Saturday, June 30, 2012

The Great Calorie Debate -- A YOUNG biophysicist weighs in

Hat tip to Colby Vorland (@nutsci) via Twitter:  New fuel for the calorie debate

This is the blog of one Carson Chow -- half of the dynamic duo who set one Mr. Gary Taubes straight for once and for all about glycerol-3-phosphate -- and routinely puts the man to shame.  Oh ... but let it never escape your mind that Chow is *young* ... I hear he's even more *young* than I am *female*!!

In any case, Chow picked up on something that I missed in my obsession with the statistics.  The average TEE's measured by doubly labeled water were:  LF / LGI / LC =  2812 / 2937 / 3137 (by FQ) and = 2767 / 2926 / 3013 (by RQ).  The average caloric intake was 2626 calories per day.  This was less than each of the average TEE's for each diet by either measure.  By a minimum of 140 calories per day, to over 500 calories per day.   On average, everyone would have been in caloric deficit and lost something over 12 weeks, yet they didn't lose weight.  Heck, I suppose that's something for the CDS sufferers to hang their hats on.   Chow seems to attribute this more to error in TEE measurement, and I'll add that cheating cannot be ruled out either.

Oh ... interestingly enough, they reported energy intake as is customary, Mean (SD) -- 2626(686).  But no such transparency for EE's which are reported Mean [95% CI Range].  Sigh.

And oh again ... re-reading, it was the other half, (rumor has it he's still young too), Kevin Hall, that picked up on this. 

More on the Ebbeling JAMA Study

This started out as a comment on my last post, but got a bit lengthy so I decided to make it a full post.  I also addressed some issues with this study in another post those only interested in this study might have missed based on the non-descript title.  Let me start by saying that I did a fair amount of updating on my last post after reading the supplemental materials, and as a result I have some new criticisms of this article, and most of my original concerns remain.  So we're all on the same page, here's the study, and here's the Supplemental PDF

Many are treating the results of this study as if it were conducted in a metabolic ward.  This is not true, it was a free-living study except for 3-day hospitalizations for analyses.  Now it wasn't your usual free-living study in many ways:  Participants were paid and had all food prepared for them for the duration of the study (added all up, a little over 7 months!).  Monday through Friday they ate one meal a day at the facility.  Daily diaries were filled out documenting any "cheats" or foods left uneaten.  They received counseling if they had difficulty complying with the diet.  It is unclear, but it seems they were weighed daily, at least during the various 4-week weight stablizing/stable legs.  Body composition by DEXA was only assessed before and after the weight loss phase.  TEE (by doubly labeled water method) was assessed over the last two weeks of the 4-week pre-weight loss and test maintenance diet legs, activity was assessed by accelerometer for 7 days (it is unclear which week, I'm guessing the 4th week) for each test maintenance diet.  REE was measured by indirect calorimetry.  Intake was ramped up during the first 4 days of the stabilizing phase and subjects were weighed daily and caloric intake adjusted accordingly.  Here's an important little piece of information in this regard from the supplemental materials:  "We allowed the duration of the run-in phase to vary among participants, to account for individual differences in the rate of weight loss."  And:  "The energy intake required for weight stabilization at the end of the run-in phase was established as the energy intake for the entire test phase, with no further adjustments regardless of any weight fluctuation with the test diets."
Read more »

Friday, June 29, 2012

A Friday JAMA-lama Ding Dong!

Well ... I wasn't really going to weigh in further past using that recent JAMA article (EDIT:  full text no longer free at JAMA, see link below) as an example of where statistics can lead us astray.  But ... as is probably expected, this study has kicked up some dust in the community.  I'm sure I'll miss a few, but here's the weighing in so far:

That's just the blog posts, not the tweets, FB postings or other social media buzz ... and I'm happy to edit in more, just drop the hint in comments.  And here's the full text of the study:  Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance
Read more »

"The Good, The Bad and The Cappy"

OK Cappy Cappites, time for a little experiment.

I'm off to the Black Hills this weekend (again, because, we'll, they're there).  However, I'm going to test this Amazon Affiliate link thing whilst away.  Below is a poster (and a link to it).  It is the coolest poster I have ever seen and I bought one when I was in Vegas, however, you can order it on Amazon.

I am fully aware that this poster may not be the most desired product by the lady readers of Cappy Cap, but for those of you economists out there who do love "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" I would strongly recommend this poster (I have it hanging in my office actually and it starts some interesting conversations).

The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Movie (Clint Eastwood) Poster Print - 24x36 

My goal is to see if I can earn enough money to pay for my $20 gambling spree I shall go on in Deadwood.  It would give me warm fuzzies to see if there was $20 in my account to fund my gambling addiction.

Make sure you enjoy the decline today.

Anybody Know Peter Schiff?

The problem I run into is if they're too big, they won't consider even looking at my book.  But if somebody knows them, they may consider it if a copy is brought to them by their contact.

Still waiting for Ezra Levant to read the book I sent him!  Ahem ahem!  Cough cough!!!

Clean It Up Boys

Again, it seems I have to remind people the single worst thing I have to do is delete a comment, that is otherwise brilliant, but full of vulgarity. 

I will tolerate the occasional and well-placed curse word, but a tirade of cursing and disparaging language will not make it.  Please clean it up.

Fat Tissue Regulation ~ Part IX: ASP, LPL and the Triglyceride/Fatty Acid Cycle

In this installment, we reunite with our old friend C3KO mouse to learn a little bit more about the role of acylation stimulating protein, ASP, in the regulation of fat tissue (and muscle) from this study:  Differential regulation of fatty acid trapping in mouse adipose tissue and muscle by ASP.  The C3KO mouse was discussed in Part II of this series.  This mouse lacks the gene to produce a protein called C3 (short for Complement 3) which is a precursor for the formation of ASP.  Thus C3KO mice are ASP deficient.  The C3KO is to ASP as a type1 diabetic is to insulin.  These mice are also resistant to obesity.  BTW, hyperASPemia accompanies the hyperinsulinemia and hyperleptinemia of obesity when it's measured.

ASP-deficient mice have delayed postprandial triglyceride (TG) clearance and reduced WAT mass. The objective of this study was to examine the mechanism(s) by which ASP deficiency induces differences in postprandial TG clearance and body composition in male KO mice.
Read more »

Debt Costs You Marriage

Lauren Dollard graduated from Fordham University in 2008 with $157,000 in debt, including interest. "My boyfriend won't marry me because of my debt," she says. "He doesn't want it attached to his name (I know, this could also be an excuse)." She said she would trade her "fancy private school education" in a heartbeat to live "as an independent adult."

 Uh, no dear, he's not looking for excuses.

Hopey changey kiddies!  Hopey changey!!!!

Thursday, June 28, 2012

We Don't Need No Stiiiinnnnnking Fathers Linkage

If fathers were more prevalent and manly in society, 90% of the "childhood psychoses" would disappear over night...but then where would all the "child psychology" and "social work" majors find employment?  And we all know it's MUCH more important for people who can't do math to have make work government jobs than psychologically healthy children.

Yes, because consumption is the only thing that matters (as i pointed out before).

Well sure, if you think education should be about the children, you moron.  But everybody knows that's not what schools are for. (I am of course joking about the moron statement).

That's too complicated for the teachers to figure out.  Therefore we will not be pursuing that idea.  PS you're racist.

Fact- fat is gross.  If you want to argue, I suggest you focus on the first word there.  But this is taking it a bit too far.

