But his dad is smart.
Noticed, however, how they villainize the father.
Heck, if Keith's dad wants to pay my way through engineering school, sign me up!
Christ, 36 years old and 8 YEARS IN CULINARY SCHOOL??????
Thursday, May 31, 2012
I Spy With My Little Eye
A reason this woman had to marry herself.
Anybody else see what I see?
I'll give you another clue from another woman who married herself.
I laugh thinking how when I was younger I thought I was the one with the problems.
ht
Anybody else see what I see?
I'll give you another clue from another woman who married herself.
I laugh thinking how when I was younger I thought I was the one with the problems.
ht
Announcement!
Announcing upcoming content! Check out the video below. No idea what caused the "blips" -- very annoying at times -- in there, but can't do much about it now. Also the perfectionist in me wanted to edit this further, but what the heck ... warts and all ... here it is!
Review & Critique: The Skinny on Obesity ~ Part II Sickeningly Inaccurate
Previously: Intro & Part I
The second installment of the University of California production, The Skinny on Obesity, featuring Dr. Robert Lustig and colleagues is entitled Sickeningly Sweet. I've embedded the video at right. I've entitled this installment of my Review & Critique Sickeningly Inaccurate. That is, frankly an understatement about the information presented in this episode. This video epitomizes what's wrong with many of the "anti-establishment" nutritional experts. You do not counter bad science with more bad science. This is what Lustig does here. And it's not controversial -- at least there's some evidence supporting the lipid hypothesis -- but the "science" here is counter to known basic biochemistry and in opposition to the vast majority of the evidence of metabolism such as de novo lipogenesis.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The Manosphere
Welcome to The Manosphere!
I'm your lovable host Cappy Cap and I'm here to give you a basic break down and introduction to "The Manosphere" and the blogs that populate it therein.
The Manosphere has no one specific origin, but its manifestation can largely be attributed to the internet making it possible for men to compare notes and realize one thing:
"No, we're not crazy."
Understand, up until the internet, most men, as well as young boys, intuitively knew something was wrong. We had a hunch. But we could never prove it. We were only relegated to our own experiences in our own local neighborhoods which led us to believe that not only was this phenomenon a local affair, but forced us to conclude that if there were any problems we had with dating, courtship, and our general social/sexual interaction with women it had to be our fault. We were to blame. We were not "aggressive enough" "too aggressive" "not sensitive enough" "too sensitive" all the while our single moms and society kept telling us "you're just not looking in the right places" or (my all time favorite) "maybe YOU just attract the wrong type of girl."
Of course, now since the advent of the internet thousands of men have compared notes, shared stories and made various philosophical, political, economic and even scientific observations, resulting in the millions of pages of wisdom that compose The Manosphere today. These millions of pages are slowly coalescing into theories, laws, and rules that make for an entertaining social "science." But most importantly this body of work has provided clarity, guidance and an explanation as to what has happened to society since the feminist revolution of the 70's, making it so that current and future generations of young boys needn't wander through the clueless hellish wilderness their predecessors did. We introduce a (GASP) MALE INFLUENCE into the traditionally "feminist" dominated discussion about how the sexes should interact and behave. We make it perfectly acceptable to voice politically incorrect and unpopular opinions when it comes to the sexes. We provide guidance to young boys, young men, and disillusioned men to turn around and improve their lives. We expose what is an evil and purposed agenda of feminists. We fight for freedom, America, truth, reality and liberty. We essentially supply the modern day male version of "Cosmo," "People Magazine," "Glamor" women have had for 50 years, but we replace the mindless drivel with intelligent, constructive and reality based thought and logic.
In short it is the first real haven for all men across the world to go to, be themselves, and think for themselves. And for modern day feminists it means the jig is up.
There is no core or nucleus to The Manosphere as it is truly open source, nor is there any "mission statement." The blogs that compose that Manosphere range quite widely, including women authors, just as much as they do men (because a lot of women actually do love the men in their lives enough to care about them). However, they all have one thing in common - they are here to help.
Help how?
By destroying and exposing the lies foisted upon you, me and everybody else for the past 50 years - primarily by feminists - about how men and women "should be" instead of accepting how we actually are.
Naturally, there's a lot of backlash and controversy surrounding The Manosphere. People politically invested in trying to get men and women to ignore their basic sexuality, desires and impulses hate us because we threaten their gravy train (what job would feminists have if women were actually programmed to like and support men?). Young women who benefit financially and socially by manipulating relationships, marriage and courting, merely to extract billions of dollars in free drinks or trillions of dollars in divorce courts every year. Entire government agencies (their employees and union members of which depend HEAVILY upon having a government check replace fathers and husbands) hate us as well. The legal system is also not fond of us and our bachelor-like non-marrying ways. Socialists and communist despise us as we insist on independence, freedom and small government. And (frankly) millions of men and women whose fragile feelings we shatter every day with reality also hate us.
But that's just the thing. Reality.
The Manosphere, if anything else, is a backlash of men who just plain got sick and tired of being lied to about how society "should work," how we "should" behave, and what we "should" want. It is also a backlash of being lied to about the realities of the psycho-socio-sexual dynamics between men and women (for example we are shamed if we don't like fat chicks no matter how viscerally and biologically we are disgusted by them). It is also a backlash as we see America, Western Civilization and our culture not just being mocked, ridiculed and villainized, but being destroyed.
And now, in true traditional male form, daddy's coming home and he's pissed. A lot of men in The Manosphere worked hard with nothing to show for it. They did all the right things, but they're still divorced, unemployed, underemployed, in debt, living in or near poverty and thus have nothing left to lose. As they look for an explanation they'll find it, they will take "The Red Pill" (a vernacular you will see commonly), and they will respond by voicing their opinions in The Manosphere with little to no regard for political, economic or employment consequences because, once again, they have nothing left to lose.
Therefore as you explore and read through The Manosphere you will see a lot of anger, crass language, cursing, and vulgarity. You will also see a heavy-handed truth being laid down. Uncomfortable truths. Politically incorrect truths. And truths that make people angry. However, The Manosphere doesn't care about your feelings, your political motivations, your ulterior motives or maintaining a status quo. We are just concerned about one thing:
Truth.
The truth, or as I like to call it "The Reality Principle," is very simple - if people base their decisions in reality, it will prove much more beneficial for everyone in that our decisions will be effective. A classic example is a re-visitation of the fat girl. However, first please dispense your natural reaction to call me evil, mean or shallow for talking about "fat chicks." Ask yourself what is the reality of the situation.
The reality is men don't like fat chicks.
What's the REALITY-BASED solution?
Hound and shame men for decades about them being shallow cads for liking skinny chicks in the hopes you change their genetic programming that has been developing for millions of years?
Or
Just lose the freaking weight?
Also ask yourself what is the outcome to the reality-based solution of the woman losing weight vs. the hounding-shaming option? The reality-based solution is two people who are happier. The non-reality based one is no one being happy.
Whatever the example, The Manosphere's obsession with truth is not to "gain an upper hand" over women in the battle of the sexes. Nor is it for some ulterior political motive. And no, it really isn't to insult or hurt people. It is merely to make the best decisions possible by basing them in the real world to make EVERYBODY (women too) happy.
Now I could go on as there are many other facets to The Manosphere, but I believe the above in general covers what The Manosphere is about (and certainly up for debate by other members of The Manosphere). However, in addition to an introduction to The Manosphere permit me to provide you a bit of a guide or a map to The Manosphere, highlighting various categories and members (please submit any you suggest, also understand I have merely categorized these blogs, not vetted them).
Female Manosphere Bloggers
Yes, we have them! I started with them to immediately dismiss the 100%-guaranteed-accusation that The Manosphere is sexist or misogynist. Though the term is MANosphere, understand there are a lot of women who didn't drink the feminist kool aid and actually LIKE MEN! They have husbands, brothers, fathers, sons, uncles and nephews, and heck, some of them just have male friends they all love and care about. They also realize that men account for half the population AND they also like to engage and enjoy the company of men. Be it romantically, socially or through their families.
They also never swallowed whole the BS that a traditional "woman's role" was somehow shameful or to be looked down upon. They are happy and proud to be stay at home mothers. They are happy to be housewives. And even though some of them aren't married or stay at home moms and are more career gals, they never ONCE would look down upon women nor belittled the importance of a stable, nuclear family to children and society.
Allow me to introduce:
Smalldeadanimals
Booksbikesboomsticks
Dr. Helen
Hooking Up Smart
The Thinking Housewife
Grerp
Haley's Halo
Fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt
Kathy Shaidle
Ema the Emo
Joan of Argggh!
Clarissa's Blog
Shining Pearls of Something
Verus Conditio
Owning Your Shit
Red Pill Wifey
and I'd also recommend this tutorial for women on the Manosphere.
Divorce/Marriage/Religious Bloggers
From here The Manosphere dissects into different subsegments or "specialties." Perhaps most notable is the Divorce/Marriage/Religious Group. They are not just a support group for divorced men or men going through legal troubles in terms of custody, alimony or child support, but also an advice group for married people with a twinge of religion added in there.
Allow me to introduce:
The Spearhead
Dalrock
Christian Men's Defense Network
Shrink4men
Married Man Sex Life
Gaming My Wife
A Voice for Men
Free Northerner
Wintery Knight
Elusive Wapiti
Complementarian Loners
Vitas Brennus
The Woman and the Dragon
A Voice for Men
Then there are generalist sites that provide readers with advice on everyday things and all that is being manly. Working out, health, diet dating. Everything that is being a man.
Allow me to introduce:
The Art of Manliness
Hawaiian Libertarian
Freedom 25
Matt Forney
The Professor
Bold and Determined
The G Manifesto
Post Masculine
Sober Down Under
ManfortheAges
Viva La Manosphere!
Economics and Political Philosophy
Part of being a man means you're independent. That becomes harder and harder when feminists, communists and socialists brainwash the little kinder into voting for more and more government involvement into our personal lives. Additionally, as you'll find out, "feminism" really isn't about helping women as much as it is a Trojan horse for communism. Thus since freedom, wealth, profit, excellence and economic progress are not just key to a true man's ideology, but also under assault, the Manosphere has a subsegment on economics and political philosophy
Allow me to introduce you to:
Delusional Damage
Save Capitalism
Rational Male
Smallest Minority
Heretics Way
Apocalypse Cometh
No Ma'am
Red Pill Room
Real Free Market
ManWomanMyth
Dolnak
The Red Pill Room
GL Piggy
RedPill reddit
and of course me, Cappy Cap
PUA/Gaming Community
If there was a core or a kernel to The Manosphere, it got its origins from the "Pick Up Artist" or "Gaming" Community. These blogs arose from the painfully obvious fact that what we were told women wanted (by women, single moms, and female friends) were just outright lies. Naturally, doing what we were told didn't work and so developed a completely new and revolutionary approach - we experimented doing the complete opposite and it worked. There is much more to it than that, and the science has refined itself, but the "gaming" section of The Manosphere is MANDATORY READING for all boys who either had no father, had an emasculated man as a father or had a single mom bring up up telling you girls liked "sensitive men" and "poetry" and other communist propagandist drivel like that.
