I can feel the vultures circling. Apparently, it is getting out that I am single. I have been in total bachelor mode since May, and I have used the time well to work on projects and my fitness. I haven't had a single date since that time, and I have actually labored to keep it that way. My life since May has been monastic except for Friday nights at Hooters where I ogle ass I am never going to get. Last Friday, I passed on Hooters and went home for some rest. I am ending my Hooters habit in favor of doing the things that really matter to me.

This is the longest I have been like this in the last five years or so. Either I had a girlfriend or a string of dates. But I wanted to be where I am now for awhile. I felt like I was drowning in a dating abyss, and I needed some air.

I don't think I want to go back to all that bullshit. Naturally, this brings up accusations of being homosexual or the specter of celibacy. The conventional wisdom is that there must be something wrong with a man if he's not plowing some chick somewhere. But I don't care. I don't want to go back to that crap. That is the pure fucking truth there.

My life goes better without a chick in it. I have more money, more time, and more enjoyment. I get in better shape. I write more. I enjoy being at work more. I feel like a tremendous burden has been lifted off of me. Why would I want to go back to some woman's bullshit?

I like this monastic existence. The vultures can circle, but I am going to ignore them. Love is such a crock of shit that I just don't want that toxic garbage in my life anymore. It feels like being liberated from some bad addiction. And I'm too busy to feel lonely. I have so much I want to do, and I have the freedom to do those things now. I am staying in this state of being for as long as I can.

[U.] Shizzy in the Hizzy

don't be in a tizzy. u-man's in the hizzy delivering up the shizzy my nizzies. break out some love for the U-DADDY motherfuckers.

you into lady gaga? think she's kinda sexy? want to get some smush action on that hot bitch? THINK AGAIN. lady gaga is a MAN. straight k to the NUTS! check it out:

time for the scoop on the ROTHSCHILDS. motherfuckers own you:

planet x is real. nibiru exists. super k to the grille:

more nibiru k bombage:

this cheddar will make you feel better:

u-man's nuts is empty now. CREAMPIE between them legs. clean yourself up while the u-man cuts out this MOTHERFUCKER. keep the pimp hand strong and SHIT ON THE HATERS. peace out.

Food Fight

I have spent virtually this entire day researching on one subject--FOOD. The spur for this action came from my latest dust up with Karen De Coster. Karen had defriended me on Facebook after an earlier dust up because she is a high strung psycho bitch. After all my dust ups with her, I get discreet emails from people who know her who tell me they have the same experience with her. The woman has issues. But she allowed people to subscribe and comment on her public updates using the new Facebook feature which I did. This led to a complete ban, so I can no longer read or participate in any of her Facebook postings. (I follow the opposite policy even going so far as to deliberately friend people who will disagree with me. This makes me stronger.)

Karen posted something incredibly stupid to the effect that libertarians should eat low carb or else they aren't true libertarians. I merely restated what KDC said a little more bluntly, and I got the KDC death penalty. This was probably more for past transgressions than the current one. Remember, this is the same woman who will chide you for being thin skinned if you can't take her criticisms. But what she said did get me back on this subject to review and see if there is anything to her beliefs. I have spent considerable time reading and watching videos of Gary Taubes, a BBC special on the Atkins diet, and hilarious videos from a militant Aussie vegan named Durian Rider. I come to this issue with a certain degree of skepticism and open mindedness because it is a complex issue. I will simply relate facts that stuck in my head and state the conclusion that I have reached.

1. There are two warring camps--Vegan vs. Atkins.

The vegan side say that carbs are not the problem. It is the fat. Fat comes from animal products. Eliminate animal products, and you won't be fat. Or as they put it, "The fat you eat is the fat you wear." Atkins and Paleo people say the opposite. The carbs are the problem because they produce an insulin response which turns those carbs into fat. The moderate viewpoint is that excess bodyfat and obesity come from a simple imbalance between calories in and calories out. This would be the American Heart Association, the AMA, and others. Who is right? This is hard to tell because both sides marshal facts to support their viewpoints. I have tried to pick apart these facts to tell what is true and what is not true.

2. You can and will lose weight on a low carb/high protein diet.

There are many people who have done the Atkins diet and the Paleo diet, and they have lost weight. Vegans can argue forever about this, but you can lose weight by eating sausage and eggs for breakfast while cutting the carbs. The reason for this weight loss is not the reason Atkins/Paleo people cite. The trick is to be able to consume more calories than you can burn, but this will never work at weight loss. I watched a BBC program where they studied the issue, and Atkins people actually consumed fewer calories just like any other diet. The reality is that you can lose weight on almost any calorically restrictive diet. They all work the same. The first law of thermodynamics will always hold. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. It can be bread and water or steak and eggs.

3. The Atkins/Paleo diet works by making people feel sated.

The advantage the pure carnivores have is that they can eat without counting calories or exercising portion control. They feel full long before they have gone over their need for calories. This is why that program works. It automatically reduces the caloric input without the pain of constant hunger. The Atkins/Paleo people claim that it is fat that creates this satiation. They were wrong.

4. Protein is the secret.

Protein is what produces satiation. This was what the BBC program discovered. They did an experiment with secretly introducing fat into people's diets to see if it made any difference on their portions. It didn't. They ate as much as the control group and got fatter because of the extra calories. The take away is that it doesn't matter if you eat the potato baked or fried. You will feel the same after eating both, but you will get fatter on the french fries. The vegans are correct. The fat you eat is the fat you wear.

The secret to the Atkins diet is not the fat but the protein. For some reason, eating more protein makes you feel fuller and decreases hunger and appetite. This is where the vegans are wrong, and why I always felt famished on my vegetarian diet. But unlike the Atkins people, I don't think sausage and hamburgers are the answer either. If fat makes you fatter but doesn't satisfy you, I think it makes sense to eat lean meat. This would be poultry and fish.

5. Simple carbs will make you fat.

This was the unfortunate side effect of Dr. Dean Ornish's vegetarian diet advice. The idea that you merely need to eliminate animal products from your diet, and you will lose weight is utter nonsense. You have to remember that you can eat cake and drink soda all fucking day and still call yourself a vegan. This is essentially what people did when the low fat advice hit the public. Atkins people say that people starved of fat turn to simple carbs such as sugar and white flour to try and fill themselves up. But as I said, it isn't the fat that makes you feel full. It is the protein. Without protein, you get hungry, and you are prone to eating a lot of crap because it is available. Plus, the crap tastes good.

6. You can lose weight on a whole foods vegan diet.

Vegans who don't eat donuts lose weight. By choosing fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, vegans lose weight. The Paleo/Atkins idea that carbs are bad is simply false. But I have done a lot of reading from ex-vegans, and they all confessed to craving bacon and steak while vegan. Those cravings never went away, and their health wasn't all that great either.


My conclusions on this crap are still the same as they were before. I think both the carnivores and the herbivores are extremists who get it right and wrong for various reasons. You need a balanced diet that is low in fat and simple carbohydrates like sugar and white flour. I believe in what I can only call a semi-vegetarian diet. Basically, you get protein from poultry, fish, and eggs. You get carbs from complex whole grains. You avoid anything fried. You avoid desserts, sweets, and sugary soft drinks. Fat and sugar which abound in processed foods are calorically dense. They are easily digested making it much easier for you to overeat. The secret is to eat fiber rich foods and lean protein. This will reduce hunger while also reducing weight.

People want a magic bullet on this stuff which is why they go to extremes. You can choose the ketosis and bad breath of the Atkins/Paleo diet, or you can pick the constant hunger and food cravings of the vegan path. The reason these paths ultimately fail is not because they don't work at losing weight but because people can't stick to them. Extreme diets are not the answer.

UPDATE: I have received requests to post links and videos, so here they are. The list will grow as I try and put up everything I watched and read on this subject. Check back often.

