About the only thing I would add to this is you carry a gun in Man World.
Mr. Lindsay also dances a dangerous dance with a partner called truth.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Recession Medicine
Because unless you work in the government, the recession is still going on:
Too damn young to die I might add.
Too damn young to die I might add.
Virgin Leptinade Poisoning! Last Glass of the Stuff!!
This will probably be the last post, other than perhaps dumping articles over in the library, regarding "leptin spikes". And I don't normally link to and discuss abstracts, but in this case the abstract says it all. Over on Mercola's hatchet job on starch, as discussed in my previous post, Ron Rosedale MD provided that science he's supposedly bridging over into medicine to support his contention that carbs "spike" leptin. Here was the first comment addressing yours truly:
Because you do not know the science, does not mean that it doesn't exist. This is over 10 years old. There are many articles subsequently that support and verify this. "Evidence That Glucose Metabolism Regulates Leptin Secretion from Cultured Rat Adipocytes" www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../9449624 Endocrinology,1998 Feb;139(2):551-8 "We conclude that glucose transport and metabolism are important factors in the regulation of leptin expression and secretion."
His repetition of the citation later in comments is illustrative of Rosedale's debate tactics. The strategy is to (a) allude to a wealth of research supporting one's opinion, (b) cite one study that appears to support one's contention but not really, and (c) repeat as often as necessary using the same one cite, and apparently (d) hoping nobody will notice that the "many articles" and "robust evidence" has never materialized. I've called him on the in vitro study previously, and it is amazing the ease with which one can assemble a landslide of research that demolishes his claim. I'm going to leave you with this last one:
Read more »
Monday, November 28, 2011
Big Education Reaches $1 Trillion
In preparation for my new book (which is full of super-awesome economic genius goodness), I pulled some stats. I'm getting good enough now that I just know how different statistics are going to pull. This one did not surprise me - how much we spend on education vs the entire oil/gas/fuel/energy industry.
The book is rapidly coming along, by the way, and I STRONGLY recommend all parents, uncles, aunts and relatives of young kids in high school or in college wait to make sure this book is one of the gifts you get them for Christmas.
You shan't be disappointed.
Slated for the second week of December.
The book is rapidly coming along, by the way, and I STRONGLY recommend all parents, uncles, aunts and relatives of young kids in high school or in college wait to make sure this book is one of the gifts you get them for Christmas.
You shan't be disappointed.
Slated for the second week of December.
Go Storage, Not Residential Rental
Rental property, which I had owned since I was 24 and thought was the ticket to an early retirement, I am now declaring to no longer be a valid investment. The reason is simple:
Americans are no longer reliable enough to rent out something valuable like property to them, let alone are worth the legal risk. You throw in the general deterioration of your pool of renters as well as the market being flooded with people who bought more house than they could afford, not to mention every local government now jacking up your taxes to pay for their pet green projects, and it isn't worth it any more.
Instead, I suggest buying storage properties.
You see, physical items cannot sue. They cannot complain that there's mold in the basement, or when you paint with Killz to kill said mold, it smells chemically. Physical items do not cause damage, do not freeze nor burst in winter, and for the most part are easier to deal with than live humans that rent from you.
So take the Captain's advice. No more rental property.
Americans are no longer reliable enough to rent out something valuable like property to them, let alone are worth the legal risk. You throw in the general deterioration of your pool of renters as well as the market being flooded with people who bought more house than they could afford, not to mention every local government now jacking up your taxes to pay for their pet green projects, and it isn't worth it any more.
Instead, I suggest buying storage properties.
You see, physical items cannot sue. They cannot complain that there's mold in the basement, or when you paint with Killz to kill said mold, it smells chemically. Physical items do not cause damage, do not freeze nor burst in winter, and for the most part are easier to deal with than live humans that rent from you.
So take the Captain's advice. No more rental property.
"We Didn't Have the Manosphere When We Were Growing Up!"
Much like television, radio, MP3 players, etc., every generation will have the:
"We didn't have X when we were growing up! You young whipper snappers with your electrical doo dads and everything! Why we hiked to school in the snow, uphill, both ways!"
And even now I start to see myself saying those things to the "kids" of today.
"You damn children have no idea what hell it was to write a term paper! We had to use the Dewey Decimal system and go to these obsolete places called "libraries" and look up things on "micro film" and "micro fiche!"
But there is an advancement in society that has been a genuine advancement that will genuinely help the youth and provide them with an advantage we did not have. And that is the Manosphere.
I cannot claim this original thought. I believe it was a commenter on one of my posts or perhaps somebody else's, but his point was a very good one. And it went something paraphrased like this:
"I'm 39. And I didn't have the luxury of the internet providing the forum for various men throughout the nation to compare notes and realize that it wasn't them that had the problem, but that it was a trend. A sociological, nationwide phenomenon, a veritable sickness where women played mind games, purposely treated men like crap, and got some kind of a kick out of it. Meanwhile I was told I had to be a "good guy" and "respect women" which ultimately resulted in me getting stepped upon while the bad boys got all the benefit. If I only had the Manosphere today back then my life would have not only been better, but unfathomably easier. THE YOUNG MEN OF TODAY SHOULD BE THANKFUL THERE'S A HOW-TO MANUAL ON THE INTERNET, AND THAT HOW TO MANUAL IS CALLED THE MANOSPHERE."
Now I am not much of one for tooting my own horn, but we in the manosphere must admit, and take pride in one thing we have accomplished. In all of our writings, all of our opinings and just the sheer audacity to write this stuff in fear of being accused of "sexism" or "misogyny," we've made it easier for current and future generations of males in America to navigate this minefield that was laid before them.
As I pointed out earlier, most boys, don't even know there's a minefield in front of them to begin with, and thus they stumble through the field, taking hit after hit and never understanding why.
But now, because of the internet and because of writers such as us, young boys actually do stand a chance. They do have a better chance of a life easier than ours, less painful than ours, and ultimately, more productive than ours.
It should not be cause for jealousy, but for celebration, because what we 30-50 year old somethings have done is compared notes, confirmed trends, identified problems and brought to light genuine threats that face our younger male compatriots. And not only did we identify them, we published them, exposing these threats for all the world to see some even under our own names.
And so now, instead of 19 year old "Steve" going forth into the meat grinder and idealistically asking "Amy" on a date, only to have her stand him up or flake out at the last minute, our good young friend Steve doesn't sit there and wonder "what's wrong with me?" and fall into a depressive stoop. He hops on the internet, finds Roissy, Dalrock, Unambitious Male, MGTOW, etc. etc. and understands there's nothing wrong with him. There's something wrong with Amy.
And I don't know if most of you guys remember the early 1990's, but if you think back, I believe you'll remember no shortage of girls playing games, running gambits and stringing you along if for any other reason than to make themselves feel better at your expense. And we may not have our revenge on them today (although, of course we do), but we can take solace in the fact we are preventing such mind-game damage from being inflicted upon the boys of today.
In short we have become the vaccination against this psychosis by merely speaking about it, pointing it out, and making such observations available to the boys of today on the internet. And though we didn't have this luxurious resource available to us, thereby forcing us to wander in the wilderness, we did inevitably figure it out which makes the lives of future boys all that much easier.
So I say it's time to unscrew a bottle of Rumpleminze and make a toast to yourselves. Because pretty much every young man is going to have a better life in the future simply because of us. And if you ever wonder if you've ever contributed something useful to society (which true men often ponder), you can now safely say "yes, yes I did contribute something useful to society. I helped spare some poor 21 year old schlep the hell I had to go through when I was his age."
Pompously enjoy the decline.
Post post - here are two comments that did not get posted in the orginal post of this:
"We didn't have X when we were growing up! You young whipper snappers with your electrical doo dads and everything! Why we hiked to school in the snow, uphill, both ways!"
And even now I start to see myself saying those things to the "kids" of today.
"You damn children have no idea what hell it was to write a term paper! We had to use the Dewey Decimal system and go to these obsolete places called "libraries" and look up things on "micro film" and "micro fiche!"
But there is an advancement in society that has been a genuine advancement that will genuinely help the youth and provide them with an advantage we did not have. And that is the Manosphere.
I cannot claim this original thought. I believe it was a commenter on one of my posts or perhaps somebody else's, but his point was a very good one. And it went something paraphrased like this:
"I'm 39. And I didn't have the luxury of the internet providing the forum for various men throughout the nation to compare notes and realize that it wasn't them that had the problem, but that it was a trend. A sociological, nationwide phenomenon, a veritable sickness where women played mind games, purposely treated men like crap, and got some kind of a kick out of it. Meanwhile I was told I had to be a "good guy" and "respect women" which ultimately resulted in me getting stepped upon while the bad boys got all the benefit. If I only had the Manosphere today back then my life would have not only been better, but unfathomably easier. THE YOUNG MEN OF TODAY SHOULD BE THANKFUL THERE'S A HOW-TO MANUAL ON THE INTERNET, AND THAT HOW TO MANUAL IS CALLED THE MANOSPHERE."
Now I am not much of one for tooting my own horn, but we in the manosphere must admit, and take pride in one thing we have accomplished. In all of our writings, all of our opinings and just the sheer audacity to write this stuff in fear of being accused of "sexism" or "misogyny," we've made it easier for current and future generations of males in America to navigate this minefield that was laid before them.
As I pointed out earlier, most boys, don't even know there's a minefield in front of them to begin with, and thus they stumble through the field, taking hit after hit and never understanding why.
But now, because of the internet and because of writers such as us, young boys actually do stand a chance. They do have a better chance of a life easier than ours, less painful than ours, and ultimately, more productive than ours.
It should not be cause for jealousy, but for celebration, because what we 30-50 year old somethings have done is compared notes, confirmed trends, identified problems and brought to light genuine threats that face our younger male compatriots. And not only did we identify them, we published them, exposing these threats for all the world to see some even under our own names.
And so now, instead of 19 year old "Steve" going forth into the meat grinder and idealistically asking "Amy" on a date, only to have her stand him up or flake out at the last minute, our good young friend Steve doesn't sit there and wonder "what's wrong with me?" and fall into a depressive stoop. He hops on the internet, finds Roissy, Dalrock, Unambitious Male, MGTOW, etc. etc. and understands there's nothing wrong with him. There's something wrong with Amy.
And I don't know if most of you guys remember the early 1990's, but if you think back, I believe you'll remember no shortage of girls playing games, running gambits and stringing you along if for any other reason than to make themselves feel better at your expense. And we may not have our revenge on them today (although, of course we do), but we can take solace in the fact we are preventing such mind-game damage from being inflicted upon the boys of today.
In short we have become the vaccination against this psychosis by merely speaking about it, pointing it out, and making such observations available to the boys of today on the internet. And though we didn't have this luxurious resource available to us, thereby forcing us to wander in the wilderness, we did inevitably figure it out which makes the lives of future boys all that much easier.
So I say it's time to unscrew a bottle of Rumpleminze and make a toast to yourselves. Because pretty much every young man is going to have a better life in the future simply because of us. And if you ever wonder if you've ever contributed something useful to society (which true men often ponder), you can now safely say "yes, yes I did contribute something useful to society. I helped spare some poor 21 year old schlep the hell I had to go through when I was his age."
Pompously enjoy the decline.
Post post - here are two comments that did not get posted in the orginal post of this:
Sunday, November 27, 2011
A Glass of Extra Virgin Unspiked Lepitinade Please!
