Monthly Archives: March 2012

Santorum and Porn?

Posted by Tim on

NOTE: I’ve held onto this post and resisted publishing it. My home state of Wisconsin is voting soon, and I didn’t want to give any extra negative attention to Rick Santorum. BUT, I’ve decided that keeping posts private for the sole purpose of helping a candidate is something that would compromise my personal integrity. While this post may hurt Santorum, in the end, he hurt himself. Keep in mind, that while I’m ranting about Rick, I’m still voting for him on April 3rd, and I urge everyone else to do the same. 

I’ve been very open about this – I’m voting for Rick Santorum in the Wisconsin primary, and if he’s the nominee I’ll gladly vote for him against Barry Obama. I like where he stands on a lot of issues. He’s a strong supporter of Israel, he’s proposed a great tax plan to bring back manufacturing jobs to America, and he’s a hero among the Pro-Life crowd. All that being said, there are still a few things that make me shake my head about him. The most recent – “ban porn”.

So much for free markets, ey? Rick’s plan to crack down of “hardcore” pornography isn’t real far fetched. He’s a family-man. He’s a practicing Catholic, and is big on family values. I can understand Rick not liking porn and the porn industry. He has strong values, and I can see why he’s against porn. He’s also brought up the fact that porn can cause problems in relationships, and can negatively affect the brain. While I’m not sure these are really “facts”, I’ll give Rick and his researchers the benefit of the doubt.

All that being said – okay. Porn is bad. BUT… that’s his opinion. There are a lot of things that are “bad”. That doesn’t mean we ban them. Cigarettes are bad. They cause so many deaths that we can measure the deaths by the minute. Why aren’t we banning cigarettes? Come on, Rick. This isn’t a path you want to go down. Are you in favor of the free market, or not?

As I discussed HERE, banning a product, whether its drugs or porn, doesn’t eliminate it. It pushes it to a black market, where the dangers are far worse. Instead of a (relatively) clean porn enviroment, we’d have a completely unregulated “black market” of porn. Does this mean little kids getting involved? Doesn’t this mean people who are filmed without their permission? Keep it legal so we can monitor it and regulate it.

This is by no means a pro-porn post. I’m indifferent on the subject. What someone does in their free time is none of my business. Frankly, I don’t want to know. Some people may say that porn is ruining relationships, and that may be true. There might be cases where it actually helps relationships though. In the end, its each individual’s responsibility to make their own choices.

The thing that frightens me about Rick’s stance on this is that its very similar to a utopian mindset. “If only we could pass enough laws and control people’s behavior, we could create a utopia!” Banning things for “people’s own good” is what the left does. Banning porn is no different than banning guns, banning sugary foods, or banning light bulbs. Let the market work, let people make their own decisions. The government has no place censoring the internet, or magazines people get. Come on, Rick.

Picking a Protein Shaker Bottle

Posted by Tim on

If you’re a health nut, or maybe just a guy looking to gain some muscle for summer, you’ve probably come across all the different protein supplements that are being sold not only in GNCs and Vitamin Shoppes, but even at your local grocery store and Walmart. These powders usually come in big buckets, and are artificially flavored to taste like chocolate, vanilla, or strawberry. The prices range – supposedly in accordance with how “pure” the protein is, but I imagine it has more to do with name recognition and advertising. None the less, people buy this stuff up.

I’ve used a variety of protein powders over the years, and I’ve come to chose only Optimum Nutrition brand protein supplements. The taste:price ratio is pretty fair, I think. It also mixes well in what we meat heads call a “shaker bottle”. Not familiar? It’s a water bottle, basically, that you put your liquid into, then your powder into, and then shake until its mixed. Unfortunately, the powder doesn’t always mix real well with the liquid, which can lead to clumps of non-dissolved powder floating in your drink. It’s pretty gross, especially when your drinking and you feel a big chunk hit your tongue without warning.