I shall answer Clarissa's question (which is a good one).  The reason women (married or not, working or not) do the majority of the housework is because of one simple thing - women's standards for tidiness are multiple times higher than men's.  We are OK with an upturned shoe in the middle of the hall.  You decree it a "filthy mess" and declare war on it.  We men will clean the house to the point it is sanitary.  You can clean it to the point of perfection if you want.  We guys have more important stuff to do in life.

A Modest Proposal for Peer Review Research

With the advent of, and inexpensive nature of online sharing of information, I propose that all peer-review research should include (anonymous) raw data for each subject.  At the very least, there should be scatter plots presented for the individual data points for the main outcomes.

I frequently teach statistics, and one of the first things we discuss in that class is sort of the "first purpose" of it all.  Because before we can analyze data, first we must summarize and present the data in such a way that the "consumer" can readily glean information.  In one classic stats text -- Triola -- this part is given the acronym CVDOT.  C = Center, V = Variation, D = Distribution, O = Outliers and T = Time.  So we go through the various ways we can convey the center of a data set, it's variability, distribution, etc.  In most of the studies we discuss here, data is presented as a mean value +/- either the standard deviation or standard error (C +/- V in the acronym).  And further statistical analysis compares these means between groups for statistically significant differences.   If I have 20 subjects in a study, I can provide you with a table of all results sorted by subject number assigned randomly.  This tells you very little.  If all I do is sort the data ascending or descending, you can now readily pick out the range and "center" of the data.  Perhaps if data is of a more rounded nature, you might be able to pick out the most frequent or common values.  Outliers will jump off the page.  
Read more »

Review & Critique: The Skinny on Obesity ~ Part III Hormones

Previously I've shared my thoughts on Episode I and Episode II in this series.  This third installment in the series is essentially Lustig's version of Adiposity 101.  

The video opens with an adamant Lustig declaring that weight management can't be done by eating less and moving more.  It's not doable.  Sigh.  I think at least the vast majority of NWCR members will disagree.  But in any case ...
Read more »

Saving a 17 Year Old

Let me tell you a story.

Was at a bar/restaurant last night.  Within the group of people I'm at is a mother-son combination and a (frankly) overweight, ugly middle aged woman (henceforth referred to as "the OUMAW").

The mother and the OUMAW are tag teaming this poor boy about what to do when it comes to matters of the ladies and courting when he heads off to college/the real world.  And all the advice is absolutely wrong, only guaranteeing he'll be fed to the meat-grinder at a faster rate.

"Be nice."

"Be sweet."

"Be kind."

"My husband who does what I tell him and makes the money.  You need to  become like him."

I speak up.

"Look, don't be nice.  Be a jerk.  I mean, don't be abusive, but the last thing girls like or want is the sappy overtly sweet nice guy.  Be aloof, master back-handed compliments.  NEVER be desperate."

"Don't have kids.  They cost too much money and they'll take away from your fun with your wife, IF you choose to have one."

"Date LOTS of girls. TONS.  That way you'll have some fun initially, but realize just how many poor ones are out there, making sure you'll know when you find a really good one or the "right one."

"Realize you are not inferior to girls.  ESPECIALLY at your age.  When you get older, you'll realize just how childish they really are reading "People" magazine or watching TMZ or Jersey Shore.  Just because they're cute, does not mean they're smarter than you, let alone that you want to date them."

Naturally the mom and the OUMAW we enraged.


Their response was interesting because I don't for a second believe they weren't trying to help the boy, they love the kid.  Their response seemed visceral, automated.  As if they were prompted by instinct, rather than thought.  Regardless, merely telling the boy "don't listen to that bad bad man over there" was not enough.  The mom and especially the OUMAW had to then "debunk" me and thus the interrogation/attempt to "expose" me began.

"So, what you just live alone all by yourself?"

- "Yes."

"AHA!  So you're all alone!"

-"No, I have friends and a girlfriend back in Minnesota.  And I've made some friends here in South Dakota."

"So, is she some like mail-order bride or something that doesn't have a mind of her own?"

-"No, actually she's an engineer and makes more money than I do."

"And she tolerates your attitude?"

-"Matter of fact, yes, she likes the fact I'm the male and I am willing to draw the line in the sand and stick to my guns.  She cooks for me, treats me very nice, and hangs out with me and picks on me.  She's also hot and doesn't mind getting dolled up in lingerie."

As the interrogation went on it was becoming apparent to the ladies (AND the boy), that their plan was backfiring on them.  I was living proof that everything they said to the boy was wrong and that just because they were older, didn't mean they necessarily wiser in this particular department.  Losing the battle they switched tactics (and dare I say, were curious how about this minimalistic/maxi-fun approach to life I had.)

"So you obviously don't have children, do you?"

-"No, I had a vasectomy."

And that was adding fuel to the fire.


I then calmly leaned over to the boy, almost as if I was ignoring them, but spoke loud enough so everybody could hear.

"Look, kid, you know how much you cost to raise?  $500,000.  When it's all said and done, your mom and dad dropped HALF A MILLION DOLLARS ON YOU and that doesn't even include accounting for their time.  You don't have to go to college, you don't have to slave away.  You can live on the cheap, drive your motorcycle around, hell, buy a boat and a house and eat great food ALL if you don't have children."

Naturally, instead of listening to the words coming out of my mouth and focusing on the point I was trying to make, this merely sent the ladies' emotions into a tizzy.  They thought I was saying the kid wasn't worth it.  That he was a mistake.  Sure enough the responses of "he's worth every penny."  "I am so proud of him."  "I would do it all over again" blah blah blah blah, came pouring in.

Thankfully you could tell by his eyes he did not only take umbrage to the statement, but was digesting precisely the point I was trying to make.

Emotionally upset, the OUMAW started to tear in even more, but what is nice about this little "philosophy" the Manosphere, or heck, just single or childless people have, is that it's unassailable.  There's really no emotion involved in it.  I don't get agitated when people tell me they want to have 5 children and grow organic chickens.  It's their life. But the OUMAW was obviously insulted I chose to lead my life my way and she was having none of it.  Additionally, she wanted to intervene in this poor boy's life, send him on a path SHE deemed the "right" one and dissuade him from my (obviously) "dark side of the force life" of motorcycle, freedom, hiking,  and minimal responsibility.  Ergo, I had to be "stopped."

With a smug tone she said, "So, do you RENT or do you OWN your apartment?"

Internally I rolled my eyes.  She had no idea just how intricately familiar I am with real estate and the economics thereof.  She also had no idea how far away I could see this one coming.  I played the game.

-"I rent."

"Oh, so look at you!  You don't even have equity built up in your house.  You're so blah blah blah...."

I interrupted.

-"I own rental property back in Minnesota."

"Oh." she said.  "Well that's good, I own a house too."

I responded (knowing how she bragged about how her husband made all the money),

"Yeah, but my husband didn't pay for my house."

Hooo!!!  Hooo!!!!!!  The OUMAW did NOT like that.  But it's not because I was implying she wasn't an independent woman.  It was the fact I highlighted she TRULY WASN'T an independent woman.  That and in the eyes of the boy I was just furthering my particular authority in this conversation and debunking hers.