The Liberaltarian Mirage

Libertarians and conservatives have been allied quite awhile on common issues. Think tanks like Cato are quite chummy with folks at The Heritage Foundation. Ron Paul runs as a Republican. Fox News throws us a bone with letting Judge Napolitano have a show and make appearances on other shows. And conservatives at least pay lip service to cutting government even if they don't actually do it. For good or ill, libertarians have managed to work on common issues with conservatives and those within the GOP.

There are some who think a possible alliance can be made with progressives and people within the Democratic Party. These would be former Cato staffer Brink Lindsey or the guys over at Bleeding Heart Libertarians who pursue "free markets and social justice." Whether it is merely a PR change or major concessions on philosophy, these people propose an alliance between liberals and libertarians that is called "liberaltarian." This is nothing new. The libertarian hand has reached across the divide many times only to pull it back with teeth marks on it. To date, no significant alliance has ever worked between the two camps. Cato purged Lindsey, and I agree with that move. Matt Welch said the liberaltarian movement was "probably dead on arrival." I tend to agree.

The interesting question to me was a fundamental one. If libertarians and liberals both agree on social issues and being antiwar, why are liberals so utterly unapproachable in finding common cause on the matters where both agree? In other words, why are leftards such complete and utter dickheads to libertarians when playing nice would help them win?

To answer my question, I needed to answer the flip side to the question. Why are libertarians and conservatives seemingly joined at the hip? Why are conservatives willing to work with libertarians where liberals are not? My best answer is that there is not much difference between the two on a philosophical basis. Conservatives embrace the free market economics of libertarians and practically stole it. Both Friedman and Hayek feature prominently in conservative thought. Reagan was a big fan of Mises. So, why is there anything such as conservatism?

A conservative is essentially a libertarian who believes in God. I used to be a conservative. This was back when I used to be a Christian. When I became an atheist, my evolution towards libertarianism was inevitable. I've always believed in free markets. But I used to believe that the government provided an important moral framework and spur to individual virtue. Without government to tell you that something is wrong, you would just do whatever the fuck you wanted. The ensuing chaos would result in anarchy and the need for an authoritarian to come in and set shit straight. Government was an agency of God's common grace to keep things from falling apart. Liberty is merely a consequence of good order. Or as the Federalist Papers put it, "There is no liberty without self-government." I now realize this to be an error as people repeatedly demonstrate the virtue lacking in our public leaders and law enforcement. Order is a consequence of liberty.

The division between libertarians and conservatives is essentially a philosophical one. On the basis of philosophy, any division is actually minor since they are simply different ideas. In the realm of ideas, it is easy to go along on matters of agreement and save disagreements for other times. But what about the division between liberals and libertarians?

The temptation is to think that the divide between liberals and libertarians is also philosophical, but this isn't true. Granted, there are philosophical differences, but this does not explain the reluctance of liberals to side with libertarians on legalizing drugs or ending the war. It also does not explain how they can give their own president a pass on these issues when he has shown himself to be ultraconservative in these areas and to be a virtual carbon copy of the previous Republican administration. This is not a difference in ideas. It is a difference in psychology.

I interact with a lot of leftards on Facebook and in the real world. They are the most intellectually disingenuous people you will ever encounter. They are narcissistic, vain, petty, and stupid. I think Rush Limbaugh is a fat bag of hot air, but I can have a more reasonable conversation with him than I could with any leftard. This is because that convo with Rush would be a philosophical one. I would argue that drugs should be legalized, and he would argue otherwise. Then, he would offer me a Scotch and a cigar, and I would decline because I don't smoke or drink.

The leftard divide with libertarians is not a philosophical divide but a psychological divide. Conservatives and libertarians come to their positions as the result of thought and reflection. Liberals come to their positions as the result of their feelings. They feel the way they do and no cool detached reasoning will ever change them. This shitheadedness extends so far that they can't even make an alliance with those promoting the very things they claim to believe in.

The leftard worldview is identical to that of the younger sibling. Older siblings tend to reflect a more conservative outlook in their behavior as they often must delay gratification or assist in being a parent to the younger siblings. I don't know if birth order is actually reflected in later political affiliation, and that would be an interesting study. But looking at the way siblings behave, you can see that younger siblings have an almost pathological obsession with fairness even if they are actually spoiled with benefits in relation to their older siblings. Even if they were to benefit more from an unequal distribution than an equal distribution, they want the equal distribution. They would rather have everyone be equally poor than unequally rich. It is madness, but this is the way they think.

I tend to be individualistic, so I hardly pay any attention to other people in relation to myself. I enjoy talking to a wide variety of people, and I take an intense interest in them. But this interest is much the same as an entomologist's interest in maggots. I am detached from people in a way that I don't either look up or down on others. The result is that I am irreverent to authority and status while befriending outcasts, nerds, losers, or what have you. I can ride in another man's BMW and feel not one single desire to own one myself. As such, I always take the deal that is best for me as an individual without regard to how it may improve someone else's lot. This is why the success of others does not provoke envy in me. I am too self-absorbed to care.

Life isn't fair. I'm not sure when this insight came to me, but I was definitely young when it happened. I lost two cousins in a plane crash when I was six or seven, and I remember that I got my cousin Michael's Huffy BMX bike. The significance of the bike was that I never rode it without thinking about him. The tragedy of his death was unfair, and I had benefitted in some way by getting the bike. I did not feel guilty about this because I did not cause that tragedy. But it made me mindful that people die, and I will die, too. Many of the things that happen to us both good or bad are often undeserved. As a consequence, I learned not to worry about what was fair or unfair. Later on, I got a dirtbike for Christmas, and I had a friend at school who was so eaten up with envy that he begged his dad to buy one for him, too. That was the first time I saw the stupidity in it all. The reason was because I thought that guy was cool as fuck because he could draw. I had admiration for him, and he had envy for me. But I thought he was way cooler than me.

I would like to say this is just childish crap, but adults carry on exactly as children do. Their eyes are always on others and what they have. I like to look at exquisite architecture and the design of fancy cars. I enjoy them aesthetically, but I recognize that others only see shit they want and can't afford. That has to be one suck ass way to go through life always envying and resenting the good fortune of others. This is the epitome of the leftard mindset.

Libertarians and conservatives are quite fine with an unequal distribution of wealth. This is also why they are easy to make alliances with because they are selfish, greedy, or virtuous enough to see the benefit in the alliance for themselves. Leftards are not like this. They cannot make an alliance without considering how it may benefit someone else and how unfair that is. This is why there can never be a liberaltarian alliance. It may benefit libertarians in some way, and leftards can't have this.

When George W. Bush was in office, the antiwar left was very vocal. Then, that voice disappeared when Obama took office and has continued the same wars and expanded them into new countries. This does not matter to the leftard because Obama is one of them. This shows that their unwillingness to make alliances is not because of uncompromising philosophical integrity. In fact, you will find that leftards are one hypocritical bunch. Even on social issues like legalizing marijuana or gay marriage, they are quite hypocritical considering that Obama has stymied both with his policies.

The truth is that leftards really could give a shit about the social issues they should agree with libertarians on. The reason they make a big deal about them at all is for no greater purpose than to antagonize social conservatives. Basically, if conservatives are against it, leftards are for it. This is why leftards would howl if there were mandatory HIV testing for gays but would be quite fine with smokers being tested for nicotine. If that seems schizophrenic, it is because they are purely in opposition to conservatives. For myself, I think both are bad ideas, but leftards will accuse me of being anti-gay anyway because they can't deal with libertarians.

The fact that some people get rich while others don't looms entirely in the thoughts and mindset of the leftard. This is fundamentally unfair, and they hate anyone who does not see this unfairness. Conversely, they will love anyone who sees this unfairness even if they do nothing about it or act contrary to it. Anything that will serve to demonize the rich becomes fodder for them to use. Every fact is turned in such a way that conservatives and free market types come out as the loser. It could be environmentalism, imaginary threats to public health, perceived intolerance of minorities, etc. If you doubt this, look no further than the sexist remarks leftards toss at women like Palin or Bachmann. All black Republicans become racists and called "Uncle Tom." If the Republican Party came out for marijuana legalization tomorrow, leftards would say that the Republicans wanted to push an unsafe product on the marketplace for the sake of corporate profits.