Many of these problems can be solved by adjusting how much liquid you use. If your protein powder doesn’t dissolve, use more water or milk. The proportions listed on the back of the tub of protein aren’t always right. Experiment and figure it out. There are times, however, when this still is not enough. Some substances just aren’t easily dissolved. With that in mind – here are a few tips for picking out a good shaker bottle.

1. Find a shaker bottle that is big enough. Not all shaker bottles are designed for weirdos like you and I. They’re designed for middle aged women who heard from their holistic wanna-be docter/trainer friend that “protein helps boost your metabolism”. These women buy little shakers, for their little shakes. (After all, they don’t want to get huge!). Find a bottle that is made for bodybuilders. Whether you’re a pro, an amateur, or just a wannabe, you’ll appreciate having a shaker bottle that can hold 20-25 ounces of your favorite drink.

2. Find a shaker bottle that doesn’t have a lot of grooves on the sides. The best shape for a shaker bottle is a simple cylinder. There are bottles with hand grips built into them, odd decorative designs, etc. Forget that stuff. Not only does it make your shaker bottle a pain to clean out, but it allows protein to stick in these grooves. When they’re in the grooves, they either a) are getting drank or b) are getting drank but aren’t getting dissolved. A bottle that is as close to a basic cylinder is the best.

3. Chose a grater over a mixer. There are bottles that come with weird spiral “mixers” that you put in them. Although this may look like it will help mix your drink, for me it’s done nothing expect add something for me to clean. So, instead of cleaning something that has no purpose, get a bottle that has a grater. This will keep you from drinking all the gross chunks that don’t get dissolved.

4. Make sure the mouth opening is big enough. Remember, this isn’t just water or milk – its water or milk with a bunch of protein in it. You don’t want to sip it, you want to chug it. Make sure your bottle has an opening larger than a straw. You should be able to just tip the bottle and easily drink.

5. The simpler the better. Skip the electric bottles, the automatic mixers, the mixers with a ball in them, and all of that crap. The fewer pieces involved the better. The shaker should consist of three parts – the bottle, the grater, and the top. The more parts, the more hassle when cleaning it, and the more likely that you’ll lose a piece of it or break it altogether.

It may seem that a lot of thought went into buying a $5 shaker bottle, but its quite the opposite. Very little thought should go into it – buy a simple bottle that will serve its purpose, be easy to clean, and keep gross protein chucks out of your mouth. Drink up!

Rambling Autodidact

Posted by Tim on
Leonardo da Vinci - The Most Famous Autodidact

Leonardo da Vinci - The Most Famous Autodidact

Darn it. I got another ego boost the other day. Although a compliment can make me feel good, I also really try to be humble. I take pride in being that way. (I take pride in being humble? Huh?) But it happened. I’ll try to keep my ego in check, but the compliment inspired me to write this.

“Do you think about things before you say them?” She asked. “Like, do you think them out or, did you go to school for this? Cause you seem to know what you’re talking about.”
“No. I’m not in college.” I responded. “I’m what you’d call a nerd. I just get interested in something and then I learn everything I possibly can about it.”

Being an autodidact is fun, and kind of unusual, it seems. Its a new word for me – “autodidact”. It means someone who is self taught. Someone who has become knowledgable without having a formal education. Hey, that’s me. I have a fancy high school diploma, but that can hardly be described as “education”, much less “formal”. No, most of what I know I’ve learned by myself. I read a lot, I listen a lot, I watch a lot.

When I say “by myself” I don’t mean that I just sit alone at the library and read. I actually don’t go to the library, but I do sit alone and read a lot. But I also gather information from the people around me. I ask questions. I pick people’s brains. If I were to completely cut myself off from everyone I know, forget about my social life, and retreat to being a hermit, I might be able to read more, but I’m not sure I’d learn more. When I argue with people I learn. You can’t argue with a book. (Well, you can, but its kind of pointless.)