The fireworks were continuing and the boy was paying very close attention.  He was noticing how the women were being irrational, emotional and trying to knock me out, whlie I just sat there, very calm, dispassionate, spoke the truth, didn't get riled up, but stuck to my guns.  At no time did I say his mom or the OUMAW were wrong or not trying to help him, I merely was presenting the other side of the same coin, a "male" or "older brother" side of life.  I wrote down Dalrock, Roissy, The U of Man and a couple other blogs on a napkin, gave it to him and said,

"Look, when I was your age, we didn't have the internet.  But what has happened since it's development, is it has allowed millions of men my age and younger and older to compare notes about dating.  And what it has enabled us to do is detect trends, patterns, observations, etc. and see what works in the dating world and what doesn't. But most importantly, it makes it so young boys like you DO NOT have to suffer the bullsh#t we did when we were your age.  Your mother and the OUMAW obviously do love you, but it's only one side of the story.  You need the guy's side."

He went off on his merry way as he had to work the next day, and I was happy I saved another soul an inordinate amount of pain in his future.

Now the moral of the story is not "warm fuzzies" the Captain probably saved the kid a lot of pain.  It's that I am still shocked that there are women out there who think it their place to lecture men about the lives they choose to lead.  The vehement response I got when I merely said things like;

"I don't want kids."

"I live on the cheap."

"I dated lots of girls."

BLAMO!  I'm an evil cad and I must be lectured.  And not only must I be lectured, they have every RIGHT to come in and lecture me.

But there's another aspect to it - you forget there are people out there like that.

It's akin to when I worry if the advice we give young men today is relevant anymore.  Have relations between young boys and girls changed so that boys don't need this philosophy?  I don't want to give him advice that would have worked in 1992, but would only serve to hurt him now.  And then I see some news story about girls having pregnancy pacts in high schools or something, and know these poor boys need us more than ever.

And here it is the same thing.

I forget there are people out there who almost unconsciously deem themselves not just your superior, but charter themselves with the right to intervene in your life and tell you what to do as THEY SEE FIT.  And while this applies to a wide range of people (abusive husbands, controlling wives, etc. etc.), I am intrigued how common it is when it comes to courting/social-sexual dynamics between men and women, and when the men merely speak truth from the hills -

"We like long legs, big boobs, long hair."

BLAMO!  That is somehow "wrong."  THat is "bad" (even though it is genetic programming).  And that is more than enough of an excuse for women to come in and not just lecture you, but REALLY try to get you to change.

But above all, it provides some amazing hindsight as to just what an uphill battle us older guys had when we were young boys being lectured by the women in our lives.

You're shallow for liking long legs.  You're shallow for liking big boobs.  You should LOVE a woman for her personality.  And be nice and be kind, and buy her flowers, and open doors for her and write her poetry, etc. etc.

How any of us came out of that brainwashing, let alone on our own accord, is amazing.  But this brainwashing and indoctrination is still happening.  And therefore fellow members of the Manosphere, like Batman, we gotta be there for the boys.

Carry on gentlemen.  Carry on.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Stockton City Council FAIL


Wow, "three year associate of arts in interior design" AND a graduate of "Leadership Stockton?"  Is this like where they issue medals for 24th place?  Good lord, what the hell were you people in Stockton thinking this lady would do?  Arrange the furniture in an artistic way so then Wells Fargo repossesses city hall it looks nice?  Nice going Miller, you once again prove the liberal arts is a place for people who can't do basic math.


You will see a correlation of people who sit on school boards (where there is of course never enough money for the chillllldreeennnn) and their inability to manage finances.  Because why should they?  They never had to before?  Just make the rich pay more.  I was going to give Canepa some bonus points for running a business, but nepotism is not acceptable.  FAIL.

Thank you for your service -  FAIL

While Ms. Eggman gets a bit of a reprieve for her military service she decided to flush it all down the toilet with Bachelors, Masters and Doctorate degrees in El-Crapo Studies.  I wonder if she ever took an accounting course in her 13 years of college education...oh...wait!  Of course not!  Money is limitless according to the humanities!  Does she have any practical application outside running bankruptcy municipalities?  Probably not.  FAIL!


Wow, if there's a poster child NOT to attend degree mills or correspondent schools, Mr. Fritchen is their boy!  Once again a MASTERS degree proves nothing about an individual's ability to provide a tangible, practical service (like the advance complex mathematics of "ADDING" and "SUBTRACTION" in "BUDGETS!").  Oh, and was he on the "Parks and Recreation" commission for 8 years?  Yeah, right, like you had ANY intention of getting a real job.  FAIL!


Let me list the countries the Peace Corps have been to that have improved because of their visit.....OH, that's right!  ZERO!  And surprise surprise, IS THIS YET ANOTHER person with public school experience?  What were you idiots who voted this moron in thinking?  That she was going to take her extensive "well building" experience for impoverished villagers in third world countries and maybe sing Kumbaya and that would solve your financial problems?  Wait, wait.  Let me guess.  Most of you who voted her in did so because you were never even AWARE of the financial problems because Jersey Shore was on.  Oh well, you get the government you deserve.  FAIL (for both the mayor and the voters)


Where the heck was this guy?  Oh, wait, I bet probably drowned out by the bickering about "reading initiatives" and "peace rallies" by the above five.  And I bet he was considered the "mean one" when he attempted to introduce some fiscal reality.  Perhaps District 1 could secede from Stockton and form their own SOLVENT city.  Of course I don't know for a fact as I have not looked at voting records,  but I'm merely testing my Crusaderism/Worthless degree theories here.  PASS.

Random Thoughts -- Drinking with Dinner?

One of the things that was an oddity about my upbringing, was that my parents always frowned on drinking with dinner.  Anything even water, any meals I just chose dinner.  We didn't drink with meals.  Sometimes tea or water or diluted juice afterwards, and later in life this seemed to have been relaxed.  But the notion as I understood it was that you weren't supposed to wash your food down.

Whenever I went to a friend's house for dinner I was always asked what I wanted to drink.  Usually water or milk was offered, but occasionally soda too (that last one I think because I was a guest).  I would usually just decline as I didn't really like drinking milk.  To me most of their foods were more moist than I was used to anyway -- everything from salads with creamy dressing to white bread to breaded and fried fish vs. broiled.   

In my binging days, I probably consumed the most milk of any time in my life.  Outside the little cartons in grammar school, I've probably only truly drank a half dozen glasses of milk in my lifetime.  But in the binge days, how does one inhale a box of cookies?  Well, dunking in milk of course.  When I had pizza or fast food out with friends, I was already at an age where for some reason I had diet soda.  But one has to wonder how much more easily/faster that burger goes down the hatch when "washed" there with sips of anything in between.   Binge eating was almost always accompanied by drinking something -- usually diet soda or coffee.  Milk wasn't drank, it was used to soak ;-)  

I wonder how much of the overeating in general these days might be due to our national infatuation with drinking something all the time, both between meals and with.

As Rome Went, So Will America

But (to quote Michael Savage)

"You don't want to hear about that.  You want to hear about some guy who hit a ball over a fence."

God damnit, you will enjoy the decline, whether you like it or not.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

It's Called "Capital Flight"

But you knew that already.

I Envy Cooks

I am not musically gifted and I down right must have a psychological impairment when it comes to cooking.  Ergo why I envy people so who can do




Then again it could be genetics.  My dad could burn water.  I also remember him cooking a Tombstone pizza and leaving it in there for so long it curled up like a thick Frisbee.

"Weather" Does Not Compensate for Poverty

One thing I love about liberals who live in liberal states or towns is when you got them on the ropes about the economic decline and decay of their state or town, they will always, ALWAYS cite three things that universally excuses their craptastic economies:

1.  The weather
2.  The culture
3.  The restaurants

Me - "I don't pay state income taxes in South Dakota."

Minnesota Liberal - (scoffingly) "Yes, but you have to LIVE THERE!  Huh huh huh."