Allow me to introduce:
Roissy (arguably the Godfather and creator of The Manosphere)
Rooshv
Fred on Everything (though people also claim Fred was the predecessor)
Tom Leykis (radio show version of The Manosphere)
The University of Man
Fly Fresh & Young
Badger
Danger and Play
The Private Man
Kane
Vox Day
Keoni Galt
Tenmagnet
A warning to all of you who read the above links. These are MANosphere blogs. There will be cursing, crass and lewd words used. It's locker room talk. If you're shocked by that and feel the need to "NARC" on them and get these people in trouble with their employers, then ask yourself the questions:
1. Is it your right to force your perception of what's "appropriate" on men?
2. How pathetic of a person are you that you have to go and tattle tale on them?
MGTOW
Another interesting segment is MGTOW or "Men Going Their Own Way." These guys have checked out. They're gone. You won't see them, they've gone ghost. Some would call them bitter, however, their numbers suggest this is more than a group of guys who had enough, grabbed their toys and went home. Additionally, their philosophy is not one of "I'm taking my toys and going home." It's one of "I'm finite, I'm going to die, and I'm not going to be in a miserable marriage with kids I can't afford and the daily fear of getting divorced. I'm hopping on my motorcycle, climbing mountains, going fishing, starting a business and living a full and unique life before I die."
Allow me to introduce you to:
MGTOW
Barbarossa
Bernard Chapin
RockingMrE
girlwriteswhat
Bill Burr
MarkyMark
Buster B
Mirror of the Soul
Angry Harry
Finally I would also recommend reading RooshV's essay on The Manosphere as well as The Misandry Bubble as, like here, they also try to provide a top down view of The Manosphere. No Ma'am also has a large archive you may wish to consult. Also for a woman's perspective (who is protective of her son) you may want to consult this.
And finally not really a "MAN"ifesto, but more of a declaration of what the true aim of the Manosphere is.
Hopefully, for those of you unfamiliar with or conducting research about The Manosphere this little post and directory provides you the basics as well as a good overview. Again, this is just my humble corner and take on it, and opinions will vary, but hopefully this will prove to be a good launching point for your introduction and exploration of The Manosphere.
I'm your lovable host Cappy Cap and I'm here to give you a basic break down and introduction to "The Manosphere" and the blogs that populate it therein.
The Manosphere has no one specific origin, but its manifestation can largely be attributed to the internet making it possible for men to compare notes and realize one thing:
"No, we're not crazy."
Understand, up until the internet, most men, as well as young boys, intuitively knew something was wrong. We had a hunch. But we could never prove it. We were only relegated to our own experiences in our own local neighborhoods which led us to believe that not only was this phenomenon a local affair, but forced us to conclude that if there were any problems we had with dating, courtship, and our general social/sexual interaction with women it had to be our fault. We were to blame. We were not "aggressive enough" "too aggressive" "not sensitive enough" "too sensitive" all the while our single moms and society kept telling us "you're just not looking in the right places" or (my all time favorite) "maybe YOU just attract the wrong type of girl."
Of course, now since the advent of the internet thousands of men have compared notes, shared stories and made various philosophical, political, economic and even scientific observations, resulting in the millions of pages of wisdom that compose The Manosphere today. These millions of pages are slowly coalescing into theories, laws, and rules that make for an entertaining social "science." But most importantly this body of work has provided clarity, guidance and an explanation as to what has happened to society since the feminist revolution of the 70's, making it so that current and future generations of young boys needn't wander through the clueless hellish wilderness their predecessors did. We introduce a (GASP) MALE INFLUENCE into the traditionally "feminist" dominated discussion about how the sexes should interact and behave. We make it perfectly acceptable to voice politically incorrect and unpopular opinions when it comes to the sexes. We provide guidance to young boys, young men, and disillusioned men to turn around and improve their lives. We expose what is an evil and purposed agenda of feminists. We fight for freedom, America, truth, reality and liberty. We essentially supply the modern day male version of "Cosmo," "People Magazine," "Glamor" women have had for 50 years, but we replace the mindless drivel with intelligent, constructive and reality based thought and logic.
In short it is the first real haven for all men across the world to go to, be themselves, and think for themselves. And for modern day feminists it means the jig is up.
There is no core or nucleus to The Manosphere as it is truly open source, nor is there any "mission statement." The blogs that compose that Manosphere range quite widely, including women authors, just as much as they do men (because a lot of women actually do love the men in their lives enough to care about them). However, they all have one thing in common - they are here to help.
Help how?
By destroying and exposing the lies foisted upon you, me and everybody else for the past 50 years - primarily by feminists - about how men and women "should be" instead of accepting how we actually are.
Naturally, there's a lot of backlash and controversy surrounding The Manosphere. People politically invested in trying to get men and women to ignore their basic sexuality, desires and impulses hate us because we threaten their gravy train (what job would feminists have if women were actually programmed to like and support men?). Young women who benefit financially and socially by manipulating relationships, marriage and courting, merely to extract billions of dollars in free drinks or trillions of dollars in divorce courts every year. Entire government agencies (their employees and union members of which depend HEAVILY upon having a government check replace fathers and husbands) hate us as well. The legal system is also not fond of us and our bachelor-like non-marrying ways. Socialists and communist despise us as we insist on independence, freedom and small government. And (frankly) millions of men and women whose fragile feelings we shatter every day with reality also hate us.
But that's just the thing. Reality.
The Manosphere, if anything else, is a backlash of men who just plain got sick and tired of being lied to about how society "should work," how we "should" behave, and what we "should" want. It is also a backlash of being lied to about the realities of the psycho-socio-sexual dynamics between men and women (for example we are shamed if we don't like fat chicks no matter how viscerally and biologically we are disgusted by them). It is also a backlash as we see America, Western Civilization and our culture not just being mocked, ridiculed and villainized, but being destroyed.
And now, in true traditional male form, daddy's coming home and he's pissed. A lot of men in The Manosphere worked hard with nothing to show for it. They did all the right things, but they're still divorced, unemployed, underemployed, in debt, living in or near poverty and thus have nothing left to lose. As they look for an explanation they'll find it, they will take "The Red Pill" (a vernacular you will see commonly), and they will respond by voicing their opinions in The Manosphere with little to no regard for political, economic or employment consequences because, once again, they have nothing left to lose.
Therefore as you explore and read through The Manosphere you will see a lot of anger, crass language, cursing, and vulgarity. You will also see a heavy-handed truth being laid down. Uncomfortable truths. Politically incorrect truths. And truths that make people angry. However, The Manosphere doesn't care about your feelings, your political motivations, your ulterior motives or maintaining a status quo. We are just concerned about one thing:
Truth.
The truth, or as I like to call it "The Reality Principle," is very simple - if people base their decisions in reality, it will prove much more beneficial for everyone in that our decisions will be effective. A classic example is a re-visitation of the fat girl. However, first please dispense your natural reaction to call me evil, mean or shallow for talking about "fat chicks." Ask yourself what is the reality of the situation.
The reality is men don't like fat chicks.
What's the REALITY-BASED solution?
Hound and shame men for decades about them being shallow cads for liking skinny chicks in the hopes you change their genetic programming that has been developing for millions of years?
Or
Just lose the freaking weight?
Also ask yourself what is the outcome to the reality-based solution of the woman losing weight vs. the hounding-shaming option? The reality-based solution is two people who are happier. The non-reality based one is no one being happy.
Whatever the example, The Manosphere's obsession with truth is not to "gain an upper hand" over women in the battle of the sexes. Nor is it for some ulterior political motive. And no, it really isn't to insult or hurt people. It is merely to make the best decisions possible by basing them in the real world to make EVERYBODY (women too) happy.
Now I could go on as there are many other facets to The Manosphere, but I believe the above in general covers what The Manosphere is about (and certainly up for debate by other members of The Manosphere). However, in addition to an introduction to The Manosphere permit me to provide you a bit of a guide or a map to The Manosphere, highlighting various categories and members (please submit any you suggest, also understand I have merely categorized these blogs, not vetted them).
Female Manosphere Bloggers
Yes, we have them! I started with them to immediately dismiss the 100%-guaranteed-accusation that The Manosphere is sexist or misogynist. Though the term is MANosphere, understand there are a lot of women who didn't drink the feminist kool aid and actually LIKE MEN! They have husbands, brothers, fathers, sons, uncles and nephews, and heck, some of them just have male friends they all love and care about. They also realize that men account for half the population AND they also like to engage and enjoy the company of men. Be it romantically, socially or through their families.
They also never swallowed whole the BS that a traditional "woman's role" was somehow shameful or to be looked down upon. They are happy and proud to be stay at home mothers. They are happy to be housewives. And even though some of them aren't married or stay at home moms and are more career gals, they never ONCE would look down upon women nor belittled the importance of a stable, nuclear family to children and society.
Allow me to introduce:
Smalldeadanimals
Booksbikesboomsticks
Dr. Helen
Hooking Up Smart
The Thinking Housewife
Grerp
Haley's Halo
Fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt
Kathy Shaidle
Ema the Emo
Joan of Argggh!
Clarissa's Blog
Shining Pearls of Something
Verus Conditio
Owning Your Shit
Red Pill Wifey
and I'd also recommend this tutorial for women on the Manosphere.
Divorce/Marriage/Religious Bloggers
From here The Manosphere dissects into different subsegments or "specialties." Perhaps most notable is the Divorce/Marriage/Religious Group. They are not just a support group for divorced men or men going through legal troubles in terms of custody, alimony or child support, but also an advice group for married people with a twinge of religion added in there.
Allow me to introduce:
The Spearhead
Dalrock
Christian Men's Defense Network
Shrink4men
Married Man Sex Life
Gaming My Wife
A Voice for Men
Free Northerner
Wintery Knight
Elusive Wapiti
Complementarian Loners
Vitas Brennus
The Woman and the Dragon
A Voice for Men
Then there are generalist sites that provide readers with advice on everyday things and all that is being manly. Working out, health, diet dating. Everything that is being a man.
Allow me to introduce:
The Art of Manliness
Hawaiian Libertarian
Freedom 25
Matt Forney
The Professor
Bold and Determined
The G Manifesto
Post Masculine
Sober Down Under
ManfortheAges
Viva La Manosphere!
Economics and Political Philosophy
Part of being a man means you're independent. That becomes harder and harder when feminists, communists and socialists brainwash the little kinder into voting for more and more government involvement into our personal lives. Additionally, as you'll find out, "feminism" really isn't about helping women as much as it is a Trojan horse for communism. Thus since freedom, wealth, profit, excellence and economic progress are not just key to a true man's ideology, but also under assault, the Manosphere has a subsegment on economics and political philosophy
Allow me to introduce you to:
Delusional Damage
Save Capitalism
Rational Male
Smallest Minority
Heretics Way
Apocalypse Cometh
No Ma'am
Red Pill Room
Real Free Market
ManWomanMyth
Dolnak
The Red Pill Room
GL Piggy
RedPill reddit
and of course me, Cappy Cap
PUA/Gaming Community
If there was a core or a kernel to The Manosphere, it got its origins from the "Pick Up Artist" or "Gaming" Community. These blogs arose from the painfully obvious fact that what we were told women wanted (by women, single moms, and female friends) were just outright lies. Naturally, doing what we were told didn't work and so developed a completely new and revolutionary approach - we experimented doing the complete opposite and it worked. There is much more to it than that, and the science has refined itself, but the "gaming" section of The Manosphere is MANDATORY READING for all boys who either had no father, had an emasculated man as a father or had a single mom bring up up telling you girls liked "sensitive men" and "poetry" and other communist propagandist drivel like that.
Allow me to introduce:
Roissy (arguably the Godfather and creator of The Manosphere)
Rooshv
Fred on Everything (though people also claim Fred was the predecessor)
Tom Leykis (radio show version of The Manosphere)
The University of Man
Fly Fresh & Young
Badger
Danger and Play
The Private Man
Kane
Vox Day
Keoni Galt
Tenmagnet
A warning to all of you who read the above links. These are MANosphere blogs. There will be cursing, crass and lewd words used. It's locker room talk. If you're shocked by that and feel the need to "NARC" on them and get these people in trouble with their employers, then ask yourself the questions:
1. Is it your right to force your perception of what's "appropriate" on men?
2. How pathetic of a person are you that you have to go and tattle tale on them?
MGTOW
Another interesting segment is MGTOW or "Men Going Their Own Way." These guys have checked out. They're gone. You won't see them, they've gone ghost. Some would call them bitter, however, their numbers suggest this is more than a group of guys who had enough, grabbed their toys and went home. Additionally, their philosophy is not one of "I'm taking my toys and going home." It's one of "I'm finite, I'm going to die, and I'm not going to be in a miserable marriage with kids I can't afford and the daily fear of getting divorced. I'm hopping on my motorcycle, climbing mountains, going fishing, starting a business and living a full and unique life before I die."