The older I get, the more I disagree with people. I’m not disagreeable. I’m not a jerk (at least I don’t think I am). But as we get older, and gain more and more ideas and beliefs we tend to become more separated from other people’s beliefs. No one’s influences are exactly the same, therefore we can’t expect to all have the same beliefs about everything. Someone who reads Noam Chomsky books isn’t going to have the same perspective as someone who reads Thomas Sowell. Someone who follows Joe Weider bodybuilding methods probably isn’t going to “get” someone who is into Mike Mentzer.

The more influences we have, the better we can make decisions about reality. Ironically, the more influences we have, the more original we become, and therefore our decisions will also be more original. Our lives will become more different from each other as we continue to learn and grow. Eh… I’m just rambling. Every once in a while we need a good “rambling post”.

Free Markets vs Black Markets

Posted by Tim on

Ever heard of a “black market”? You probably have. Its not really a physical place. Its just a saying that means illegal market. What’s an illegal market? When one person sells someone else something that they shouldn’t sell. This could mean a youngster buying cigarettes from an older person, one person buying a firearm without getting it properly registered, or someone selling illegal drugs. When a product is sold illegally, its sold on the “black market”.

How do these markets come to exist? Well, they exist because people like certain things, including drugs, firearms, or whatever the item, and they’re willing to break the law to get them. These illegal markets wouldn’t exist if the products that were sold weren’t illegal. An easy way to get rid of crime is to get rid of laws. You can’t break the rules if there aren’t any rules, right? But since we live in a civilized society, one can only expect that there will be certain rules to keep people from buying certain things. But if people are still buying them, are the rules really working?

Its an interesting question to ask. Let’s take heroin for example. Now, obviously we all know that heroin is illegal in America. It’s a Class I controlled substance, along with LSD, marijuana, and ecstasy. Its a dangerous drug – people can overdose on it (a friend of mine died from an H overdose, actually), and people can get all kinds of diseases and infections from using dirty needles – HIV for instance. Despite all of this (and its all pretty much common knowledge), over 500,000 people use heroin each year. Doesn’t sound like the laws are working, does it?

Well, that depends what the law was intended to do. There are no companies out there selling heroin at gas stations like cigarettes. But that doesn’t mean that no one is selling the drugs. People are getting them from somewhere. It’s not a super market; its a black market. The laws aren’t preventing people from obtaining their drugs. They’re just changing where people get them from.

A problem with black markets is that because they’re illegal, they’re unregulated. The cleanliness of the drugs people buy could be very bad – causing worse symptoms of the drug. The drugs may be laced (combined) with other drugs (unknowingly to the user) to create a better high, or to make the drug more addictive. Not only are the drugs themselves more dangerous, but how people get the drugs is more dangerous as well. Instead of buying heroin from a gas station, a user has to venture into rough, violent neighborhoods, where he could very well be robbed or killed.

All this is simple truth, and its pointing out the facts. While we may be passing laws to ban drugs, people just find new, more dangerous ways to get them. In the long run, people will still get the drugs, but they have a higher chance of getting hurt because the industry is completely unregulated. By making drugs illegal, are we costing people their lives? That’s an interesting way to think of things, right?

There is one group of people who love the drug laws though. As long as the drugs are illegal, people will be forced to buy them from illegal sources – drug cartels. Yes, its true. Our drug laws have destroyed any competition for drug cartels, who in turn take the money and send it to terrorists who kill our troops in the middle east. Is the “war on drugs” killing our own soldiers in the “war of terror”?

The best thing for any society is free markets. Black markets aren’t free. Black markets are a way for people to get what they want illegally. Black markets hurt everyone involved with them, and a lot of other people who aren’t involved. (The innocent kid killed in a drive-by by a gang that sells drugs illegally?) We can’t eliminate drugs, but we can eliminate black markets.

By making a product legal it would deal a powerful blow to drug cartels who are killing innocent lives in Mexico and across Central and South America. It would allow users to obtain products that they know are clean. It would rid inner cities of much of their gang warfare, which is usually fought over drug turf. And it would keep people who aren’t hurting anyone but themselves out of our prisons. So, what’s your choice? Free markets, or black markets? Hey – I’m a capitalist all day long. Guess which one I’d pick.

