Keeping Women Weak

Recently, two articles stood out to me because of their diametrically opposed views on the same subject.  I'll start with the one with which I disagree. 

Getting Models Into Fighting Shape

For models, the former boxer Michael Olajide Jr. is the heavyweight of trainers — the go-to guy for girls who have to get runway-ready in a hurry.  For this fashion week, he trained some 15 models needing to “sleekify,” as he called it, to squeeze into sample sizes. (Most common problem: the hips.)

Oh, hell.  Here we go.

Mr. Olajide, 49, a highly ranked middleweight boxer until an injury left him legally blind in the right eye and ended his career, has been attracting the fashion crowd since his days teaching at Equinox and Chelsea Piers in the 1990s. 

Equinox?  That explains a lot.

Eventually, the 6-foot, 165-pound Mr. Olajide ended up training the supermodels Iman and Linda Evangelista.

Wait... "6-foot, 165-pound"?  Seriously?

What about the clients?

Mr. Olajide acknowledged that the weight can come back on quickly once the workout (and preshow diets) stop. 

“Like boxers, they have a performance weight and an everyday weight,” he said of models. With each season, it can get harder to snap back to sample size. “It becomes: Will they allow themselves mentally to go to that level of discomfort? How hungry are they?” 

Good question.  Just how hungry are they?

The British model Nyasha Matonhodze, 18, started working out at Mr. Olajide’s gym at her agency’s recommendation. “As models, we know that we have to be, some would say, ridiculously thin,” she said. “It’s not exactly a woman’s shape, but it is high fashion.” 

So, they realize they're so skinny that they no longer have "a woman's shape", but they keep doing it anyway.  Does this sound remotely healthy to anyone?  And why are women using women who no longer look like women to sell women's clothes to women?

Exercises that trim mere mortals can be career-maiming for catwalkers. Push-ups are out — developing the chest is bad news

God forbid a woman be strong enough to lift herself off the floor!

— as are squats and lunges, which make the derrière too round to fit into the clothes. (Lingerie models are allowed lunges because they are allowed curves, he said.)

Right; because a flat butt and a rectangular figure are ideal for a woman.

Ab exercises also are rationed. “When they really burn the fat you’ll see a six-pack, which is not usually the goal,” Mr. Olajide said. “You want flat, but if you’re too cut, defined and hard, that can be counterproductive. We want long, willowy, wispy, flowing.”

In other words, weak.

Caitlin Holleran, 16, who in October wore a fitted floor-length chiffon dress on the Yves Saint Laurent runway in Paris, had to shrink her hips back down by two inches this season to match the measurement (34 inches) listed on her modeling card. Among other things, the type of power vinyasa yoga she’d been doing was building too much muscle, she said, adding bulk. 

Are you freaking kidding me?  36-inch hips are too big?  Yoga "was building too much muscle" and "adding bulk"?  And this girl is only 16!

Contrast that with the following irreverently, hilariously titled article.

Women’s Only: “OMG You Have an Amazing Ass”

I recently had a 15-year-old girl come to me for personal training to get her back in

shape before cheerleading started up again in the fall. Having done cheerleading and knowing just how many issues teenage girls can have with their bodies, weight and over-exercising, I’ll admit I was a little worried about what I might be dealing with. 

That girl, however, completely blew me away before our first session was even over. Right off the bat she came across happy, confident and comfortable in her body, and it was clear as soon as I’d put her through some basic exercises that she was pretty capable. In the middle of the session, while I was showing her some technique for her pushups, she just looked at me and said: 

"OMG you have an amazing ass — you look so strong!"

What?  A girl doing push-ups?  Oh, the horror!

This definitely made me laugh, but the message/mentality behind what she said made my entire weekend. For those of you who don’t know me, yes I do have a big butt, and while my legs are by no means huge by CrossFit standards, they’re definitely not small either.

If Yoga builds too much muscle and adds bulk, then "manly" movements, such as push-ups, rope climbs and squats, will obviously turn a girl into the she-hulk - right?

Uh... no, actually.  Not really.  Back to the story. 

For me it took finding CrossFit to finally let go of the “Skinny is Sexy” mentality, and I’m glad that I did; but I’m even more glad that a young girl who has never done CrossFit (or even heard of it) already considers strength way more important and attractive than being a size zero.

Awesome!