Allow me to introduce you to:
MGTOW
Barbarossa
Bernard Chapin
RockingMrE
girlwriteswhat
Bill Burr
MarkyMark
Buster B
Mirror of the Soul
Angry Harry
Finally I would also recommend reading RooshV's essay on The Manosphere as well as The Misandry Bubble as, like here, they also try to provide a top down view of The Manosphere. No Ma'am also has a large archive you may wish to consult. Also for a woman's perspective (who is protective of her son) you may want to consult this.
And finally not really a "MAN"ifesto, but more of a declaration of what the true aim of the Manosphere is.
Hopefully, for those of you unfamiliar with or conducting research about The Manosphere this little post and directory provides you the basics as well as a good overview. Again, this is just my humble corner and take on it, and opinions will vary, but hopefully this will prove to be a good launching point for your introduction and exploration of The Manosphere.
God Hates Communists
This will make your day if you're having a bad one. It will also make your day if you're having a good one. It will just plain make your day if you work for a living, love America and freedom, insist only citizens should vote and in general and hate parasites.
In honor of the upcoming 2 year anniversary of being "discovered" by Fred Hahn ...
... I bring you Being Interviewed 101 (hat tip LynMarie Daye). In response to a request for advice on an upcoming interview, Fred had this response:
Be honest.Good start.
Keep your answers short. Make the points you want to make regardless of the questions asked if asked questions that throw you. Have 5 major points you want to get across and get them across.Read more »
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
The Perfect Graduation Gift
Graduation is coming up. Lots of little kinder will be graduating and off to bigger and better things. Matter of fact many of you probably have little kinder graduating or even nieces, nephews or neighborhood kids you've seen grow up over the years. Regardless, the question is what do you get them for a graduation gift? Very simple. "Worthless."
My regular readers already know what Worthless is about, but for those of you unfamiliar with the book it is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK high school and college-age kids can read. It IS the perfect graduation gift and I do not say that out of hyperbole or salesmanship. I say it because I believe it's true. "Worthless" is the perfect graduation gift.
The reason why is very simple. Millions of kids make a huge and life-destroying decision every year - they major in a worthless subject. Take your emotions or feelings out of it. In today's economy, we really cannot afford the luxury of sparing their feelings and lying to them, saying,
"Hey kid, follow your heart and the money will follow. You're going to be a great French Art History major!"
as we nervously put on a fake smile hiding our concern.
The amount of money they (or you) are going to spend on tuition, not to mention the sheer volume of their youth they will spend pursuing a degree, can NOT be wasted simply because nobody had the courage to tell the kids the truth about economics and the realities of the labor market.
But you don't have to. The book will do it for it you.
"Worthless" explains first and foremost to the reader that the reason somebody got them this book is because that person really cares about them. And while it may not be what they want to hear, they will end up appreciating it in the future. "Worthless" also goes into detail and explains in clear, understandable language the economics behind the labor market, showing the reader how and why some degrees are worthwhile and others are literally worthless.
The book is $13 in paperback and only $5 on Kindle. A miniscule fraction of the tuition and time costs of earning a four year degree. Because of its potential to prevent kids from making a VERY costly mistake, the cheap price practically compels you to at least consider it.
So do a graduate you care about a huge favor. Buy them "Worthless" for a graduation gift. And if you're so kind, do me a favor and simply spread the word by sending people this post.
My regular readers already know what Worthless is about, but for those of you unfamiliar with the book it is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK high school and college-age kids can read. It IS the perfect graduation gift and I do not say that out of hyperbole or salesmanship. I say it because I believe it's true. "Worthless" is the perfect graduation gift.
The reason why is very simple. Millions of kids make a huge and life-destroying decision every year - they major in a worthless subject. Take your emotions or feelings out of it. In today's economy, we really cannot afford the luxury of sparing their feelings and lying to them, saying,
"Hey kid, follow your heart and the money will follow. You're going to be a great French Art History major!"
as we nervously put on a fake smile hiding our concern.
The amount of money they (or you) are going to spend on tuition, not to mention the sheer volume of their youth they will spend pursuing a degree, can NOT be wasted simply because nobody had the courage to tell the kids the truth about economics and the realities of the labor market.
But you don't have to. The book will do it for it you.
"Worthless" explains first and foremost to the reader that the reason somebody got them this book is because that person really cares about them. And while it may not be what they want to hear, they will end up appreciating it in the future. "Worthless" also goes into detail and explains in clear, understandable language the economics behind the labor market, showing the reader how and why some degrees are worthwhile and others are literally worthless.
The book is $13 in paperback and only $5 on Kindle. A miniscule fraction of the tuition and time costs of earning a four year degree. Because of its potential to prevent kids from making a VERY costly mistake, the cheap price practically compels you to at least consider it.
So do a graduate you care about a huge favor. Buy them "Worthless" for a graduation gift. And if you're so kind, do me a favor and simply spread the word by sending people this post.
Why Saint Frick Doesn't Pay Minneapolis Property Taxes Anymore
“The kids eat a lot of junk already, and they get it at home,” said Nakisha Tyus, a mother of two. “If kids can get a better meal at the park, who better to give it to them then the city.”
Fructose, Fat & Obesity
The other day, Stephan Guyenet shared some of his own thoughts on David Despain's can't-say-enough-nice-things-about-it interview with Dr. John Sievenpiper. In case you missed it, Stephan discusses his post looking at the links or lack thereof between sugar consumption per se and obesity. See: Is Sugar Fattening? At the end of the current post is the following footnote:
** If fructose is fattening due to its ability to become fat, then dietary fat should be even more fattening because it doesn't have to undergo an inefficient conversion process-- it's already fat.
Excellent point! I might add that if saturated fat is such a healthy fat for your body, fat produced by de novo lipogenesis -- mostly palmitic acid in the liver -- would be an even better source of that fat as it would give you a "metabolic advantage"! It takes almost no calories to digest and store dietary fat in body fat. It is highly energy intensive to convert fructose to fat, so you get some free calories!
Read more »
Monday, May 28, 2012
James Krieger on the "Tearing Down" nonsense
For those who don't follow me on Twitter and who may miss James' alert comment here today, I'd like to point your attention to the following post on his Weightology blog:
Why Losing Weight Is Like Trading Stocks, Part 2: Bashers and Pumpers
Why Losing Weight Is Like Trading Stocks, Part 2: Bashers and Pumpers
Thank you James for speaking out about this abominable turn of events. And while I'm at it, thank you to all who have emailed, commented publicly here, or even risked the consequences of posting and speaking up in the hostile territories. I think it's a sad commentary on the nature of internet discourse that many seem hesitant to speak out ... if not in my defense, just simply in condemnation for reprehensible and unacceptable behavior. It speaks to the ultimate motivation of silencing people is all I'll say about that.
Read more »
Review & Critique: The Skinny on Obesity ~ Intro and Part I
Staying true to one of the founding missions of the Asylum, there's a YouTube series entitled The Skinny on Obesity, from University of California, that deserves critical attention. If you're going to put forth science to explain obesity and associated disease, especially in the affirmative sense ("fact", "we know", "is" rather than "possibly", "probably", "evidence supports"), it should be correct to the best of current knowledge. I've made it through five of the episodes to date, and sad to say, this series falls far short of that mark.
Thus far, there have been three contributors: Dr. Robert Lustig, Elissa Epel, and Barbara Laraia. Almost everyone is familiar with Lustig, the last two listed as affiliated with The Center for Obesity Assessment and Study at UC but we learn nothing about their backgrounds. By far the major contributor to the science is Lustig and he gets some basic things so horribly wrong they must be called out. Lustig became an instant star in LC circles with his viral fructophobic YouTube video. YouTube fame is one thing, but this series, put out by University of California, and media appearances like on 60 Minutes (that I did not see) are evidence that this man IS mainstream, and his Nature article and recent public statements can leave no doubt he is highly agenda driven with draconian goals. Therefore it is important to examine the evidence he puts forth before we have another Ancel Keys on our hands!
Read more »
But I'm Just an Idiot
Read this.
Then read this.
But whatever you do, don't listen to me. No, I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm an idiot and on top of it, I have no gray hair. Me and the likes of me have not the ability or the youthful idealism and vision to revolutionize economies to the point our little debt problems would be squashed mercilessly into oblivion by massive economic growth. And we wouldn't want that. So whatever you do, don't listen to me and I hope you like cheap nursing homes because the status quo is your god.
Then read this.
But whatever you do, don't listen to me. No, I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm an idiot and on top of it, I have no gray hair. Me and the likes of me have not the ability or the youthful idealism and vision to revolutionize economies to the point our little debt problems would be squashed mercilessly into oblivion by massive economic growth. And we wouldn't want that. So whatever you do, don't listen to me and I hope you like cheap nursing homes because the status quo is your god.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Totally unrelated to diet question: Drawing Tablets
Hey all! I'm planning to look into some different things this summer now that my schedule has cleared a bit. One of these is doing some stuff where I'd like to "mark-up" documents, record written "presentations" and/or just incorporating some free-hand drawings into content here. So I was in Staples the other day to return something I didn't need that I received as a gift, and forgot about. So first I checked that they still carried the item and they did. Yay! But as I browsed the aisle, out of the corner of my eye, I noticed the writing tablets. They are so much sleeker looking and seemingly functional (according to the descriptions) than one I had eons ago back when computers still came with 5" floppy drives and hard drive capacities measured in MB. VERY interested -- also wide price ranges! I'm well familiar with underspending on such devices and them having inadequate function ... but then again, nowadays you can get devices for $50 that actually do the same things as $500 devices if you're not looking to push every feature to the max for some high-end professional endeavor! I'd like something economical BUT functional.
So ... I thought I'd ask if anyone has one and how you like it and what you use it for. Brand, model and all that definitely helpful info. Right now I have just my HP Mini (my big laptop bit the dust almost a year ago and this little thing is wonderful and I've had no need for anything more!) with Windows 7 (Starter) . If you'd rather for any reason offer input or give recs via email, it's carbsane at gmail dot com as always! THANKS in advance!!
Exaggeration is ultimately counterproductive
When I teach stats, we discuss a bit how numbers can be used to deliver alarmist messages. Using a generic Compound X that shows no toxic effects up to 100 units with single digit baseline levels, we discuss how varying increases in X might be reported. So let's say baseline levels of X are 2 units. Something is done, and levels of X rise to 3 units and this change reaches the level of statistical significance. The alarmist reporting that gives the greatest impact would probably be to state something like: "levels of X increased by 50%". This is true, and it sounds daunting taken out of context. Alternately you might see something like "levels of X were 1.5 times baseline", though I think the 50% number has more impact. For anything less than 10X increase, the alarmist reporting almost always uses the percents, because over 100% has emotional intuitive impact. So for example if X values rose to 4 units, "X values doubled" has impact, but "increased by 100%" or even "were 200% of baseline" sound worse. And let's' say the levels of X increased to 10 units. Yeah "five times" sounds less dramatic than "500% of baseline" or "increased 400%", and definitely more dramatic than just presenting it as an "8 unit increase". The reporter of such information trying to exaggerate the impact to drive an agenda does not tell the consumer of the information about X's safety threshold. And chances this is not common knowledge this information consumer possesses. But I contend that reporting data in this way is misleading. If it's just some detergent manufacturer boasting stain removal or something like that, who really cares ... but if it's a scientist looking to influence public policy and regulation?
