical subcutaneous adipose tissue 
  • Whole body energy expenditure (EE) 
  • Substrate oxidation rates (glucose, fatty acids) 
  • glycerol release (fat mobilization)
Read more »

Heteronormative Whiteprivilage Unicorncentricism

When Sinfest starts mocking it, you know these things have failed to permeate into the mainstream and everybody realizes it for what it is.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Old Man Learns to Enjoy the Decline

"Old man" meaning a guy who is maybe 45. Though his post spoke to me and it confirms once again you should be enjoying the decline.

My good friend Marty with a good post.

And I don't think these ladies majored in Anthropology.

Hey, it's property tax time in Minnesota! I wonder if they're going to go up?!

Me is Mine, Your is Yours

Fat Metabolism in Formerly Obese Women: Part II Resting Substrate Usage

Continuing the discussion from Part I

Fat metabolism in formerly obese women
Ranneries,  AJP-Endo, 1998.

In this part I wish to address the respiratory quotient, RQ.  The RQ is a measure of the relative amounts of energy derived from glucose oxidation vs. fatty acid oxidation.  

To recap the subjects of this study, when obese, the FO (formerly obese) subjects had body weights in excess of 120% normal weight.  They followed a conventional CRD to lose the weight and were weight stable for at least 2 months at 110% normal weight.  So weight losses were in excess of 10% bw and ranged from 15-20kg (33-44 lbs).    The FO & C groups were well matched as seen in Table 1.
Read more »

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

You Started It, But We'll Finish It

Warning - this is a long one, so pour yourself a martini or a Rupmie.

As I age I get more and more of this thing called "hindsight."

Commensurate with this I also gain confidence when I look back and realize that, yes, though I made many and horrible mistakes in my past, for the most part I played it straight, played by the rules and was a good guy. Even more so when you consider what information I had available to me at that time and what environment I was in and sometimes the outright lies I was told were "truth." Whether my decisions panned out for me or not is irrelevant. I tried my best and sometimes am amazed I even succeeded this much.

Regardless, you combine these two traits, hindsight and confidence, you get authority. The authority to look back at life and start making claims that aren't opinion, they're fact. Facts like HR is a worthless profession that has caused more damage than helped. Facts like just because they're older than you does NOT mean they have more experience or intelligence (matter of fact, they're just more prone to corruption, age does not command respect). Facts like democrats play on the ignorance and feelings of well intentioned people as well as fan the flames of jealously and merely bribe people to vote for them with other people's money. These are facts. Not opinions.

But the fact I'm going to talk to you about to day is a fact about the "war of the sexes."

Oh yes, there is a war. That's a fact that I don't even have to defend. But who started it in its most recent form? Some will claim that is a matter of opinion, but sadly once again hindsight and confidence permit me to authoritatively state it was women. Hands down, and that's a fact.

It is here that the "enemy" in this battle of the sexes will now go into knee jerk hyperdrive reaction. Claims of sexism, mysoginy, blah blah blah. We've heard it all before for the past 40 tiresome years. They will ignore my claim it was women who started it (let alone be open minded enough to ask why I've come to this conclusion), in part because they're rank and file enlisted soldiers, brainwashed not to think, but react immediately to protect the hive and the ideology. There are others, let's call them "officers" who know full well what they were doing, but will still feign ignorance and act appalled, because if they didn't, then it would belie their ulterior motives.

But again, I'm not some 18 year old rube who is fresh off the assembly line. I'm not some "nice guy" anymore who was brought up by a single mom in a very asymmetrical manner when it came to the sexes. I'm not that honorable guy why kept on thinking "what's wrong with me" and never developed the courage to say, "what's wrong with society." And I'm certainly not the guy who is going to take it personally when I start pointing out genuinely inconvenient truths and am called a bigot or a racist or a misogynist or pick any term from the communist/feminists playbook.