I went through high school convinced I needed to be skinny, and it wasn’t until my 20s — when I was introduced to CrossFit and weightlifting — that I realized the fact that my natural body type will always be strong (not petite) and began to accept that. Suddenly I was in a world where where the focus was NOT on
“burning calories,”
“losing weight,” or
“being a size zero.”
Instead I discovered that
performance trumped appearance;training was something you did to get stronger/faster/better; and
you ate to fuel your body 

Doesn't training "to get stronger/faster/better" and eating "to fuel your body" sound healthier than a woman starving herself until she - by her own admission - no longer resembles a woman?

Here's the question I really need to ask all you ladies out there, though, because I can't answer it myself.  Why do women insist on torturing themselves like this?  I don't mean the models.  They've clearly made a cost/benefit analysis.  They believe the money, fame and adulation they (will potentially) receive are worth the sacrifices they make.

Julie Foucher demonstrates the overhead squat.

What I mean is; why do ordinary women insist on torturing themselves by giving the fashion industry the financial incentive to use women who've starved themselves into no longer looking like women to sell them clothes?  Why do ordinary women want to look like them?  As the NYT article makes clear, not even the models themselves can look that way for long.

And don't even try to blame it on us men, ladies!  Heterosexual men do not dominate the fashion
industry.  Women and homosexual men dominate the industry.

Face it, ladies, you are doing this to yourselves - and each other. 

My question is; why?  What's the point?  What do you get out of it - other than eating disorders, a perpetual sense of failure and abject misery?

I don't get it ladies.  I just don't.  Maybe one of you can enlighten me.

Syria Is Different

Remember when it was unconstitutional for a president to send troops to war without congressional approval?

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. ~ Sen Barack Obama (D, Il) 2007

Remember when principled members of congress called for the impeachment of a president who might consider military strikes against a foreign country without congressional approval?

“The president has… no…. Constitutional… authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” Biden declared, loud and clear.  ”And if he does, I would move to impeach him.  The House, obviously, has to do that.  But I would lead an effort to impeach him.” ~ Sen Joe Biden (D, De) 2007 

Remember when Bashar Assad was "a reformer"?


Remember when Assad was "generous"?

On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been “very generous with me.” He added that under Assad “Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States.” This is the man who might be our next secretary of state.

Remember when Assad was Secretary of State, John Kerry's, "dear friend"?

Staffers describe their collective cringe when, after a motorcycle ride with Bashar al-Assad, he

returned to Washington referring to Bashar as “my dear friend.”

If none of this fills you with confidence, given the current state of affairs, fear not, everything's different now.  But that sets up a whole other set of problems with consistency, doesn't it?

Take it away, Victor Davis Hanson.

Deriding the Iraq war was Obama’s signature selling point... For the last five years, disparagement of “Iraq” and “Bush” has seemed to intrude into almost every sentence the president utters...
His sudden pro-war stance makes a number of hypocritical assumptions. First, the U.S. president can attack a sovereign nation without authorization from Congress (unlike the Iraq war when George W. Bush obtained authorization from both houses of Congress). Even if Obama gets a no vote, he said that he reserves the right to strike.

He does?  How does that square with his statement from 2007?  It doesn't, that's how.  Now, shut up, you racist!

But then, as VDH noted, not much the Pres does now squares with his rhetoric.  Fortunately, Dr Hanson provided us with some examples.

On the perils of going it alone without allies 

“Where the stakes are the highest, in the war on terror, we cannot possibly succeed without extraordinary international cooperation. Effective international police actions require the highest degree of intelligence sharing, planning and collaborative enforcement.” (2004) 

So far no European or Arab nation has offered military support for our planned effort against Syria. 

On the need to obtain UN approval before attacking another country 

“You know, if the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it, do we have the coalition to make it work, and, you know, those are considerations that we have to take into account.” (2013) 

After misleading the UN in obtaining no-fly-zones for Libya (and then bombing troops on the ground), Obama is not even approaching the UN for a resolution to bomb this time around. 

On the idea that armed intervention is ever a good option 

“I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.” (2008) 

The mindset in Iraq was to stop a genocidal dictator like Saddam Hussein who had gassed his own people — apparently the present mission is to stop the genocidal dictator Bashar Assad, who has gassed his own people. 

On the folly of starting a wrong war to ensure a president’s sinking credibility 

“It’s time to reject the counsel that says the American people would rather have someone who is strong and wrong than someone who is weak and right.” (2008) [Talk about false choices.  It's entirely possible to be both weak and wrong. ~ O.S.]
“That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.” (2002) 

Most believe that we are going to war mostly to restore Obama’s credibility after he issued an ill-advised red line to Syria that he thought would never be crossed — a war, in other words, predicated on “politics.” 