Read more »
Great Interview on Fructose ~ The "Other" Side
This one is too good just to tweet. One of those gems I mentioned the other day is David Despain's Evolving Health blog. He's been posting quite a bit of late on fructose. His latest: Fate of fructose: Interview with Dr. John Sievenpiper.
It's definitely worth reading the whole thing, but I'll excerpt a few things that address the problems with many of the fructose studies and problems with them, and some nice correcting of Lustig & Co.:
- The 50th percentile for intake in the United States is 49g per day, which is just a little less than 10 percent per day of energy from fructose. ... the 95 percentile for intake for NHANES for fructose consumes 87g of sugar or little less than 20 percent energy.
It seems to me that sugar consumption in the US is often inflated, and the inflation is done by those who seem to have an "crisis agenda" -- by that I mean looking to whip up a crisis for the purpose of enacting legislation or finding a new tax revenue stream. So related to the quote above, Sievenpiper takes issue with the "superphysiological doses" of fructose used in most studies.
Read more »
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Enjoy the Decline
Hey hey hey. You watch it with the plagiarism young man!
Regardless, you will visit. You will obey. You will conform. Compliance is not optional. Conformance is mandatory.
Regardless, you will visit. You will obey. You will conform. Compliance is not optional. Conformance is mandatory.
Another fun tactic
Accuse anyone who counters Taubes or LC Dogma of being me. I've noticed an increasing trend in my Inbox. Yes, from time to time folks who frequent other blogs and such will shoot me a "have you seen this?" alert. When I first started blogging, I still had time to participate in comments elsewhere. That's really diminished a lot of late. I may not get 1000 comments here, but I very much enjoy that we really have discussions here and I try to at least answer all comments and questions. If I miss you, please don't take it personally, sometimes I read a comment, intend to reply, but by the time I get around to it, I just plain forget or get distracted. Still, the occasional getting sucked-in with recent events aside, I don't have time to read, let alone participate on other blogs (that is, those that haven't put me in the blacklist queue) much anymore. So if you're one of those sending me these types of emails, I do thank you for keeping me apprised of what's being said or claimed about me, etc.
Read more »
More on NHANES & Obesity and the Alternate Hypothesis
Below is the NHANES data for men and women, altered a bit from the source to take out the distracting diabetes data.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Press the Attack Forward, Men
Short story, then I'll get back to having fun.
I'm at a country bar right now. Place is packed. "Beatrice" who is 89 years old comes up and asks me to dance,
not once,
not twice
but thrice
She is happy as all hell to be dancing.
I find out she's was a WWII vet, part of the women's Air Corps. Worked on B-25's or B-19's, I can't remember which, the music was loud. Grin ear to ear when we're dancing.
Then I ask a 24 year old if she wants to dance. She says yes, fights me every inch of the way while I'm trying to lead, and then when I want to move across the floor (2 stepping) she says, "no, I don't want to go out there!" and she walks off the floor telling me to ask her friend to dance in the middle of the bleeping song.
Not terribly surprised, I return to my laptop, but then, you know me. Me and my "cynical theories" about modern day women compared to their older WWII idealistic counterparts. Certainly nothing there but spurious anecdotal evidence.
Regardless, I just had to know.
So I walk up to the 24 year old and I ask her what she does for a living.
Anybody want to guess?
Engineer? Pilot? Accountant? Surgeon? Military?
Nope!
"Elementary school teacher."
Heh heh.
Continue the attack men, continue that bleeping attack until they all start to act and behave like true women, just like Beatrice. I'll take an 89 year old WWII vet over a overpaid baby sitter any day, because that is a REAL woman. Not some naive ditz that couldn't handle algebra 2 and found commensurate taxpayer-paid employment.
Post post Lieutenants! Beatrice let me get a picture!
I'm at a country bar right now. Place is packed. "Beatrice" who is 89 years old comes up and asks me to dance,
not once,
not twice
but thrice
She is happy as all hell to be dancing.
I find out she's was a WWII vet, part of the women's Air Corps. Worked on B-25's or B-19's, I can't remember which, the music was loud. Grin ear to ear when we're dancing.
Then I ask a 24 year old if she wants to dance. She says yes, fights me every inch of the way while I'm trying to lead, and then when I want to move across the floor (2 stepping) she says, "no, I don't want to go out there!" and she walks off the floor telling me to ask her friend to dance in the middle of the bleeping song.
Not terribly surprised, I return to my laptop, but then, you know me. Me and my "cynical theories" about modern day women compared to their older WWII idealistic counterparts. Certainly nothing there but spurious anecdotal evidence.
Regardless, I just had to know.
So I walk up to the 24 year old and I ask her what she does for a living.
Anybody want to guess?
Engineer? Pilot? Accountant? Surgeon? Military?
Nope!
"Elementary school teacher."
Heh heh.
Continue the attack men, continue that bleeping attack until they all start to act and behave like true women, just like Beatrice. I'll take an 89 year old WWII vet over a overpaid baby sitter any day, because that is a REAL woman. Not some naive ditz that couldn't handle algebra 2 and found commensurate taxpayer-paid employment.
Post post Lieutenants! Beatrice let me get a picture!
Yes, I am That Good
The true purpose of Worthless however is not just to entertain and embolden the faithful, to bestow strength and courage on those on our own side. Clarey conceived and wrote the book with the goal of it being used to deprogram teenagers and their parents, and save them from the conventional wisdom that education, education and still more education is the key to success. And this is where the book grows from more than just a fun and entertaining rip on one of our society’s great sacred cows, and becomes an incredibly effective tool you can use to spare your friends and relatives the financial, intellectual and spiritual costs of worthless education.
you can and WILL read more here.
you can and WILL read more here.
NHANES Data, Obesity & Diabetes
The image below comes from the blog of Dr. Richard Feinman. Free drink and an appetizer at the Asylum Pub & Grill tonight for the first person to point out what's wrong with this picture!
 |
| original image direct link |
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Day Bang by Roosh V
Roosh V, if you know him, is no shrinking violet. Certainly part of the pick up segment of the Manosphere, which thusly means he curses, uses vulgarity and speaks like 1/2 the population does every day. Sadly it is his vulgarity and cursing people focus on instead of the substance of what he writes when they start forming opinions about him.
Does he speak the truth about the realities between men and women?
Yes.
Does he speak the truth when theorizing about male and female sexuality?
Yes
But are these truths uncomfortable (contradictory as truths being uncomfortable is)?
Yes.
And therefore he is an evil misogynist that must be silenced and black listed from society.
Now I knew this going into buying "Day Bang." I was expecting cursing, swearing and the use of words and terms even I find disagreeable, but actually, none of that materialized. Matter of fact what did materialize was a well thought out book deserving of mention and recommendation that is neither vulgar or insulting, but rather quite helpful for both sexes.
I bought "Day Bang" for several reasons. One, since I am already spoken for, it was the one book out of his series of books that piqued my interest the most. Night game, regular game, sure, been there, done that, learned it empirically. But how to pick up chicks during the day, now that's different. Two, I wanted to see if what I learned the hard way correlated with what a professional recommended. And three, well, he linked to my book and was kind enough to write a review, so you all better go and buy his book if this here review interests you.
First you must understand that this is not so much a novel or a book as much as it is a how-to manual. I was at first originally peeved with what seemed to be the same example recited over and over again. However, it dawned on me this wasn't The Grapes of Wrath. This was a guide for men, of all ages, how to approach women during the day. The examples were repetitive on purpose, but varied to
1. re-iterate the basic principles of approaching
2. give you multiple approaches and variations to adapt to different environments and situations.
The more I read, the more I realized Roosh has indeed thought these things through AND tested them multiple times AND in different environments so that readers would have an effective tool useable in many situations.
Second, to my surprise, the book had little to no vulgarity, let alone sexuality about it. It WAS a very serious, borderline scientific book. If you were expecting filth and foul and flarn and filth, you will be let down. I think there are MAYBE 4 vulgarities in the entire book. Additionally, he never mentions sex. It is only to get the girl on the date, which may or may not lead to sex. If anything it is a truly innocent book in that key to the entire strategy is having the mindset of an old, innocent man, approaching a young lady for help. He may have one thing on his mind, but it isn't in the gutter and it certainly wasn't obvious in the book.
Third, he addresses and emphasizes the limitations of the scientific method. He doesn't claim this is a silver bullet that will get a 100% success rate. He admits the limitations and the requirements of day game AND also states up front it takes effort and investment. You CAN'T just approach one girl per week. You have to approach at least 3 girls a day. You AREN'T going to get 90% of the girls to throw their numbers at you, at BEST it will be 40% with tight game. You SHOULD be natural, never rehearse your lines or force a pre-scripted conversation, but still run through a couple trial runs at home to get used to general flow and general bullet points you may want to bring up. If there is any "complaint" I have about the book, it's the FACT that you do have to put a lot of effort into this. MGTOW and aging alphas may be reminded of the sheer time cost and investment required to chase the ladies.
As I said before I am already spoken for and this book is not for those of you who upped your game and are having success, nor is it for "retirees" from game who decided to buy a motorcycle and go. But it IS a MUST for young men or boys who are about to enter the fray of dating, if for any other reason day approaches are easier and cheaper than night approaches. You needn't waste your time or money on covers, booze, drinks, parking, etc. You just go about the course of your regular day and the opportunities are bountiful and numerous.
In short, like many things in the Manosphere, "I wish I had this when I was younger." But thankfully there are a lot of young men and boys out there that should be reading this right next to their freshman comp book. Additionally, if you're a veteran, you might as well pick it up to see how your game compared, not to mention for the intellectual interest it provides for us old farts. I had many outright guffaws as many as "aha, I see said the blind man" moments with this book.
Regardless, buy Day Bang!
Also available in Kindle.
Does he speak the truth about the realities between men and women?
Yes.
Does he speak the truth when theorizing about male and female sexuality?
Yes
But are these truths uncomfortable (contradictory as truths being uncomfortable is)?
Yes.
And therefore he is an evil misogynist that must be silenced and black listed from society.
Now I knew this going into buying "Day Bang." I was expecting cursing, swearing and the use of words and terms even I find disagreeable, but actually, none of that materialized. Matter of fact what did materialize was a well thought out book deserving of mention and recommendation that is neither vulgar or insulting, but rather quite helpful for both sexes.
I bought "Day Bang" for several reasons. One, since I am already spoken for, it was the one book out of his series of books that piqued my interest the most. Night game, regular game, sure, been there, done that, learned it empirically. But how to pick up chicks during the day, now that's different. Two, I wanted to see if what I learned the hard way correlated with what a professional recommended. And three, well, he linked to my book and was kind enough to write a review, so you all better go and buy his book if this here review interests you.
First you must understand that this is not so much a novel or a book as much as it is a how-to manual. I was at first originally peeved with what seemed to be the same example recited over and over again. However, it dawned on me this wasn't The Grapes of Wrath. This was a guide for men, of all ages, how to approach women during the day. The examples were repetitive on purpose, but varied to
1. re-iterate the basic principles of approaching
2. give you multiple approaches and variations to adapt to different environments and situations.
The more I read, the more I realized Roosh has indeed thought these things through AND tested them multiple times AND in different environments so that readers would have an effective tool useable in many situations.