Why do some of these things land in my lap when life gets so busy? Over on Mercola's site, I've been tangling up a bit with Ron "Spiked Leptinade with my Science Krispies" Rosedale. Now I don't expect Rosedale to start following my blog or anything, but I did post links to certain posts over there to support my contention that carbs do NOT spike leptin. By any definition, they do not. Instead of recognizing this and backing off (and hoping nobody notices, a la Taubes), Rosedale has doubled down on his assertion that carbs spike leptin. In support of his contention, the science he offers up is ... drumroll please ... a more than decade old study on isolated cultured rat adipocytes. This wouldn't drip so with irony were it not for the fact that Rosedale shoves his massive clinical experience with live humans in yo' face every chance he gets. You see, I don't possess his vast clinical experience so I must be in error interpreting the whole blood v. plasma blood glucose level data in a 45+ year old study (more on that to come!!) Yet, when presented with a sampling of human data from clinical studies ... then Rosedale turns a blind eye. It gets worse. I called him on relying on this study to advance his point. His response? More of the same about how I don't know the science. Here's what he said:
Read more »
Taubes' Rat Problem
No ... rats have not infested Taubes' batcave replica of the AHS lecture hall. Rather, Gary steps in it yet again with his discussion of the Cafeteria rat study in one of his lame attempts to debunk Stephan Guyenet's works on food reward. The Cafeteria rat study he was referring to is, in my opinion, the most relevant animal study on the etiology of the modern obesity epidemic in Westernized countries. Let's revisit the study with a post of mine: Why We Get Fat ... Lessons from a Cafeteria Rat. In short, you can get "normal" rats to become fat by replacing their usual chow with a high fat chow and/or a high sugar-containing chow. But how do you get them to become really really fat? Feed them modern American junk foods. I'll repost some pertinent graphics from that post here. The so-called "cafeteria rats" were provided ad libitum standard chow along with a rotating selection of three items from the list below:
Read more »
L. Ron Rosedale's Church of Scikrispology
L*. Ron Rosedale's Church of Scikrispology
Creating a chasm between science and medicine.
Jimmy's original data dump "debate" over safe starches seems to have taken on a little life of its own of late. For many of us it merely served to further draw the curtain back to reveal the lack of critical thinking in LLVLClue land. But it also seems to have ignited a resurgence of another LC guru: Dr. Ron Rosedale. Rosedale hogged the most "cyber ink" in Jimmy's post, and also posted advanced snippets on his Facebook page.
If the Taubesian-led LLVLC circle seems cultish, you really gotta get a load of Rosedale. After all, Taubes may surely be enjoying his supreme guru status, but he didn't cultivate it as a populist movement (although he does have delusions of grandeur thinking if only all these idjuts in research and medicine would just listen to him). Rosedale, on the other hand, sees himself as a visionary leader of a movement. I had heard of Rosedale, and knew something about him and leptin. There was a thread or two about him and his book on Jimmy's forum but not much of a following even there. When I went to Rosedale's FB page, the first thing that struck me was the imagery. What's with the televangelist schtick? Or is that just me noticing this? Read more »
In Case You Have a Stupid Child
who decided to choose a stupid major
you can have him consult this list first.
On a related note, I was kicking around contacting my state senator when I lived in Minnesota about recommending this idea. After never hearing back from him about other ideas I had, I decided it was pointless.
This will be one of those ideas that will never make it to the floor of a state legislature because Republicans lack a spine.
you can have him consult this list first.
On a related note, I was kicking around contacting my state senator when I lived in Minnesota about recommending this idea. After never hearing back from him about other ideas I had, I decided it was pointless.
This will be one of those ideas that will never make it to the floor of a state legislature because Republicans lack a spine.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Geographical NAWALT
So I just bought a bottle of Southern Comfort and the Peanuts Holiday Three Pack DVD set, so this will be quick.
"NAWALT" for rookie beginner economists stands for "Not All Women Are Like That."
It is usually a defense deployed (unconsciously I might add) by women when you are talking about the battle of the sexes and you point out that in your EMPIRICAL experiences women portray a certain behavior.
Standing you up.
Lying to you about what they want.
Telling you they want a sensitive man.
etc. etc.
Reliably, a woman will jump up to defend their fellow sisters (unconsciously I might add) and say, "Not all women are like that!"
This is then usually followed by an anecdotal piece of evidence that is the exception that proves the rule.
However, there is an instance of NAWALT that plagues most young boys and since the Manosphere is here to help you young boys avoid the wretched hell us men had to go through, I shall point it out.
It's "Geographical NAWALT."
The key thing here is it isn't a woman rising to defend other women. It's usually 14 year old boys that are saying, "NAWALT." The reason why is they, like all of us before, think that there is something wrong with the women (girls) at their school. That not all women can possibly be like that. That at the high school in the neighboring town, the girls must be different and more rational.
Sure enough you start attending parties or going to 18 and under clubs and you realize all the neighboring girls form the neighboring schools are just as snooty.
And so you once again say, "NAWALT!" It must be my metro area. Surely once I move to college in a different state, the women will be different."
But gee whillikers shucks howdy. You get to college where there are "women" from all across the country and they're just as snooty, psychotic and mind-game-playing as the girls back home.
Usually at this point most young men go through a depression. If you were like me, your single mom told you that it would "all change when you get to college. That's where the "real" women are. They're smart. They're intelligent. And they'll appreciate a kind, caring, sensitive 90's man, just like you. Just like the sensitive caring 90's man I brought you up to be."
Of course this doesn't materialize and it's like approaching a mirage in a desert only to find more sand.
So let me explain to you why it isn't your "school." It isn't your "county." And it isn't your "state" that has the problem. it is a society wide, American-wide problem.
You cannot go anywhere and find those classical, traditional women who just want to make you happy in this country. Nation-wide effects have influenced more or less all women in the country, and unless you're Amish or something disconnected from MTV, or Reality TV shows, or the internet you can safely and reliably assume that yes, AWALT.
Now, most men over the age of 21 or 22 know this. BUt again, this post really isn't for them. This is for you 14 year old boys who are starting to notice something isn't adding up. You don't know what precisely, and you can't describe it precisely, but you're starting to realize that the girls in your school are pretty snooty and difficult. The logical or obvious explanation is there's something unique or special about your school and if you just get out of that environment, you'll succeed.
But I am here, and many men with more years of experience will back me up, to tell you it is nation wide. You cannot move to a different state to avoid it. You cannot pursue different girls at different towns to avoid it. The lessons you read here in the manosphere are universal across not just the country, but western civilization in general.
So don't look to college for "things to change."
They won't. They'll be just the same, but with the added benefit of these girls claiming they're "independent women" while living off of mommy and daddy for their tuition, rent, health insurance, credit card, car insuance, food, clothing, and shelter.
Oh, and hey, by the way. Enjoy the decline!
"NAWALT" for rookie beginner economists stands for "Not All Women Are Like That."
It is usually a defense deployed (unconsciously I might add) by women when you are talking about the battle of the sexes and you point out that in your EMPIRICAL experiences women portray a certain behavior.
Standing you up.
Lying to you about what they want.
Telling you they want a sensitive man.
etc. etc.
Reliably, a woman will jump up to defend their fellow sisters (unconsciously I might add) and say, "Not all women are like that!"
This is then usually followed by an anecdotal piece of evidence that is the exception that proves the rule.
However, there is an instance of NAWALT that plagues most young boys and since the Manosphere is here to help you young boys avoid the wretched hell us men had to go through, I shall point it out.
It's "Geographical NAWALT."
The key thing here is it isn't a woman rising to defend other women. It's usually 14 year old boys that are saying, "NAWALT." The reason why is they, like all of us before, think that there is something wrong with the women (girls) at their school. That not all women can possibly be like that. That at the high school in the neighboring town, the girls must be different and more rational.
Sure enough you start attending parties or going to 18 and under clubs and you realize all the neighboring girls form the neighboring schools are just as snooty.
And so you once again say, "NAWALT!" It must be my metro area. Surely once I move to college in a different state, the women will be different."
But gee whillikers shucks howdy. You get to college where there are "women" from all across the country and they're just as snooty, psychotic and mind-game-playing as the girls back home.
Usually at this point most young men go through a depression. If you were like me, your single mom told you that it would "all change when you get to college. That's where the "real" women are. They're smart. They're intelligent. And they'll appreciate a kind, caring, sensitive 90's man, just like you. Just like the sensitive caring 90's man I brought you up to be."
Of course this doesn't materialize and it's like approaching a mirage in a desert only to find more sand.
So let me explain to you why it isn't your "school." It isn't your "county." And it isn't your "state" that has the problem. it is a society wide, American-wide problem.
You cannot go anywhere and find those classical, traditional women who just want to make you happy in this country. Nation-wide effects have influenced more or less all women in the country, and unless you're Amish or something disconnected from MTV, or Reality TV shows, or the internet you can safely and reliably assume that yes, AWALT.
Now, most men over the age of 21 or 22 know this. BUt again, this post really isn't for them. This is for you 14 year old boys who are starting to notice something isn't adding up. You don't know what precisely, and you can't describe it precisely, but you're starting to realize that the girls in your school are pretty snooty and difficult. The logical or obvious explanation is there's something unique or special about your school and if you just get out of that environment, you'll succeed.
But I am here, and many men with more years of experience will back me up, to tell you it is nation wide. You cannot move to a different state to avoid it. You cannot pursue different girls at different towns to avoid it. The lessons you read here in the manosphere are universal across not just the country, but western civilization in general.
So don't look to college for "things to change."
They won't. They'll be just the same, but with the added benefit of these girls claiming they're "independent women" while living off of mommy and daddy for their tuition, rent, health insurance, credit card, car insuance, food, clothing, and shelter.
Oh, and hey, by the way. Enjoy the decline!
Friday, November 25, 2011
A Degree in "Rhetoric"
I thought a masters in puppetry was pretty stupid, but this ranks up there.
Surprise, surprise, a lawyer/politician/school teacher.
How does my Crusaderism Theory do it?!
Surprise, surprise, a lawyer/politician/school teacher.
How does my Crusaderism Theory do it?!
Thursday, November 24, 2011
I'm on Twitter ... Sort of
Hi Gang!
Some have already noticed the new "What I'm Reading & Tweeting" widget over on the right hand side bar. I got the idea to do this from Chris over at Conditioning Research. He used to have a scrolling "What I'm Reading" box on his blog, that apparently was a widget from Blogger/Google that let him share selections from his reader. Apparently that feature is no longer available through Google ... bummer as I was looking for something a little different than a blogroll and such. So he told his readers that for now to follow on Twitter. I have noticed many blogs with Recent Tweets widgets. Lightbulb ... head ...
So, I decided to get on Twitter and put that widget here. My intent at this point is to share with my blog readers those things around the web that I'm reading and find interesting and worth sharing. I would like to keep the outgoing tweets "clean" in this regard. A one-way street if you will. Not to be antisocial, but I prefer to keep conversations to comments & the discussion board here and email ... I think I'd go nuts trying to do that with Twitter too. (I already get backlogged with emails and the disco board). So for now please don't expect replies on Twitter. If I ever get into that action, I'll probably set up separate accounts for the Asylum and personal communication. Hope you all understand.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING ALL!!
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Our Spanish-Speaking Geologist Writes In
I have noticed a trend and it is in the embryonic or "proto" stages of becoming a post. A post along the lines of how I've seen our Latin American counterparts have a genuine hatred of socialism, and a more-than-anecdotal statistically significant readership/commentaryship on the part of Latino/Hispanic men of the "Capitalist Faith."