No, I'm the experienced guy who went through the meat grinder and amazingly has found himself in Bayeux alive, intact and only strengthened because of the experience. And given the hell I had to go through, you damn right I know what's going on. And like hell my experience isn't going to help the boys landing on the beach right now, because nobody, absolutely nobody deserves to go through that hell again.

So let us start out with a very simple question - why is there a battle in the first place?

A simple question, but one that needs answering. What did men do that was so horrible that we deserved the ire, the hatred and the war that was waged against us? The reason I ask this is at least in the beginning, I did nothing to offend or hurt women. As a boy and a young man, I did everything I was told. I was nice, I was kind, I was sweet. I did PRECISELY what they women told me to do. And not only did I not succeed in dating any of the women I pined after, I was actually ridiculed, berated and demeaned. I remember girls acting like they were going to go on a date with me or show up to a dance with me, only to find out it was a joke. I remember getting slapped in the face no less than 4 times before graduating from high school and for reasons that were so innocuous the only one I could remember was flirting with a girl and rummaging through her purse (which obviously earned me a slap across the face). Not once in my entire life have I ever struck a woman.

Now, if it was just one guy, one lousy nerdy guy out of 150 million American men with these experiences the evidence could be considered anecdotal. But it isn't. You ask the majority of men who are essentially NOT of the WWII generation or older and I guarantee you the majority of them (not all) were the exact same way and had the exact same experiences. Started off nice, with the best of intentions, tried their best, maybe even bought a girl flowers and probably have a score of 0-4 when it comes to slugging the other sex, all of which resulted in a big fat zero when it came to courting success.

Of course at the age of 18 or 19, your average man is still too clueless and lost to know what's going on. It's like they landed at Omaha and just got pounded by some German 88's. They're dazed, they're confused, they aren't even cognizant enough to ask "why." They're just taking a beating.

Of course that is the question. "Why?" What on god's green earth did we do to you to deserve this in middle school, let alone the following decade? We came with flowers and innocence and kindness and with the best of intentions and asked you on dates, only to get slaughtered.

I personally cannot answer the question why. I can only guess. And if I had to guess I'd say it was because feminists from the 1960's had so indoctrinated you as children via the schools or even feminist parenting you had a predisposition to view men as the enemy. Never mind the then 13 year old boys of our generation and successive generations never did anything to "oppress you" or "keep you down." Never mind for that matter the men of the WWII generation and Baby Boomers didn't do anything to oppress women either. No, you just were programmed to view men as the enemy, as your oppressors. Dirty disgusting boys that "you should throw rocks at" if I recall the t-shirt logo correctly.

Perhaps it was because of a lack of fathers or father figures given the new penchant women have for divorce. No man in the house to teach you how to treat boys, or perhaps there was a man in the house, but he too is still being shelled by his wife into submission and becomes the complete beta male incapable of providing a decent male role model.

Media? 90210 anybody? Melrose Place? I'm trying to think of other demented shows targeted towards young girls that would warp their formative years in how to treat boys, but I'm grasping at straws as my memory fades. To quote Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca, "Perhaps it was a combination of all three."

Ultimately though, sadly, the reason "why" is moot. It doesn't matter why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It doesn't matter why Islamic-nutjob assholes bombed the WTC. And it doesn't matter why boys received such a hostile reception upon hitting puberty. All that matters is what happened.

Second, along the same lines of "why" is something more fundamental to men and women and courtship in general.

Shouldn't we like each other?

I mean last I checked men and women were kind of designed for each other a little bit. And I ask this one question as it applies to a whole bunch of different levels.

Isn't dating supposed to be fun? Shouldn't we go out and have a good time? No, there has to be drama, chaos, crying, rules, stipulations, rule changes and that's just assuming the poor guy can navigate the mine field and actually land a date. And oh goodie! Look what he gets to look forward to!

Sex anyone? Is it not enjoyable? Why "hold out?" Why attach strings to it? What evil possesses you to use it as a bargaining chip whether you're married or not? And dare I suggest using sex to extract resources is the definition of prostitution? Or is that cutting it too close to the truth?