The liberaltarian mirage is that libertarians can make an alliance with the Left on social issues and foreign policy. The reality is that this alliance can never be had because the Left doesn't give a damn about these things. They never did. These issues are merely convenient tools to demonstrate that the fundamental capitalist system is unfair. Every ill among humanity is caused by the unequal distribution of wealth. Leftards have no compassion. They are not concerned with the welfare of others. They are concerned with their own welfare. This is not a vice, but it becomes one when you become a sniveling whiner complaining about how unfair it all is. As long as some rich guy takes it in the shorts, social justice will be achieved.

The lack of compassion among leftards is well documented. They conveniently forget the many human rights abuses of Stalin and Mao. They even did this while they were happening. Democrats have a lower record of charitable giving than Republicans. And rich leftards like Michael Moore and Bono seem to have no problem enjoying their wealth while condemning the greed of others.

There is no philosophy, coherence, or compassion to the leftard mindset. It is simple envy. This staggers the mind, but there it is. These are not people who came to a conclusion after an appraisal of the facts. These are people who had a conclusion and use any fact true or otherwise in the support of that conclusion. Life should be fair even if that fairness is uniform misery. And there can be no alliance with libertarians because libertarians do not share the fundamental envy that unites all leftards. If the Republican Party came out for drug legalization tomorrow, leftards would say that they wanted to push an unsafe product on the marketplace for the sake of corporate profits. For the leftard, there are only two choices. You can either be on the side of Greed, or you can be on the side of Envy. Libertarians will always be on the side of greed to the leftard, and this is why no alliance between the two will ever occur. Matt Welch is right. The liberaltarian alliance is DOA.


1. The Liberaltarian Jackalope

2. A Liberaltarian Purge?

3. Liberaltarians by Brink Lindsey

4. The Left's Race-Baiting of Herman Cain

5. Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats?


HEROES-Dave Grohl

I'm not a huge fan of Nirvana. I love the Foo Fighters. But I have a lot of admiration for Dave Grohl. That guy is awesome in a variety of ways. Let me share them.

The first thing you learn about Dave Grohl is that he is multitalented. He is best on drums, but he plays guitar and bass as well. He can also sing pretty well. He is also an amazing songwriter cranking out a series of hits.

The second thing about Grohl is that he is amazingly humble. While being the drummer in Nirvana, he felt that he had ruined the band's sound when he joined them. He held back on his considerable talent letting Cobain do his thing. Considering what Grohl has done since Nirvana, it is obvious that he exercises considerable restraint relative to his talent. Foo Fighters have sold more albums than Nirvana. But Grohl knew Nirvana was something special, and he chose to labor in the shadows to not ruin it. Had Cobain lived, it is obvious that Grohl would have stepped up and taken Nirvana to another level. Grohl demonstrates this humility to this day by playing drums and working with many other artists in various capacities. He has drummed with Queens of the Stone Age, Them Crooked Vultures, and others. He has performed with rock legends John Paul Jones and Jimmy Page. The guy loves collaboration.

The third thing about Grohl is that he is a survivor. As someone who had a friend commit suicide, I can tell you that is not something that is easy to get over. Grohl did not give in to depression but soldiered on with new projects.

The fourth thing about Grohl is that he has a great work ethic. The guy never rests on his laurels. While the other Foos are taking a break, Grohl keeps working. The guy is a fucking music machine.

The fifth thing about Grohl is that he is not a rock and roll drug casualty. The guy is definitely against drugs giving up marijuana and acid at age 20. He has never done harder shit like coke and heroin. His main advices seem to be alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine.

The sixth thing about Grohl is that he has a very developed sense of humor. Foo Fighters videos display this humor. The guy is damn funny.

The final thing is that Grohl makes great music. The guy fucking rocks.

Cops and Firemen

Cops and firemen have a similar mission. Both aim to protect life and property. Firemen protect us from fire and other calamities. Cops protect us from criminals. But we know that just ain't so. People love firemen. Firemen are awesome. They have almost universal respect among the communities they serve. But not cops. Cops are hated. Why is this? This is because police do not protect life and property. They are a threat to life and property. They are crooks with badges.

It shouldn't be like this. Cops should have the same level of love and respect as firemen considering that they have virtually the same mission. Firemen are kinda lazy when you think about it because most of their time is spent polishing brass at the fire station. Yet, if you try and defund the fire department, you will have a revolt on your hands. People do not question the need for firemen. But we have already seen towns disband their police forces because of police corruption. It seems people find cops more dispensable than firemen.

The reason cops are hated is simple. They don't protect life and property. They are a fucking joke. Basically, the bulk of their time is spent on two main missions. The first is collecting revenue from traffic citations. The second is going after drug dealers which also enhances revenue thanks to asset forfeiture laws. As one former firefighter put it to me, "The mayor hated the fire department because it ate the city's budget while he loved the police department because it brought money into the city." The police department is essentially a money stealing operation for municipalities covered by some vague moral sanction about serving and protecting.

Where I live, the sheriff in the neighboring county was busted for being the drug lord of his county. This is some unbelievable shit, but it is true. Apparently, the money from the drug trade was so lucrative that the sheriff could no longer permit it to remain in private hands. His defense for his activity was that he was running a "one man investigation" into drug dealing. The reality is that drug prohibition has one telling nasty side effect--police corruption. The money involved in drugs is so large that cops on a personal level succumb to temptation while on an institutional level police forces are overwhelmingly focused on this area for the sake of adding money to their budgets. Under current law, any sizable amount of cash on a person can be seized regardless if that person is guilty of a crime. No due process is required. The person who has just parted with what belongs to him must hire a lawyer and fight it out in court to get back what belongs to him. So, if you are taking with you some cash that you earned from selling pottery at the flea market, the cops can take your cash, and you are fucked. Good luck with getting it back.

The other aspect of the police that is so alarming is how they are becoming more and more militarized with tanks and weapons and military fatigues. SWAT teams are the norm, yet they are not used for supercriminals. They are used for simple arrests not requiring such a show of force. But these wannabe Rambos invade homes, shoot dogs, put guns in children's faces, and bulldoze homes with tanks and armored vehicles. Why do they do this? To protect us from the danger of a dimebag of weed. It boggles the mind.

It isn't the fault of the police that they are tasked with enforcing unjust laws. The blame for that lies with our elected leaders and with the people that elected them. When cops are doing what they should be doing which is protecting life and property, people are appreciative. Recently, in my county, some guys were going around robbing businesses and drug dealers in a crime spree. They even committed murder. People were afraid. Yet, the sheriff's department handled that shit. They got those guys. They did their job, and the community was grateful. But now, that same sheriff's department has decided to put up DUI checkpoints and put a permanent presence on the interstate highway to police people that merely zip through the county on their way somewhere else. The new sheriff has thoroughly pissed off the people here, and they openly admit that they should have voted for the other guy. I am one of those people. I see these moves as nothing more than policing for profit. Now, I spend my time afraid. I'm not afraid of the criminals. I am afraid of the sheriff's department and the new shithead sheriff.

The cops are crooks. They don't protect me. They threaten me. They can rob from me virtually at will. They can violate my rights. They resemble the police in banana republics more and more who wear fatigues, drive Jeeps, carry automatic weapons, and demand to see your papers. If I protect myself against assault, home invasion, and the rest, I can expect to be treated just like a criminal. When I have had a legitimate need for the police such as when my car was stolen, they were useless. Solving that crime was going to cost money, so they did nothing about it. They only care about the crimes that make money for them. So, if you buy too much cold or allergy medicine at the pharmacy, you can expect a SWAT team to kick your door in, blow your brains out, and take everything you own because you purchased some Sudafed.