Of course there is no doubt selection bias on this blog, but I have noticed a lot of Latin men voice conservative ideals and thoughts.
Regardless, a guest post from a Spanish speaking capitalist who I believe hates communism even more than me.
However, this does also behoove the question, "Where is Lieutenant Latino?" He occasionally drops in, haven't heard from him in a while! Regardless, enjoy.
________
"No jobs in the US? No jobs for graduates? Ha!
If someone graduates with a degree in engineering or geology, there are lots of jobs (not IT or computer science, too many of them out there... and -at least in Canada- employers have figured out they can employ Wan Chang and Kumar Patel for 12-hour days at $40k, which is a pittance for a network engineer, if you ask me).
As long as you are willing to eat and crap snow and/or sand, at least at the initial years of your career, engineering/geology is pretty good money. I wish I had known about the amazing job opportunities in Canada when I was 18, back in the mid 90s. I probably would not have a mortgage now (instead, I spent 98-04 working for faceless -I'd say bastard- corporations paying peanuts for 50-60 hour weeks).
Trust me when I say this: I have employed fresh, out of university geology and mining engineering graduates, for projects up north (e.g. Labrador, also in Chile). They were costing the project $350-$400/day. People with experience (they could use MapInfo and had 2 or 3 summer seasons) were $500+/day, plus onerous conditions (for them, not me). Drillers and miners (and good cooks) earn even more (rumour has it good drillers -i.e. >7 years experience- earn $1000/day, particularly when working abroad, but I have not been able to verify this). If I wanted to make lots of money and have a life consisting of hard work periods followed by several weeks off, for 10 years, I'd rather be a driller than a medicine student between ages 20 and 30: you would have a lot more to show at age 30 -assuming a counting coppers mind- and probably earn more than a doctor. Should a driller be careful with his money (and fingers, too many 40+ drillers with an odd number of fingers, including the number 7) he should be able to retire at 40 (there are some famous drillers who retired or half-retired to Thailand or Costa Rica age 40). I have met Canadian drillers who had a ranch or something similar by age 40, no mortgage, and worked in drilling for 3-5 months a year in order to support ranch life.
If a young lad (or lady) were to take one of the mineral exploration assignments for a couple of years and not blow it all on bars and the meat market (like 70% of men do), they would definitely have no student debt within a few months, and a nice 20% downpayment on a Toronto or Montreal home within two or three years of graduation.
Of course there is no doubt selection bias on this blog, but I have noticed a lot of Latin men voice conservative ideals and thoughts.
Regardless, a guest post from a Spanish speaking capitalist who I believe hates communism even more than me.
However, this does also behoove the question, "Where is Lieutenant Latino?" He occasionally drops in, haven't heard from him in a while! Regardless, enjoy.
________
"No jobs in the US? No jobs for graduates? Ha!
If someone graduates with a degree in engineering or geology, there are lots of jobs (not IT or computer science, too many of them out there... and -at least in Canada- employers have figured out they can employ Wan Chang and Kumar Patel for 12-hour days at $40k, which is a pittance for a network engineer, if you ask me).
As long as you are willing to eat and crap snow and/or sand, at least at the initial years of your career, engineering/geology is pretty good money. I wish I had known about the amazing job opportunities in Canada when I was 18, back in the mid 90s. I probably would not have a mortgage now (instead, I spent 98-04 working for faceless -I'd say bastard- corporations paying peanuts for 50-60 hour weeks).
Trust me when I say this: I have employed fresh, out of university geology and mining engineering graduates, for projects up north (e.g. Labrador, also in Chile). They were costing the project $350-$400/day. People with experience (they could use MapInfo and had 2 or 3 summer seasons) were $500+/day, plus onerous conditions (for them, not me). Drillers and miners (and good cooks) earn even more (rumour has it good drillers -i.e. >7 years experience- earn $1000/day, particularly when working abroad, but I have not been able to verify this). If I wanted to make lots of money and have a life consisting of hard work periods followed by several weeks off, for 10 years, I'd rather be a driller than a medicine student between ages 20 and 30: you would have a lot more to show at age 30 -assuming a counting coppers mind- and probably earn more than a doctor. Should a driller be careful with his money (and fingers, too many 40+ drillers with an odd number of fingers, including the number 7) he should be able to retire at 40 (there are some famous drillers who retired or half-retired to Thailand or Costa Rica age 40). I have met Canadian drillers who had a ranch or something similar by age 40, no mortgage, and worked in drilling for 3-5 months a year in order to support ranch life.
If a young lad (or lady) were to take one of the mineral exploration assignments for a couple of years and not blow it all on bars and the meat market (like 70% of men do), they would definitely have no student debt within a few months, and a nice 20% downpayment on a Toronto or Montreal home within two or three years of graduation.
Is MightyMeta Mouse Relevant to Real Humans?
In my last post, I discussed a study demonstrating that mice on a ketogenic diet ate the same number of calories as both mice on standard chow and the obesogenic high fat+sucrose diet, but lost body weight comparable to that seen in mice constricted to eating 66% of the standard chow calories. I dubbed this a metabolic Mighty Mouse of sorts, MightyMeta Mouse. I don't think we'll have enough installments of this to warrant an acronym -{grin} - I'll just use short nicks when I tire of typing it out.
In any case, this study seems to validate some of the magical metabolic claims made by those who are able to eat thousands of calories on VLC diets while having been unable to lose or in some cases even maintain weight eating stand CRD level calories. Well, I did the math in the prior post, and although Mighty does seem to manifest a metabolic advantage of sorts, this would not translate to much for the humans in question. A couple of hundred calories a day tops.
Read more »
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Mighty Metabolism Mouse?
| HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY (for TWICHOO)!! |
Thanks to Amber for bringing the following study to my attention: A high-fat, ketogenic diet induces a unique metabolic state in mice. Does it appear that MightyMeta Mouse is on his way?? Perhaps ... for mice anyway. The KD fed mice attained the same reduced body mass as the calorie restricted (to 66% ad libitum of control chow fed) mice. A fourth group were fed the usual high fat + sucrose diet to induce obesity. Anthony Colpo ... pay up!?*
Monday, November 21, 2011
A PSA - Education Does Not = Attractive
Dear ladies, this is a real, genuine public service announcement.
It is meant to help you. Which means it's based in the truth and reality.
Which consequently means you're not going to like it.
But, if you can set aside your emotions, and think about it intellectually and honestly, you'll see I am REALLY trying to help you and it WILL help your future.
___________________
I have this fake profile up on one of the dating sites. According to my BS profile I'm a tall, rich, millionaire and put my age at 38. I have it there simply to provide entertainment for myself and to enjoy the decline. But today I received enough "flirtations" or "winks" from women with profiles that all have a common trait. And this trait shows me they have been misled about the realities of male sexuality and attraction. Therefore:
Ladies of the 30+ generations.
WARNING WARNING WARNING - PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!!!!
We do not find your masters degree in "worthless fluffy crap" attractive nor an asset.
Matter of fact, we find it unattractive and a liability.
WARNING WARNING WARNING - PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!!!
You have been lied to. No man really finds your education attractive unless it is in a real field requiring math, calculus and inevitably some sort of private sector employment whereby you are actually demanded in the field and not some make-work-wanna-be-make-believe-were-all-independent-adults-even-though-we're-fleecing-the-taxpayer-to-essentially-create-a-career/job-that-would-never-be-demanded-in-the-first-place-because-it-ultimately-produces-nothing-of-value-for-society-and-was-only-created-to-give-people-the-fake-feeling-of-self-reliance-and-independence type job.
I know you've been told by many other women that men find education attractive. But for once, will you please listen to (oh, I don't know) MEN about what they find attractive????
I know that's a foreign concept, asking the opposite sex as to what they find attractive, because OBVIOUSLY they should have no say. Right? I mean attraction is defined by the SAME SEX, right? So why listen to those stupid men and what they find attractive? No, just listen to what aging, bitter members of the same gender TELL YOU what SHOULD BE attractive and ignore what the opposite sex thinks. Because OBVIOUSLY what is sexually attractive should be determined by the same sex, not the opposite.
Anyway, sorry to say...
Education does NOT equal attraction. The reason why is that no longer, especially in fields women choose to disproportionately pursue, does education equal GENUINE intelligence or GENUINE intellectual intrigue. This means all of you with your "masters in...
communications
social work
social justice
English
philosophy
education
or whatever worthless liberal art field you chose because it didn't involve academic rigor
are not real subjects. They are not interesting. And above all else, they are not intelligent. They are little fancy make-believe hobby degrees you chose to major in because it avoided any real academic rigor or math and you deep down inside were hoping to land some cushy government/non-profit/puppies 'n unicorns type job.
So please STOP LISTING IT AS AN ASSET on your profiles.
Stop complaining on the internet that,
"Well, I'm educated, and I have masters in psychology, and a masters in social work, and I am a member of Amnesty International, why don't men find me attractive those bastards!!!!?"
The truth (and I know that pisses a lot of you off) is that men find REAL intelligence attractive. We find physical beauty attractive. We find kindness and caring and a healthy sex-drive attractive. We find heels, lingerie and pouty lips attractive.
We don't find your bleeping "Masters in English" attractive!!!!!
So quit listening to old, aging, bitter women about what men "should" find attractive and start listening to what men SAY THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO.
Because the last thing a man would be attracted to is that hot, naughty, in-shape, tomboy, motorcycle riding, IT chick who brings in $150,000 a year at her computer engineering job, but still likes to wear slinky lingerie while she serves you and her up a martini listening to Frank Sinatra.
Yeah, that would never beat the masters candidate in social work with her cats and long, drab skirt as she shops at the local organic market with her reusable bag.
Honest to the Patron Saint's Name of Frick, are people in this society that stupid that I have to write these posts?
It is meant to help you. Which means it's based in the truth and reality.
Which consequently means you're not going to like it.
But, if you can set aside your emotions, and think about it intellectually and honestly, you'll see I am REALLY trying to help you and it WILL help your future.
___________________
I have this fake profile up on one of the dating sites. According to my BS profile I'm a tall, rich, millionaire and put my age at 38. I have it there simply to provide entertainment for myself and to enjoy the decline. But today I received enough "flirtations" or "winks" from women with profiles that all have a common trait. And this trait shows me they have been misled about the realities of male sexuality and attraction. Therefore:
Ladies of the 30+ generations.
WARNING WARNING WARNING - PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!!!!
We do not find your masters degree in "worthless fluffy crap" attractive nor an asset.
Matter of fact, we find it unattractive and a liability.
WARNING WARNING WARNING - PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!!!
You have been lied to. No man really finds your education attractive unless it is in a real field requiring math, calculus and inevitably some sort of private sector employment whereby you are actually demanded in the field and not some make-work-wanna-be-make-believe-were-all-independent-adults-even-though-we're-fleecing-the-taxpayer-to-essentially-create-a-career/job-that-would-never-be-demanded-in-the-first-place-because-it-ultimately-produces-nothing-of-value-for-society-and-was-only-created-to-give-people-the-fake-feeling-of-self-reliance-and-independence type job.
I know you've been told by many other women that men find education attractive. But for once, will you please listen to (oh, I don't know) MEN about what they find attractive????