Santorum vs The Romney Attack Machine

Posted by Tim on

I just heard the news, and I’m absolutely disgusted. As many of you already know, I’m an avid Rick Santorum supporter. He’s not perfect, but in the grand scheme of things he’s the most conservative of the four choices for president we have. I don’t really mind the other candidates. Newt Gingrich is a great debater, has a lot of great ideas, and has turned his life around after some personal troubles years ago. Ron Paul, although I don’t agree with his foreign policy, is a very likable guy. He knows his constitution, he understands the free market, and he’s a true libertarian.

But then there’s Mitt Romney. I don’t have anything personal against him, but I strongly believe that he’d be the wrong choice for our presidential nominee. He’s continual defense of RomneyCare, the blue print for ObamaCare, is frightening. The idea that a government, whether its state or federal, can mandate it’s citizens to buy a product, entering into a private contract with another party, is absurd and un-American. Mitt Romney may have a great record as a private businessman, but RomneyCare is not defendable.

With the entire issue of ObamaCare and the role of government in people’s private lives off the table, what exactly is Romney to stand on against Obama in November? Although Romney promises to either repeal ObamaCare or grant waivers (which aren’t the same thing, by the way) I’m personally worried that he won’t actually pull the trigger. He has stubbornly stood by RomneyCare and defended it to this day. Someone who believes government run healthcare is a good thing isn’t the person we need in office.

But Mitt’s track record isn’t really what bothers me. Sure, I have huge disagreements with his policies, but that’s not enough to get under my skin. I disagree with lots of people, and most politicians, but I don’t let our differences get to me. My biggest problem with Mitt Romney has to do with his character. The kind of candidate who runs ads that constantly attack his opponents is a sleazy candidate. 2012 isn’t the first time around for Romney either. Back in 2008, Romney ran a slew of disgusting attack ads on his then rival Mike Huckabee. Mitt is using his same tricks this time around. (View them HERE and HERE.)

Back when the elections were just getting started, Romney was the only person with a huge amount of money behind him. Despite all of that, he managed to lose the first Republican caucus in Iowa to Rick Santorum, a man who ran his campaign out of his family’s minivan. Romney managed to win New Hampshire, a democratic state neighboring his home state of Massachusetts. Next up – South Carolina, where Newt Gingrich took the primary easily. That was when Romney knew he needed to attack. The next primary was Florida, where Mitt won – but he outspent Newt Gingrich 5 to 1!

How does Romney spend his money? It’s not spent on promoting his own message for America. Its not spent telling people about his mediocre record as a moderate Republican on the east coast. No, its spent running vicious attack ads against his opponents – attacking their character. This is how Mitt Romney wins elections – he outspends his opponents. In Michigan he outspent Santorum 6-1, in Ohio he outspent Santorum 10-1, and now in Wisconsin (primary coming up on April 3rd) he’s outspending Santorum 50-1! This is disgusting. This is as close as you can come to literally buying an election without breaking the law.

Despite his heavy bashing of his conservative rivals, Santorum and Gingrich, Romney has repeatedly claimed that he will not attack Obama. That’s right. He’s stated that he will not make “accusatory” or “incendiary” remarks “attacking” Obama. The man who attacks his Republican opponents so ruthlessly refuses to treat Obama the same way. The fact of the matter is that Obama has a radically different view of America than most Americans. He’s pushing to destroy the foundation of our nation and “fundamentally transform” America. But in Mitt’s eyes, Obama is “just a little over his head”.

Romney’s biggest advantage is also a window into how weak he and his campaign truly are. The fact of the matter is that Romney has failed to make a connection with the majority of Republican voters. Not only do people not like him, but they don’t trust him. They don’t feel that he has their best interest at heart. Among strong conservative voters Romney is seen as a “Massachusetts Moderate”, some rich guy from the east coast who doesn’t understand the blue collar backbone of America. From his speeches in the south using words like “gritts” and “ya’ll”, and his eery smile during debates, Romney comes off as fake.