Second, to my surprise, the book had little to no vulgarity, let alone sexuality about it. It WAS a very serious, borderline scientific book. If you were expecting filth and foul and flarn and filth, you will be let down. I think there are MAYBE 4 vulgarities in the entire book. Additionally, he never mentions sex. It is only to get the girl on the date, which may or may not lead to sex. If anything it is a truly innocent book in that key to the entire strategy is having the mindset of an old, innocent man, approaching a young lady for help. He may have one thing on his mind, but it isn't in the gutter and it certainly wasn't obvious in the book.
Third, he addresses and emphasizes the limitations of the scientific method. He doesn't claim this is a silver bullet that will get a 100% success rate. He admits the limitations and the requirements of day game AND also states up front it takes effort and investment. You CAN'T just approach one girl per week. You have to approach at least 3 girls a day. You AREN'T going to get 90% of the girls to throw their numbers at you, at BEST it will be 40% with tight game. You SHOULD be natural, never rehearse your lines or force a pre-scripted conversation, but still run through a couple trial runs at home to get used to general flow and general bullet points you may want to bring up. If there is any "complaint" I have about the book, it's the FACT that you do have to put a lot of effort into this. MGTOW and aging alphas may be reminded of the sheer time cost and investment required to chase the ladies.
As I said before I am already spoken for and this book is not for those of you who upped your game and are having success, nor is it for "retirees" from game who decided to buy a motorcycle and go. But it IS a MUST for young men or boys who are about to enter the fray of dating, if for any other reason day approaches are easier and cheaper than night approaches. You needn't waste your time or money on covers, booze, drinks, parking, etc. You just go about the course of your regular day and the opportunities are bountiful and numerous.
In short, like many things in the Manosphere, "I wish I had this when I was younger." But thankfully there are a lot of young men and boys out there that should be reading this right next to their freshman comp book. Additionally, if you're a veteran, you might as well pick it up to see how your game compared, not to mention for the intellectual interest it provides for us old farts. I had many outright guffaws as many as "aha, I see said the blind man" moments with this book.
Regardless, buy Day Bang!
Also available in Kindle.
The Alcoholism, Anger, Temper Excuse
The Manosphere, if you could categorize it, falls ever so generally into three categories;
Pick up community
Men's rights
Theory/Political Discussion
All of which is fine and dandy, but if and when I write about Manosphere issues, it is usually more for the "Boyosphere" than anything else. The reason why is that while men (our age and older) have used the Manosphere to compare notes across the internet to confirm that indeed something insidious, malicious and evil HAS BEEN perpetrated against us, understand that does nothing to address the poor boys of the FUTURE that WILL BE sent through the same meat grinder.
And therefore a plurality of my posts tend to be targeted more towards young boys so that there is at least something positive that comes out of this psy-ops war.
Today, though, I want to address something that no doubt you, me, and every other guy out there has gone through (thereby guaranteeing young boys coming onto the line are going to suffer the same) and that is the "Alcoholism, Anger, Temper Excuse" or "AATE."
Like many things, it took retrospect and hindsight to realize what was going on, but when you put the pieces of the puzzle together you realized a lot of women, if they don't want to go out with you any more, won't have the spine or gall to come outright and say,
"I don't think we should date anymore, I'm breaking up with you."
Instead they do something much worse. They claim you have a problem or have somehow changed, and use that as the excuse to have a time out or fully break up.
For example, all three of the excuses - temper, anger and alcoholism - have been used on me by multiple girls in the past.
One girl claimed I had anger issues and she couldn't deal with such a "volatile" person. Active? Yes. Bombastic? Yes. But was I "angry?" No. Or at least I didn't think so. Of course I was young and stupid, so I thought, "Wow, maybe I'm angry and I just don't know it. Maybe I'm unaware of how I'm scaring people or insulting them." All in vain, misleading and quite damaging because I was trying to solve a problem I didn't have.
Another claimed I had a "temper." I didn't have a temper. I was having a good ole time dating this gal. If anything I was relaxed and drunk half the time and never blew up once. It was so obvious I didn't have a temper, even I knew this was some kind of ruse or BS. When she broke up with me, it wasn't a surprise.
And finally, the "alcoholism" excuse. Ah yes, the favorite among naive goodie two shoes girls who think if you have two drinks in a night you are a full blown, raging alcoholic, hell bent on driving drunk and training vigorously to beat your future wife. Many-a-Christian girls used this one when they tried vainly to convince you to "find Jesus," but upon not being able to provide any conclusive, empirical proof Christianity is THE ONE TRUE religion, out they whip the "you're a raging alcoholic" excuse. Never mind if you are drunk you're more relaxed and happy and the farthest away you'd ever be from "raging." Nope, she knew this one friend of her's cousin whose uncle dated this woman whose sister had a father who got drunk and treated her mom mean one time back in the 70's. Translation - you are 100% guaranteed to beat me if we ever get married AND the children too!
Naturally none of these excuses stand up to logic, but that's the whole point. They're excuses, not reality. The damage AATE causes young boys is not that a girl wants to break up with you and thus resorts to BS excuses to rationalize it, but it misleads you into thinking you have problems you really don't have and thus you try to change those problems. It's just as bad as having problems you DO have and you DON'T try to change them. Neither are based in reality and only make you a worse person.
So boys, look out for the AATE excuses. And when delivered, just accept the girl doesn't want to date you, move on, and be happy someone so duplicitous is taking herself out of your life.
Pick up community
Men's rights
Theory/Political Discussion
All of which is fine and dandy, but if and when I write about Manosphere issues, it is usually more for the "Boyosphere" than anything else. The reason why is that while men (our age and older) have used the Manosphere to compare notes across the internet to confirm that indeed something insidious, malicious and evil HAS BEEN perpetrated against us, understand that does nothing to address the poor boys of the FUTURE that WILL BE sent through the same meat grinder.
And therefore a plurality of my posts tend to be targeted more towards young boys so that there is at least something positive that comes out of this psy-ops war.
Today, though, I want to address something that no doubt you, me, and every other guy out there has gone through (thereby guaranteeing young boys coming onto the line are going to suffer the same) and that is the "Alcoholism, Anger, Temper Excuse" or "AATE."
Like many things, it took retrospect and hindsight to realize what was going on, but when you put the pieces of the puzzle together you realized a lot of women, if they don't want to go out with you any more, won't have the spine or gall to come outright and say,
"I don't think we should date anymore, I'm breaking up with you."
Instead they do something much worse. They claim you have a problem or have somehow changed, and use that as the excuse to have a time out or fully break up.
For example, all three of the excuses - temper, anger and alcoholism - have been used on me by multiple girls in the past.
One girl claimed I had anger issues and she couldn't deal with such a "volatile" person. Active? Yes. Bombastic? Yes. But was I "angry?" No. Or at least I didn't think so. Of course I was young and stupid, so I thought, "Wow, maybe I'm angry and I just don't know it. Maybe I'm unaware of how I'm scaring people or insulting them." All in vain, misleading and quite damaging because I was trying to solve a problem I didn't have.
Another claimed I had a "temper." I didn't have a temper. I was having a good ole time dating this gal. If anything I was relaxed and drunk half the time and never blew up once. It was so obvious I didn't have a temper, even I knew this was some kind of ruse or BS. When she broke up with me, it wasn't a surprise.
And finally, the "alcoholism" excuse. Ah yes, the favorite among naive goodie two shoes girls who think if you have two drinks in a night you are a full blown, raging alcoholic, hell bent on driving drunk and training vigorously to beat your future wife. Many-a-Christian girls used this one when they tried vainly to convince you to "find Jesus," but upon not being able to provide any conclusive, empirical proof Christianity is THE ONE TRUE religion, out they whip the "you're a raging alcoholic" excuse. Never mind if you are drunk you're more relaxed and happy and the farthest away you'd ever be from "raging." Nope, she knew this one friend of her's cousin whose uncle dated this woman whose sister had a father who got drunk and treated her mom mean one time back in the 70's. Translation - you are 100% guaranteed to beat me if we ever get married AND the children too!
Naturally none of these excuses stand up to logic, but that's the whole point. They're excuses, not reality. The damage AATE causes young boys is not that a girl wants to break up with you and thus resorts to BS excuses to rationalize it, but it misleads you into thinking you have problems you really don't have and thus you try to change those problems. It's just as bad as having problems you DO have and you DON'T try to change them. Neither are based in reality and only make you a worse person.
So boys, look out for the AATE excuses. And when delivered, just accept the girl doesn't want to date you, move on, and be happy someone so duplicitous is taking herself out of your life.
The Misunderstood - or is it mischaracterized? - Pima
Alternate title: Battle Pima ~ Bernstein v. Taubes
In the comments on a recent post, Galina linked me to some online material by Diabetes "guru" Dr. Richard Bernstein. Anyone who's frequented low carb forums and blogs will recognize that name as probably the go-to authority on diabetes management with a low carb diet, and it's not too much of a stretch to state that he's the second-most cited authority behind the great Gary Taubes himself. Significant portions of his book, The Diabetes Solution, are free to read online, including his chapter on Weight Loss. He writes:
Read more »
Amino Acids in Human Metabolism
Just putting this up here, from this study courtesy of Julianne Taylor: Quantitative Analysis of Amino Acid Oxidation and Related Gluconeogenesis in Humans (this is an older, large file, I've shared the full text in Google Docs, and I'll come back and edit in the link when GD decides to behave in my browser). Mind boggling!
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Insulin Resistance II ~ The Complexity of "Hormone Resistance" Phenomena
It's been a while since Part I of this series ... too many irons in too many fires and all that jazz. But one research track I went down recently reminded me of this lingering series and I thought I'd finish up this second installment. We hear all the time truisms such as that the acute effects of a hormone differ from the chronic effects, and whenever a hormone is present in excess of normal levels, the term "fill in hormone here resistance" is sure to be close behind. Now there is no doubt that hormone resistance is a very real phenomenon, but what does it mean, specifically?
The concept of insulin resistance, IR, is highly complicated by the fact that insulin has varying actions in various tissues and organs. I do intend to discuss tissue-specific IR in more depth as this series unfolds. But for today, I am going to limit the discussion to insulin and the muscle cell. After all, when general IR is discussed, it is usually systemic or skeletal muscle insulin resistance.
Read more »
And the Cherry-Picking Baton has been passed.
I've been musing a bit in comments and asides lately over the low carb movement. When I discovered the LC internet community in early 2009 those were some still heady days. In retrospect I'm not sure how much it was really growing vs. the hype of same, but it was a thriving community with well traveled blogs and discussion boards. The number of "big names" touting Taubes' alternate hypothesis was staggering, really, and reports of how the mainstream was finally catching on were frequent. Looking back, it seems the year or so before were even headier times for low carb. Fast forward and in 2011 many big names jumped ship, not to mention the readership of blogs like this one increased dramatically. Even many who remain wedded to LC as the only superior answer to all ills no longer believe TWICHOO to be correct. Many have retooled their message, clarified their positions, etc.etc. This is clearly more difficult for some than others -- it's hard to shift gears when your entire persona is inextricably linked to Livin La Vida Low Carb after all. So in a way, while it by no means excuses their behavior, those like Jimmy and Gary, Feinman and Westman, Carpender and Naughton, etc.etc. at least make sense to me. These folks have built careers on, and their livelihoods are sustained by LC. Most of the aforementioned are not about to do a Don Matesz any time soon, and many have reflexively dug in their heels to forge forward -- I hope they at least put blinders on their one trick pony for the sake of humane treatment.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Quality Low Carb Science?
A while back I asked if anyone had any evidence that insulin blocks leptin action in the brain. There were many responses both here and on Twitter -- thanks!! -- one of which referenced the following study: Suppression of insulin secretion is associated with weight loss and altered macronutrient intake and preference in a subset of obese adults, PA Velasquez-Mieyer, PA Cowan, KL Arheart, CK Buffington, KA Spencer, BE Connelly, GW Cowan, and RH Lustig. If you're the person pointed me to this, I apologize for not naming you. Ahhhh Robert Lustig. Haven't spent much time on him here, but as he muscles his way into the (misguided) War on Insulin, this too shall change.