Me - "I don't have to bail out billionaire professional sports teams."

New York Liberal - "Yes, but you don't have Thai food.  Huh huh huh."

Me - "Unemployment is below 5% meaning I have a stable job and chance for advancement."

California Liberal - "Yes, but we have great weather.  Huh huh huh."

Of course, they only do this because deep down inside they agree with you and hate paying taxes just as much as the other guy, but since they're liberal their ideology comes first, even before themselves, which is delusional.  And since we're dealing with irrational and delusional people there's nothing we can do to convince them otherwise.  This relegates us to the only thing left to do - mock them.

So here's some mockery.

"Hope the weather is worth it. Huh huh huh."

The Men Who Made Us Fat ~ Episode 2: Portion Sizes

A bit behind the curve on this one, here's the first part (of 4)

So in this episode, obesity is blamed on the man who invented the large sized popcorn at the movie theater.    I'm not inclined to blame that guy, per se, but I'm much more in agreement with those who blame portion sizes at least in part for why we're eating too dang much.  
Read more »

Children, IQ's, and Idiocracy

Oh, I know all the right people will get upset, but you see, when you've got nothing left to lose, you find great entertainment value in truth.

For example children correlate strongly with lower IQ's, lower standards of living and higher corruption.

Now get very angry and indignant about these facts and blame me or George Bush for it.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Tornadoes Fear Me Linkage

Really hard to enjoy the decline when stuff like this happens.  Then again, it reiterates that's your only option.

Fellow blogger gets cancer.  You can help him out here.

I have always wanted to read about the Soviet economy in that (like its nuclear armament), it was overestimated.  Perhaps not on purpose either, a lot of the Soviet strategy was to bluff and lie (don't all communists?).  The US fell for it, but still a good book about the realities of the Soviet economy would be interesting.

I have said it before, the problems with the US is not our politicians, its the collapse and decay of our people at the cellular level.  Mangan agrees.

At the "peak" of my game a lot of my friends wondered "how I did it?"  They didn't see the psychological costs and drama of dating many women at the same time.  All they saw was the numbers and physical beauty.  They did not see the suicide threats, the assaults, the husband she failed to mention for three months, or the girl taking off her shirt and then wondering why I was trying to kiss her.  It's enough to make millions join the MGTOW movement.

More lengthy and deep stuff from Badger.

I have never hit a woman.  I have, however, been hit at least 6 times by a woman (all uncalled for, so please don't bother with the jokes or the presumptions).  Equality purists would say "well, it's time to start treating women as genuine equals," but I will instead simply institute a new policy- report any assault, no matter how minor, to the police and pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.  The days of slapping men and thinking you can get away with it are over.

Some desperately needed light heartedness.

And some more desperately needed light heartedness.

God this was a dreary linkfest.

On an eccentric note, your Captain is going to try buying a suit online since he could never find true, white suits available in clothing stores.  Remember, if you're going to buy something, do the Captain a favor and buy it from the Amazon link to the right.  He gets a 6% commish on the purchase!

Stupid for Investing in California

From our Californian Agent in the Field.

Might as well head to Cuba with a Trillion Dollar Bill and give it to Castro.


Niles Crane (Frasier TV Series) on a
Segway.  Full original picture link
No that's not a typo ... though I've probably been guilty of spelling it that way.  The correct spelling for the word, is segue.   But no, I'm talking about the invention that was going to revolutionize transportation as we know it.  The Segway.

Recent discussions reminded me of this.

Did you go to a 10 year celebration of the Segway?  Complete with the 10th Anniversary Edition launch?   What?  No?  Was there even a PBS documentary on life before Segways?  

I remember the hype, do you?  For months we were teased by this device that would revolutionize transportation and all that.   It was a hush hush secret.   Nobody would need a car or public transportation in the cities, etc.etc.   Perhaps because the originals cost $5K, or you had to stand, or there was no protection from the elements, or perhaps all three and then some ... but the Segway never did really even catch on as a trendy gadget or status symbol, let alone change transportation in our time.                                                                                                                                                      

By all objective measures, the Segway was a dud.  I don't know a single person (in real life) who owns one -- or at least who will admit they do!   I've never seen any "private" person using one.  By that I mean that nowadays you will see them in use, but not by ordinary people in the course of doing their ordinary personal business.  Who uses these?  Well, I've seen them fairly regularly used by ... mall security guards and parking meter attendants.

There are many more examples of the point I'm getting at.  Solar powered homes and electric cars come to mind.  These are even heavily subsidized and incentivized by government.  And yet relatively nobody still wants them.  The Segway bombed because no amount of hype and pomp and circumstance could convince the public they had to have one.  And yet despite knowing that the latest fill in new phone/computer/gaming-device here will likely cost a mere fraction of the launch price within months, people still flock to buy it ... camping out overnight for even just a chance to do so.

Marketing.  Advertising.  It only works if they give you what you want.

Mendeley Desktop ~ Attention PubMed Etc. Geeks & Addicts

Are you like me?  Do you have a terabyte sized pile of PDF files on your hard drive?  A zillion studies on a bazillion topics?  Don't remember where you got it from?  Forgot to rename the file when you downloaded it, and now you've got a file named ABCXYZ123whatever.pdf and no clue what it's about?  Sure, you can preview the PDF in Windows.  Sure you can search on the title and find the link quickly enough.  Sure you can be more fastidious about renaming files and organizing them in subfolders.  Oh ... but what if you use more than one computer?  File not there?  Again, sure there are other syncing apps and online drives/services out there.   

But a couple of days ago I found a paper on and they were touting Mendeley desktop.  I downloaded it and I'm in heaven!!  I've only just begun to explore this, so I haven't put much into mine yet, but below are some screenshots of my current Glyceroneogenesis folder.  Yes, I really am just getting started  with this :-)

In this case, at least I had renamed this PDF something descriptive.  But, for example, that Hanson paper in there was sent to me entitled ForEvelyn.pdf.  So by just dragging and dropping the file into MD, it extracted all this information, including a link to the url.  There are tools for highlighting, notes, etc.  I haven't even begun to explore the syncing and collaborative features of this program ... but this is super exciting for me.  See how it just extracted the real title of the study?  But now I don't even need to bother changing file names, this does it for me and tells me what the file is actually named.  How kewl is that?!   And having the link?  Priceless!!  It's not perfect.  The mark-up tools have some quirks -- hopefully that gets ironed out.  Sometimes it doesn't extract all information.  It's not particularly useful for scanned image PDF's (common for older papers).  But all in all I'm so glad I found this!

Maybe everybody already knew about this or some similar tool,  and I've been living in a cave or something, but thought I'd share this.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

We're Taking You With Us

One of, if not "the" single thing I hate about teaching is answering a "wrong question."

A "wrong question" is where the student asks a question that is based on false or erroneous premises, and thus it's not enough to simply answer the question.  You have to:

1.  Spend time explaining or deconstructing their false premises so they get the correct ones.
2.  Explain to them the correct premises/how it works in the real world.
3.  Then reanswer their wrong question, hoping to god they understood your deconstruction/rebuilding of their premises.

And I fear with this topic, I'm going to have to do the same.  So in an attempt to be preemptive and efficient, let me explain a couple things about economics, so that when I do make my point EVERYBODY will understand.

First, understand there is no such thing as "money."  Money really doesn't exist.  It is only a means by which we track and account for how much labor somebody gave up for "payment."  If you look at the economy all it is, is really people just exchanging their finite time on this planet in barter for goods and services that either extend, maintain or enhance their lives (write that one down because that sentence right there is worth about 12 college economics textbooks)

Second, understand there is nothing inherently valuable about money.  The only reason "gold" or "paper dollars" have "value" is because they can be traded for something that DOES have genuine value.  Food, gas, a desk, a computer, a video game, etc. etc.