I know that's a foreign concept, asking the opposite sex as to what they find attractive, because OBVIOUSLY they should have no say. Right? I mean attraction is defined by the SAME SEX, right? So why listen to those stupid men and what they find attractive? No, just listen to what aging, bitter members of the same gender TELL YOU what SHOULD BE attractive and ignore what the opposite sex thinks. Because OBVIOUSLY what is sexually attractive should be determined by the same sex, not the opposite.
Anyway, sorry to say...
Education does NOT equal attraction. The reason why is that no longer, especially in fields women choose to disproportionately pursue, does education equal GENUINE intelligence or GENUINE intellectual intrigue. This means all of you with your "masters in...
communications
social work
social justice
English
philosophy
education
or whatever worthless liberal art field you chose because it didn't involve academic rigor
are not real subjects. They are not interesting. And above all else, they are not intelligent. They are little fancy make-believe hobby degrees you chose to major in because it avoided any real academic rigor or math and you deep down inside were hoping to land some cushy government/non-profit/puppies 'n unicorns type job.
So please STOP LISTING IT AS AN ASSET on your profiles.
Stop complaining on the internet that,
"Well, I'm educated, and I have masters in psychology, and a masters in social work, and I am a member of Amnesty International, why don't men find me attractive those bastards!!!!?"
The truth (and I know that pisses a lot of you off) is that men find REAL intelligence attractive. We find physical beauty attractive. We find kindness and caring and a healthy sex-drive attractive. We find heels, lingerie and pouty lips attractive.
We don't find your bleeping "Masters in English" attractive!!!!!
So quit listening to old, aging, bitter women about what men "should" find attractive and start listening to what men SAY THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO.
Because the last thing a man would be attracted to is that hot, naughty, in-shape, tomboy, motorcycle riding, IT chick who brings in $150,000 a year at her computer engineering job, but still likes to wear slinky lingerie while she serves you and her up a martini listening to Frank Sinatra.
Yeah, that would never beat the masters candidate in social work with her cats and long, drab skirt as she shops at the local organic market with her reusable bag.
Honest to the Patron Saint's Name of Frick, are people in this society that stupid that I have to write these posts?
Correction
Apparently the book I previously endorsed by Marty Andrade is NOT the book he previously led me to believe.
There is no shoot out in the ghost town of Ardmore in his current novel.
That novel Marty is working on and will be published in the future. It involved gin runners, gun runners and women of ill-repute...just like Milwaukee.
Regardless I do apologize to all of my South Dakota readers who do have a familiar or emotional attachment to the Edgemont and Ardmore area of the state. But Marty is working on that novel which should prove just as entertaining, if not better than his current one.
Matter of fact I think you should buy it to just for future comparison purposes.
There is no shoot out in the ghost town of Ardmore in his current novel.
That novel Marty is working on and will be published in the future. It involved gin runners, gun runners and women of ill-repute...just like Milwaukee.
Regardless I do apologize to all of my South Dakota readers who do have a familiar or emotional attachment to the Edgemont and Ardmore area of the state. But Marty is working on that novel which should prove just as entertaining, if not better than his current one.
Matter of fact I think you should buy it to just for future comparison purposes.
Education Bubble Hustle
More proof of what we already know, but I shall explain for those with their triple masters in Fuzzy Bunny Rabbits.
You see, Votech, for all the mockery it receives, actually is more productive now I would have to say than your average bachelors degree. The reason why is votech is specifically designed to teach you a skill or a trade that is useful to society. You morons out there getting your "bachelors in crayon drawings" are merely a waste of resources and is why there is an education bubble.
Until these lines are inversed you can expect to continue to enjoy the decline.
You see, Votech, for all the mockery it receives, actually is more productive now I would have to say than your average bachelors degree. The reason why is votech is specifically designed to teach you a skill or a trade that is useful to society. You morons out there getting your "bachelors in crayon drawings" are merely a waste of resources and is why there is an education bubble.
Until these lines are inversed you can expect to continue to enjoy the decline.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
The Captain's Second Book Slated for December 15th
I am happy to announce that I am writing my second book. It will tentatively be coming out in time for all of you to purchase it before Christmas.
The topic and title will remain secret until its release.
The topic and title will remain secret until its release.
Her Life Was More Important Than Her Son's
I embedded this post here so that only twitter and feed followers will find it. Not out of shame or anything, but in that I do not want this to seem that I am capitalizing on a tragic event that has recently unfolded. At the same time out of the (now) 6 premature deaths of people I either knew personally or knew of, 5 have been suicide, all under 40 years of age.
Without going into details somebody I know of (not personally know) committed suicide. Young kid. We'll leave it at that. However, there is no doubt in my mind that mom was directly to blame for this poor child's death. She divorced dad when he was just a kid. Made sure to cheat on dad too before the divorce. Drugs, booze, and let's not forget dating the likes of drug dealers and "amateur rappers" instead of helping raise junior.
Do all children who commit suicide do it because of mom? No, of course not.
Would not the same thing happen if dad was just as bad. Yes, of course.
The point is to highlight the blinding arrogance and greed of "parents" who bring children into this world and find said children too much of a burden to raise properly and thus have no problem divorcing, or just outright abandoning those children.
Sadly, sometimes, this is the price.
I don't care what some feminist communist asshole told you in college or what tripe your read by some spoiled brat in Cosmo, children need both parents. And they need both parents to have their heads out of their asses.
Enjoy the decline.
Without going into details somebody I know of (not personally know) committed suicide. Young kid. We'll leave it at that. However, there is no doubt in my mind that mom was directly to blame for this poor child's death. She divorced dad when he was just a kid. Made sure to cheat on dad too before the divorce. Drugs, booze, and let's not forget dating the likes of drug dealers and "amateur rappers" instead of helping raise junior.
Do all children who commit suicide do it because of mom? No, of course not.
Would not the same thing happen if dad was just as bad. Yes, of course.
The point is to highlight the blinding arrogance and greed of "parents" who bring children into this world and find said children too much of a burden to raise properly and thus have no problem divorcing, or just outright abandoning those children.
Sadly, sometimes, this is the price.
I don't care what some feminist communist asshole told you in college or what tripe your read by some spoiled brat in Cosmo, children need both parents. And they need both parents to have their heads out of their asses.
Enjoy the decline.
More on Magic Metabolisms ~ Super What?
As predicted, when I posted my challenge a few days ago, the anecdotal magic metabolism or two came out to play. There is certainly a cadre out there who believes:
VLC → lower insulin → faster fat burning metabolism
Some version of this is the purported Metabolic Advantage championed most prominently by Dr. Mike Eades. The nutshell version of this is that when you are low carb, excess fat consumed will be "blown off" through futile cycling and uncoupling. Despite admitting to eating a "starvation calorie level" diet himself, Eades perpetuates this myth of low carb magic.
What sparked this post, was a very well referenced post by Ambimorph over on PaleoHacks: Is lowered T3 resulting from a low carb diet problematic? She, along with another respondent on the thread, provides a long list of studies that show VLC lowers T3. Dr. Ron Rosedale (of Science Krispie Leptinade fame here at the Asylum) weighed in. He believes that this lowered T3 is a longevity-promoting benefit of VLC diets. Make no mistake, Rosedale advocates what Atkins referred to as a "biologically zero" carb diet - non-dairy protein and leafy greens. Lower T3 dials down your metabolic rate. This is seen as a good thing as stated by Andre Chimene in his answer: "having a fast metabolism is like idling your car at high RPMs... for your life." Additional comments bring up a good point: "You don't want your car idling roughly or stalling either." So this claim is:
VLC → lower insulin → slower efficient metabolism
Read more »
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Gary Debunks Taubes ~ It's the Fructose Stupid!
The Marquee:
The Scene:
Gary Debunks Taubes ~ It's the Fructose Stupid!
Starring Gary Taubes
Special guest appearance by Stephan Guyenet
The Scene:
Curtain rises
Gary Taubes, clad in grey corduroy pajamas and bunny slippers is in the basement of his home, that he has fastidiously transformed into an exact replica of the lecture hall where he infamously confronted Stephan Guyenet, PhD. At the lectern stands a life-sized voodoo doll bearing a striking resemblence to Stephan. While poking imaginary pins into the doll ...Read more »
An Interesting Observation at the Senior Center
South Dakota as you know is not the hotbed of swing or salsa.
It's not really the hot bed of anything unless it's late July and the Sturgis rally is going on.
So to find dancing you need to take what you can get and the local senior center actually has some really great dancing. Obviously when I attend me and my friends are the youngest people there. But something just dawned on me while I was showering this morning, plotting my weekend.
"The old ladies at the senior center like it when men are charming."
This may not seem to be an obvious epiphany, but ask yourself the question:
"In various social circumstances, who has been more receptive to your charms or innocent flirtations? 18-45 year old women or women of the WWII generation?"
Admittedly, I acknowledge that old grandma Tilly doesn't mind the occasional harmless flirtation from a young man. Matter of fact, they probably welcome it. When asking the old women to dance I usually say something stupid like:
"Don't tell my girlfriend"
Or
"Your husband isn't going to kick my ass is he?"
They eat it up.
But beyond that, what I observed is it's almost more natural and I feel much more at home dispensing the occasional bits and bytes of charm to a woman who is 82 than a woman who is 28. And the reason why I contend or theorize is the woman who is 82, age aside, was brought up in a generation where she appreciate the occasional bit of charm or flirtation from men. She KNEW it wasn't a ploy to get her into the sack, it was just an innocent young guy, yapping his gums, making funny ha ha's, trying to cajole a laugh.
You can't say that about a 28 year old woman. You pull off any kind of "charm" and they think you're scamming on them. You try to say something witty, with purely humorous intent, they immediately think you're hitting on them and they tighten up.
Of course, if the girl is enamored with you, you can say anything and they'll laugh.
"My dachshund is flying F-15's over Mars"
*giggle giggle* "Oh, you're so funny Captain!"
But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a general social setting, you walk up to a group of women, start chatting, which group do you think is going to be more receptive to your frivolous flirtations, not because of age, but because of upbringing?
Alas, tonight I get to go to the Senior Center again. And I'm sure I'll see Tilly and Gertrude there. And I'm sure they'll not turn me down for dances either. But what is going to be pleasant, is that when we sit down at the table or we converse, I'll feel very free and at home to make the occasional compliment or when introducing them to others, saying:
"Ah! Sophia Loren, I'd like to introduce you to Audrey Hephurn. Audrey, this is Sophia."
They eat it up.
It's not really the hot bed of anything unless it's late July and the Sturgis rally is going on.
So to find dancing you need to take what you can get and the local senior center actually has some really great dancing. Obviously when I attend me and my friends are the youngest people there. But something just dawned on me while I was showering this morning, plotting my weekend.
"The old ladies at the senior center like it when men are charming."
This may not seem to be an obvious epiphany, but ask yourself the question:
"In various social circumstances, who has been more receptive to your charms or innocent flirtations? 18-45 year old women or women of the WWII generation?"
Admittedly, I acknowledge that old grandma Tilly doesn't mind the occasional harmless flirtation from a young man. Matter of fact, they probably welcome it. When asking the old women to dance I usually say something stupid like:
"Don't tell my girlfriend"
Or
"Your husband isn't going to kick my ass is he?"
They eat it up.
But beyond that, what I observed is it's almost more natural and I feel much more at home dispensing the occasional bits and bytes of charm to a woman who is 82 than a woman who is 28. And the reason why I contend or theorize is the woman who is 82, age aside, was brought up in a generation where she appreciate the occasional bit of charm or flirtation from men. She KNEW it wasn't a ploy to get her into the sack, it was just an innocent young guy, yapping his gums, making funny ha ha's, trying to cajole a laugh.