And the ultimate one that will confuse me till I'm dead, marriage or committed relationships. Aren't you supposed to SUPPORT your husband? I don't mean financially, but emotionally, aren't spouses to support each other? You know, be there for each other. If there is empirical proof that the war was started and continues to be waged by women, this is it. The reason why is it is the EXCEPTION when a wife actually supports and takes care of her husband. He comes home, beleaguered from his work. And she dons some heels and a little outfit and pours him a martini. That's what I'm talking about! Unfortunately, the VAST MAJORITY of marriages the women AT BEST slightly nags him or leaves him alone. Most of the time the women are harassing, berating, lecturing, complaining or just plain fighting against their husband. Why on god's green earth did you get married in the first place??? Better yet, why should men get married at all if instead of supporting them you are constantly fighting against them, if not just simply wearing them down? What's the upshot? And again

WHY???? What did we do to you?

Third is a very shrewd observation on my part. You already know about me getting hit 4 times in high school because the girls at the time liked the power trip. But there were other instances of what was completely unacceptable or idiotic behavior on the part of women/girls, primarily in their teens and 20's. One that is a bit innocent is the "I have a boyfriend in Brazil." This was a popular one when I was in middle school and high school and it was amazing how many girls had real boyfriends in different continents. Another more dangerous, if not psychotic one was suicide threats. I had no less than three women threaten suicide while I was dating them. Temper tantrums were also very popular. I remember trying to drive on 35W (just south of where the bridge collapsed) when my girlfriend at the time just started screaming (she was from California). Another girl from California punched me because I refused to have sex with her. I remember third throwing her phone and pictures and everything around her apartment (the argument of which again I can't remember). And I cannot fully recall the infinite number of head games, mind games and flake outs I suffered in my 20's.

"Pick me up, I'm ready!" 30 minutes later, "Oh, I'm sorry, I have a headache."

"Let's meet at Mancini's!" "Well my morbidly obese friend decided to show up with us, you don't mind do you?"

"Here's my number. Call me!" .......................

But isn't it interesting...

very interesting....

(can any of you guess where I'm going with this?)

(I'll give you a couple more guesses)

(it is quite shrewd an observation)

how after the age of 28, 29 30 or so, all that drama goes away?

I haven't had a girl threaten suicide on me since I was in my twenties.

I haven't had a girl throw a temper tantrum on a busy interstate since I was in my twenties.

I haven't had a girl hit me in quite some time.

And you know, there's been a shocking lack of mind games and flake outs since I passed the 30 year old mark.

Could it POSSIBLY be that this was nothing more than FULLY CONSCIOUS self-created drama to get attention? And could it be that they fully well knew what they were doing? And it is NOT that they "grew up" all of the sudden when they hit 30. That they KNEW FULL WELL it was wrong to hit men at the age of 10. They knew FULL WELL throwing temper tantrums were wrong at the age of 10. They knew FULL WELL threatening to commit suicide was wrong at the age of 10. And they knew FULL WELL it was wrong to lie at the age of 10.

They just had no problem using it till the age of 30 because they knew us men/boys were naive enough to think it wasn't on purpose. That there might have been something psychologically wrong with them, or worse, we blamed it on ourselves.

But again, I'm not here to lecture people about such stupid behavior. I'm just asking the question WHY?

What in the Patron Saint's Name of Frick is the purpose in doing that or employing such tactics? It certainly wasn't "well intentioned." It certainly wasn't "in our best interests." It's like using biological warfare against orphans. It was an act of war.

And finally (though there are many examples more) is something that I will intellectually honestly admit I do not believe women do consciously or maliciously, but still has an effect (and this is actually a matter of opinion, so I will grant you that). And that is your voting preferences.