Third (and this is VERY important), what is "wealth?"  What makes a person or a nation "wealthy?"

I'll tell you this.  It's not money.  Because money is a piece of paper or rare metal. There is no inherent value to money.  It is the STUFF MONEY CAN BUY that is WEALTH.

And it is here people are confused about economics.

Understand that a person who is "rich" or "wealthy" is not "rich" or "wealthy" because they have "a lot of money."  They are rich or wealthy because they can afford STUFF and THINGS they can CONSUME to MAINTAIN, ENHANCE and EXTEND their lives (write that one down too for the "Economist Book O' Gold")

In short "wealth" is not the currency or money you hold.  Wealth is all the stuff you can produce.

This is why Adam Smith wrote the book "The Wealth of Nations."  He wasn't talking about billions of "dollars" or "yen" or "rupees."  He was talking about all the stuff that improves and enhances our lives.  He was talking about nations' abilities to produce things of value - food, booze, clothing, games, cars, electronics, styrafoam, trees, cattle, dogs, cats, minks, furs, jewelry, diamonds, motorcycles, etc. etc. etc.

Because if you think about it, a dollar doesn't do anything for you.  It is the STUFF the dollar can purchase that does something for you.

So all the wars, all the votes, all the progressive taxation is NOT about somebody else's "money," it is about getting other people to forfeit their time to pay for the stuff you want to consume while sacrificing none of your time at all.  It's about making other people pay for your "stuff."  It's simply just slavery.  This is the base level modus operandi of all humans and cultures since the dawn of man (you may also write that one down in the "Economist Book O' Gold.")

Now, since HOPEFULLY I've deconstructed your previous beliefs that economics is "all about the money" and made you realize it's all about "the stuff."  So now let us talk about grocery stores.

I know a lot of you on the left think you're entitled to "basic" things.  Food, clothing, and shelter.  I've seen some people even proclaim they're "entitled" to health care, education, and even cell phones.

But let's get back to reality for one second.

Who provides "food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, and cell phones?"

If you are a liberal (and I'm not mocking you here) you believe in a philosophy or political ideology of the "Great Liberal Economic Oort Cloud."  The reason you believe in this is because (and admit it please) you have been too lazy to bother with studying economics, how economies work, let alone - thinking it through.  Therefore, you just throw up your hands into the air and think the government/business/industrial complex "figures it out" for you.  There's this "highly complex" economic-political-social-governmental-god-like entity that is WAY too complicated for you to understand that just farts out jobs and only truly intelligent people like Barack Hussein Obama can understand.

But in reality, just like money, there is no government.

You TRULY fail to realize that the "government" is nothing more than you and me because we are all in this boat together, and we simply voted our neighbors, colleagues and friends into office.  "We" are "the government."  Therefore the solution to our current day economic problems....nay....EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR PROBLEMS resides within THE PEOPLE.  The "government" cannot do anything just like "the corporations" cannot do anything because both are merely composed and controlled by us - the people.

So who provides the "food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, cell phones" and general "stuff" humans wage war over?

We do.

Not the government.

Technically not the "corporations."

It all boils down to people, because there is no other "entity" or "creature" on the planet to provide these things

By this time, I hope we're all still on the same page.  We have thus far covered that it isn't money that matters, it's the actually goods or services MONEY CAN BUY that matters.  STUFF matters.  AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT we have dispelled the delusion that "government" or "corporations" are entities to themselves able to create "magically" jobs, employment, wealth and income.  There are "technically" no such things as "governments" or "corporations" as they are nothing more than amalgamations of people.

People - you and me - your brother and your sister - your neighbor and your enemy - are ULTIMATELY responsible for this nation, for this country and for our economic success and future.

So since it is on the people, let's talk about two distinctly different types of people in our modern day America.

I like to be simple so I categorize the many groups of Americans into two simple categories:




Since there is no GLEOC and the success of this nation and all others depends on the individuals, you either carry your weight and support yourself or you don't.

"Parasite" is not meant to be a pejorative or mocking term.  It is meant to be an ACCURATE term.

Take emotion, political bias, or whatever you want to use to excuse your erroneous thinking out of it, the definition of a parasite is some thing that lives off of others.  And there's a ton in these here United States.

Anybody who collects a government check (bar social security, though, some will argue) is a parasite.

I don't mean that to be insulting, I don't mean that to be derogatory - it's simply the truth.  If you collect a government check you are NOT supporting yourself and therefore living off the slave labor of others and are a BONAFIED PARASITE.  You DO live off of others.  If "others" didn't exist, you WOULD NOT exist, end of story, no discussion, take your bleeding liberal heart emotional-therefore-irrelevant arguments elsewhere. 

However, that does not so much irk me as I am willing to accept as much as the next man that people get down on their luck.

What irks me is when 50% of the population collects a government check AND HAS THE AUDACITY TO DEMAND MORE,  AND CRIMINALIZE THE HOST OF WHICH IT'S PARASITING OFF OF.

There is no end to the "rich doesn't pay their fair share" or the opposite side of the coin - woeismeism.  
So a short message to all of you who think "the rich should pay more" to compensate you for;

YOU majoring in a stupid degree and taking on $100,000 in debt to pay for it
YOU breeding children you couldn't afford and never bothered to think about
YOU being too lazy to put down the booze/drugs to find reliable employment
YOU for choosing a cushy government job and daring to demand people who actually produce something of wealth to pay for your bloated government salary and pension
YOU for just be a pathetic, lazy, moronic parasite who expects other people to pay for you

"YOU" cannot live without "US."

WE produce the STUFF.  WE are the people who actually produce the goods and services that have value and people want and need.  YOU need US more than WE need YOU!

We're the ones that produce the groceries to keep your "WIC Accepted Here" BS grocery isle full of the food you need.

We're the ones that go to school for 10 years to become the doctors to provide you "free health care" when you decide to get knocked up for the 5th time before your 25th birthday.

We are the ones who engineer the buses and cars you ride to enjoy the roads WE designed with OUR MONEY you used for bus fare.

We are the only reason you live and exist today.  Without us, you would not exist.

That's not an opinion.

It's not a "wish."

That's not political bias.

It's a fact you have been shielded from by liberal politicians and an ignorant voting population that votes to take our money to pay for your parasitic (again, not insulting - just true) lives.

You're not "independent."  You're not "cool."  And you're certainly not "oppressed" or "tyrannized" over.  You're just parasites enslaving other people who actually produce STUFF and things of value.

Now, you can get all pissed off at all those rich people, and never spend a calorie of energy looking at how much they pay in taxes to pay for your parasitic existence, but here's another shocking bit of fact-

Hate us as much as you want, we're taking you with us.

You can vote to tax us to death.  You can vote to make it illegal to be successful.  You can villainize "profit" and "wealth" all you want. However, in the end, you WILL realize that we are your life line.

We are the ones producing the food, the clothing, the shelter and the STUFF you NEED TO LIVE.

We are the ones that are producing the doctors, the surgeons the nurses and the RA's to take care of you. The food that goes in your mouths and the 4 illegitimate childrens' mouths you have.  We are the ones producing EVERYTHING you need to live.  And you produce NOTHING in return (maybe more illegitimate children, who the hell knows).

But you DARE want to piss us off, or tax us to the point it is no longer in our best interest to play host to your parasitic lives? OR you DARE to attack us because you are envious, bigoted, and hate filled?