You can't say that about a 28 year old woman. You pull off any kind of "charm" and they think you're scamming on them. You try to say something witty, with purely humorous intent, they immediately think you're hitting on them and they tighten up.
Of course, if the girl is enamored with you, you can say anything and they'll laugh.
"My dachshund is flying F-15's over Mars"
*giggle giggle* "Oh, you're so funny Captain!"
But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a general social setting, you walk up to a group of women, start chatting, which group do you think is going to be more receptive to your frivolous flirtations, not because of age, but because of upbringing?
Alas, tonight I get to go to the Senior Center again. And I'm sure I'll see Tilly and Gertrude there. And I'm sure they'll not turn me down for dances either. But what is going to be pleasant, is that when we sit down at the table or we converse, I'll feel very free and at home to make the occasional compliment or when introducing them to others, saying:
"Ah! Sophia Loren, I'd like to introduce you to Audrey Hephurn. Audrey, this is Sophia."
They eat it up.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Burning Out at 30
Sheesh, "burning out at 30????"
I also presume most of these people majored in easy cake subjects, had college paid for, or at least didn't work through college.
Heck, at 30 I was just warming up.
Ah, the unforeseen consequences of being genuinely treated as equals.
Don't know about you guys, but I'm going to go enjoy the decline!
I also presume most of these people majored in easy cake subjects, had college paid for, or at least didn't work through college.
Heck, at 30 I was just warming up.
Ah, the unforeseen consequences of being genuinely treated as equals.
Don't know about you guys, but I'm going to go enjoy the decline!
Boys Will Boys
Your Captain has been spending some time researching the NIPA accounts which, among other things, breaks down GDP and spending based on product and service type. When you convert them to a percent of total spending or GDP, you get an interesting insight as to what society values. Today's NIPA account shows you what percent of personal income men/boys have spent on men/boys like things. Namely video games, guns and ammo, and "clothing."
Enjoy!
On a related note "girls will be girls" especially when it comes to guns.
Enjoy!
On a related note "girls will be girls" especially when it comes to guns.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Ladies & Gentlemen, Now playing in the Asylum Theater: Gary Debunks Taubes
Narrated by CarbSane
Starring Gary Taubes as himself
Starring Gary Taubes as himself
"A delightful drama about the journey from amateur boxer, to physics major turned journalist, to renowned 'expert' on obesity and human metabolism. The protagonist is befallen by a nasty case of egomonomaniacalis dunshütinfüt but ignores his obesity-researcher-turned-MD's advice when he prescribes digaholedypur arrestin. This disease is a silent killer of reputations, and left unchecked might do just that. Will Gary survive the disease? Or will Gary debunk Taubes?" or maybe Leptin Man will save the day?
It's really rather amusing when a new Taubes blog post lands in my feed reader, and apparently since he promises a lengthy five part series of posts every few days, I'm guessing there will be no end to my amusement any time soon. This has inspired another series of posts that from hereon will be dubbed Gary Debunks Taubes.
What? Another series? Yep. My other GT-inspired series (like the GCBC Reference Checks) have focused on how Taubes cherry picks from. and flat out misrepresents the science contained in many of the references in his book. Other posts are dedicated to debunking the various facets of TWICHOO. But in the past few days, between reading his first blog post in a while, composing my latest installment in that series -- GCBC Reference Check ~ Part VII of ? ~ Julius Bauer's Lipophilia Hypothesis, feeling especially self-torturous and listening to a 2007 lecture on YouTube, and finally making it through blog post number two in less than that many months, it dawned on me. Taubes actually does quite a fine job of debunking himself, and in this regard he does a bang-up job of finding studies that dismantle his hypothesis.
So in the preview, we had Gary citing Julius Bauer stating that nervous centers (some call that the brain) regulate and dominate the metabolism of fat tissue. Coming up, more quotes from GCBC, but first I'll have at those blog posts.
Each show a different play! Playing indefinitely in the Theater here at the Asylum.
Admission is free, but please consider a donation towards finding a cure for ED.
Conflict Disclosure: The Theater at the Asylum is really sponsored by Carbsaneuticals Inc., makers of digaholedypur arrestin.
So in the preview, we had Gary citing Julius Bauer stating that nervous centers (some call that the brain) regulate and dominate the metabolism of fat tissue. Coming up, more quotes from GCBC, but first I'll have at those blog posts.
Each show a different play! Playing indefinitely in the Theater here at the Asylum.
Admission is free, but please consider a donation towards finding a cure for ED.
Conflict Disclosure: The Theater at the Asylum is really sponsored by Carbsaneuticals Inc., makers of digaholedypur arrestin.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Pawn's Gambit
Time gets away from you.
You are busy supporting yourself, and if you have an entrepreneurial streak, time really gets away from you as you pursue pointless endeavor after pointless endeavor wondering if these pursuits might actually pay off in a genuinely free market like China.
However, when Marty send me his press release for "The Educator" I had this horrible sinking guilt feeling.
"Oh my God. I forgot JR Hume's book."
JR sent me his book quite a while ago. You know I don't like to read, but Natasha does and she said she couldn't put it down. But as much as she liked it, her enjoyment of it paled in comparison to me forgetting to post about it. And this was like over a year ago.
Therefore fellow Junior, Deputy, Aspiring, Official or Otherwise, Economists,
if you like sci-fi/fantasy sort of fiction I STRONGLY recommend you buy Mr. Hume's book, Pawn's Gambit.
Matter of fact, I have so much guilt, I would recommend you buy his book before mine.
Seriously, if you're the sci fi type, do me a favor and assuage me of my guilt and buy AND READ his book.
It's important to read it too!
Matter of fact I have story. I was at my uncle's funeral. His sister, my aunt, Aunt Judy, comes up to me and the group of people were were conversing with. She may have had a couple, and continues on about her nephew who wrote a book and how she was so proud. She bragged about how she bought the book and so I naturally asked her,
"Yes, you bought it. But did you read it?"
She turned bright red and looked into her wine glass.
I put my arm around her and said, "I love you, Aunt Judy."
So, in any case, I'm glad we're all going to go buy Pawn's Gambit.
You will solve me of my sins and make Mr. Hume a happy man.
You are busy supporting yourself, and if you have an entrepreneurial streak, time really gets away from you as you pursue pointless endeavor after pointless endeavor wondering if these pursuits might actually pay off in a genuinely free market like China.
However, when Marty send me his press release for "The Educator" I had this horrible sinking guilt feeling.
"Oh my God. I forgot JR Hume's book."
JR sent me his book quite a while ago. You know I don't like to read, but Natasha does and she said she couldn't put it down. But as much as she liked it, her enjoyment of it paled in comparison to me forgetting to post about it. And this was like over a year ago.
Therefore fellow Junior, Deputy, Aspiring, Official or Otherwise, Economists,
if you like sci-fi/fantasy sort of fiction I STRONGLY recommend you buy Mr. Hume's book, Pawn's Gambit.
Matter of fact, I have so much guilt, I would recommend you buy his book before mine.
Seriously, if you're the sci fi type, do me a favor and assuage me of my guilt and buy AND READ his book.
It's important to read it too!
Matter of fact I have story. I was at my uncle's funeral. His sister, my aunt, Aunt Judy, comes up to me and the group of people were were conversing with. She may have had a couple, and continues on about her nephew who wrote a book and how she was so proud. She bragged about how she bought the book and so I naturally asked her,
"Yes, you bought it. But did you read it?"
She turned bright red and looked into her wine glass.
I put my arm around her and said, "I love you, Aunt Judy."
So, in any case, I'm glad we're all going to go buy Pawn's Gambit.
You will solve me of my sins and make Mr. Hume a happy man.
Credit Unions Think Their BLEEP Don't Stink
I love this.
Credit unions and small community banks claiming they did nothing to help bring about the housing crisis.
Again, you have probably already read my book, but let me explain to you about credit unions and small time banks during the late 2000's.
They were wanna be's. They came to the party too late, bought in at the worst possible time, and whatever filfth and crap that was turned down by real banks, fell on the floor for these bottom feeders.
The WORST loans I ever saw made were by credit unions and community banks.
And if Frank-Dodd wipes them out, so be it, too bad, boo-freaking-hoo. It would be a good first step to passing the stool out of the banking system once and for all that caused this mess.
Credit unions and small community banks claiming they did nothing to help bring about the housing crisis.
Again, you have probably already read my book, but let me explain to you about credit unions and small time banks during the late 2000's.
They were wanna be's. They came to the party too late, bought in at the worst possible time, and whatever filfth and crap that was turned down by real banks, fell on the floor for these bottom feeders.
The WORST loans I ever saw made were by credit unions and community banks.
And if Frank-Dodd wipes them out, so be it, too bad, boo-freaking-hoo. It would be a good first step to passing the stool out of the banking system once and for all that caused this mess.
The Brain Rules ~ But Which Part?
The fact that the brain, or centralized neural complexes, even exists in multicellular higher organisms is indicative of it's over-arching governing function. Sure, we have feedback loops in our bodies that seem to have little if any mediation by centrally produced signals, but ultimately our organs, including our fat tissue, ultimately relay information to our brains. Our brains then send out signals back to the organ, and to other organs. Renowned endocrinologist Julius Bauer -- heralded originally by Gary Taubes in GCBC, and now in a recent blog post -- said as much.
I've been reading a lot of truly nasty commentary about the web ever since Stephan began rolling out the food reward series. Apparently a lot of people have hurt feelings and think that Stephan is now yet just another young skinny male just looking to blame fat chicks for their obesity, by -- gasp! -- discussing how leptin alters appetite and food intake in the brain. Ya know, I do share the sentiment regarding the seeming dominance of the field of all nature of obesity experts tending to be lean males, trying to figure it all out in a population dominated more by females. But that impacts my views on advice given and such ... I cannot let it cloud my judgment as regards what the science actually says. This is the crux of this matter of obesity research and such. Anyone can fashion a hypothesis that makes sense to them. But if it is not consistent with the actual results observed in carefully controlled experiments, it's just wrong! Conversely, I don't care if Stephan were actually Homer Simpson if the science he's conveying to his audience is sound. And yet, sadly, I think most obese are beyond "repair" in terms of ever experiencing that nirvana of subconscious homeostasis of a lean body weight. That doesn't mean it's not attainable, just that it will take some conscious effort. Before I discuss that a bit, I just can't help but highlight a comment Taubes made recently on his blog:
Read more »
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
I Shall Explain Paul Krugman
A recent poster asked how Paul Krugman, if he had all this education in economics, can still come to the conclusions that he does.
And the answer is very simple if you have super-awesome economic genius like I do:
"Because Paul Krugman, deep down inside, doesn't believe one damn word he says, but knows there's a market to be made telling liberal, trust-fund baby New Yorker brats what they want to hear."
It's an amazing skill matter of fact. To be able to ignore empirical data and spew what ultimately results in lies. But the great thing, if not the GENIUS of Paul Krugman, is that he KNOWS his readership doesn't care about:
Intellectual honesty
The advancement of society
Reality
or
Truth
He knows his audience.
He knows his customers.
And he knows they're a bunch of east coast snobby elitists that want some "unbiased economist professional" to confirm their ideology and their faux intellectual status.