On the dangers of not defining a mission or a methodology 

“I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.” (2002) [As opposed to arming Al-Qaeda, like we did in Libya. ~ O.S.]

“When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.” (2004) 

So far we have not articulated the purpose of attacking Syria, the methods of intervention, or the desired outcome of the war — at a time of deep administration cuts to defense, soon to be made worse by sequestration. 

On not intervening in the civil wars and internal affairs of Arab nations 

“The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else’s civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.” (2007). 

Syria is currently in “somebody else’s” civil war in which the Assad dictatorship, Hezbollah militias, and Iranian volunteers are battling al-Qaeda affiliates, the Free Syrian Army, and various unknown coalitions of Assad opponents.

There may have been a time, early in the Syrian civil war, when we could have armed rebel groups that sought to establish responsible governance in Syria.  Even if that was ever true - and that's a big if - that time is long past.  Today, the Syrian civil war boils down to a fight between Iran and Al-Qaeda.  Regardless who we back, we back an enemy.  

Double Standards (Political Edition)

Remember when Sarah Palin said that "you can see Russia from Alaska"?  No, she never said, "I can see Russia from my house".  That was a Saturday Night Live parody that political ignoramuses ascribe to her.  Sarah Palin was, of course, right.  You can see Russia from the Alaska across the Bering Straight.

"Liberals", naturally, ridiculed her for making a factually accurate statement.  They always know better, even when they're wrong. 

Compare that with how they treat Pres Obama's many geographical errors.

Mr. Obama’s geographical confusion has become habitual. He once claimed that he had been to all “57 states.” He also assumed that Kentucky was closer to Arkansas than it was to his adjacent home state of Illinois. 

In reference to the Falkland Islands, Mr. Obama called them the Maldives — islands southwest of India — apparently in a botched effort to use the Argentine-preferred Malvinas. The two island groups may sound somewhat alike, but they are continents apart. Again, without basic geographical knowledge, the president’s commentary on the Falklands is rendered superficial. 

When in the state of Hawaii, Mr. Obama announced that he was in “Asia.” He lamented that the U.S. Army’s Arabic-language translators assigned to Iraq could better be used in Afghanistan, failing to recognize that Arabic isn’t the language of Afghanistan. For that matter, he apparently thought Austrians speak a language other than German.

Remember, Sarah Palin made a factually accurate statement about her home state, and was ridiculed for it.  Pres Obama made multiple abysmally ignorant statements about his country and both his home states (Hawaii and Illinois).  Clearly, the "Liberal" media mocked him mercifully for it, right?

Of course not!  Haven't you been paying attention?

The president’s geographical illiteracy is a symptom of the nation’s growing ignorance of once-essential subjects such as geography and history. The former is often not taught anymore as a required subject in our schools and colleges. The latter has often been redefined as race, class and gender oppression to score melodramatic points in the present rather than to learn from the tragedy of the past.

See?  When Sarah Palin makes a factually accurate statement, she's an idiot.  When The One makes multiple ignorant statements, it's everyone else's fault.  Gotta love how that works.

To be fair, the author I quoted above - Victor Davis Hanson - is a conservative, which is why he was willing to point out all those ignorant statements.  "Liberals" won't even admit they exist.

Obamacare: Told You So (Continued)

Those of us who support economic liberty warned that Obamacare would result in an increase of part time employment, vs full time employment.  Obamacare supporters shrieked, "racist!" 

Told you so.

Employers around the country, from fast-food franchises to colleges, have told NBC News that they will be cutting workers’ hours below 30 a week because they can’t afford to offer the health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. 

“To tell somebody that you’ve got to decrease their hours because of a law passed in Washington is very frustrating to me,” said Loren Goodridge, who owns 21 Subway franchises, including a restaurant in Kennebunk. “I know the impact I’m having on some of my employees.”  

Goodridge said he’s cutting the hours of 50 workers to no more than 29 a week so he won’t trigger the provision in the new health care law that requires employers to offer coverage to employees who work 30 hours or more per week. The provision takes effect in 16 months.

Hey, now that they mention it, this couldn't possibly have anything to do with the report that 97% of jobs created in 2013 are part time, could it?

“Over the last six months, of the net job creation, 97 percent of that is part-time work,” said Keith Hall, a senior researcher at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center.

“That is really remarkable.” 