The answer to this problem of police corruption is to end the war on drugs. Likewise, fines for speeding and the like should never go to the police departments. The bulk of what cops do should be focused on solving real crimes like rape, murder, fraud, and theft. The good cops work in those areas. Not all cops are bad. As some wiseass put it, the 95% of cops who are bad give the other 5% a bad name. The fact is that we need to get the cops back to a level of respect enjoyed by our firefighters. This can only be done when our elected leaders remove the perverse incentives they create with their bullshit laws meant to placate a few shitheads in the community. This will probably happen when the mayor gets pulled over for DUI. But that happens all the time, and the mayor gets away with it. I am probably fooling myself. Cleaning this corruption up is like trying to take the stink off shit.

Q & A

Q: Why do you waste your time learning martial arts?

I got this question tossed at me from a co-worker who thought my kung fu lessons were senseless in the age of guns. It reminded me of the scene in Star Wars where Luke is learning Jedi lightsaber stuff from Obi Wan, and Han Solo tells him all he needs is a good blaster by his side. Basically, in a duel between a sword wielding samurai and a gun wielding cowboy, the cowboy wins.

There is truth to this observation which is why I own a Glock. I am a big believer in the Second Amendment, and I support concealed carry and all that. Guns are a great equalizer. Even an elderly woman with arthritis can be very dangerous with a loaded pistol. I heartily recommend that everyone buy a weapon and go to a local gun range to practice.

In terms of self-defense, you have an array of options that don't include lethal means. Pepper spray and tasers are also good, and I recommend them. Moderately lethal weapons such as a knife and a baseball bat or baton are also recommended. I definitely believe in weapons.

The problem with weapons is that the government does not like them and prohibits them as much as possible exposing you to criminals and aggressors. The government doesn't care about this since it is also an aggressor and a criminal outfit. Your safety and protection are less important than the government's ability to police and control you. The result of these policies is that there are large areas of public life where the only weapons you have will be your own two hands and feet and whatever is lying around. It is in these situations that martial arts become indispensable.

Here's a scenario drawn from real life. Terrorists have boarded a plane and hijacked it with box cutter knives. Thanks to the government, neither the pilots, flight attendants, nor passengers have anything including a nail file to counteract this threat. Yet, a rolled up magazine and some martial arts training are all you need to change that equation.

Another scenario is where non-lethal force is unwarranted. For instance, you are walking to your car and some drunk asshole comes out of nowhere and wails on you. Pulling out a Ruger and blowing his fucking brains out will get you prison. A well-placed upper cut will simply knock him the fuck out, and you can just carry on with your business. That guy won't even remember what happened to him.

I believe in living at peace with all people. This is why I adhere to non-aggression, mind my own business, and try not to provoke situations but calm them down. I'm also not above leaving a situation or even running away. But in the end, it behooves everyone to be as dangerous as they can possibly be. Peace rests on the firm foundation of strength. Aggression needs weakness to triumph.

I have a friend who teaches me martial arts, and he is the nicest guy in the world. From his demeanor, you would conclude that he wouldn't harm a fly. Yet, he is the most dangerous person I know. Peace and strength are a syzygy that are mutually connected. His calmness and generosity flow directly from the martial arts. I find that most anger comes from a feeling of powerlessness. The martial arts eliminate that feeling. Doing the work and discipline trains your body, but it also trains you internally as well.

Peace is the goal. At the beginning of this year, I made it a resolution to find peace, and I have discovered it in the martial arts. This may seem ironic to find peace in learning how to fight. But it is the same as finding freedom through discipline. By learning scales, the pianist experiences the freedom of effortless expression. By learning how to fight, the martial artist can afford to be at peace with others and himself. This is because nothing can hurt him.

Most conflict comes from people bluffing to hide their weakness. Animals do this. If you have ever seen a cat puff up when ready to fight, you realize that behavior is meant to make him look bigger and more threatening. Similarly, it is the smallest dog that has the loudest bark and is most prone to bite you. With people, this endless need to bluff and threaten is what produces conflict. Weak people do this. This is why they do petty things, threaten, intimidate, or whatnot. It is all bullshit.

I am learning more in this area, and my mind is changing on a lot of things. I am certain to write more on this subject as I learn more. I just know that martial arts as well as reading up on Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and other eastern perspectives has expanded my mind considerably. The real question is this. Is it worth it? I can say without reservation that it is definitely worth it and not a waste of your time.


I feel like complete shit as I write this. Most people have an alarm that tells them to wake up including me. But I also have an alarm on my watch that tells me to go to sleep. It is set for 10 p.m. because I am an early riser getting up between 2 and 3 a.m. I need the 10 o'clock alarm because I become so engrossed in my projects that I forget to go to sleep. Last night, I ignored that alarm to sneak in an extra hour and a half. I am now paying for that lack of discipline this morning.

I have a love/hate relationship with sleep. I enjoy sleeping as much as the next person, but I have a bad habit of wanting to cram more into my day when that just isn't possible. I feel good knowing that I enjoy my life so much that I always want to be in it. Depressed people sleep excessively because they fundamentally hate their lives and want to escape them. But I need to accept my limitations.

I'm going back to bed for a catnap.

[U.] Recognize, Motherfuckers

they can only be one boss in this town. that boss is the u-man. in the HIZZY fo SHIZZY. give up the love for the unknown blogger BITCHES. feel the power of the PIMP HAND.

educate yourselves on the middle east CHESS GAME. k-bomb incoming:

NEW WORLD ORDER bitches. recognize, motherfuckers. shit is coming DOWN.

ET on mars. straight shit from the man who knows:

double scoop of that special k:

what did israelis know about 9-11? find out:

extra k on the nwo. hold on to your brains:

find out about the illuminati and JSOC. shit is real:

steve jobs is dead. alex jones drops the straight scoop:

kadaffi is dead. shit was PREDICTED:

let's lay some cheese on this motherfucker. randy gage tells you to REFUSE TO LOSE:

i'm hitting that g-spot now. can you feel it deep in them guts? i knew you did. u-man has knocked the bottom out of it. NUT AND CUT. no time to cuddle because the u-man has to HUSTLE. SHIT ON THE HATERS. you can't handle me. peace and love. cue the outro music. u-daddy is out this motherfucker.

Quotable Quotes

Everyone has the obligation to ponder well his own specific traits of character. He must also regulate them adequately and not wonder whether someone else's traits might suit him better. The more definitely his own a man's character is, the better it fits him.

Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end.

Death is a release from the impressions of the senses, and from desires that make us their puppets, and from the vagaries of the mind, and from the hard service of the flesh.

A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation.

All this worldly wisdom was once the unamiable heresy of some wise man.

[Buzzard County] Chapter 5

Highway action-new words-Coop and Billy exchange words-Mike gets pulled over

The truck was racing down the highway. The cop car was in hot pursuit, but the driver in the truck didn't give a fuck. He swerved left and right. The cop car matched it move for move. Then, the truck hit a ramp and somersaulted in the air. It flipped three times and landed and kept on trucking. The cop car attempted the same maneuver, but it flipped over and landed on the roof. The cop's fucking brains splattered inside the car as he shit his pants for the last time. . .

"Vroom. . ." said Eric as he pushed the truck down his imaginary highway.

"What game are you playing?" Granny Dick asked.

"This is Coop drinking beer and fucking with the cops," Eric said. Granny Dick frowned.

"You shouldn't use words like that," Granny Dick said. "Where do you learn to talk such filth as that?"

"One of the kids told it to me in Sunday School," Eric said.

Granny Dick was flabbergasted. She thought for sure that drunk Ernest Cooper had taught it to him. Punk ass fucking kids.

"Get your stuff together. I'm taking you home to mama. I will let her wash your mouth out with soap."

* * *

Coop got in the truck and cranked it up. It fired. The truck was shot to shit, but it would run.