Go ahead.

Because if we go down, we're taking you with us.

And what's funny, is we don't have to try because we're the ones producing all the stuff.

So I dare suggest for those of you who think you're "oppressed" or "disadvantaged" as you snort coke, knock up girl #14, get knocked up by guy #15, major in philosophy or some other obvious galactically stupid decision, to take your complaints and the consequences of your stupid decisions, shove them, and have a strong belt of STFU and be THANKFUL we're paying the taxes to shield you from the full costs, consequences and catastrophes of your inconceivable stupidity.

"The Cappy Cap Logic Challenge!"

Can you meet the challenge?!

The easy part is to link this to the lack of fathers.

The hard part (and where we will test your economist mettle) is to explain how the majority of victims brought this upon themselves, have only themselves to blame and the delicious irony that has resulted (and consequently sweetened our official "Enjoy the Decline" drinks!).

Your choice of a free copy of "Worthless" or "Behind the Housing Crash" will be mailed to the person with the timeliest and clearest/most correct logic.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Exercise & Fat Mobilization ... and starving cells & hunger

There's no denying it, TWICHOO is down to a broken toothpick where the science is concerned.  (See here for the toothpick reference if you're a newer reader.)   The remaining claim supporting TWICHOO rests on the action of insulin on the fat cell.  Insulin does indeed act to stimulate esterification and suppress lipolysis, favoring deposition and accumulation of triglycerides in fat cells.  They even teach this stuff in some medical schools I'm told!  So these days it's all about how carbs make you hungry and overeat (although overeating is so inane) because they stimulate insulin which traps all your fat calories in your fat starving the rest of your cells of energy.  Now, that part's not true, but let's for the sake of argument assume it is.  What, then, would cause you to lose weight and not be hungry?  Why anything that favors net mobilization of fat stores -- that is stimulates lipolysis and fatty acid release from fat cells.  This will raise the circulating free fatty acid, NEFA, levels and make them available in abundance to your cells.  Hunger be gone!  It's all about the balance of the TAG/FFA cycle.

Well, if that is the case, then exercise would be THE most effective means of preventing or reversing fat accumulation.  Hands down.  No argument.  Oh ... and it wouldn't make you hungry, quite the opposite, because your body is awash in fatty acids.  Work with me here TWICHOOB's.  If you have your hypothesis, you must fit it or apply it to all situations.  Exercise is the ultimate TWICHOOB miracle weight loss dream.   Because if anything that works to put fat into fat cells is fattening, then anything that works to get fat out of fat cells is de-fattening.
Read more »

California Idiots

Seriously, how do you people elect these morons?

Oh, wait!  That's right!  You guys are morons yourselves!

I love when he's asked if the plan would be "pre-tax or post-tax" and he "doesn't know."  Just shows you how liberals don't think things through because they're too damn lazy to think of the consequences.  Just barf feel-good, puppies and unicorns legislation out there and collect the votes of the idiots you just bribed.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Marketing & Manipulation ... and Musings ...


There's been quite the discussion going on in comments of The Men Who Made Us Fat, and I decided my commentary might be better organized in a blog post.  I can certainly see the positions of both sides there, but in the end I come down on the side of "Eric" when he says this:
"Until we accept that Obesity is a lifestyle choice ( either voluntarily or by apathy ) no real fix can every be made without crushing regressive taxation on food. To blame "big food" is a dangerous cop-out that reinforces the negative cycle."
The so-called "simple obesity" -- the epidemic of indisputable overeating to the tune of an average of 500 calories per day -- is very much a lifestyle choice.  In my case, the obesity of the late 90's and the 2000's was in large part due to apathy or laziness.  Too many take out meals instead of cooking something.  And take out means too many fried, processed, calorie dense foods.  Or just eating crackers and cheese watching TV -- before you know it a sleeve is gone, and you haven't even had a "meal".  It's ordering the quarter pounder and medium fries when a regular burger and small fries is enough.  It's having McD's on the road instead of packing a snack for the long trip.  CHOICES.
Read more »

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Alexander Discovered Rocks and Dirt

An interesting observation I've had Cappy Cappites.  Another mountain-hiking inspired epiphany brought about by the fact my MP3 player stopped working (it's amazing how many epiphanies I have while hiking without my MP3 player).

This one is the observation that after long and grueling hikes and climbs, after thousands of calories of energy burned, and after much planning, plotting and scheming about how to summit a peak

in the end

when you finally get there

every peak

has had nothing more than dirt and rocks at the top.

Some had snow, but all had dirt and rocks.

And this an epiphany did make.

Understand that I was brought up poor and in Wisconsin.  Wisconsin does not have mountains, but when my friends at school returned from their summer vacations and showed me pictures of Rocky Mountain National Park or Glacier or Yellowstone I was literally mesmerized by the pictures.  "Whats up in those mountains?  Where are these mountains?  Whose been there before?  Did you climb to the top of them?  Why not?"  I had never seen such a thing with my own eyes, but my visceral response was that I NEEDED to climb them.  I NEEDED to see what was up there.

Quite pathetically, when we would visit my grandparents in Minnesota we would drive through a bluff region of Wisconsin, the peaks of which never went more than 200 feet, but to a human only 1/4th the size of a full grown adult, they may as well have been mountains.  All I wanted to do was climb them and I would beseech my father to pull over and let us climb just one of them

"No, we have to make it to Tomah before 7PM."

So blame it on unfulfilled child psychological reasons, when I finally had the money and the residency near mountains BLAMO!!!!  I climbed every mountain I could.

In the Black Hills there is only one peak (Crooks Tower) that I haven't climbed that is of any significant height.  I've hiked straight through the upper part of Badland's National Park both east-west and north-south.  I did Halley's Peak in Rocky Mountain National Park as well as Deseret's Peak in Utah.  And since the Big Horn Mountains are withing 3 hours drive to the west, I've been tackling several mountains and lake hikes there.

But as time has gone on and I've fulfilled more and more hikes a very sad observation came to me - I'm the only one doing these hikes.

Oh sure, occasionally I've had a friend or a Meet-Up hiking buddy join, but the vast majority of my hikes are by myself.  And the reason they're by myself is multi-fold.

1.  I'm in excellent shape.  Not to brag, but to do a 16 mile hike with a 4,000 foot elevation gain and all under 8 hours, there's not a lot of people who can keep up with me.

2.  I have minimal obligations.  When it's Friday afternoon and I finish up whatever project or call I'm working on, BLAMO!  I'm out the door driving to a mountain range for the weekend.  I have no children, I have no wife, I have no car payment, and I can afford the gas and lodging (assuming I'm not camping).  If I decide to go, not only can I afford to go, I CAN go because there's only one person to account and accommodate for.

3.  I just plain have the desire to go and climb mountains and take long hikes.  As a kid when I first saw the Badlands from the main road, the badlands formations went on forever.  It made a young boy's mind wander and ask "what else is out there?  Who has been out there?  What will I find if I go out there?  Can I make it out there?"  That has never left me since the 8th grade and now when I see a peak or a map or a lake or just a far off butte, my brain is predisposed to wonder what treasure I will find AND it provides my the psychological determination to commit myself to that hike.  Regardless, most people do not have that curiosity nor that determination.

Getting back to point, regardless of the reason, what I find myself doing more often than not, is summiting a monstrous peak, finishing a dehydrating hike, or just plain achieving an impressive physical feat only to turn around, look around and see I'm the only guy on top of this mountain.  Or I'm the only guy returning to my Chevy parked in the Buffalo National Grasslands.  I'm the only one shouting for joy that I found a rare fairburn agate in Ardmore, SD. 