The only thing Romney has going for him is money. That’s it. Without it he’d be running a crap campaign and would probably be out of the contest by now. His ideas aren’t popular. His personality isn’t attractive. But hey – he’s got a lot of money, so he can barrage his opponents with negative TV and radio advertising. But if that is Romney’s only advantage, it won’t be enough to beat Obama. Romney can beat his Republican rivals in the money game, but he can’t beat Obama in the money game.

Instead, to beat Obama, we need someone who is genuine, conservative, and can attract people without bashing his opponents. Rick Santorum, despite some flubs in speeches and interviews, is a strong conservative who has managed to attract enough voters to become the 2nd place candidate to Mitt Romney. Although Gingrich and Paul are still officially in, the race is essentially down to two candidates – Romney and Santorum.

Santorum has been running his campaign on a shoestring. He’s not a rich guy. He isn’t getting endorsements from Donald Trump. He doesn’t have the money to continually run attack ads on other candidates. No, he’s run his campaign the old way. He goes out and talks to people, and because he comes off as a real person and not a politician, he’s managed to win over a lot of voters. Someone who can win, despite not having a lot of money is who we need. Rick Santorum has been outspent  in every state he’s won. If Romney’s money can’t knock out Santorum, how can it knock out Obama? And, if Santorum can stand up to Romney, he has the best chance against Obama.

This idea that Mitt Romney is the strongest candidate, or that he’s even a strong frontrunner is flat out wrong. He’s spent more than all his opponents combined, and still hasn’t won the nomination. At this point, the nomination may very well end in August at the Republican national convention. If Santorum can win enough delegates to keep Romney from getting the needed 1144 that he needs to win the nomination, then this race is far from over. My goal until that point is to encourage people to get behind who I believe is the best candidate to not only beat Obama, but also to lead our country over the next 8 years – Rick Santorum.

Outdoor Weight Lifting

Posted by Tim on

Sometimes I don’t know what I’m going to write about until I write it. I’ll start a blog post without having any kind of idea for a thesis. I play it by ear, see where my thoughts take me, and “wing it”. Sometimes it works out and it turns into something. Other times I delete the whole post and walk away feeling like I’ve wasted a small amount of my ever-so valuable time. I think I’m doing this right now – the whole “wing it” thing.

There isn’t a whole lot that’s new right now. Politics are pretty much the same – high gas prices, the Republican primary continues, nothing super interesting happening. You know when people are talking about Obama’s daughter’s vacation that things are slow in politics. But hey – we can always fall back on the weather. That’s the cliche, right? “So, the weather has been interesting, ey?” Well, really it has. It’s March and I’m already using my air conditioner. It’s not great for my energy costs, but on the plus side, it means that its warm enough to work out outside.

I’ve talked about the pros of working out at home versus at a commercial gym. (You can read the post HERE.) You avoid a lot of the problems that public gyms have, but sometimes public gyms offer things that a home rarely can offer. For me, this means overhead presses. If I’m working out in my basement, it’s kind of hard to be doing power cleans, push presses, and the occasional snatch. I prefer to do these exercises outside, but in the winter these exercises pretty much lose their place in my training program.

But summer is back, at least it is for the next few days, and I’ve taken the bar outdoors again. I’m getting the hang of things. Its been a few months since I’ve done any olympic lifts, so I keep the weight relatively low, and concentrate on form. Nothing too fancy was done today – a few sets of power cleans, and a few sets of push presses. Gotta get myself back into the game, and I keep it simple at first.

These big lifts are great. They’re especially fun outside in the summer because they get your heart rate going real fast, and in the summer heat – they get you sweating real fast too. (Be sure to keep some chalk nearby so the bar won’t slip out of your hands.) The fresh air, the hot rays of the sun – everything is perfect for lifting. Its these lifts that are a lot of fun to do, and that have the best impact on your athletic ability. If you have a home gym, I strongly encourage you to take a bar and some plates outside and practice your olympic lifts.