"You just need some tires and glass in the windows," Billy Mullins said. Billy was a friend of Coop. "You also need to shoot the fucker that did this to your truck."

"I know it, and there was a time when I would have done it. But I can get a new truck. Getting life in a prison cell don't make no sense to me."

"You sound like a man with a family to protect, Coop. You ain't gone soft for that Anita chick, have you?"

Coop was silent.

"I reckon you have," Billy said. "And you let that bitch's boyfriend do this to your truck. You are one dumb son of a bitch."

A fist connected with Billy's face. Billy hit the dirt.

"I don't give a fuck about that worthless cunt," Coop said. "That bitch can fuck a hundred mules, and I don't care."

Billy held his jaw. "Then, why do you care?"

Coop wouldn't answer.

"It's that boy, ain't it?" Billy said. "That boy ain't yours, Coop. You're playing daddy to the son of a mama who don't want you. How do you think that is gonna play out?"

"I don't know, Billy. I just know that every boy needs a daddy. It ain't that boy's fault his daddy got killed by a psycho, and his mama is a damn whore looking for money."

"You're right, Coop. I'm hearing what you're saying. But you can't change any of that."

"How about shutting up, and let's change some tires."

* * *

The blue lights were flashing. Mike hadn't even got out of Buzzard County before he was pulled over. The deputy sheriff handed back his license and registration.

"You were seven miles over the limit, so I'm going to let you off with a warning," the deputy said.

"Thanks, officer. I really appreciate that," Mike said.

"But I smell something really funny in that car. I can't quite place it, but it smells bad. Plus, you look nervous as hell."

Mike thought about the shotgun in his trunk. He just wanted this cop to shut up and let him go.

"In Buzzard County, we call that smell 'probable cause.' Please step out of the vehicle."

Chapter 6


Random Thoughts on Various Subjects


The worst aspect of Qaddafi's death is that it gives impetus for more foreign intervention tomfuckery. Should the USA go around the world deposing or helping depose dictators that the government finds a bit fucked up? The fact is this is the flip side of the card considering all the dictators that the US government has gone around propping up and imposing.

Egypt is a classic case in point. The US and Israel supported Mubarak. Then, Egyptians turned against him, and his dictatorship ended. We can feel all warm and fuzzy over this fact until it becomes apparent that the population and the revolution is rabidly anti-Israeli, and it is looking more and more likely that the new Egyptian government will be a military dictatorship. I am willing to bet that Israel and the US are making moves now to ingratiate themselves with the new tyrants. What will be the cost of this tomfuckery? More blowback.

The same thing is happening now in Libya, but from all that I have read, the Libyan revolutionaries are as repulsive as Qaddafi. We like to think of these people like Washington and Jefferson, but this is a farce. These are not Enlightenment people. These are Islamists and petty tyrants wanting to take a crack at being big tyrants. The belief is that when government is toppled a better government will take its place. But history shows this to be error. The French Revolution deposed a king and resulted in a dictator--Napoleon. The Russian Revolution deposed a czar and gave the world communism. Even the American Revolution merely overthrew a foreign meddler in exchange for a domestic meddler we now know as the federal government. It seems that the more things change the more they stay the same.


Greece needs another bailout. Big surprise! I can say that this latest life preserver will do no good. Greece is going down, and the EU is going down with it. Zero Hedge has been reporting that Germany is bringing back their currency and expunging the euro. I think the world is fixing to witness the utter and total collapse of the EU. This will almost certainly have effects on the US side of the pond. I suspect that the entire world is fixing to fall to pieces.


I am sick and tired of reading about the patent lawsuits and other shenanigans in the tech sector as different parties fight and joust over who developed what and who should get the monopoly protection that patent brings. The irony is that once that protection is established those same parties will then lobby and sue over antitrust violations. What a colossal waste of time and money.

Patents need to be abolished along with antitrust regulations. Critics of my anti-IP position will howl, but IP is essentially a state sanction for monopoly. The way the system works now is that you get to win the protection while not being able to use that protection since it violates other laws against monopoly. The result is that everybody loses, and the government is in a shizophrenic position of outlawing competition on all counts. This shit has to stop.


Right now, Herman Cain seems like the latest GOP darling as voters have moved from Bachmann to Perry to some sleazy bisexual hooker. Well, I made that last bit up because it shows the absurdity of GOP voters as they try on candidates like drunken middle age swingers at a key party. Will Cain have staying power? Probably not.

I have made a lot of predictions on this race, and every damn one of them has turned out wrong. So, I need to stop making predictions. I don't know who will win this thing. I just know I want Ron Paul to win.


1. I read an article in Men's Journal today about Rick Rubin, the famed producer who gave us the Beastie Boys, the best work of Johnny Cash's late career, a less suck ass Metallica, and the classic Slayer album Reign in Blood. Rick has slimmed down considerably with an exercise regimen and a change in diet. The beard remains, but the gut is gone. The interesting thing was that Rick was a vegan for many years, and he was still fat. Now, he eats more protein. Those facts indicate to me that the paleo people may be on to something. I might need to read that Gary Taubes book.

2. "Raining Blood":

3. Tori Amos version:

4. My greatest ambition as a blogger is to get linked by Instapundit resulting in an Instalanche. I've already been linked by Leo Babauta, but that was ho-hum. Instapundit is the big time. But Glenn Reynolds never reads my shit.

5. I have really low expectations for Libya with Qaddafi gone. The upside of that man's death is that reporters and editors the world over will no longer have to agonize over how to spell that motherfucker's name.

6. Alabama ran off their illegal Mexican labor. Now, work isn't getting done because Americans are too lazy to do it. Way to go, Alabama. Stupid fuckers.

7. Researchers say that teen IQ fluctuates over time. No shit. It often fluctuates by the hour depending on what is on TV and how much weed they have smoked.

8. Regardless of IQ, the bulk of those smart teenagers will go on to be unemployed debt burdened twentysomething losers.

9. Google is going to nix the Shared Items feature on Google Reader to force people to use Google+. This sucks. Those who have enjoyed my porn pic selections will be devastated.

10. Ron Paul needs to run as an independent and a spoiler if the GOP fails to nominate him. I just know that I am almost done as a voter. I can't vote for Romney. The taste of vomit in the back of my throat is more than I can bear. The 2012 election should come with barf bags at the polls.

Apple and Google

I have been reflecting a bit on the death of Steve Jobs and Apple. Stefan Molyneux had some interesting observations about Jobs here that reflect my own thoughts on the subject that I have been having for some time. What will happen to Apple now? Will they prosper or wither? I am with Molyneux. They will wither without Jobs.

The problem with Apple is that it was about one guy. This guy was extraordinary and exceptional. He was visionary and evangelistic. He had charisma and amazing intuition. He could also be a total dick. The same things can also be said about Hitler. Now, before someone cites me for breaking Godwin's Law, I want to be clear about this. I admire Steve Jobs as an individual. I also don't think he was evil. But he clearly was autocratic in a lot of ways.

There are many tales circulating through Silicon Valley of Jobs's famous temper and temperament. He was demanding and unrelenting. The guy was more akin to a cult leader. This sort of religious corporate fascism is intriguing because Jobs did so much. But the same thing can be said about Hitler in Germany. Hitler brought Germany back from the brink. For a time, he was an amazing leader. But somewhere, the German brain got turned off, and we see what happened as a result. Yet, there is temptation to follow that model.

Jobs was famous for his antipathy to IBM and their corporate culture. Jobs was a renegade, and you can see why he would despise such a repressive place where individual identity was subsumed to the IBM way. The most obvious aspect of the IBM way was the "uniform" IBMers were expected to wear which was a suit and tie. The shirt had to be white. The shoes polished and shined. Jobs clearly despised this. Yet, later on, the man would adopt his own uniform.