Not so much in a "republican" or "democrat" sort of sense, but rather how you vote or what governs how you vote. You vote with your heart. Admirable. Honorable. But sorry, stupid and naive. Not because of your aims to help out the children or help out the poor, but there are no brain cells in the heart! ie-You only look at the intended consequences of policies and politicians you vote for, but so poorly think through the unintended consequences and ramifications, let alone what ulterior motives politicians and their political donors might have.

Hidden behind the socialist agenda of "helping the children" or "helping the poor" is a huge and financially IMPOSSIBLE price tag. It's not feasible, but nefarious politicians know how to tug at your heart strings and make you vote for them. And since federal and state government finances are not as exciting as The View of People Magazine, you fail to understand how the true costs of making everything free to everyone are simply masked and deferred with debt (if you don't understand that last sentence, then I strongly suggest reading more Cappy Cap and watch less Sex and the City). With the right to vote comes the responsibility of being an informed voter. And just "going with your heart" or "voting for the little guy" without bothering to look up the budget or the finances of the country/state/county simply destroys the nation and your future AND the future of your kids (which is an argument for another time).

But that's not the worst of it (at least as it applies to the battle of the sexes).

The worst consequence of your voting patterns is the replacement of men with government.

And, frankly, it's already done.

You really don't need us.

You have affirmative action, tons of social resources at the state and local levels, welfare, WIC, EBT and a legal system that is pretty slanted towards your side when it comes to divorce and the divvying up of a couple's assets. You have a public school system that is progressively taking a larger and larger role in baby sitting...errr....bringing up...ummm... "educating" your children and more and more laws passed governing and regulating how children are to be brought up. If you don't have a husband but want children you can adopt, have an IV fertilization, surrogate, etc. etc. Society is on your side because no individual is more celebrated than the single mother or the single woman "living in a man's world." In other words you have voted in a system where the only role men play is that of a tax payer and not that of a father or a husband or a lover, leaving us to ask once again the question, "why, what did we do to deserve financial slavery?"

Now, of course, some of you like that idea. Which only proves my point further because it shows some of you really just wanted men as financial slaves. But there is a consequence to this. There is a cost. And you may be starting to notice this. That there is a price to pay for all the mind games that were played. The dates that you flaked out on. The tantrums, the drama. The dishonesty and lying to men about what you wanted and what you didn't want. The divorce, the alimony the child support. And myself, along with every other guy who made it to Bayeux alive can see it now in beautiful hindsight.

Some of you in your 40's, 30's, even upper 20's are asking "where are all the good men?" Some of you have given birth to BOYS and now you have disadvantaged-skin in the feminist game you may have helped create. Some of you, fresh off divorce and enjoying "post-marital bliss" are realizing the men are not knocking at your door like they were in 1981. So continuing with our "battle of the sexes" analogy, perhaps I can describe what is happening and the consequences for waging an uncalled for war on us.

There is a battlefield. On one side are the girls and on the other side are the boys. BOTH of us have been told by society, media and nature or "genetics" to go and find somebody from the opposing team. It is a strong urge, arguably the strongest biological force there is, and thus the attempt to meet ensues. If this was 1940, the battle would look something like this.
Girls liked boys and welcomed them over.

Men were happy to oblige. Not really a battle.

Of course, that's too easy and remember, our WWII grandfathers were of course abusive, misogynistic sexists. So the sexual revolution of the 1960's was absolutely necessary so we could punish future, unassuming, innocent generations of boys for the evils of our WWII generation grandfathers. The Baby Boomers beget Gen X and beget Gen Y so that when teenage boys hit the NEW and IMPROVED battlefield today it looks like this:

It is a veritable battlefield.

One sided, but veritable.

Now, let's ask ourselves a simple question. "How long will the dismembered stickmen boys stay on that battlefield?"

And the answer actually varies depending on the stickman. I got out at 25. I know some men left the battlefield as early as 18. I know men in their 60's who are still wandering around on the battlefield just as dazed and confused when they first landed 42 years ago. Some never get it together and stay on that battlefield till they die in the real world. But I would say on average 15 years.