The power clean is extremely useful for anyone involved in sports. It’s the exercise that forces your body to convert plain old strength into power. Explosiveness is key to the power clean, and explosiveness is key to most sports. Football, baseball, and wrestling all require an athlete to be fast AND strong. If being both fast and strong is your goal, better learn the power clean.

The other exercise I love to do outside is an oldie but a goodie – the press. As Mark Rippetoe says, “The Press is the oldest upper body exercise using a barbell. The day the barbell was invented, the guy who invented it figured out a way to pick it up and shove it over his head. After all, it is the logical thing to do with a weight.” He goes on to say, “…pressing the barbell overhead is still the most useful upper body exercise in the weight room.” There is nothing that will strengthen your shoulders more than the overhead press. The muscle control involved, especially when using heavy weight, is extreme, and extremely beneficial.

I’ll stick to those two for now. Really, guys. If you want to build muscle, skip the bicep curls and all the lame machines at the gym. Get outside, bring the barbell, and start moving some weights.

Concealed Carry

Posted by Tim on

Facebook is a trap! Every time I log in and start scrolling through the most recent updates I’m flabbergasted by the amount of stupidity just in my own circle. The pictures, the statuses, and the worst – the political arguments. But I’ve fallen for that trap before, and I won’t again. It’s nearly impossible to win an argument on the internet, especially when you’re dealing with people who don’t watch the news, don’t know crapola about economics, and couldn’t tell their ass from their elbow. I’m ranting, aren’t I?

The most recent argument that I saw was regarding concealed carry, and the dangerous effect it has on communities. In case you aren’t from Wisconsin – our awesome Governor, Scott Walker, has really moved the state in the right direction (pun intended). Not only do we now have voter ID, the ability to fire bad teachers, and a balanced budget, but we also have concealed carry. Once a Wisconsin resident passes a course and signs a few papers, they can get a permit to carry a concealed gun in public.

This isn’t a new thing. In fact, now that Wisconsin is on board, only Illinois is left without a conceal carry option. Now, if 48 other states are already doing what Wisconsin is, what is the big hubbub about? Well, it’s simple. Some people (mostly whiney liberals) are literally afraid of guns, and think that people shouldn’t be allowed to walk around with them. People might start “taking the law into their own hands” or being “vigilantes”. Right… Unfortunately, in all other states where concealed carry is allowed this isn’t the case.

The evidence is very clear about the effects of concealed carry. While some people may believe that more guns mean more crime, statistics show that without a doubt – more guns mean less crime. Why? Because an armed community scares off criminals looking for victims. In communities where concealed carry is prevalent, crime rates plummet – murder goes down, rape goes down, armed robbery goes down. It’s amazing. Criminals don’t want to be shot, so they stay away from people with guns.

But, wouldn’t it be easier to just not allow anyone to carry guns? Instead of allowing people to walk around with permits, how about we just ban people from carrying weapons all together? Well, that’d be great – but a lot of people would be left defenseless. Criminals are by definition people who don’t obey laws. Therefore, you can pass all the laws you want and they will carry all they want. You then end up in a situation where law biding citizens are left defenseless and the criminals have all the guns. Concealed carry allows regular people to defend themselves.

The misconception is huge, but the evidence is very clear. More guns – less crime. The problem with the argument for less guns isn’t just politics. Its more serious. As the evidence shows, crime rises when people aren’t allowed to protect themselves. If someone really wants to “ban guns” they are not only banning guns, but putting innocent people’s lives on the line. The decision to ban guns is a moral one. How is it right to risk someone else’s life, just so someone else can feel safe?

In the end, the law will stay as it is. We’re not going back to the days of being one of two states that doesn’t allow its residents to defend themselves. The effects of this law are already becoming apparent. Recently a man with a conceal carry permit stopped a robbery at an Aldi Milwaukee. Bet that’ll be the last time anyone tries to rob that store! More of these kinds of incidents are great. They tell criminals that we’re not afraid. Law biding Wisconsinites will not be pushed around by thugs.