There's nobody there.

Now what makes this depressing is NOT that I'm alone.  I know all of you "nursing home scare-tactic freaks" always love to say, "you'll die ALL ALOOOOOOONE!"

That is not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is what happens when you start to master or excel in a certain field to the point you no longer have peers or people you can associate with or compare against.  There's nobody to turn to and say,

"Hey, we did a kick ass job! Don't you agree!?"

You don't even have rivals or enemies to compete against.  Tesla had Edison.  The Joker had Batman.  Hogan had Colonel Klink.  There was at least SOMEBODY to provide a standard against.

But, if you are fortunate enough to excel in whatever hobby it is you choose to pursue, and you continue to progress in that endeavor, there will be fewer and fewer people you can relate to.

Now I didn't bring this up to get all sappy and sad on you guys, but as a sincere and legitimate observation for those of you in the Manosphere AS WELL as any woman who achieves excellence in whatever field or hobby intrigues her-

There's only rocks and dirt at the top.

Men of the Manosphere, REAL men, men who follow their genetic and intellectual programming will ALWAYS pursue some kind of study or discipline that interests them in an attempt to master it.  Not only will the majority of men succeed, they will be interested by multiple disciplines and hobbies and also excel in those as well.  But there is an ultimate drawback or a disadvantage for men in the Manosphere embedded in our nature

We have unlimited time and financial resources to dedicate to these intellectual pursuits.

Much like my hiking is put 3 standard deviations to the right of the mean by the fact I have no children, no wife and no obligations, so too are all of your personal hobbies and intellectual pursuits.  In having no family, no wife/husband, no children, just yourself, you have an INORDINATE amount of time and resources to dedicate to your own interests and desires.  With such an amount of resources you will not only quickly master whatever hobbies or pursuits you're interested in, but rapidly surpass your married/obligated peers to the point you'll be all alone.

You'll be the Jimmy Hendricks of guitar players.

You'll be the Duke Ellington of Jazz composers

You'll be the Cappy Cap of the fossil hunting, motorcycle riding, ballroom dancing, economists.

And you'll have nobody to compare, compete or just plain converse with.

Now, does this mean I'm advocating you self-handicap yourself and not achieve your own personal best just so you can have a social life? 

Hell no. 

All it means is that you are on the fore-front, the vanguard, the production-possibilities curve of whatever particular interest piques you.  It also means that you are more likely to go down in history as an "expert," a "connoisseur" that will be remembered for your advancing of the field.  It is just an observation and a somewhat-of-a-warning that if you do decide to focus on your own potential, it's a guarantee you'll achieve it, but it's a warning as to just how few people there are at your level when you do.  And like me when it comes to fossil hunting, or Roosh when it comes to visiting different countries, or Victor when it comes to mastering self-discipline, you will be that "freak" 4 standard deviations to the right of the mean.

Or to quote an Alexander the Great quote:

"When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer."

I'd Like Some White Privilege Please

What is that disease or psychological disorder where people hate themselves?  In the meantime I'm still waiting for the unfair advantages my skin color is supposedly supposed to bring me.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012


From our American Agent in the Field.

Remember, buy Worthless.  It's worth every penny.

The 12 Year Life Expectancy of the "Tax the Rich" Plan

Some quick back of napkin economics here fellow junior, deputy, official, aspiring, or otherwise economists!

So I was on another hike, enjoying the decline, like I do, and got to kicking around a couple questions about wealth.  Specifically,

"How long could "the poor" live off of "the rich" if we finally decided just to confiscate and redistribute the wealth like so many of our democrat and socialist friends would like?"

First understand a couple statistics and facts.

One, there is an estimated $62 trillion of wealth in the US currently.

Two, the "rich" defined as the top 20% own 85% of it, so $52.7 trillion.

Three, of the $3.6 trillion federal budget, $2.2 trillion or 60% of that is spent on wealth transfers.

Four, the states spend roughly the same amount as the feds and have roughly the same percentage going to wealth redistribution (again, this is "back of napkin" economics, not "break out the Cray super computer and run complex models that will fail anyway" economics).  So add another $2.2 trillion for a total of wealth transfers of $4.4 trillion.

Now, if we decided to "stick it to the rich" and "solve everybody's problems" and confiscated all $52.7 trillion of those hated rich people and divide it by the $4.4 trillion in resources the "poor" consumes, that wealth transfer will last them a whopping:

12 years.

Now I'm being INCREDIBLY optimistic because I'm ignoring a couple things.

First, this assumes you can just confiscate the wealth of rich people without it having a direct impact on the market value of that wealth.  If you decided that 80% of the wealth was to be communal, the stock market would tank, immediately driving the wealth that could be confiscated well below $52.7 trillion.

Second, this also assumes the economy would even continue to function so the parasitic classes could spend their stolen-gains on said goods and services.  With 80% of the wealth taken out, I doubt grocery store owners, energy producers, engineers, doctors, and all the people that produce the actual STUFF that gives your $52.7 trillion in cash value would bother showing up for work.  So this essentially ignores the fact that the grocery stores and car dealerships would be empty and very optimistically assumes the dollar would still be accepted as a medium of exchange.

Third, it also assumes the "rich" sit idly by and don't ship their money offshore.  That all those lawyers and accountants are on vacation at the same time so as the legislation slowly moves through congress, rich people are completely unaware of the handgrab coming their way.

Of course, real economists such as you, me, our lieutenants and agents in the field know the economy would collapse immediately, but I still like to argue with the mental handicap of an envious and lazy liberal who deems themselves entitled to other people's money.  It proves, even with their rosy assumptions about how the real world works, that their ideology is impossible.

Enjoy the 12 years!

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

The Return of Aramis

Aramis is a cologne that my grandpa wore.  I remember the smell quite distinctly because I believe the nerves in your nose are most closely related to memory in your brain or some other such thing I've heard.  Of course when I smell Aramis I immediately get a smile on my face because I remember my loving grandpa.  The same thing happens when I smell chlorine in a pool (because the rare times we'd stay at a hotel with a pool as a kid) and when I smell the combination of lawn mower exhaust and freshly cut grass.

I bought a bottle of Aramis in college and used it sparingly.  At first because I would save it for "rare" occasions, and then because the girls I would date would say they liked "Drakar" or whatever the fashionable cologne was that weekend.  So 19 years later I still have about 1/4th of a bottle.

But then something funny happened.

A female friend of mine said she "LOVED" Aramis.

Because of the smell?


Because of the company?


Because of some other reason I couldn't guess?


It was because her dad wore Aramis and it reminded her of him.

Now not to get into girl-daddy issues, but this little tidbit of knowledge got me thinking:

"What if you were to wear all the old colognes that were popular amongst men back in the 70's and 80's when the girls of today were little daddy's daughters and were regularly exposed to the scent of that cologne?

Would it remind them of dad and thus see you in a more manly and attractive fashion?  Would it remind them of their youth, making them happier and thus more agreeable to your presence?"

I have no proof, but I'd be curious to see if you male lieutenants out there might want to try to carry out an experiment.  If we were to look up the most popular colognes of the 70's and 80's among 30+ year old men, wear them while out and about, and see if there is a discernible effect.  Heck there may be one already.

I just know Brut cologne never worked regardless of what year it was.

No Houses for Sociology Majors

Heh heh.

Oh, I love when reality strikes.