So by the time a young man hits 30 or so, he starts questioning why he is there taking a pounding. He starts to question why he is even trying to date one of these girls in the first place. He starts to remember his parents getting divorced or a friend's parents getting divorced or ONE OF HIS OWN FRIENDS GETTING DIVORCED. He even starts to question whether he should follow his biological imperative or just get a vasectomy and live the bachelor life forever. And it is at that point he crawls over the hill, stumbles over all roughshod and shot up with holes and joins us in Bayeux.

Sadly here the battlefield analogy ends, because unlike real soldiers thrown onto the Normandy beachhead, we have the option to stop fighting. We have the option to stop participating in the battle. We can give up. Unfortunately I don't believe that is the same for women. Oh, sure, some women can throw in the towel and go on and lead happy lives, but whereas I would think only 5-10% of women can genuinely override their genetic hard-wiring, I would say nearly 60-70% of men can do it. Besides, you've been giving us great practice and incentive to do so since we were 14. So it's not that hard of a jump.

Naturally, when men declare they are leaving the battlefield or women find out they are leaving the battlefield the question of "what??? You're just going to give up?" follows.

And then comes the textbook fear-mongering questions that REALLY are a sign of desperation from the "enemy." I've been so kind to answer them too;

Q - "So don't you want to ever get married and have kids?"

A - No, like my freedom and my money

Q- "Do you want to die ALOOOOOONE in a nursing home?"

A - No, i won't die alone, I presume there will be other people there my same age and as I always have done I will make friends there. Additionally, if I make it to a nursing home, because of the fact men die 10 years before women, I will be a mack daddy and will have multiple women chasing after me. Besides, isn't it pretty arrogant to marry some one, let alone have children for the sole purpose of them providing you entertainment when you age?

Q - "Who's going to take care of you when you get older?"

A - Well, thanks to your voting patterns all health care and social security is free. In short, your children will be taking care of me. Additionally, again, are my children to be slaves to take care of me? Is THAT why I should have children and get married? To have slaves? Thankfully I had a vasectomy while you had 4 children from 3 different guys and you voted democrat all the time. Tell them I say "thanks for being my unwilling and unwitting slave."

and so on and so forth.

The reason for the questions is women (and people in general) can't really understand or believe you're giving up. They can't believe you're abandoning your primary biological motive and just up and going. People, but particularly women, can't fathom what would be better than a life with them and can't imagine a place where you'd be going once you leave the battlefield. But here ladies is where the men are going:

You see, they are leaving the market. And the reason why is that yes, as youth we had these dreams of meeting a beautiful cool, intelligent woman. We had dreams of finding a really neat girl and maybe settling down with her. And yes, the biological drive was very strong. But when our entire youth was not just wasted, but a negative experience, nay a PUNISHING EXPERIENCE you realize around the age of 30, that is was all just a lie. That or a bill of goods somebody was trying to sell you. At this point most men go through a depression (notice how suicide in men jumps around age 34 and then drops), but most of us look at life and say,

"OK, maybe I'm not going to find that really cool chick I wanted to meet, and maybe I did waste my youth at bars and clubs, and maybe there is no need for me as a role of a husband or a father, but now I'm no longer wasting my time. I'm doing what I want."

And BOOM! They enter Bachelorland.

Bachelorland is a magical place. A place where you get to keep the majority of your money. A place of true freedom where you get to do;

what you want
when you want
how you want
say what you want
hang out with who you want
do what you want
say what you feel

and there's no guff or nagging about it.

Once we pay our taxes to subsidize other people and other people's children, we still have the majority of our money to spend on ourselves. More importantly we have the majority of time to spend on ourselves. And better than that, society has advanced to the point there are LIMITLESS intellectual, physical, video, artistic and other pursuits to pursue and enjoy a happy, fulfilling life. We got our pals, we got our friends, we got a life.

And that (and you need to sit down for this) IS WITHOUT YOU!