Hall is no ordinary academic. He ran the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency that puts out the monthly jobs report, from 2008 to 2012. Over the past six months, he said, the Household Survey shows 963,000 more people reporting that they were employed, and 936,000 of them reported they’re in part-time jobs. 

“That is a really high number for a six-month period,” Hall said. “I’m not sure that has ever happened over six months before.”

“There is something going on if such a large share of the hiring is part time,” Hall said. ... 

Hall speculated that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, shorthanded as Obamacare, might be resulting in employers shifting workers to part-time status to avoid coming health care obligations. 

“There’s been so much talk about the effects of Obamacare on part-time work,” he said. “This is such an unusual thing to see.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/02/198432/most-2013-job-growth-is-in-part.html#.Uf-UcGRAS7g#storylink=cpy

 What?  You mean businesses respond to the economic incentives artificially created by government policies?  No way!  Of course, anyone with any understanding of economics - or common sense - would've seen this coming.  As Chris Conover wrote before the BLS report was published...

Denialism may be too strong a term.[1] But there seem to be a lot of people arguing that Obamacare has little or nothing to do with the rise in part-time employment. Some deny the rise is even happening, while others are content to deny that Obamacare is the culprit. Admittedly, it takes a little detective work, but if we systematically review the available empirical evidence in an even-handed fashion, the conclusion seems inescapable: Obamacare is accelerating a disturbing trend towards “a nation of part-timers.” This is not good news for America.

 So, is this consequence of Obamacare intended, or unintended?

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/02/198432/most-2013-job-growth-is-in-part.html#.Uf-UcGRAS7g#storylink=cpy

The Free Market Cure

You may have seen this graphic floating around Facebook.

Apparently, that quote comes from a speech he gave at Georgetown University. 

“Aid is just a stopgap,” he said. “Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty than aid. We need Africa to become an economic powerhouse.”

Bono is right, of course.  But it's always nice to have data to support your beliefs.  So, here it is.

The US and UK, with economic policies that respected property rights and economic liberty far more than China's, grew steadily in GDP/capita, which is a pretty good indicator of increasing wealth.  When China loosened economic regulations, their GDP/capita skyrocketed.

So, economic liberty leads to economic prosperity.  Great!  Which way are we headed now?  According to the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, we're 10th in the world, and dropping.

US Economic Freedom score over time

According to the Heritage Foundation...

Registering a loss of economic freedom for the fifth consecutive year, the U.S. has recorded its lowest Index score since 2000. Dynamic entrepreneurial growth is stifled by ever-more-bloated government and a trend toward cronyism that erodes the rule of law. More than three years after the end of recession in June 2009, the U.S. continues to suffer from policy choices that have led to the slowest recovery in 70 years.

All in the name of helping the poor, of course.  Ironic, isn't it?

Man of Steel Review

Stop me if you've heard this one.  A wise, celestial being sends his only begotten son to Earth, telling him, "You will give them an ideal to strive towards.  They'll race behind you.  They will stumble.  They will fall.  But in time, they will join you in the sun", and "You can save them all".  The son is raised by an ordinary, yet noble, hard working man.  At the age of 33, the son reveals his identity and origin to the world, performing works of wonder to save humanity from an enemy they couldn't possibly fight themselves.

Sound familiar?  Of course it does!  I'm referring to Superman!



I don't want to give too much away, but a few things really stood out to me.  First, the writers changed some details of Superman's origin, though not the overall story.  It should still satisfy most comic book nerds.

Second, Superman's Kryptonian parents play a much bigger role in this movie than in previous iterations of the story.  Russell Crowe did a great job as Jor-El, Superman's father.  He was back in "Gladiator" mode.  Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, as his Earthly parents, didn't have as much to do, so they really didn't have an opportunity to shine.

Third, there's a strong theme about the influence fathers have on their sons running through the script.  I've noticed a lot of that in superhero movies lately.  Batman, Spider-man, Iron Man and Wolverine all have "daddy issues" in their current movie incarnations.  Some are straight out of the source material, some are new.  I don't know if that is a case of lazy writing, or a real reflection of current cultural issues.

Fourth, Superman's Kryptonian enemy, General Zod, is far superior in this movie to his previous appearance in Superman II.  His motivations are clearer and make more sense, and Michael Shannon was excellent.  He was intense and menacing without being cheesy.


Zod and his henchmen are the perfect foils for Superman.  Together, they're more powerful than he is.  They can actually threaten him.  I really don't see how other villains will stack up (with one exception I'll discuss later).