I will have much more to say about that study on the whole at some future date. They gave some people an insulin-lowering drug (a drug that does more than just suppress secretion) and some lost "significant" weight, some lost a wee bit, and some even gained weight. In reading the intro, I'm becoming increasingly dejected over the quality of peer review these days ... but that too will be part of the subsequent analysis of this study as a whole.
Excess protein turned to glucose?
It seems that part of the more recent trend of defining a "proper" low carb diet as being one that is moderate in protein and high (very) in fat is this notion that excess protein will just be turned to glucose. Quite often I've seen Dr. Richard Bernstein cautions against eating too much protein because it just gets turned to glucose. (I did look for a link but was unsuccessful, so if I'm misstating Bernstein here, please do correct me in comments.) I had looked into this long ago, but never really said much about it, but there are two reasons why this never made sense to me.
First, a little biochemistry. There are exceedingly few reactions that occur in our bodies without the involvement of an enzyme. This includes not only anabolic (synthesis, building, energy storing/requiring) reactions, but also catabolic (break down, energy releasing reactions) reactions. Glucose and fatty acids no more "spontaneously combust" in our bodies than does propane in my grill. Enzymes are the catalysts of reactions, and reactions that require energy (all of those "genesis" reactions for example) are coupled with energy producing reactions that "drive" them. Enzyme action is regulated by the amount of the enzyme produced and/or some mechanism of activating/deactivating the enzyme. While enzyme mediated reactions can be related to substrate (reactant) availability and/or influenced by product availability/build-up, this isn't always the case. I'd even go so far as to say that unless the reaction occurs in a highly compartmentalized fashion (e.g. within mitochondria), substrate/product concentrations generally have little effect on the reaction rates directly.
Read more »
First, a little biochemistry. There are exceedingly few reactions that occur in our bodies without the involvement of an enzyme. This includes not only anabolic (synthesis, building, energy storing/requiring) reactions, but also catabolic (break down, energy releasing reactions) reactions. Glucose and fatty acids no more "spontaneously combust" in our bodies than does propane in my grill. Enzymes are the catalysts of reactions, and reactions that require energy (all of those "genesis" reactions for example) are coupled with energy producing reactions that "drive" them. Enzyme action is regulated by the amount of the enzyme produced and/or some mechanism of activating/deactivating the enzyme. While enzyme mediated reactions can be related to substrate (reactant) availability and/or influenced by product availability/build-up, this isn't always the case. I'd even go so far as to say that unless the reaction occurs in a highly compartmentalized fashion (e.g. within mitochondria), substrate/product concentrations generally have little effect on the reaction rates directly.
Enjoying the Decline!
Pictures from my weekend trip to Buffalo, WY. I also made a friend along the way.
I call him "Pookey" the friendly roadside snake.
Does anyone in the audience own ...
... Heller & Heller's Carbohydrate Addicts Diet? I'm interested in finding out what the 17 questions to determine if you're a carb addict are. Any help appreciated. I presume it includes some of these 10 questions?
http://www.carbohydrateaddicts.com/caquiz.html
Thanks in advance!
http://www.carbohydrateaddicts.com/caquiz.html
Thanks in advance!
Monday, May 21, 2012
Bad What?: Science? -- Reporting? -- Blogging/Sharing?
Confession time. I found out about that recent LC v. LF diet study from Andreas Eenfeldt's blog. Andreas seems woefully misguided into thinking that obese Americans got that way listening to US Government guidelines and eating a low fat diet. Any and every study that shows some advantage for LC is rapidly added to his list demonstrating that LCHF is superior and LF diets are nothing short of criminal at this point. I'll have some personal things to say about all of this at the end of the post. Gossip Mongers can skip to there if you like ;-) (scroll down to line, or browser search on "And so now")
In any case, in a blog post entitled New Study: High Fat Food is Good for Diabetics, Andreas cites this "news" article: High-fat diet lowered blood sugar and improved blood lipids in diabetics. Another low carb advocate, Dr. Eades, also tweeted the following: RCT shows better glycemic control & improved lipid labs seen in diabetics on #lowcarb as compared to lowfat diets. The tweet links to this report: Questioning Carbohydrate Restriction in Diabetes Management.
Read more »
Now this was an RCT = Randomized Controlled Trial. The type of study generally considered to be the gold standard of trials, but we've discussed here before how not all RCT's are created equal, and as serendipity would have it, Andreas was one I called out in: A Matter of Control. In his short blog post, Andreas calls the current study at hand "a new high-quality Swedish study". Does the study itself deserve that label? After looking at it more closely the past few days, no. If for no other reason, because the study participants didn't report eating the diets as prescribed. The intended control is also limited to caloric intake. I contend that when one is comparing diets of different macronutrient composition, one of the three must be controlled for -- e.g. held constant -- varying the other two, or the results will forever be tainted.
Updating the Factors of Production
If you recall high school economics or college freshman economics (both were the same, colleges just made you pay extra to re-learn what you did in high school) there were "The Factors of Production."
These factors were essentially the ingredients you needed in order for a business or an individual to "produce" something. There were originally three of them:
Land - you can produce nothing without at minimum some kind of office space.
Labor - the machines will not only not take over the world, they'll just sit there unless a human spends his or her time running them
Capital - Nobody is doing nothing until they get paid. And that includes the people who produce the tools and machines you'll need to get started.
A fourth one was entered as they realized even with the above three, nothing would get produced. You needed a leader. An innovator. A man with the plan.
The entrepreneur.
Since there it was commonly accepted that there are three original, but most likely four real factors of production.
However, I would like to tender a fifth.
I'm doing this not to make things more complicated or to somehow be enshrined in the Economics Hall of Fame, but because our economy today practically proves there is a fifth and final factor of production that is required to produce, but is not accounted for in the current list. That fifth component is:
A future.
Some would call it "political" or "economic certainty." I'm calling it a future simply because if there is no hope an economy will be stable, MORE SO that you will be able to keep the majority of your gains, then you can have;
Land
Labor
Capital
and an entrepreneur raring to go
nobody's producing nuthin' if (oh, I don't know)
the government is racking up debts that literally call into question the integrity and viability of the future economy
the government is spending so much that it's a guarantee tax rates will go through the roof in the future
the people are so anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-rich, anti-success that you're afraid they'll simply vote to take the fruits of your hard labor away.
I could go into more detail, but the point is simple enough. You see it not just in the economy (companies are sitting on trillions in capital, people are DESPERATE for jobs, enterprenuers can't wait to jump ship and move to Singapore...ooops, I mean...start businesses), but in the housing market (nobody new entrants in the market want to buy....well nobody can AFFORD to buy), and the stock market (the same).
It won't be until there are guarantees enshrined via constitutional amendments that the government cannot confiscate/tax beyond a certain level and that private individuals property and income rights are maintained, that you will get people to start investing in the US again. And so you can go ahead and come up with all the Keynesian stimulus you want. The vast majority of the United States' economic strength will remain dormant, or just outright afraid.
Enjoy the decline!
These factors were essentially the ingredients you needed in order for a business or an individual to "produce" something. There were originally three of them:
Land - you can produce nothing without at minimum some kind of office space.
Labor - the machines will not only not take over the world, they'll just sit there unless a human spends his or her time running them
Capital - Nobody is doing nothing until they get paid. And that includes the people who produce the tools and machines you'll need to get started.
A fourth one was entered as they realized even with the above three, nothing would get produced. You needed a leader. An innovator. A man with the plan.
The entrepreneur.
Since there it was commonly accepted that there are three original, but most likely four real factors of production.
However, I would like to tender a fifth.
I'm doing this not to make things more complicated or to somehow be enshrined in the Economics Hall of Fame, but because our economy today practically proves there is a fifth and final factor of production that is required to produce, but is not accounted for in the current list. That fifth component is:
A future.
Some would call it "political" or "economic certainty." I'm calling it a future simply because if there is no hope an economy will be stable, MORE SO that you will be able to keep the majority of your gains, then you can have;
Land
Labor
Capital
and an entrepreneur raring to go
nobody's producing nuthin' if (oh, I don't know)
the government is racking up debts that literally call into question the integrity and viability of the future economy
the government is spending so much that it's a guarantee tax rates will go through the roof in the future
the people are so anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-rich, anti-success that you're afraid they'll simply vote to take the fruits of your hard labor away.
I could go into more detail, but the point is simple enough. You see it not just in the economy (companies are sitting on trillions in capital, people are DESPERATE for jobs, enterprenuers can't wait to jump ship and move to Singapore...ooops, I mean...start businesses), but in the housing market (nobody new entrants in the market want to buy....well nobody can AFFORD to buy), and the stock market (the same).
It won't be until there are guarantees enshrined via constitutional amendments that the government cannot confiscate/tax beyond a certain level and that private individuals property and income rights are maintained, that you will get people to start investing in the US again. And so you can go ahead and come up with all the Keynesian stimulus you want. The vast majority of the United States' economic strength will remain dormant, or just outright afraid.
Enjoy the decline!
A Shout Out to Paleobuzz.com
Paleobuzz.com, a site that has included me in their blog-roll for quite some time (thanks!), is a great resource. I've mentioned it here a few times, but thought I'd give one more formal shout out for those not familiar with the site who might find it of value.
I read a lot ... too much really ... about the net. But it's sites like PB that make it easier to do so. Yes, subscribing to blogs in RSS feeds is helpful, and I do that with several blogs and comments feeds, but sometimes just seeing what's new and interesting about the net in this community is better experienced the way PB does it. I'm not sure if they are making any money from referrals or whatever, and I don't care. They provide a valuable service without capitalizing on the blogger's content per se.
I find the chronological listing of content from various blogs, some I wouldn't normally bother to read, complete with excerpt of post, a nice format. For example today and part of yesterday we have a C&P below. I think they're worth the daily visit!
Read more »
Sunday, May 20, 2012
But Women Are Equal Now
Badger misses the fast ball across the plate, but I forgive him. The correct response to this absurdity that "men don't pick up on our signals" is....
"Men and women are equal now. Start acting like a man and approach us 50% of the time and express clear and obvious interest."
**"the absurdity of feminism" sigh**
OK, time for the lesson that the leaders of the 70's failed to tell you morons about choosing this idiotic path the country has obviously decided to go down:
Ahem....
You lovely ladies of the western world do not get to have it both ways. You wanted to be treated like men, well little ladies, you got it. Start "manning up," step up to the plate and start asking men out point blank. You no longer get the excuse "well men should just be the aggressors" or "WELL I SENT HIM OBVIOUS SIGNALS!!! I LOOKED AT HIM!!!!."
So sorry, that won't do. We're now going to pull up our lawn chairs, break them out, light up cigars, treat you like men and wait for you to approach. Matter of fact, we have a lot of time to make up for when the men were oppressing you women. Out of respect and retroactive apologies for our forefathers' evil oppressive behavior, we should just let you do all the approaching and asking for AT LEAST the next 50 years as reparations for our misogynistic behavior over the centuries.
But, I'm sorry.
You know what.
That just isn't enough.
No. I'm with you sisters!!!
We really oppressed you.
I mean we REALLY oppressed you.
And for that I am TRULY sorry.
So to make it up to you, we'll even do you the favor of "womaning up." And by that I mean practicing our shooting down skills, our mockery laughter and our "say yes, but then cancel at the last moment" skills so you get the full male treatment. I don't know how to flake, but I'm going to figure it out. Trust me, you'll like it, because that's what you've always wanted, right? To be treated as equals? To be treated like men? I'm with you sista, I am going to make DAMN SURE all you girls get what you deserve and are entitled to, and that is to be treated as GENUINE equals.