As for people “taking the law into their own hands”, let me just say that when there isn’t anyone else around to enforce the law, a citizen has the duty to enforce it himself. Police aren’t everywhere, and that means that responsible citizens should step up and defend themselves. There is nothing wrong with protecting yourself, your family, and your property. Its admirable, and should be encouraged. In the end, we’ll wind up with a less violent community, where we aren’t afraid of criminals – criminals are afraid of us!

Suggested reading – “More Guns, Less Crime” and “The Bias Against Guns” by John Lott, and “The Seven Myths of Gun Control” by Richard Poe.

The Gift of Reading

Posted by Tim on

“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.”
- Mark Twain

I was reminded of this saying today. I was reading a book at work, trying to pass the long stretches of time between customers. A coworker asked what I was reading and I mentioned political theory, Montesquieu, and John Locke. He seemed interested and then told me of his grim circumstances. Being so burdened by school work and reading assignments, he has very little time to read for fun.

Luckily though, he’s been able to pick up Tim Tebow’s new book and begin reading it. We both admire Tebow, as many people do. We admire him for the reasons that so many others hate him. He’s a Christian who isn’t afraid to talk about it. Some may see Tebow as self-righteous, but once people get past their anger and jealousy, they’ll see that he’s a genuine guy who loves God. He’s a great role model in a time when there aren’t many out there. He’s also dyslexic.

This was of great importance to my coworker, because he is dyslexic as well. Now, I’d heard of dyslexia, but I didn’t really know what it was. In a show of ignorance I asked, “Like you read words backwords?” Ha. No, not really. Sounds like it’s a reading disorder that makes it difficult to read, especially at the speed that everyone else does. The way it was described to me was this: When a normal reads the word “tree”, they can immediately think of a tree, and what it looks like. When someone with dyslexia reads the word “tree” they first read the word, think of how to say the word, make sure they read the word right, then imagine the tree, then move on to the next word.

It’s because of all this that it takes people with dyslexia so long to read. Imagine instead of reading a sentence as a complete sentence, you read it as individual words. You’d lose your place, have to re-read, and in the end, you’d be lucky if you had any idea what the last chapter was about. Sounds like it must suck. Now, my coworker is a really smart guy. He’s in college at the moment, preparing for a career as a music instructor. He’s managed to overcome his reading disorder.

There are a lot of people out there with dyslexia. There are also a lot more people who can’t even read at all – just because they’re illiterate. For instance, according to UNICEF, in Kenya, males between the ages of 15-24 have a 92% illiteracy rate. Females are just a bit worse – 94%. Sounds awful right? The vast majority of Kenyan’s cannot read. But hey, that’s not a problem in America, right? Wrong. In 2011 a shocking report came out of Detroit, claiming that 47% of adults were functionally illiterate. That’s better than Kenya, but still REALLY bad.

Now, we could go into everything we could do to fix the problem. Better schools, more funding for adults education programs, more foreign aid for countries like Kenya. We could also train teachers to look out for symptoms of dyslexia, and teach them how to work with it in the classroom. I have no doubt that there are tons of great ideas out there. But that’s not the point.

The point is that there are people in this world who either have a lot of trouble reading, or cannot read at all. Those of us who can pick up a book and read it like nothing, enjoy it, learn from it; we shouldn’t take that for granted. Furthermore, if we can read, we should. Sometimes we don’t see all of our blessings, but reading truly is one of them. If you can read – read. Some people would love to have what you have.

Site Update – 3/19/12

Posted by Tim on

Regular readers may have noticed that I took the weekend off from posting anything on the site. I had run out of stuff to write, and didn’t feel real inspired about anything in particular. So, with all of that in mind, I’ve decided to start taking the weekends off. Posts will be Monday-Friday, which is still plenty of good reading. However, since views are usually slower on the weekends, and I don’t have unlimited things to write about… I’m just not going to waste them on Saturday and Sunday. Fair enough?