Jobs was clearly a person who wanted the freedom to do things his way. The irony was that he did not extend this same freedom to others who worked for him. Everyone around him had to subsume themselves to his aims and his vision. The result was that the people who did well under Jobs were high achievers with no spine. They responded well to discipline, but they were not leaders. This is why the future of Apple is in such doubt.

I like to contrast Apple with another company that is the antithesis to the Apple way. This is Google. Unlike Apple, Google is open. People at Google are encouraged to exercise freedom and creativity. There is no cult of personality at Google. If Brin or Page croak, no one is going to ask whether or not Google will carry on. Google seems destined to endure. The only threat to Google will be a future CEO who schemes and connives his way into the job and proceeds to turn the company into a closed outfit. Basically, this guy will try and turn Google into Apple.

As a libertarian, it should be apparently obvious which strategy I prefer. I like Google. Google is an open company. They don't always get it right, but at least they have a culture where right has a chance. Jobs would have never made it at IBM. Hell, he didn't even make it at Apple who fired him the first time around. But he would have done just fine at Google.

Jobs was not the innovator people portray him as. Would the GUI have been invented without Jobs? Absolutely. The same goes for mp3 players and the rest. This is because Jobs took ideas already there and supercharged them with his vision and aesthetics. Then, people copied him. But Jobs did not give us the internet, the web browser, or the search engine. You can imagine what a Steve Jobs search engine would have been like. It would have spent all its time picking the best websites as determined by Jobs. There would have been no "crap." Naturally, you would only get one result each time you did a search.

Google is simple, and I like simplicity. Apple was not simple so much as austere. They were simple in the early days, but they became something else as time went on. When Apple products dispensed with the colors and went with the monochromatic aluminum, this was the Jobs closed system in overdrive. If you doubt this, look how gaga people went when it was announced that the iPhone would also come out in white. What an amazing thing. A small concession to consumer choice and diversity.

Which strategy is best? Is it the Google way or the Apple way? Time will tell, but I think Apple will go the way of another cult--the Shakers. The Shakers had all the qualities you see in Apple. They believed in hard work, thrift, and simplicity. One of the enduring legacies of that sect is its furniture known for its simplicity, quality, and superb craftsmanship. People were enthralled with this furniture, and copycat producers came in to fill the demand for this type of furniture. Sound familiar?

The problem with the Shakers was they had a downfall because they adhered to strict celibacy. This requirement spelled the doom of the Shakers, and they are virtually extinct as a sect. The same thing will happen with Apple as they practice their own form of corporate celibacy. Google is a comparative orgy of ideas having sex compared to Apple.

Shaker style still lives on today. I think Apple's sense of style will endure. But I think Apple as a company is doomed. They will finish what is in the pipeline and continue on its straight line path that Jobs gave them. But Apple will no longer be an innovator or on the cutting edge anymore. This is what happened before with that company, and it will be repeated. I could be wrong, but for me to be wrong, one of two things must happen. A new leader must emerge at Apple every bit the equal or greater than Jobs. Or, Apple will have to do like Google and open themselves up.

On a sidenote, I have to remark on Apple and minimalism. Apple and Steve Jobs did a lot for the minimalist aesthetic. What people forget is that Jobs did not create this. As such, it will not die with him. Simplicity as a strategy just works. Google emulates this simplicity. I enjoy the design work of Jonathan Ive at Apple especially which is heavily influenced by another designer--Dieter Rams. I think this strategy is forever. People gravitate to the functional and the simple. Jobs legacy and important contribution was giving style and function to what the geeks built. I don't know if Jobs ever laid down any principles in this regard, but Dieter Rams did. The fact that Rams's ten principles have been copied signifies to me that what made Apple special is easily duplicated. If it didn't begin with Apple, it won't end with Apple.


1. The Shakers

2. Shaker furniture

3. Jonathan Ive

4. Dieter Rams


1. I feel bad for Demi Moore. She was looking gaunt and wearing her wedding ring according to the gossip pages. She is acting just like an almost 50-year-old woman married to a 30-year-old philanderer. Demi should have stuck with Bruce.

2. Waiting for tonight's debate. This one should finish off Cain. Unfortunately, Romney will keep chugging along as people settle on him. But I might be wrong. Wait and see.

3. Ass:

4. Country:

Minimalist Fitness

Imagine this scenario. You have this fat guy who eats crap, smokes lots of cigarettes, and spends the bulk of his leisure time watching sports on TV from the comfort of his couch. His health is bad, and his fitness is zilch. Then, one day, while flipping the channels from SportsCenter to the local news for sports coverage, he gets an epiphany. He needs to stop being a slob and get off his ass. He needs to get in shape. What is the best way to get in shape? That's simple. Become a mountain climber and climb Everest.

This is absurdity, but I see people making similar decisions all the time. The 90-pound weakling decides to become a bodybuilder. The fat ass housewife decides to become an Ironman triathlete. The office drone decides to become a Spartan from 300. Now, I don't mean to denigrate these aspirations, but they seem a bit vain and unrealistic to me. Yet, when you talk about fitness, these are the wild things that pop into people's heads. Fitness today means having a sculpted physique or accomplishing some massive feat of endurance. The reason for this is a direct influence from media and marketing that appeals more to people's vanity than to a real desire to be fit.

My mindset on this began to change by two things that happened over the past year. The first was watching the classic movie The Hill with Sean Connery. In the movie, Connery plays a British soldier in the stockade for infractions that we learn later sprang from noble intentions. The film was made in 1965, and it required all the actors to be in top physical condition especially for all those brutal trips over the hill in 115 degree heat. The film struck me because it was made before Stallone, Schwarzenegger, and Statham. Connery was a top action star at this time. Yet, the man baring his chest appeared to me as an ordinary looking guy. He wasn't muscled the way action stars today are with the help of steroids.

The second thing that happened to me was meeting an Army Ranger who had spent two turns in Iraq and two turns in Afghanistan. I worked with this guy, and he told me he liked to go rock climbing on the weekends. This guy looked like any normal guy you would see on the street. I consider him to be a true bad ass, but you could not tell from looking at him. He looked ordinary. He was a trim guy without some muscled physique. He looked oddly similar to those guys in The Hill. I immediately coined a term from these two experiences--"army fitness." This was very different from the alternative which I now call "vanity fitness."

The military has different fitness requirements than what you would find in either Hollywood movie stars or world class endurance athletes. They don't care what you look like. They care what you can do. They want to see if you can climb a wall, march 20 miles in a day, carry a fully loaded pack, or carry your buddy off the field of battle. This concept is what my Army Ranger friend called "functional fitness." This is the ability to perform physical feats that used to be an everyday part of life but have disappeared. When was the last time you chopped a load of wood?

Vanity fitness is different because it wants to make you look good naked. There is nothing particularly wrong with this ambition except that it distorts fitness considerably. This is why you have guys who work hard on crunching their abs for the six pack but are utterly worthless in other areas of their lives.

The conventional wisdom today is to pursue vanity fitness by signing up for a membership at Bally's and working out with the machines and the sterling chrome weights to look totally buff in front of the wall-to-wall mirrors. This is quite different from the mentality of Gym Jones and CrossFit that focus more on functional fitness and use crazy methods like slamming a sledgehammer into a tire repeatedly. The mirrors are absent. The irony is that it was Gym Jones that gave us the physiques of 300.

This blue collar turn in fitness is a welcome change, but the key turns on what you are able to do as opposed to what you look like without a shirt. CrossFit finds special appeal among the military, law enforcement, and firefighters because that program helps them do their jobs better. These are not pretty boys preening in a Speedo.

The cornerstone of minimalist fitness is a rejection of vanity in favor of function. That function will depend on what you wish to accomplish. A mother of three may merely want to be able to carry more stuff up the flight of stairs in her home. Another person may simply want to shake off the sluggishness and detraining effect of a deskjob. Someone else may have a blue collar job that requires a lot of lifting and whatnot. But if the desire is to win Mr. Olympia, minimalist fitness is not the way to go.