That brings me to another point.  This Superman is less powerful than previous ones.  He gets fatigued, hurt, even injured.  He strains against huge weights to the point of exhaustion.  I see that positively.  Previous Superman stories make him too powerful.  Nothing can hurt or threaten him (except for Kryptonite).  Where's the drama in that?

The one theme that runs most prominently through the story, however, is that of Superman as a Christ figure, as I detailed at the beginning of this post.  I read one review that claimed this wasn't so, since Superman does not sacrifice himself in this movie.  However, Christopher Nolan, who produced "Man of Steel", directed the latest Batman trilogy with a clear story arc linking all three films.  I suspect this will be a similar case.  I predict the next movie will feature Lex Luthor, and the last will feature Doomsday.

Speaking of directing, the special effects were astounding, the fight scenes were exciting and the story never really let up, all of which we expect from director Zack Snyder.

What's not to like?  Well, the excessive amounts of unnecessary shaky cam and weird close-ups.  Also, Aimee and I both thought Amy Adams was miscast as Lois Lane.  She's an outstanding actress, but she just didn't pull off the part of a hard-nosed, tenacious reporter.  Other than that, not much.

"Man of Steel" is a fun, exciting, entertaining, intergalactic slug-fest.  But it's much more than that.  The best superhero movies use the outlandish fantasy inherent to them to convey universal themes found in the best stories, from Homer to today.  The "Dark Knight" trilogy did that better than any other, but I suspect a "Man of Steel" trilogy may surpass it.

Capitalism is Good for the Environment

Remember the Kyoto Protocol?  It's alright if you don't.  Nobody else seems to.  Which is funny, because "Environmentalists" warned of war, famine, pestilence and death if the world didn't ratify it.  No, seriously.  

Then-VP Al Gore signed the treaty, but the US Senate never ratified it, making it invalid in the US.  Leftists, of course, blamed President Bush, because everything is Bush's fault.  Supposedly, Americans' "Commercialism and greed overcome all common sense and thought for the welfare of future generations. This failure causes hatred not only of the Bush administration, but of American commercialism in general".  Also, the refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was a failure of American leadership in the world.

Sixteen years later, we "greedy" Americans must look more dastardly than ever, right?  Wrong.

In 2012, a surprising twist and without ever ratifying it, the United States became the first major industrialized nation in the world to meet the United Nation’s original Kyoto Protocol 2012 target for CO2 reductions.

 

How is this possible?  How did we "greedy" Americans succeed in meeting the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol - having never ratified it - while all those virtuous nations that enthusiastically signed the treaty failed?

One word.  Frack.

The largest drop in emissions in 2012 came from coal, which is used almost exclusively for electricity generation (see figure below). During 2012, particularly in the spring and early summer, low natural gas prices led to competition between natural gas- and coal-fired electric power generators. Lower natural gas prices resulted in reduced levels of coal generation, and increased natural gas generation—a less carbon-intensive fuel for power generation, which shifted power generation from the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel (coal) to the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel (natural gas).

We know that the increased supply of natural gas in the US economy resulted from advances in, and the increased use of, hydraulic fracturing techniques, which unlock reserves that were previously inaccessible.  We also know that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) techniques became economically viable because of the recent increase in energy prices.  Higher prices created an incentive to invest in fracking.  Fracking increased supply, which, along with innovations spurred by competition, resulted in lower natural gas prices, and that prompted energy producers to switch from coal to natural gas.

In other words, free markets succeeded where bloated, collectivist government mandates failed.  In other words, American "greed" turned out to be more virtuous than multinational "virtue". 

There is another, less rosy possible reason why the US's carbon emissions fell since 2007.  The recession began in 2007, and the American economy remains weak.  A weak economy results in reduced energy consumption and demand.  But I don't think that was a major factor here.  After all, Europe's economy is even weaker than that of the US, but all European nations failed to meet their Kyoto goals.

The lesson here is one sensible people learned when they saw the devastation the Soviet Union caused to its environment - free markets work, even in environmental matters.

But don't expect "Environmentalists" to embrace free market solutions to environmental problems.  "Environmentalists" are, for the most part, watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside.  Environmental concerns are an excuse for them to give government even greater power over people's lives.  No matter how well free market solutions prove to work, most "Environmentalists" will always reject them, because their main concern is not the environment.  Their main concern is bloated, morbidly obese, inescapable government.