He is actually a much smarter and more patient man than I will ever be, because he can suck it up and tell a bunch of prissy spoiled brat elitists what they want to hear. He can lie, knowingly, through his teeth so he can collect a paycheck from the equally amoral NYT.
You think I'm joking?
Look up Ed Schulz. He was a conservative until the paychecks didn't come through. Now he's the PREMIER liberal talk show host. He sucks, but his listening audience doesn't notice because he tells them what they want to hear.
Matter of fact, you pay me enough, and I'll turn liberal on you guys too.
Of course, you would all know it would be a sham.
But would my "new-found audience know?"
would they even CARE I was a "raving right wing lunatic" in the past?
No.
Never underestimate the cowardly intellectual weakness of the average American schlep. Hitler himself could come back from the grave and host a talk radio show called "The Super-Pro-Liberal-New-York-Jew-Awesome-Israeli-Zionist-Hour-With-Bagels" and his show would be a hit.
So don't raise your ire (let alone your blood pressure) over Paul Krugman. He is a soothe sayer. Matter of fact you should cheer him on and appreciate that he's milking these idiots for as much as he can.
But in the end reality will prove him wrong. He will of course be sitting on his millions telling all of his loyal readers one simple thing when none of his predictions come true;
"Oops."
And that's when the real joke will be had.
in the meantime,
Enjoy that decline, kids!
And the answer is very simple if you have super-awesome economic genius like I do:
"Because Paul Krugman, deep down inside, doesn't believe one damn word he says, but knows there's a market to be made telling liberal, trust-fund baby New Yorker brats what they want to hear."
It's an amazing skill matter of fact. To be able to ignore empirical data and spew what ultimately results in lies. But the great thing, if not the GENIUS of Paul Krugman, is that he KNOWS his readership doesn't care about:
Intellectual honesty
The advancement of society
Reality
or
Truth
He knows his audience.
He knows his customers.
And he knows they're a bunch of east coast snobby elitists that want some "unbiased economist professional" to confirm their ideology and their faux intellectual status.
He is actually a much smarter and more patient man than I will ever be, because he can suck it up and tell a bunch of prissy spoiled brat elitists what they want to hear. He can lie, knowingly, through his teeth so he can collect a paycheck from the equally amoral NYT.
You think I'm joking?
Look up Ed Schulz. He was a conservative until the paychecks didn't come through. Now he's the PREMIER liberal talk show host. He sucks, but his listening audience doesn't notice because he tells them what they want to hear.
Matter of fact, you pay me enough, and I'll turn liberal on you guys too.
Of course, you would all know it would be a sham.
But would my "new-found audience know?"
would they even CARE I was a "raving right wing lunatic" in the past?
No.
Never underestimate the cowardly intellectual weakness of the average American schlep. Hitler himself could come back from the grave and host a talk radio show called "The Super-Pro-Liberal-New-York-Jew-Awesome-Israeli-Zionist-Hour-With-Bagels" and his show would be a hit.
So don't raise your ire (let alone your blood pressure) over Paul Krugman. He is a soothe sayer. Matter of fact you should cheer him on and appreciate that he's milking these idiots for as much as he can.
But in the end reality will prove him wrong. He will of course be sitting on his millions telling all of his loyal readers one simple thing when none of his predictions come true;
"Oops."
And that's when the real joke will be had.
in the meantime,
Enjoy that decline, kids!
"Crimson" Being the Key Word
Mankiw is an economist at Harvard.
Why he's there, I don't know.
But 10% of his class (the ones who are probably going to get C's and D's) walked out to protest the conservative nature of economics. (though I pine how many classes would even exist if students walked out because of liberal bias).
Now, understand something about economics.
It's largely math based.
So if you add 2 and 2 and get 5, you are WRONG. mathematically, factually WRONG (but then, hey, at least you're on the B honor roll at Harvard).
Additionally, it is largely logic-based as well.
Evil things such as "if nobody works, we'll all starve" or "you can't afford that because you didn't work hard enough to earn the money to pay for it" unfortunately do come into play and are presented as facts.
Naturally idiots have a hard time with math and facts which is why I will guaran-freaking-tee you that all of the 70 students that left are not in a STEM field and will further go onto produce either nothing in their lives, or worse, run for public office or join some crusder non-profit outfit to tell others how to live their lives.
In the meantime they'll be a bunch of cry babies that don't like reality.
Any takers to see if they part of the 1%? I mean, privileged, spoiled brat Harvard students? Any takers? bueller? Bueller?
Why he's there, I don't know.
But 10% of his class (the ones who are probably going to get C's and D's) walked out to protest the conservative nature of economics. (though I pine how many classes would even exist if students walked out because of liberal bias).
Now, understand something about economics.
It's largely math based.
So if you add 2 and 2 and get 5, you are WRONG. mathematically, factually WRONG (but then, hey, at least you're on the B honor roll at Harvard).
Additionally, it is largely logic-based as well.
Evil things such as "if nobody works, we'll all starve" or "you can't afford that because you didn't work hard enough to earn the money to pay for it" unfortunately do come into play and are presented as facts.
Naturally idiots have a hard time with math and facts which is why I will guaran-freaking-tee you that all of the 70 students that left are not in a STEM field and will further go onto produce either nothing in their lives, or worse, run for public office or join some crusder non-profit outfit to tell others how to live their lives.
In the meantime they'll be a bunch of cry babies that don't like reality.
Any takers to see if they part of the 1%? I mean, privileged, spoiled brat Harvard students? Any takers? bueller? Bueller?
In Search of the Magic Metabolism ~ A Challenge
It's comical. Every time Taubes comes out with something new, somehow folks with magic metabolisms come out of the woodwork as well. You know the type. They could not lose weight eating a starvation diet of 1000 cal/day for weeks on end doing hours of cardio a week. Some even claim to gain weight on such regimes! Worse yet they were hungry all the time. But then they read GCBC and went low carb and stopped exercising! Suddenly, they were never hungry, but managed to wolf down 2000 cal/day of fat and protein and lost 20,30,100 or more pounds effortlessly in a week/month/whatever unbelievably short timeframe.
This is utter nonsense. Even Taubes acknowledges ultimately that if someone gains fat mass they are in caloric surplus and if someone loses fat mass they are in caloric deficit. He just claims that you are eating more because your fat cells have gone rogue and hog your energy, and if you're losing weight, you are eating less because the fat cells are releasing their stores so you don't need to eat. Whatever.
Read more »
Stupid, Dumb, Lazy Boys
Stupid boys.
Can't find a job in this economy.
All because they refuse to man up and grow up.
Nope, has nothing to do with disproportionately-voted-in-by-women environmental laws and regulations that destroyed industrial jobs and other male-dominated fields.
Nope. Nothing to do with that.
And it certainly has nothing to do with disproportionately-voted-in-by-women socialist tax structures that destroy competition and profit.
No, absolutely not.
And it would have absolutely NOTHING to do with disproportionately-voted-in-by-women increases in government largess (disproportionately benefiting female employment) at the expense of the private sector (disproportionately hurting male employment) as we outsourced traditional male roles to the public sector.
No, certainly not.
Nope, you're all just a bunch of loser, whiny, dirty disgusting, lazy boys who aren't trying hard enough.
Why don't you all get cushy government jobs like us women? Or non-profit jobs? You know what you need? You need affirmative action, just like us! Or a government grant to pay you to write or find yourself. Then you could be independent and fulfilled like us!
Of course, you'll even probably goof that up because you're stupid boys.
And another thing? Why can't I find a good man?
And why won't he commit?
And why are there such losers out there without jobs who can't support me and make me a good husband.
I want children. My biological clock is ticking. And I want a house in the suburbs and 3 months vacation and want to work part time from home to rear my children and a man to subsidize it all.
Where are the real men!?
I have a triple masters in public management, social work and English. I'm educated! Why can't I find any?
/ sarcasm
For the Patron Saint's Name of Frick. You just can't make this stuff up.
Can't find a job in this economy.
All because they refuse to man up and grow up.
Nope, has nothing to do with disproportionately-voted-in-by-women environmental laws and regulations that destroyed industrial jobs and other male-dominated fields.
Nope. Nothing to do with that.
And it certainly has nothing to do with disproportionately-voted-in-by-women socialist tax structures that destroy competition and profit.
No, absolutely not.
And it would have absolutely NOTHING to do with disproportionately-voted-in-by-women increases in government largess (disproportionately benefiting female employment) at the expense of the private sector (disproportionately hurting male employment) as we outsourced traditional male roles to the public sector.
No, certainly not.
Nope, you're all just a bunch of loser, whiny, dirty disgusting, lazy boys who aren't trying hard enough.
Why don't you all get cushy government jobs like us women? Or non-profit jobs? You know what you need? You need affirmative action, just like us! Or a government grant to pay you to write or find yourself. Then you could be independent and fulfilled like us!
Of course, you'll even probably goof that up because you're stupid boys.
And another thing? Why can't I find a good man?
And why won't he commit?
And why are there such losers out there without jobs who can't support me and make me a good husband.
I want children. My biological clock is ticking. And I want a house in the suburbs and 3 months vacation and want to work part time from home to rear my children and a man to subsidize it all.
Where are the real men!?
I have a triple masters in public management, social work and English. I'm educated! Why can't I find any?
/ sarcasm
For the Patron Saint's Name of Frick. You just can't make this stuff up.
Monday, November 14, 2011
RSS Feed Enabled
I have enabled RSS feeding down below and to the left.
Enough of you have harassed me about this that I finally got around to it.
Enough of you have harassed me about this that I finally got around to it.
Bloggo Science ~ LIRKO Wars Edition
Well, a little back and forth is going on these days over the LIRKO mouse. What's a LIRKO mouse? Well, the acronym says it all, LIRKO = Liver Insulin Receptor Knock Out. This mouse's liver doesn't see insulin.
So back in May, Peter/Hyperlipid posted about the LIRKO mouse, LIRKO mice (1). This post referenced this study: Loss of Insulin Signaling in Hepatocytes Leads to Severe Insulin Resistance and Progressive Hepatic Dysfunction. Almost simultaneously he posted LIRKO mice (2) which dealt with this study: High Circulating Leptin Receptors with Normal Leptin Sensitivity in Liver-specific Insulin Receptor Knock-out (LIRKO) Mice. (A peeve: The full texts of both of the studies referenced in these posts are available free online. Why not link directly to the full text?)
About a week or so ago, continuing with his own dismantling of TWICHOO, Stephan Guyenet posted Does High Circulating Insulin Drive Body Fat Accumulation? Answers from Genetically Modified Mice. Single line smackdown: A lot of hyperinsulinemic mice out there aren't accumulating fat tissue as a result. One of the gen mod mice Stephan mentions just so happened to be Peter's friend LIRKO.
Read more »
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Just Make It 27%
I like simplicity.
The reason I like simplicity is because it's really hard to scam somebody or lie when things are kept simple. It is complexity wherein politicians and criminals work their ways to get your money out of your hands legally.
The most obvious example of this is our complex tax system. 16,000 pages plus for the tax code and now that I'm working on bankruptcies and asset recovery I am reminded as to just how complex politicians have made taxes ON PURPOSE. They also make it so you don' t know you're being bled. Much like leeches will soothe your skin with an anesthetic before they start to suck out your blood, politicians have made it so you don't even realize how much you're paying in taxes with the PAYGO system.