I’d also really like to encourage people to follow me on Twitter. I’m not doing this as an ego boost – I don’t need new followers. In fact, I have plenty and I’m constantly getting more. However, there’s a lot of stuff that I share on Twitter that will never make it to the site. I promote different links to friends’ pages, share links to YouTube videos and various news articles. Twitter also allows me to talk to you. Have a question? Want to argue? Have at it. Interact with me via Twitter.

Well, that’s it for now. As always – I encourage everyone to like, comment, and share the posts as much as you like. I’m open to suggestions, so please let your opinion be known. Regular postings will resume tomorrow.

Assault Weapons and the 2nd Amendment

Posted by Tim on

I have a confession to make. I just purchased another gun. Now, that’s no surprise to people who know me. I’m pretty sure that I’m a certified “gun nut”; one of those guys who drives a crappy car, lives in a crappy house, and wears crappy clothes BUT has thousands of dollars invested in firearms. I take most of that back – I have a decent house, a decent Toyota Tundra, and I wear… well… less than fashionable, but not poor quality, clothing. But I do have thousands of dollars invested in firearms. It’s my vice.

Although I’ll openly admit to being a pro-gun NRA member, I’m not about to talk about what I have. I’ll talk about that with personal friends, but honestly, I’m too much of a paranoid weirdo to start blabbing about it on the internet. Bear with me as I use vague descriptions of guns during this post and in the future.

My most recent purchase was paid for with my tax return. I picked it up at store here in Wisconsin that has a pretty large selection of assault weapons. (For those of you who don’t know – “assault” weapons are any gun that makes the liberals pee their pants. Usually these are rifles with big banana clips hanging off them. The term “assault” was originally penned by leftists looking to ban the weapons that they didn’t like. Calling them “assault weapons” helped advance their cause.) I went there because, well, I was looking to buy an assault rifle.

As I was driving around on my normal work route, I stopped at a satellite store and was looking to talk with a friend of mine. He was in the Army in the 90s and we always like to talk about guns. Since I had just purchased this new gun, I was eager to talk to him. Unfortunately, he was at lunch when I was there, but I still pulled up a website on his computer and left the page open so he’d see it when he got back.

Another worker walked past the computer and laughed, “Is that what you bought?” Yes, yes it is. He shook his head and explained that he’s not a “gun guy”. That’s fine. Not everyone is going to share the same hobbies.
“Well, as long as you don’t dislike guns, it’s okay with me” I responded.
“I understand people having handguns, and rifles, and whatnot. But not stuff like THAT.”

So, I went on to explain that the gun isn’t as bad as it looks. It’s an assault rifle. People assume that because it has a 30 round magazine that it’s somehow more dangerous that any other rifle. In reality, there are many hunting rifles that are much more powerful than the standard M16 that our armed forces use. But hunting rifles don’t look mean; assault rifles do.

After I explained this to him he was fine with it. He now felt safe. This whole misconception is a big problem in America though, and maybe I should explain it. The 2nd amendment of the US constitution is not there so that we can hunt animals. It’s also not there so we can protect ourselves from robbers entering our homes. It’s there so that citizens can create a militia. Now, some people will say that we don’t need militias, because we already have an army. Once again, people aren’t getting the idea. The militia isn’t to defend us from outside enemies; it’s to defend us from our own government.

The founders were very concerned about the abuse of power by government. That is why they gave us the second amendment – so that we could fight our government if we had to. Now, we haven’t had to yet, but as history has shown – tyranny can be swift and unexpected. Our citizens need to be armed if they are ever to confront their own government. Furthermore, this is exactly why assault weapons should be legal to ordinary citizens. We’re not going to fight off a tyrannical government with handguns – we’ll need these “mean looking” guns.

It’s important to know this stuff. Hunting and sporting, home protection – that’s all a bonus, but the real reasoning behind the 2nd amendment was to arm people against their own government.