Heh heh.
I am so going to enjoy this decline.
"Men and women are equal now. Start acting like a man and approach us 50% of the time and express clear and obvious interest."
**"the absurdity of feminism" sigh**
OK, time for the lesson that the leaders of the 70's failed to tell you morons about choosing this idiotic path the country has obviously decided to go down:
Ahem....
You lovely ladies of the western world do not get to have it both ways. You wanted to be treated like men, well little ladies, you got it. Start "manning up," step up to the plate and start asking men out point blank. You no longer get the excuse "well men should just be the aggressors" or "WELL I SENT HIM OBVIOUS SIGNALS!!! I LOOKED AT HIM!!!!."
So sorry, that won't do. We're now going to pull up our lawn chairs, break them out, light up cigars, treat you like men and wait for you to approach. Matter of fact, we have a lot of time to make up for when the men were oppressing you women. Out of respect and retroactive apologies for our forefathers' evil oppressive behavior, we should just let you do all the approaching and asking for AT LEAST the next 50 years as reparations for our misogynistic behavior over the centuries.
But, I'm sorry.
You know what.
That just isn't enough.
No. I'm with you sisters!!!
We really oppressed you.
I mean we REALLY oppressed you.
And for that I am TRULY sorry.
So to make it up to you, we'll even do you the favor of "womaning up." And by that I mean practicing our shooting down skills, our mockery laughter and our "say yes, but then cancel at the last moment" skills so you get the full male treatment. I don't know how to flake, but I'm going to figure it out. Trust me, you'll like it, because that's what you've always wanted, right? To be treated as equals? To be treated like men? I'm with you sista, I am going to make DAMN SURE all you girls get what you deserve and are entitled to, and that is to be treated as GENUINE equals.
Heh heh.
I am so going to enjoy this decline.
The Sexual Attractiveness of Liberal "Men"
I have a long and lengthy theory about the socio-sexual-psychological-etc. of liberal men.
But the very short version is they're not attractive.
But the very short version is they're not attractive.
Job Creation Bush vs. Obama - Update
Time to update the data as a reader pointed out a story to me about job creation under democrats and republicans.
Turns out from last we spoke, Obama and Bush are still more or less neck and neck in terms of job creation at this point in their presidencies. At my last post Bush had lost 100k more jobs than Obama at this time, now he is only 40k down (one could also make the point Census workers should be taken out of this and close the gap further, but, eh). Regardless, you'll note in the chart, just like Bush's first term, it's put up or shut up time for the Obama administration. Both at this point in time during their first terms had suffered lack luster economic growth and a lack of a booming economic recovery that typically follows recessions. Bush pulled through (though I don't believe it is a president who can create jobs and this whole discussion is moot), while Obama's growth has started to trend below Bush's.
The only additional thing I will point out is that while both presidents are essentially neck and neck in job creation, Bush managed to do this with a mere fraction of the amount of debt Obama has. But don't let me ruin your fragile little Keynesian Land of Make Believe by pointing out the spectacular failure.
Turns out from last we spoke, Obama and Bush are still more or less neck and neck in terms of job creation at this point in their presidencies. At my last post Bush had lost 100k more jobs than Obama at this time, now he is only 40k down (one could also make the point Census workers should be taken out of this and close the gap further, but, eh). Regardless, you'll note in the chart, just like Bush's first term, it's put up or shut up time for the Obama administration. Both at this point in time during their first terms had suffered lack luster economic growth and a lack of a booming economic recovery that typically follows recessions. Bush pulled through (though I don't believe it is a president who can create jobs and this whole discussion is moot), while Obama's growth has started to trend below Bush's.
The only additional thing I will point out is that while both presidents are essentially neck and neck in job creation, Bush managed to do this with a mere fraction of the amount of debt Obama has. But don't let me ruin your fragile little Keynesian Land of Make Believe by pointing out the spectacular failure.
More on that LC v. LF Study: Older study compares actual diets!
Yeah ... I'm off on a tangent again ;-) In looking at that new LC v. LF study blogged on here and here, I was reminded of a few studies I've looked into previously that actually increase the protein in the diets. That post is in the works, but in reviewing one study it hit me -- the macro percents were exactly what the recent Swedish study intended to compare!
This study from Gannon & Nuttall fits the bill perfectly: Effect of a High-Protein, Low-Carbohydrate Diet on Blood Glucose Control in People With Type 2 Diabetes. I blogged on this long ago, here.
{Aside: Gannon & Nuttall are the researchers behind the Dreamfields pasta study one of my detractors used to blast the company and its product (I agree with that, BTW). But that study has since been withdrawn so another one of my detractors would feel justified in calling them liars. Sigh.}
Read more »
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Fat Head's Fantasy Island
When I was a teenager, I had quite the lucrative babysitting business. On Saturday nights, before cable and VCR's and DVR's there was Love Boat and Fantasy Island (then SNL and Don Kirshner's Rock Concert <- anyone remember that?). Given that The Love Boat was aboard a cruise ship, and Fat Head weighs in with a tale that seems more fantasy than reality, I chose to title this post with Fantasy Island.
Four days after the 5th Annual LC Cruise docked back in Galveston, Tom Naughton, aka Fat Head, weighs in with: The Cruise (and Kruse) Report. Now I wouldn't bother sharing this with you were it not for Fat Head's irresponsible blogging here. I mean this was posted on May 17th -- long past when anyone with a computer and 6 neurons would have concluded that, whatever went down on the Carnival Magic vis a vis Dr. Jack Kruse, wasn't Jack's version. Ahhh but we get new details from Tom:
Read more »
Friday, May 18, 2012
Maybe Caging the Animal might be more appropriate at times
I'm not sure the wisdom of making this post, but something I read yesterday on Nikoley's latest post on Jack Kruse just didn't sit right with me. Were it not for the fact that Dick did his best to contribute to the angst of the past going-on two weeks, I probably would just let it slide. He's just not the sort of blogger I have ever had much interest in. I can't relate, and, frankly, he's so cryptic at times as to be exasperatingly annoying. Really, it's almost as frustrating as having a discussion with Fred Hahn, and anyone who ever has ended up getting talked in circles (as opposed to getting talked circles around) by Fred knows what I mean.
So any way, here was Dick's first post on Kruse. You see, he had "inside information" having spoken to Kruse on the night of Jan. 9 when Kruse claims to have undertaken his now infamous epic biohack -- complete with elective surgery, MRSA, no local/post op pain management, and 120 lbs of ice. Here is what Dick wrote then:
Read more »
Destroying the Division of Labor
I am starting to believe more and more this was done by:
1. Nefarious forces
2. Originating from the Soviet Union during the cold war
I am not one of conspiracy theories, but the more and more I look at stuff like this or "global warming" I am finding it harder and harder to believe it wasn't orchestrated.
To destroy a country that is strong you must do it from the inside. No better way than to start by destroying the natural and biological relationship between men and women.
1. Nefarious forces
2. Originating from the Soviet Union during the cold war
I am not one of conspiracy theories, but the more and more I look at stuff like this or "global warming" I am finding it harder and harder to believe it wasn't orchestrated.
To destroy a country that is strong you must do it from the inside. No better way than to start by destroying the natural and biological relationship between men and women.
More on the latest LC/LF Diet Comparison Study, and Why LF & CRD's "fail"?
I thought of just updating the last post, but this is long enough on its own to warrant a Part II of sorts. If you haven't read it yet, may I suggest: LC v. LF Diet Comparison Study Shows Calories Determine Weight Loss. What distinguished this study from many other comparison studies, was that there was an attempt at keeping calories constant between the diets. Usually LC is ad libitum, which, especially the first time one follows a low carb diet, tends to substantially spontaneously reduce caloric intake more than what is generally prescribed for a "responsible" calorie restricted diet (CRD). This was also a longer term study and also compared two different fixed prescribed diets rather than the usual Atkins-style induction/progression formula. Presuming compliance, then, the study controlled for calories and sought to look at the effects of just the macronutrient composition of the diet.
In my opinion, the rather negligible differences for both groups after a year and continuing through two years show that neither dietary intervention was particularly effective, resulting in under 10 lbs weight loss and only transient improvements in HbA1c as measured by one method only. So why was that? Well, the prescribed caloric intake was fixed at 1600 cal/day for women and 1800 cal/day for the men. Right there this part of the study design pretty much doomed it to failure. While men generally have higher caloric needs than women, total daily energy expenditure varies so widely between individuals that clearly some women have higher needs than some men, and some men and women have higher needs than others of their gender.
Read more »
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Sinking the Men of the Yamato
Through my own personal conversations, the conversations retold to me of other men, and even those conversations I've heard on the Tom Leykis Show, all of us men have at one point in time or another been asked by women,
"Who screwed you over in the past?"
or a variant
"What girl did this to you?"
Usually this happens when women ask you about your opinions of dating, courtship, romance, etc., and when you speak the truth they are shocked and horrified that you have such a cynical or pessimistic attitude towards dating or women in general. The logic they employ leads them to only one possible solution or explanation:
That ONE girl completely screwed you over and thus, unjustifiably and unfairly, soured your opinion of ALL women.
They believe there was this ONE, SINGLE, SOLE perpetrator that did not represent or resemble the majority of women and that is why you have this "irrational" or "inappropriate" response or view of women. That the majority of women are too numerous and prevalent that it was only sheer dumb luck you ran into a single, sole, renegade operator who warped your perception of women so unjustifiably so.
So let me introduce a little reality into the situation.
For the most part, I believe most women subscribe to the theory that "ONE" person did this to you, and therefore scarred you for the rest of your life, because it's simple. The human brain (male or female) is more prone to select the simpler theory because it takes too much effort to accept and rationalize complex ones. This is not a criticism of women, because men are just as susceptible to believe in a "simple" theory than a complex one. But it's just easier to believe there was this ONE, SINGLE, MEAN, BADDIE of a girl that did something really mean to you and thus you swore off women forever.
The REALITY is however, quite the opposite.
Yes, there are men who unfortunately suffered one, single death-knelling blow and they never got up again. But for the majority of men, it is more akin to the sinking of the Yamato than anything else.
The Yamato was the premier Japanese battleship of WWII. It was more or less unsinkable from sea and thus they had to resort to aerial bombing to sink her. She took an AMAZING amount of punishment. Three separate waves of attacks, from air and sea and she still kept on going.
Inevitably she DID capitulate and sink, but understand it was no one single bomb or torpedo that did her in. It was a relentless, constant, repetitive, barrage and assault that essentially bludgeoned her into submission and defeat. And thus is the way of most men you will face today above an age of 25.
The sheer hell and punishment, NOT in terms of single punishing blows, but in terms of constantly repetitive, NEVER ENDING attacks is what molds or galvanizes men into what they are today. The accomplished Hugh Grant-like bachelor that eschews meeting your friend that is "perfect for him" was not sunk by a single woman, but a barrage of flake outs, stand ups, drama queens and suicide threats. The confirmed bachelor who prefers to hang out with his buds instead of go to a club and meet a girl has had his deck strafed repeatedly. The 40 something executive, committed to his job and his career and maybe calls you when he's in town, remembers starkly those days of getting the hell bombed out of him by ditzy girlfriend after cheating girlfriend after money-sucking girlfriend.
Did some girls cause more damage than others?
Yes.
Did any one of them sink the individual man?
No.
And so in the end if you look at the autopsy of this former "good guy" or "reliable man," you'll find that the cause of death was no single girl that hurt his feelings "really bad" back in college, but a never ending litany of flakes, frauds, drama queens, liars and just plain evil women/girls that were never strong enough or significant enough on their own to cause major damage to such a vessel, but a never ending barrage of them that just plain wore him down to the point of defeat.