But the single worst aspect of this complex tax system is not the loopholes that benefit a few connected people, nor is it the fact we have to waste the equivalent of 2 weeks per year complying with this horrendously complex tax code, nor is it the loss of production that labor could have been spent doing otherwise.
No, the single LARGEST COST to the complex tax system is simply the lack of....
pricing.
"Pricing?" you say.
"Yes, pricing," I answer.
Understand that government has a price. It has a cost. And that cost is the price we pay in taxes.
The problem is that since we have so many taxes and so many fees at so many different levels, that nobody really knows what the final price tag of the government is. This is HORRIBLE in that without knowing the price of something, you can't tell for sure whether it's worth what you're getting in return.
A Big Mac is very simple. I know it costs about $4. And therefore, before I spend my $4 I can COMPARE the PRICE against the EXPECTED BENEFIT. MW3 is very simple. I know it costs $60 and can COMPARE THE PRICE AGAINST THE EXPECTED BENEFIT.
But with government you can't do that. Because nobody, bar some really anal-retentive accountants, can tell you what price you are personally paying for government.
Now, super-awesome economists such as myself kindly and regularly calculate "government spending as a percent of GDP." This is to show the people "hey, this is what we're paying for the government we got."
THere's just one small problem.
98% of the American adult population doesn't know what "GDP" stands for, let alone the merit of dividing government spending by it. They wouldn't be able to understand what that number signifies. Besides, it's getting in the way of their love affair with Kim Kardashian's wedivorce.
But it is here that the true argument for a flat sales tax lays.
A flat sales tax does four things.
1. It consolidates ALL the various government taxes into ONE SINGLE TAX. More specifically, ONE SINGLE NUMBER everybody can understand, and in doing so puts a VERY SPECIFIC PRICE ON GOVERNMENT. Because all government revenue would be derived from ONE single tax, any cries or demands from the people to "pay for the chilllllllldreeeeeen" or "bailing out Banksters" or "free food" or "social security" or "wars here and there" would immediately and quite accurately drive up that ONE SINGLE NUMBER, so you could see how much "paying for free college education" would cost.
"The starting tax rate is 20%. Oh, you want free health care? The new tax rate is 24.7% Oh, you also want to subsidize loser solar companies? The new new tax rate is now 25.1%. Oh, you want to bail out the banking industry? The new new NEW tax rate is 32%"
People would know PRECISELY how much government would cost and would therefore allow them to determine whether they were getting their bang for their buck.
2. It forces people to have skin in the game so they cannot rob Peter to pay themselves. If they want free food for their 4 illegitimate children, then they get to pay an extra 1% in sales tax on everything they buy. They want to have free education? They get to share some of that burden. And in doing so...
3. It unifies the people. Instead of pitting them against one another, the poor vs. the rich, the old vs. the young, the children vs the childrenless, doesn't matter. You're all in the same boat, you all pay the same price. You can no longer vote to tax one group of people or grant others a "credit" or a "loophole." Get in that damn sandbox and start playing nice with one another.
4. Makes people put down that damn People Magazine and quit worrying about Kim Kardashian and pay the ef attention to some economics.
There are of course other HUGE economic benefits to having a tax code that would be whittled down from 16,000 pages to a SOLE, SINGLE SIMPLE number, but the above is I think the most overlooked, perhaps never-considered benefit of a flat sales tax.
Now, out of the Republican contenders for the nomination, are there any advocating this?
No, even my man, Herman Cain, still has to complicate it unnecessarily by deriving taxes by three different sources. But it is a start.
I fear, however, even the average American voter isn't bright enough to multiply 9 by 3, and will thusly still be just as confused as with a 16,000 page tax code.
So why not just make it an even 27% and stop confusing the average American?
The reason I like simplicity is because it's really hard to scam somebody or lie when things are kept simple. It is complexity wherein politicians and criminals work their ways to get your money out of your hands legally.
The most obvious example of this is our complex tax system. 16,000 pages plus for the tax code and now that I'm working on bankruptcies and asset recovery I am reminded as to just how complex politicians have made taxes ON PURPOSE. They also make it so you don' t know you're being bled. Much like leeches will soothe your skin with an anesthetic before they start to suck out your blood, politicians have made it so you don't even realize how much you're paying in taxes with the PAYGO system.
But the single worst aspect of this complex tax system is not the loopholes that benefit a few connected people, nor is it the fact we have to waste the equivalent of 2 weeks per year complying with this horrendously complex tax code, nor is it the loss of production that labor could have been spent doing otherwise.
No, the single LARGEST COST to the complex tax system is simply the lack of....
pricing.
"Pricing?" you say.
"Yes, pricing," I answer.
Understand that government has a price. It has a cost. And that cost is the price we pay in taxes.
The problem is that since we have so many taxes and so many fees at so many different levels, that nobody really knows what the final price tag of the government is. This is HORRIBLE in that without knowing the price of something, you can't tell for sure whether it's worth what you're getting in return.
A Big Mac is very simple. I know it costs about $4. And therefore, before I spend my $4 I can COMPARE the PRICE against the EXPECTED BENEFIT. MW3 is very simple. I know it costs $60 and can COMPARE THE PRICE AGAINST THE EXPECTED BENEFIT.
But with government you can't do that. Because nobody, bar some really anal-retentive accountants, can tell you what price you are personally paying for government.
Now, super-awesome economists such as myself kindly and regularly calculate "government spending as a percent of GDP." This is to show the people "hey, this is what we're paying for the government we got."
THere's just one small problem.
98% of the American adult population doesn't know what "GDP" stands for, let alone the merit of dividing government spending by it. They wouldn't be able to understand what that number signifies. Besides, it's getting in the way of their love affair with Kim Kardashian's wedivorce.
But it is here that the true argument for a flat sales tax lays.
A flat sales tax does four things.
1. It consolidates ALL the various government taxes into ONE SINGLE TAX. More specifically, ONE SINGLE NUMBER everybody can understand, and in doing so puts a VERY SPECIFIC PRICE ON GOVERNMENT. Because all government revenue would be derived from ONE single tax, any cries or demands from the people to "pay for the chilllllllldreeeeeen" or "bailing out Banksters" or "free food" or "social security" or "wars here and there" would immediately and quite accurately drive up that ONE SINGLE NUMBER, so you could see how much "paying for free college education" would cost.
"The starting tax rate is 20%. Oh, you want free health care? The new tax rate is 24.7% Oh, you also want to subsidize loser solar companies? The new new tax rate is now 25.1%. Oh, you want to bail out the banking industry? The new new NEW tax rate is 32%"
People would know PRECISELY how much government would cost and would therefore allow them to determine whether they were getting their bang for their buck.
2. It forces people to have skin in the game so they cannot rob Peter to pay themselves. If they want free food for their 4 illegitimate children, then they get to pay an extra 1% in sales tax on everything they buy. They want to have free education? They get to share some of that burden. And in doing so...
3. It unifies the people. Instead of pitting them against one another, the poor vs. the rich, the old vs. the young, the children vs the childrenless, doesn't matter. You're all in the same boat, you all pay the same price. You can no longer vote to tax one group of people or grant others a "credit" or a "loophole." Get in that damn sandbox and start playing nice with one another.
4. Makes people put down that damn People Magazine and quit worrying about Kim Kardashian and pay the ef attention to some economics.
There are of course other HUGE economic benefits to having a tax code that would be whittled down from 16,000 pages to a SOLE, SINGLE SIMPLE number, but the above is I think the most overlooked, perhaps never-considered benefit of a flat sales tax.
Now, out of the Republican contenders for the nomination, are there any advocating this?
No, even my man, Herman Cain, still has to complicate it unnecessarily by deriving taxes by three different sources. But it is a start.
I fear, however, even the average American voter isn't bright enough to multiply 9 by 3, and will thusly still be just as confused as with a 16,000 page tax code.
So why not just make it an even 27% and stop confusing the average American?
The Family Dog
Was trying to find a cartoon called "The Family Dog" which was a HILARIOUS episode in the 1980's series "Amazing Stories." Had my mother and a young little girl I know in mind and thought it would make a great Christmas gift.
Unfortunately I could not find it, but found it in a slightly low-quality version on You Tube. Watched it again for the first time in about 20 years and it is just all that more funny as an adult:
The additional parts will be forth coming.
Unfortunately I could not find it, but found it in a slightly low-quality version on You Tube. Watched it again for the first time in about 20 years and it is just all that more funny as an adult:
The additional parts will be forth coming.
Christmas Gift of "Super-Awesome Economic Wisdom!"
A friendly reminder to all the Junior, Deputy, Aspiring, Official or otherwise economists out there:
With the holiday seasons coming up, remember, nothing makes a better gift than all the various sorts of books and classes the Captain offers!
Have an 8 year old girl who can't WAIT to read about the intricacies of the housing bubble? Then get her "Behind the Housing Crash!" (only 99 cents on Kindle!)
Have a 4 year old boy that wants a red fire truck this Christmas? Get him something BETTER, the kindle version of "Privatizing Governments!"
And I'm sure your wife would LOVE nothing more than a Caribbean Cruise! But should would love you EVEN MORE if you signed her up for a basic investment class OR (even better) a class on stock valuation and analysis.
Remember, the gifts you give them tell your loved ones just how much you love them! And nothing says "I love you better" than super-awesome economic knowledge!
With the holiday seasons coming up, remember, nothing makes a better gift than all the various sorts of books and classes the Captain offers!
Have an 8 year old girl who can't WAIT to read about the intricacies of the housing bubble? Then get her "Behind the Housing Crash!" (only 99 cents on Kindle!)
Have a 4 year old boy that wants a red fire truck this Christmas? Get him something BETTER, the kindle version of "Privatizing Governments!"
And I'm sure your wife would LOVE nothing more than a Caribbean Cruise! But should would love you EVEN MORE if you signed her up for a basic investment class OR (even better) a class on stock valuation and analysis.
Remember, the gifts you give them tell your loved ones just how much you love them! And nothing says "I love you better" than super-awesome economic knowledge!
Saturday, November 12, 2011
GCBC Reference Check ~ Part VII of ? ~ Julius Bauer's Lipophilia Hypothesis
The following is a quote from Good Calories Bad Calories:
Bergmann and Julius Bauer, the “noted Vienna authority on internal diseases,” as the New York Times called him, were the two most prominent proponents of the lipophilia hypothesis, but only Bauer wrote about the hypothesis in English, attempting to influence how obesity would be perceived by physicians in the United States. Bauer’s expertise was in the application of genetics and endocrinology to clinical medicine, a field he arguably pioneered in a 1917 monograph entitled Constitution and Disease. Bauer had taken case histories from 275 obese patients and reported that nearly 75 percent had one or both parents who were also obese. He considered this compelling evidence that the condition had a genetic component, which in turn implied the existence of genetically determined hormonal and metabolic factors that would bestow a constitutional disposition to put on excessive fat. “The genes responsible for obesity,” Bauer wrote, “act upon the local tendency of the adipose tissue to accumulate fat (lipophilia) as well as upon the endocrine glands and those nervous centers which regulate lipophilia and dominate metabolic functions and the general feelings ruling the intake of food and the expenditure of energy. Only a broader conception such as this can satisfactorily explain the facts.”
And now let's see what Gary writes in his latest blog post, shall we? In giving us his 20¢ on the "Body Rules" concept:
Read more »
Friday, November 11, 2011
I Put the "Jew" In "Jujutsu"
As I may or may not have mentioned, your Captain has been participating in Jujitsu. However, since your Captain (unbeknownst to him until he was 21) is "technically" a Jew, I prefer to call it:
"Jewjitsu."