No nagging, no crying, no drama, no divorce, no child support, no "my child comes first" BS, no jumping through hoops for sex, to abuse, no slapping, no flaking, no psychotic behavior, no mind games, no half my assets, no nothing.

You're gone, you're outta here, you're irrelevant.

Congratulations! You "won" the battle and men have surrendered! Now leave us alone.

Now who are the winners and who are the losers in this? Well, unfortunately there's more losers than winners.

The losers number many. Notably the women who continue fighting on the battlefield when there's nobody left to fight. Be it because society, media and feminists constantly barrage them with images of Sex and the City or EPL or they can't override nature or they just plain can't believe there are no more men left on the field, they continue to fight essentially no one. Ironically "fighting" against men while trying to attract one Enjoy the cats!

Also in the losing category are the men who had to suffer such BS for most of their youth, and worse, those men who never realize they're being shelled. They wander through life confused and befuddled about something that must not only take an inordinate amount of brain power obsessing about, but something that certainly must lower their life expectancy. They never achieve true happiness because they think it lies through the battlefield instead of getting off the battlefield and living their own life.

But, third, is the biggest and most innocent victims of them all. Admittedly this post has been very broad with the brush. I talk about women and men in general because it's impossible to have a conversation about it if you don't generalize (of course feminists and liberals love to use this technicality as a means to accuse you of sexism, but as I pointed out before, we know their political incentives and I plain don't give an ef anymore). However, there are obviously women who do not fall under this category and are not the malicious or warring types. These are the innocent and most undeserving victims.

The reason why is that the bad girls ruing it for the rest of the good girls. And it doesn't take a lot. It just takes one bad woman to divorce one good guy, and that good guy is off the market for good. I have PHENOMENAL, WONDERFUL, LOVELY women in my life who would make a great wife for any guy willing to get to know them. They ARE the ones who want to make a man happy. They'll cook, they'll clean, they'll not only dress sexy, but stay sexy because they WANT THEIR MAN TO BE HAPPY. They are the ones who not only claim to be independent, THEY ARE INDEPENDENT working REAL JOBS, producing REAL WEALTH. They want REAL MEN and when they vote, they think. They think not just for themselves, but are actually good, educated and informed stewards of democracy, thinking of society as a whole. The LAST thing they want is what feminists to them they should want. They want to be happy. Matter of fact, feminists HATE them and would call them "female Uncle Toms," but that is because they are jealous that my friends have better lives and are happier than these feminists could ever be.

However, sadly they are all in their 30's and 40's. And by that time the men who are left are either;

1. Confirmed bachelors
2. Divorced men who have no incentive to go back
3. Jerks and #%%holes that they don't want to date.
4. Desperate effeminate men that had too much single mother upbringing or too much brainwashing in the schools and frankly don't turn them on.

Did they do anything to deserve this?


Did they sling a single arrow at the boys on the battlefield?


But they are the ones paying the price for their fellow "feminists" sisters" assault on boys/men.

So ladies, or rather should I say "girls" because it's too late for the ladies, you have a choice.

You're either with us or against us. If you're with us we can ALL enjoy great lives which is what I really think we were programmed to do. We can enjoy each others company. We can go out on dates. We can get married and raise families. We could just jet set around the world getting drunk, eating good food and having great hot monkey greasy sex. We can work, we can play, we can HELP EACH OTHER OUT IN A MUTUAL BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIP.

However, if you want to be unnatural, if you want to fight your biological drives and subscribe to feminism and make yourselves men. If you want to be childish. If you want drama and chaos and put attention above meaningful relationships. If you want to ruin it for other girls by destroying men through mind games and psychological "drauma." If you want to "dominate" over men or make them pay for some injustice at the age of 14 that they were completely incapable of doing, or if you just want to toy with the hearts and minds of men and boys, go right ahead and declare war. Because in the end, you won't win the battle of the sexes. And it won't be because men will ultimately counterattack and "win this round."

We'll just forfeit the battle

and in doing so win the war.

ht to Dr. Helen for the inspiration for this post.