The Men Who Made Us Fat

Here's the YouTube playlist for the whole thing:

The Men Who Made Us Fat   Jacques Peretti

A few questions/comments:

1.  Does bread today have more sugar in it (corn syrup), than breads of yesterday?  Talking hamburger buns.  How or why would adding corn syrup to rolls make them last longer as Peretti claims?

2.  Are soft drinks the largest single source of calories in the American diet?  How do we define "source"...

3.  If HFCS (55% fructose/45% glucose vs. 50-50 for sucrose) is sweeter than sugar, is it true what Lustig claims?  If sweeter they should use less in substitute.  Lustig claims they use more.  True?
Read more »

Insulin Injection Effect on Fat Tissue

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the picture of the unfortunate woman below from Gary Taubes repeated use of this picture in lectures.    The top is a screenshot from Google Books of Endocrinology:  An Integrative Approach, 2001, Nussey & Whitehead, page 31.  At the lower right, I've copied the discussion of Box 2.8 from the previous page.

Read more »

Monday, June 18, 2012

"Vengeance is The Captain's," Sayeth the Lord

Anger, defense, and retribution are all good things in the hands of good men.

Take that away from them or criminalize them for it, there will be nobody to defend you or society when the bad men, who are equally equipped and will never jettison those traits, walk in unopposed, almost mockingly so and destroy your lives.

And yeah, I'm engaging in "sensationalism." 

No Good Comes of Horses

Horses AND "KHOMA."

Though the two usually go together.

If you don't know what "KHOMA" is then I suggest you read this.

You could wipe out third-world poverty if American women simply donated money to charity instead of maintained horses.  But no, no.  Pretties horsies iz so pretteez to looksies ats!!!  Yeah pweettty horsieeeeessss!!!

Besides, what's a few hundred million child-deaths due to malaria compared to a pretty shiny pony?

God I hate horses.

Housing to Recover?

If you look at the supply side, I'd have to say yes!  Only took 6 years to finally bottom out, but it looks like housing is slightly recovering:

Oh, but wait!  There's the other side of the formula - demand.

And with unemployment still high, fresh college graduates and yoots who tripped over their own slobber to vote for Obama crushed under student debt and no disposable income, not to mention ever increasing property taxes, there is a fraction of the demand as there was previously.  I sincerely doubt there will be "booming" property least until the presidential election is over and people WITH MONEY have genuine hope in the future of the country.

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Happy Fathers' Day!

To all my readers who are Dads, I wish you a very happy day and hope you get to spend it with your kids (and if they're old enough, that they do something nice for you for all you do!)

On the front here, we have a limited celebration in store.  But if this haze lifts there's supposed to be a nice day for it.  We're grilling up porterhouses for the red meat eaters, steamin' up a lobster and cooking up salmon filet in the fry pan.  This will be complimented with coleslaw - homemeade by me of course, a cold green bean salad from my maternal grandmother's recipe (with a vinagrette of sorts) - made by Sis, roasted yukon golds (me), and some sort of orange squares for dessert (Sis).   The plan is to enjoy food, and more importantly, family!

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Recession Medicine


Remember, it's more important for government bureaucrats to have jobs than for the rest of you to have them. 

Insulin Resistance III: Glucose Uptake and GLUT4's

So far with this series, I've discussed the many difficulties involved in discussing and characterizing insulin resistance, IR.  See Part I: A condition in dire need of diagnostic clarity  and Part II: The Complexity of Hormone Resistance Phenomena.    Insulin-mediated glucose transport, or "disposal" from circulation is the major action/phenomenon usually assessed or being discussed when a person (or lab animal) is described as "insulin resistant".  

So in this part, I wanted to discuss glucose transport.  This link is a nice tutorial about the action of insulin that includes an animation of ONE of its functions:  glucose transport.  Glucose cannot traverse membranes unassisted.  In essence it must pass through protein "channels" from one side to the other.  There are always glucose transporters, called GLUT's, present in the cell membrane, but they are not always at the exterior surface of the cell to receive glucose.  Insulin binds to the receptor which signals movement of the transporters to the surface (translocation) allowing glucose to flow down the concentration gradient through the GLUT "channel".   I've labeled the components in the screenshot below, and "taped" a short video of the animation from the tutorial so you don't have to go off-blog if you don't want to:

Read more »

Friday, June 15, 2012

Fan Mail


MBAs are totally degraded, as we know.

Atabasca University (distance learning) published today the list of
the 183 graduates from it program, here are my findings:

- 166 people provided their names, most their places of employment
- 48 of them (28.9%) work for government (hospitals, education boards,
city of this and that, etc.)
- 22 work for banks or investment funds (13.25%)
- 8 work for hi-tech companies (4.8%)

You can analyse it however you want, but I have some suspicions as to
what your commentary might be.

I have one with two comments:

- How can it be that the government sector accounts for a third of all
MBAs? What are they doing that is so important? Getting a well-rounded
- I am 100% sure my taxpayer's money is paying for all 48 MBAs in the
so-called public sector. I have no objections with some MBAs for key
people (there was one from Ministry of Defence) being paid by
taxpayer's money. However, I do object to 30% of the MBAs in 2012
being paid on my dime. Some examples of what I think to be wasted
taxpayer's money (unless it can be proven otherwise): Interior Health
Authority, Heffley Creek, BC (a town I never heard of needs an MBA
there?); Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (they couldn't get one
ready made in Toronto? are you kidding me?; City of Ottawa;
Electical/Mechanical Contractors Association; City of Mississauga.

And an encore comment:

- I look forward to male advancement and mentoring programs in
government, since males account for less just under 50% of MBAs earned
by government operated authorities, despite males having longer
careers in industry than females.

I'm surprised it's only 30% government workers.  The only people with money are those in the public sector....and well, those kids whose parents are mortgaging their retirement to put little Suzie or Jimmy through an MBA program....

of course in the laughable hopes....

they'll make enough money....

to pay off their parents....

via nursing home financing...

and visits....

which will never come.

Enjoy the nursing home decline!

There's no dietary need for saturated fat ...

... or monounsaturated fats, MUFA, for that matter.  Therefore low fat diets, where most of the fat is essential PUFA, are optimal.  The body can make all the SF and MUFA we need from carbohydrates.  Furthermore, relying on this metabolic pathway as a source of body fat is metabolically advantageous for weight management as making fat from carbohydrate is an energy intensive process.  

Sounds a little silly, right?  I think so.  But so, too, is the ridiculous mantra from low carbers citing the fact (true) that there's no dietary necessity for carbohydrate.  You know the drill, we can make all the glucose we need by gluconeogenesis (just saying that makes me feel smarter) therefore LC diets are optimal.  There is a metabolic advantage built into LC diets because gluconeogenesis requires energy to convert protein to glucose.
Read more »

Who says nobody's VLC in my house?

Yes, the inhabitant that should be on a carnivorous diet, is.  I just had to share the "cat in the box" picture.  He's always been a box cat.  He's too big for shoe boxes but that doesn't stop him if one is available.  Box full of stuff?  He's on top.  Cardboard tray from Costco?  You'd think I paid premium for it at the pet store.  I had used this "tray" to carry some stuff between rooms last night.  And this morning there he was sitting in it, like I meant to put it there just for him :-)

Some other pics, not to step on Beth @ WeightMaven's toes with Friday Cat Blogging.  On the lower left, he loves to read my blog :-)  And check out that coloring, I think he's got a tarantula on his forehead!!  This guy doesn't have normal fur, it's a thick "pelt" is the only way to describe it. I call him my Gotta-Getta-Gund.