*the technicality is that his mother's mother's mother was a Jew and something about Matriarchical lineage that your Captain today has yet to fully understand. Regardless, I just run with the free reign to cut Jewish jokes.
Regardless, I STRONGLY recommend jujitsu if you have the time. Not just because it is (thus far as I can find) the only martial art that trains you for real fighting, but the work out and damage it does to your body cannot be matched.
To tender proof (and I am not doing this to "brag" or what have you, I'm doing this sincerely because it will show you what you can expect) here's your Captain after a night of sparing against a variety of jujitsu students:
I did not contract some kind of "disease" or "measles." Those are just the bruises I incurred from 30 minutes of sparing. Apparently those will go away when all of that turns from fat to muscle.
In any case, consider "Jew"jitsu if you are looking for a serious work out.
Also consider fish shower curtains because those are pretty kick ass too.
"Jewjitsu."
*the technicality is that his mother's mother's mother was a Jew and something about Matriarchical lineage that your Captain today has yet to fully understand. Regardless, I just run with the free reign to cut Jewish jokes.
Regardless, I STRONGLY recommend jujitsu if you have the time. Not just because it is (thus far as I can find) the only martial art that trains you for real fighting, but the work out and damage it does to your body cannot be matched.
To tender proof (and I am not doing this to "brag" or what have you, I'm doing this sincerely because it will show you what you can expect) here's your Captain after a night of sparing against a variety of jujitsu students:
I did not contract some kind of "disease" or "measles." Those are just the bruises I incurred from 30 minutes of sparing. Apparently those will go away when all of that turns from fat to muscle.
In any case, consider "Jew"jitsu if you are looking for a serious work out.
Also consider fish shower curtains because those are pretty kick ass too.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
"Raise Other Mens' Children" Not in My Job Description
When I applied for the job "Bachelor" the job description was, if I recall correctly, something along the lines of:
"WANTED : BACHELOR
Must be able to support yourself and only be willing to support yourself. Must spend all of your discretionary income on you and things you like. This includes, but is not limited to:
Video games
Booze
Cigars
Motorcycles
Trips
Vacations
Sushi and other delicious food
Must have the ability to be free and enjoy freedom. Do what you want, when you want, how you want.
Candidate must also enjoy hanging out with friends, chasing tail, dating many girls, drinking beer, watching movies.
Significant free time and leisure time is expected on the job. You will have minimal responsibilities. After working up enough money to support yourself and paying taxes to support others, you MUST then spend the remaining money on yourself and what you like.
Workout, stay in shape, and develop hobbies and interests that are eclectic and mentally rewarding and stimulating.
Avoid sickness by avoiding coming into contact with children.
Vasectomy optional, but preferred.
All qualified candidates can come down to Joe's Bar for drinking-pre-qualification testing."
Nowhere did it say, "must raise other people's children."
I truly wonder if all the "baby mama's" in the world (or at least the US) actually think that single men, who kept their act together and built a lives for themselves actually owe it to them to bring up other mens' children. As if paying taxes for their mistakes via WIC or EBT or subsidized housing or day care isn't enough. No, they want us to commit ourselves personally. Because (GASP! NO! YOU MEAN???)
A GOVERNMENT CHECK ISN'T FULFILLING ENOUGH!? You mean government checks DON'T HUG YOU BACK!?
Sorry sweetheart, not in my job description.
Enjoy the decline.
"WANTED : BACHELOR
Must be able to support yourself and only be willing to support yourself. Must spend all of your discretionary income on you and things you like. This includes, but is not limited to:
Video games
Booze
Cigars
Motorcycles
Trips
Vacations
Sushi and other delicious food
Must have the ability to be free and enjoy freedom. Do what you want, when you want, how you want.
Candidate must also enjoy hanging out with friends, chasing tail, dating many girls, drinking beer, watching movies.
Significant free time and leisure time is expected on the job. You will have minimal responsibilities. After working up enough money to support yourself and paying taxes to support others, you MUST then spend the remaining money on yourself and what you like.
Workout, stay in shape, and develop hobbies and interests that are eclectic and mentally rewarding and stimulating.
Avoid sickness by avoiding coming into contact with children.
Vasectomy optional, but preferred.
All qualified candidates can come down to Joe's Bar for drinking-pre-qualification testing."
Nowhere did it say, "must raise other people's children."
I truly wonder if all the "baby mama's" in the world (or at least the US) actually think that single men, who kept their act together and built a lives for themselves actually owe it to them to bring up other mens' children. As if paying taxes for their mistakes via WIC or EBT or subsidized housing or day care isn't enough. No, they want us to commit ourselves personally. Because (GASP! NO! YOU MEAN???)
A GOVERNMENT CHECK ISN'T FULFILLING ENOUGH!? You mean government checks DON'T HUG YOU BACK!?
Sorry sweetheart, not in my job description.
Enjoy the decline.
This Can't Be Good
Normally I would think institutions such as the military, police, Dept of Homeland Security would more or less jive with me in that these tend to be more upstanding, less-corrupted institutions. ie-I could hang out with soldiers, cops and special agents and be just fine.
But with the DHS under Obama and government workers being unionized and all, I get a little leery when I see the DHS scanning my site for 4 hours.
I'll let you know if I end up on an abandoned oil rig out in the ocean somewhere...or...well, maybe not.
But with the DHS under Obama and government workers being unionized and all, I get a little leery when I see the DHS scanning my site for 4 hours.
I'll let you know if I end up on an abandoned oil rig out in the ocean somewhere...or...well, maybe not.
Is a New Hypothesis in the Works?
I have to admit, my eyes glaze over reading most of what Gary Taubes has to offer these days. His latest seemed so much more of the same old same old. Old paradigm, new paradigm ... research will never move forward until they embrace the new paradigm. Thousands of scientists can't be right when Gary Taubes knows they're wrong.
But Taubes tucked something new into his latest post that I missed on the first read:
In this paradigm, meals stimulate hormonal responses—insulin, in particular, either in the short term (glucose) or the long term (fructose)— and this in turn directly influences both the storage of fat and the oxidation of fatty acids elsewhere in the body.In recent lectures Gary has been turning his ire towards fructose/sugar as the ultimate cause of obesity. He has in the past tried to explain the Japanese away by claiming they eat very little sugar. I suppose compared to the SAD this is true, but they do eat sugar (and they don't eat brown rice either, but can't we cut Taubes some slack when he makes stuff up? Swallow one for the cause!) Myself and others have pointed out the problem with this and TWICHOO -- that being that fructose does not stimulate an insulin response. Therefore it does not fit into TWICHOO as stated in GCBC or WWGF . Is he about to change his tune a bit by introducing some long term influence of fructose on insulin behavior? His toothpick of a fork tine is bent so badly at this point he's gotta fashion something to do his cherry picking with. Only to do that, he'll have to do some more cherry picking.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The Captain Protects the Saudi Royal Family Part 2
I was stationed at the “back door” to the Kahler Hotel where the prince was to enter the building. The hallway his highness would have to pass through was littered with additional guards. His plane landed around 3AM, the hoopla lasted till 345AM, and the transport only took 15 minutes. I was thinking his eminence would be arriving soon in that he would like to get to his hotel sooner than later.
0415
0430
0500
Plenty of supplies and clothes and Saudi’s were coming through, but no prince.
Finally around 0630 I hear on the radio the prince is finally coming through. Never seeing the prince at the airport I was kind of curious to see what the first real person of “royalty” would look like. I was picturing that standard Saudi garb, white head-scarf, robe, one of them fancy head-bandanas they use.
The guy was in a wheelchair, bloated, barely conscious and looked like a bum off the street. Unshaven and obviously in need of medical attention. It was not regal.
His staff pushed him down the hallway, got him to the elevator. Once inside, my relief came so I could go to bed.
The next afternoon my alarm woke me up and I was to be stationed in the hotel. Nobody knew where exactly and given the BS musical chairs routine we suffered the night before, I’m sure it would probably change moment to moment. I arrived and sure enough, I was supposed to be stationed right in front of his majesty’s room.
Just one minor problem.
He wasn’t there.
He was enroute back to the airport.
Apparently in the 10 hours I slept plans had changed. He suddenly announced he was going to fly to New York to visit his brother (the actual King of Saudi Arabia). And by “suddenly” I mean 5 minutes notice. Now, instead of the security team being stationed at the hotel, he needed a team to escort him back to New York.
This presented a problem for most of the guards. Already these morons proved they couldn’t plan more than 2 days in advance. Fun as it would be to jump on the Saudi royal airplane and jet off to New York and maybe even meet the actual king of Saudi Arabia, we didn’t even know if we’d be coming back any time soon. Would it be a day or two? Three days? A week? A month? Most of the guards had other responsibilities and jobs. They couldn’t commit for an undefined amount of time.
Invariably we were able to compile a team of 7 guys, all young, either fresh out of the police academy and without day time jobs, or guys who didn’t have any wives or children and could commit to an unknown time for the assignment. This of course had to be done quickly because his idiotness was already getting put on the convoy back to the airport and would need this team on the airplane with him. But despite the chaos this lack of planning caused in the security detail, we were able to put together a team.
So off this team goes, along with the guards protecting the convoy. And with the regular rigmarole of “Saudi Airport Musical Chairs” they inevitably are ready for the team to get on the plane and fly out. The “general” then comes to our leader and says,
“Oh, we don’t need your security guards anymore.”
And turns around and gets in the plane.
My boss and the team are sitting there stunned and pissed off. All the chaos and the hubbub and now they’re not going to New York.
Ultimately though, this was fine. It wasn’t like the prince took his entire entourage with him. He left roughly 90 people back in Rochester we had to baby sit and with the surplus of guys we could now start doing more normal shifts. Plus, Rochester PD was kind enough to offer us a couple off-duty cops and a minor semblance of organization and stability was starting to form.
Enter in his majesty’s 2 wives and princess daughters.
While his highness was a pain in the ass to schedule around, his wives and daughters were in in general a “royal” pain in the ass. But, for all of the pain they would cause it, it was here the seeds were laid for my super-awesome economic epiphany.
Proof Cain is the Best Candidate
Understand this and understand this well.
The reason Cain is getting assailed and assaulted is because he IS the best candidate out there and would surely trounce Obama. Do you remember "Operation Chaos?" Rush's effort to get Hillary nominated because she would do worse than Obama against McCain? This is the same thing.
The fact the MSM doesn't even list Cain below (but Jon Huntsman???) shows you they KNOW he is the front runner and the most viable candidate. They have to convince you otherwise.
I just don't know how much clearer I can make it.
You can contact CNBC and ask them the question I did:
"Why, if Cain is nothing but headlines news when it comes to sexual harassment and affairs, is he not even noteworthy when it comes to his candidacy."
The reason Cain is getting assailed and assaulted is because he IS the best candidate out there and would surely trounce Obama. Do you remember "Operation Chaos?" Rush's effort to get Hillary nominated because she would do worse than Obama against McCain? This is the same thing.
The fact the MSM doesn't even list Cain below (but Jon Huntsman???) shows you they KNOW he is the front runner and the most viable candidate. They have to convince you otherwise.
I just don't know how much clearer I can make it.
You can contact CNBC and ask them the question I did:
"Why, if Cain is nothing but headlines news when it comes to sexual harassment and affairs, is he not even noteworthy when it comes to his candidacy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)