The second aspect of minimalist fitness is a balance between strength and endurance. Bodybuilders are not good marathoners, and marathoners are useless when it comes to moving furniture. This isn't to be critical of those sports, but it points out the trade offs in each. For most people, they want a midpoint between these outliers. This would be carrying boxes up two flights of stairs without gasping for breath. This goes backs to the functional fitness I mentioned earlier. This is the generalist vs. specialist argument all over again. The thing you learn about Army fitness is how it balances the two concepts of endurance and strength. In the military, you have to move yourself and your equipment over great distances and obstacles. Carrying 50 extra pounds of unnecessary muscle runs counter to this objective. Having washboard abs doesn't matter a whole lot in these endeavors.

Minimalist fitness is not for athletes. It is for everyday people doing everyday things. Competition in a sport has its own routines and ideas about what works and what is effective for that sport. The reason many people choose to do these workouts when they aren't true athletes is because this is what the culture and the marketing have sold to them as fitness. This is how we get fat smoker wanting to climb Everest when he can barely climb off the couch. He could get to Everest shape with time and discipline. But why do this? Why be a mountain climber when you can die in the comfort of that couch?

What needs to be rejected is the idea that fitness is just for athletes. This reduced expectation actually makes fitness more attainable. When fat smoker realizes he can get in shape while watching TV, he is more likely to do just that. So, why do so many people believe they have to go to such lengths to get in shape? This is because of marketing and hype. Sports come with sporting equipment. The equipment makers sponsor the sports to sell more equipment. This is why the ab machine has replaced the simple sit up or why people want to enter triathlons. This shit did not exist in 1965. Back then, fitness was Army fitness. It was measured by sit ups, push ups, and chin ups.

This leads to the third aspect of minimalist fitness which is to eschew gear as much as possible. For the endurance part, you don't need an indoor rowing machine, a stair climbing machine, or a treadmill. All you need is to walk out your front door. Begin with walking and move up to running. This is Army PT. Just move forward as fast or as slow as you feel. Toss in some hills and stairwells. If you get winded, take a rest. Recover and continue moving forward. You don't need a machine or a gym for this. This shit is FREE.

The strength part is also free. Perform bodyweight exercises. You can pull these up on YouTube to find some that appeal to you and give you what you need. I will also add that it helps to toss in isometrics as these really build you up in a short amount of time. Do crunches, burpees, push ups, pull ups, and what have you. These old school exercises from your days in gym class are very effective. These things were the mainstay of the old days of Army Fitness. This is because they were cheap and effective.

If you do decide you need some equipment, you don't have to be expensive with it. You can make weights out of something as simple as things around your home. Gravity doesn't care. A 25-pound cinder block weighs as much as a 25-pound chrome freeweight. Paying $50 a month to use something that is virtually free is stupid.

Many of the strength exercises especially the isometric exercises can be performed in front of your TV or at your desk or in the car. My deltoids have become like rocks just from holding my arms out in front of me while driving. I just switch arms when the burn becomes too much. The cost in terms of time and money are virtually zero. You can literally work out all day long.

A typical minimalist workout would be to go for a 30 minute or hour walk or run when you get home from work followed by isometric bodyweight strength exercises on the living room floor while watching the evening news. This would be push ups, sit ups, squats, lunges, leg lifts, etc. Done daily, this simple program will result in greater endurance and strength with minimal impact on your wallet or your schedule. Will this result in you winning an Ironman triathlon? Hell no. But this is what Army PT is. I've talked to those guys, and this is what they did in the Army. To be honest, it is actually more since they may only run four days out of the week or play a game of basketball to fulfill PT requirements. Yet, the difference in fitness between a soldier and your average couch potato is huge.

What people actually do is go out and buy a bunch of athletic shit or sign up for an expensive gym membership with some fantastic athletic achievement as the goal. Then, after a couple of days, they are back on the couch. Or, they may pursue those lofty goals until they have achieved them and let them drop. Instead of aiming for the easy and attainable, they opt for the difficult and impossible and end up worse off as a result.

What makes minimalist fitness minimal is not that it is no-frills and cheap. It is simply the minimal level of fitness you should have to function well in your daily life. We have no problems setting maximalist standards of fitness. But what we need is not a new ceiling but a new floor in this area. We don't have this. The result is fitness is considered a hobby now instead of a necessity for living. The Army sees things differently which is why they have a minimum. You need this minimum as well.

You can find many resources on the type of program you want to put together, but I want to change people's thinking in this area from a maximalist mindset to a minimalist mindset. You may very well decide to do the Ironman or climb Everest. But do this from that base of minimalist fitness instead of from the basement of couch fitness which is good for changing the channel and lighting another smoke. You need to decide what you want the floor of your basic fitness to be. Then, use the minimalist approach I just outlined for you. In time, it will be just another daily task along with taking out the trash and washing the dishes. The difference is that all those other tasks will become easier and more enjoyable.



1. Are You as Fit as a World War II GI?

2. BodyRock TV

3. CrossFit

4. A Concept for Functional Fitness

Q & A

Q: Do you ever think about leaving South Carolina?

Been there. Done that.

I get this question often as people wonder why I don't leave this state for greener pastures. I probably would leave if I didn't know any better. But I know better.

I lived for five years in Orlando, Florida, and I didn't hate it or anything. But it was never home to me. It always felt odd to me, and people thought I was odd because of my accent. When I would go back to SC for visits, it always felt like relief. I would cross the border, and I could just feel it. When I came back to SC, I stopped at a store to get gas, and the girl behind the counter thanked me in the accent I know so well. It hit me at that moment that I was home.

I love South Carolina. This will sound odd to those who don't live here and consider this place to be a joke. I probably wouldn't feel this way if I had been an Army brat and lived in various locations. But I was born here and spent the majority of my life here. But I had to live somewhere else to really appreciate this place.

There are two viewpoints on this. Some people believe you have to live somewhere else or move around to fully experience life and avail yourself of opportunities. These are the nomads. The flip side are those who know it doesn't matter where you go. The world is not that big of a place, and you will do well wherever you are. These would be the settlers. I used to be a nomad, but I am a settler now. The nomad phase was short lived for me.

I understand the nomad mindset. Moving to another place offers new opportunities and new experiences. It also allows you to escape the past. It is like having a fresh slate. But as someone told me once. "Wherever you go, there you are." The implication of that statement is that you can't run away from yourself. If you're an asshole in one place, going to another place is not going to change that.

There are benefits and drawbacks to living in various places. I could compare Orlando to New York and note similarities and differences. But there is only one place that is home. Home beats just about any other place there is because that aspect can't be duplicated.

I think of two people in relation to this issue. The first is Warren Buffett who chose to return home to Omaha, Nebraska. The second is Bill Gates who chose to locate home in Seattle, Washington, with Microsoft. These are the richest men in America, yet they chose to be settlers instead of nomads. I am not anything like these men in terms of wealth, but I note that they did not consider home to be any sort of liability in doing what they wanted to do. And there is no way you can tell me that they considered their home states to be strong assets for them. For Buffett, the obvious place he should have gone to was New York City. For Gates, it was Silicon Valley.

The conclusion that I have drawn is that staying put is not a drawback. I can't think of how my life is any worse here than it was when I was in Orlando. I spent a month in Phoenix, and I really couldn't tell the difference from Orlando except in the weather and having to check my shoes for scorpions before putting them on. The real difference was outside of town in the desert and the rocks. It was different, but I did not find it nearly as wonderful as being in the Blue Ridge Mountains here in the East. Trees and water make a huge difference.

I will probably travel again at some point. I like to visit different places. But South Carolina is my home and always will be. I may relocate within the state, but I am never leaving it again. I belong here. There is no substitute for home.


The tri-bash post I wrote at the beginning of the year continues to be the most popular post on this blog. If I ever forget this, I can read the comments that come to my feed reader or glance at the site stats. Just when I think it will fade out, others discover the post and put a link to it on another messageboard or blog.