Ergo, stop trying to blame the sinking of "good men" on mythical single, sole villains and start casting a wider net. It is a problem that is more pervasive and wide-spread than most women will admit. And much like Christianity did, and Islam must in the future -have a reformation- so too must modern day women purge and shame through their ranks the women who find it fashionable, funny, entertaining and enjoyable to bomb, strafe, torpedo and attack men.
Because understand, those of us men of the Yamato class are simply forced to make a decision based on statistics and probability. Enough girls attack, drop their bombs, and shoot torpedoes into our sides, we have no choice but to treat you all as enemies and give no one the benefit of the doubt, even the genuine and true "good girls." And so there you sit at the age of 32 wondering "where have all the good men gone." Whether you're a good girl or a bad girl, it doesn't matter. By this point in the game it's revenge by proxy time. If you're upset about that, then take it up with the feminists and evil women in your ranks that found it so necessary to villainize, mock, stand up, play mind, etc. with young men/boys, not the sinking Yamato's themselves.
Regardless, I sure hope it was fun (not to mention, worth it) playing with young boys' feelings and emotions in middle school through college. Hope it was fun with the drama and suicide threats, and ultimatums and mind games and sh!t tests and whatever else Cosmo told you to do. I hope "playing hard to get" and stringing along men/boys provided invaluable entertainment. Because there couldn't possibly be a consequence to all that now could there?
You lovely western ladies enjoy that decline!
On a intellectual note, from Wikipedia about the sinking of the Yamato and just what kind of punishment it endured:
Yamato avoided being hit for four minutes until, at 12:41, two bombs obliterated two of her triple 25 mm anti-aircraft mounts and blew a hole in the deck. A third bomb then destroyed her radar room and the starboard aft 127 mm mount. At 12:46 another two bombs struck the battleship's port side, one slightly ahead of the aft 155 mm centreline turret and the other right on top of the gun. These caused a great amount of damage to the turret and its magazines; only one man climbed out alive.[48][N 7] At 12:45 a single torpedo struck Yamato far forward on her port side sending extreme shocks throughout the ship. Because many of the hit's survivors were later killed by strafing or were trapped when Yamato sank, the details are uncertain, but authors Garzke and Dulin record that little damage was caused.[48] Shortly afterward up to three more torpedoes struck Yamato. Two impacts—on the port side near the engine room and on one of the boiler rooms—are confirmed; the third is disputed but is regarded by Garzke and Dulin as probable because it would explain the reported flooding in Yamato's auxiliary steering room. The attack ended around 12:47, leaving the battleship to list 5–6° to port; counterflooding—deliberately flooding compartments on the other side of the ship—reduced the list to 1°. One boiler room had been disabled, slightly reducing Yamato's top speed, and strafing had incapacitated many of the gun crews who manned Yamato's unprotected 25 mm anti-aircraft weapons, sharply curtailing their effectiveness.[48]
Yamato photographed during the battle by an aircraft from USS Yorktown (CV-10). The battleship is on fire and visibly listing to port.The second attack started just before 13:00. In a coordinated strike, dive bombers flew high overhead to begin their runs while torpedo laden aircraft approached from all directions at just above sea level. Overwhelmed by the number of targets, the battleship's anti-aircraft guns were less than effective, and the Japanese tried desperate measures to break up the attack. Yamato's main guns were loaded with Beehive shells fused to explode one second after firing—a mere 1,000 m (3,300 ft) from the ship—but this had little effect. Four or five torpedoes struck the battleship, three or four to port and one to starboard. Three hits, close together on the port side, are confirmed: one struck a fireroom that had been hit earlier, one impacted a different fireroom, and the third hit the hull adjacent to a previously damaged outboard engine room, increasing the water that had already been flowing into that space and possibly causing flooding in nearby locations. The fourth hit (though unconfirmed) may have struck aft of the third; Garzke and Dulin believe this would explain the rapid flooding that reportedly occurred in that location.[49] This attack left Yamato in a perilous position, listing 15–18° to port. Counterflooding all of the remaining starboard void spaces lessened this to 10°, but further correction would have required either repairs or flooding the starboard engine and fire rooms. Although the battleship was in no danger of sinking at this point, the list meant that the main battery was unable to fire and her maximum speed was limited to 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph).[50]
The third and most damaging attack developed at about 13:40. At least four bombs hit the ship's superstructure and caused heavy casualties among her 25 mm anti-aircraft gun crews. Many near misses drove in her outer plating, partially compromising her defense against torpedoes. Most serious were four more torpedo impacts. Three exploded on the port side, increasing water intake into the port inner engine room and flooding yet another fireroom and the steering gear room. With the auxiliary steering room already underwater, the ship lost all maneuverability and became stuck in a starboard turn. The fourth torpedo most likely hit the starboard outer engine room which, along with three other rooms on the starboard side, was in the process of being counterflooded to reduce the port list. The torpedo strike increased the rate of water intake by a large margin, trapping many crewmen before they could escape.[51]
At 14:02 the order was belatedly given to abandon ship. By this time Yamato's speed had dropped to 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) and her list was steadily increasing. Fires were raging out of control in some sections of the ship and alarms had begun to sound on the bridge warning of critical temperatures in the forward main battery magazines.
"Who screwed you over in the past?"
or a variant
"What girl did this to you?"
Usually this happens when women ask you about your opinions of dating, courtship, romance, etc., and when you speak the truth they are shocked and horrified that you have such a cynical or pessimistic attitude towards dating or women in general. The logic they employ leads them to only one possible solution or explanation:
That ONE girl completely screwed you over and thus, unjustifiably and unfairly, soured your opinion of ALL women.
They believe there was this ONE, SINGLE, SOLE perpetrator that did not represent or resemble the majority of women and that is why you have this "irrational" or "inappropriate" response or view of women. That the majority of women are too numerous and prevalent that it was only sheer dumb luck you ran into a single, sole, renegade operator who warped your perception of women so unjustifiably so.
So let me introduce a little reality into the situation.
For the most part, I believe most women subscribe to the theory that "ONE" person did this to you, and therefore scarred you for the rest of your life, because it's simple. The human brain (male or female) is more prone to select the simpler theory because it takes too much effort to accept and rationalize complex ones. This is not a criticism of women, because men are just as susceptible to believe in a "simple" theory than a complex one. But it's just easier to believe there was this ONE, SINGLE, MEAN, BADDIE of a girl that did something really mean to you and thus you swore off women forever.
The REALITY is however, quite the opposite.
Yes, there are men who unfortunately suffered one, single death-knelling blow and they never got up again. But for the majority of men, it is more akin to the sinking of the Yamato than anything else.
The Yamato was the premier Japanese battleship of WWII. It was more or less unsinkable from sea and thus they had to resort to aerial bombing to sink her. She took an AMAZING amount of punishment. Three separate waves of attacks, from air and sea and she still kept on going.
Inevitably she DID capitulate and sink, but understand it was no one single bomb or torpedo that did her in. It was a relentless, constant, repetitive, barrage and assault that essentially bludgeoned her into submission and defeat. And thus is the way of most men you will face today above an age of 25.
The sheer hell and punishment, NOT in terms of single punishing blows, but in terms of constantly repetitive, NEVER ENDING attacks is what molds or galvanizes men into what they are today. The accomplished Hugh Grant-like bachelor that eschews meeting your friend that is "perfect for him" was not sunk by a single woman, but a barrage of flake outs, stand ups, drama queens and suicide threats. The confirmed bachelor who prefers to hang out with his buds instead of go to a club and meet a girl has had his deck strafed repeatedly. The 40 something executive, committed to his job and his career and maybe calls you when he's in town, remembers starkly those days of getting the hell bombed out of him by ditzy girlfriend after cheating girlfriend after money-sucking girlfriend.
Did some girls cause more damage than others?
Yes.
Did any one of them sink the individual man?
No.
And so in the end if you look at the autopsy of this former "good guy" or "reliable man," you'll find that the cause of death was no single girl that hurt his feelings "really bad" back in college, but a never ending litany of flakes, frauds, drama queens, liars and just plain evil women/girls that were never strong enough or significant enough on their own to cause major damage to such a vessel, but a never ending barrage of them that just plain wore him down to the point of defeat.
Ergo, stop trying to blame the sinking of "good men" on mythical single, sole villains and start casting a wider net. It is a problem that is more pervasive and wide-spread than most women will admit. And much like Christianity did, and Islam must in the future -have a reformation- so too must modern day women purge and shame through their ranks the women who find it fashionable, funny, entertaining and enjoyable to bomb, strafe, torpedo and attack men.
Because understand, those of us men of the Yamato class are simply forced to make a decision based on statistics and probability. Enough girls attack, drop their bombs, and shoot torpedoes into our sides, we have no choice but to treat you all as enemies and give no one the benefit of the doubt, even the genuine and true "good girls." And so there you sit at the age of 32 wondering "where have all the good men gone." Whether you're a good girl or a bad girl, it doesn't matter. By this point in the game it's revenge by proxy time. If you're upset about that, then take it up with the feminists and evil women in your ranks that found it so necessary to villainize, mock, stand up, play mind, etc. with young men/boys, not the sinking Yamato's themselves.
Regardless, I sure hope it was fun (not to mention, worth it) playing with young boys' feelings and emotions in middle school through college. Hope it was fun with the drama and suicide threats, and ultimatums and mind games and sh!t tests and whatever else Cosmo told you to do. I hope "playing hard to get" and stringing along men/boys provided invaluable entertainment. Because there couldn't possibly be a consequence to all that now could there?
You lovely western ladies enjoy that decline!
On a intellectual note, from Wikipedia about the sinking of the Yamato and just what kind of punishment it endured:
Yamato avoided being hit for four minutes until, at 12:41, two bombs obliterated two of her triple 25 mm anti-aircraft mounts and blew a hole in the deck. A third bomb then destroyed her radar room and the starboard aft 127 mm mount. At 12:46 another two bombs struck the battleship's port side, one slightly ahead of the aft 155 mm centreline turret and the other right on top of the gun. These caused a great amount of damage to the turret and its magazines; only one man climbed out alive.[48][N 7] At 12:45 a single torpedo struck Yamato far forward on her port side sending extreme shocks throughout the ship. Because many of the hit's survivors were later killed by strafing or were trapped when Yamato sank, the details are uncertain, but authors Garzke and Dulin record that little damage was caused.[48] Shortly afterward up to three more torpedoes struck Yamato. Two impacts—on the port side near the engine room and on one of the boiler rooms—are confirmed; the third is disputed but is regarded by Garzke and Dulin as probable because it would explain the reported flooding in Yamato's auxiliary steering room. The attack ended around 12:47, leaving the battleship to list 5–6° to port; counterflooding—deliberately flooding compartments on the other side of the ship—reduced the list to 1°. One boiler room had been disabled, slightly reducing Yamato's top speed, and strafing had incapacitated many of the gun crews who manned Yamato's unprotected 25 mm anti-aircraft weapons, sharply curtailing their effectiveness.[48]
The third and most damaging attack developed at about 13:40. At least four bombs hit the ship's superstructure and caused heavy casualties among her 25 mm anti-aircraft gun crews. Many near misses drove in her outer plating, partially compromising her defense against torpedoes. Most serious were four more torpedo impacts. Three exploded on the port side, increasing water intake into the port inner engine room and flooding yet another fireroom and the steering gear room. With the auxiliary steering room already underwater, the ship lost all maneuverability and became stuck in a starboard turn. The fourth torpedo most likely hit the starboard outer engine room which, along with three other rooms on the starboard side, was in the process of being counterflooded to reduce the port list. The torpedo strike increased the rate of water intake by a large margin, trapping many crewmen before they could escape.[51]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)