The irony of that whole thing is that it is a very minor subject for me. My recurring themes are libertarianism, misogyny, blue collar work, and minimalism. You would think pissing off half of the population with the misogyny thing would have drawn something to me in terms of hate, but it hasn't. The tri-bash is it. Based on those stats, I should retool into a tri-bash website. Fuck that.

Triathletes are douchebags. They know it, and I know it. The reason why I know it is because I have met some in the flesh. I have never met a humble triathlete. I have met elite soldiers who are true bad asses who showed more humility than any triathlete I have ever met. The point of my article is that the nature of that sport selects out the humble and attracts the proud and the narcissistic. I find this to be a fascinating social phenomenon. The fact that I scored such a direct hit with that piece is also quite fascinating and supports my thesis completely. Narcissists cannot stand the sting of criticism.

I don't reply to the comments anymore on that piece because it has become tedious and boring to me. Most of the criticisms are that I am overgeneralizing, an envious fat ass, or that I got some fact wrong. Then, there are the pathetic beta males (and females) who tell their sob stories of how they are dirt fucking poor and pawned major appliances to buy some second hand Cannondale bike off Craigslist from some rich douchebag triathlete.

I can't think of any sport I revile as much as triathlon. I'm not a fan of golf, but that sport is so wide open now that I see rednecks with golf clubs in the back of their pick up trucks. It doesn't attract the sort of snobs that it did in the 1960s.

The one thing I have to say is that I'm not a fan of gear. I just see triathletes as runners who wanted to buy shit. The ones who don't want to buy shit just keep running and try to improve their times while others explore the ultra-distances mainly because they prefer trails to pavement. The ones who do want to buy shit turn to the Ironman for their aspirations. Runners are picking up on this division which explains some of the latest traffic I have been getting. Those folks take some special glee in finding pics of triathletes in the man bra and Speedo.

Gear lust is a big deal among the tri-set. The bulk of it is centered on the bike. Runners spend little time discussing gear because there is none except for the shoes which are affordable. Runners who become a bit big on gear end up being lampooned as "yuppie runners."

I am working on a post on minimalist fitness that I think addresses these issues and will change some minds on this shit. I like low gear/old school techniques and methods. It will surprise you what you can do with so little.


1. They are now calling Mitt Romney "Mr. Inevitable." Sad shit.

2. I wonder if Mitt wears the magic underwear.

3. Adam vs. The Man has returned.

4. Karl Marx was wrong. Yet, he still lives on.

5. Ass:

6. Country:

[U.] Pusherman

motherfuckers! the u-man is your pusherman pushing straight K to them motherfucking brains. give up the love for the u-daddy. prepare your minds to be BLOWN by what i got for ya.

truther girls deliver the straight k on the occupy wall street freaks and FEMA CAMPS:

jesse ventura lets you know what is happening at DENVER AIRPORT. secret bunkers bitches:

more SHIT on DUMBS-deep underground military BASES. watch and LEARN:

illuminati BLOODLINES motherfuckers. dropping the k bomb on ya:

where is all this leading? GLOBAL MIND CONTROL. in your BRAINS:

let's sprinkle some parm on this motherfucker. randy "the cheese" gage lays it on you:

feel the u-nut in your butt! draining but not straining. the u-man is DONE. SHIT ON THE HATERS. lick these nutz! time to cut. peace out to the u-fans. keep it real.

Quotable Quotes

An ant on the move does more than a dozing ox.

An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger.

Friends are the siblings God never gave us.

Happiness is the absence of the striving for happiness.

You should examine yourself daily. If you find faults, you should correct them. When you find none, you should try even harder.


Random Thoughts on Various Subjects


I have been reading up on this continuing story, and I just don't buy it. Either Iran is the dumbest regime on the planet or the Obama administration is so desperate that it is now turning to false flag tactics to divert attention away from the truth and pursue a war with Iran. Basically, if you want to start a war between two countries, you merely need to find one of their undercover informants and tell him that you want to pay them to kill a government official. THAT'S IT. You don't even need to be affiliated with any of the governments. The politicians will do the rest as they take your ounce of bullshit and turn it into a ton of propaganda and excuse to follow the path they always wanted to take.

The libertarian/antiwar folks are all over this one. It is such blatant falsehood that when I first read about it I smelled a rat. And what is the purpose of this garbage? Help Israel. Get the Saudis to like us even more. Ratchet up the sanctions on Iran. Pursue the Mexican cartels with even more force. It is a sad sick joke the tomfuckery government people will go to in order to justify really bad policies. Meanwhile, the same government was quite happy with the Mexican cartels getting military grade weaponry. It is simply mind boggling.


This movement is so fucking ridiculous. I appreciate their anger, but these folks are clearly a bunch of whiny ass losers looking for their bit of welfare. In short, they are little pigs who came to the trough and are now angry at the big pigs for eating more of the slop. This spontaneous movement has spawned a countermovement on the internet of people ridiculing the 99%. The 53% are the ones who pay federal income tax, and they have started posting their own stories telling these 99% people to suck it up.

My own view of these people is that they are victims of government run amuck. To that extent, they get my sympathy. When I read about an engineering graduate who can't get a job and has six figure student loan debt, I am not happy about that. When I see a higher ed system addicted to student loans and ever increasing tuition, I think the system is broken. The answer is to end government funding of higher education. This will pop the bubble and return sanity to the system. But the Occupiers don't see it this way. They want debt forgiveness, a guaranteed job, and a $20 an hour minimum wage. In short, they want a Marxist revolution. Nevermind that these free lunches do not exist.

As things get worse and their numbers grow, the Occupiers will turn violent. There is no such thing as a peaceful Marxist. Tea Parties were peaceful things despite flags of rattlesnakes and people carrying guns on their hips. The reason Tea Parties are peaceful is philosophical. It goes back to the principles of a movement. Tea Party people are sick and tired of being victims of a government that steals from them. Occupiers are pathetic brats that want the government to steal from somebody. This desire for things that do not belong to them will lead to the sort of unrest you see at the WTO riots, Greece, and the UK. You are going to see stores looted, burning cars, and all the rest.

Occupiers are morally depraved. You are seeing a generation of worthless fucks playing the passive-aggressive game of victimhood and power. First, they snivel and whine. Then, they loot, pillage, and destroy.

For years, I have wondered why the American Revolution was so much different than the French Revolution. I see why now. It goes back to philosophy. The Americans wanted to keep what belonged to them. The French wanted to take what did not belong to them. That is a crucial distinction.


Intelligent people of a certain age accept that monogamy is a myth. I know that I do. As such, marriage for me is a fucking joke. I am not going to make an oath to a person who is almost certain to break that oath. Yet, the thing that gets to me is when those same intelligent people write hip articles about open marriages, polyamory, and swinging as if marriage can somehow evolve to embrace the reality that humans are fuck machines. This is incredibly stupid.

Marriage persists for no other reason than for worthless woman to get money out of a man. These intellicunts are not fooling me. Here's the deal. Marriage is over with. It isn't evolving. It is dying. And it needs to die.


I have resigned myself to the fact that Ron Paul is not going to win the GOP nomination. Republicans will turn to just about anyone except Ron Paul to lead them forward. This would include a Mormon Democrat from Massachussetts. I am at the point now where I am going to vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary, watch him lose, and resolve to never vote again.


Obama's election strategy going forward is almost certainly going to be class warfare rhetoric and blaming Bush AGAIN for policies that Obama has carried forward. The American public is stupid, but even they are not that stupid. A better strategy to win is to split the vote with a third party candidate who could garner a lot of votes that would hurt the GOP but leave the Democrats untouched. This person has to be rich, famous, narcissistic, and stupid. Plus, he needs to have zero chance of winning. He merely needs to be goaded into the quixotic pursuit. Who would this person be?