Thursday, February 27, 2014

Mark Rippetoe on the Virtues of the Squat

You've probably heard and read the myth that squats are bad for your knees.  I wrote on this subject before, but now Mark Rippetoe covers it at PJ Media.
Squats are regarded as the basic lower-body exercise by strength athletes because nothing else compares to its ability to strengthen the structure of the knee — the muscles, tendons, bones, and ligaments that form the knee anatomy. 
(image credit: Thomas Campitelli, The Aasgaard Company 2013)
 The muscles on the front of the thigh are the quadriceps. They attach below the knee to the “tibial tuberosity” — the bump at the top of the shin bone — just below the kneecap. When they pull this bone forward, the knee extends and the force at the tendon attachment is directed forward relative to the joint. In contrast, the hamstrings pull backwards on either side of the knee at their attachments, which balances the forward force from the quads. This happens in a correct squat when the hips move back and the torso leans forward. The balance of forces is optimum at a position just below parallel, and protects the joint so well that a correct squat can be safely performed even without an ACL. (I don’t have one.) 
Fortunately, I still have both ACLs, but I'm missing part a meniscus in my left knee, and squats like the one the lady in the photo is performing were a vital part of my recovery, and continue to be a vital part of my training.  I firmly believe they helped prevent further injury.

As always with Coach Rippetoe's articles, read the whole thing.

Jeff Gordon Pranks Journalist Who Called His Last Prank Fake

Remember that Pepsi commercial with NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon in which he took an unsuspecting car salesman for the test drive of his life?



Many, including me, thought it was staged.  Travis Okulski, writer for online car magazine Jalopnik, was one of those people.  So, Jeff Gordon played a similar prank on him, and the result is hilarious!


You can read Mr Okulski's account at Jalopnik.




Wednesday, February 26, 2014

15-Year-Old Boy Shoots Attempted Abductor

From K2 Radio in Wyoming:
GILLETTE, Wyo. (AP) — Campbell County sheriff’s officials say a 15-year-old boy fatally shot a man who was trying to abduct a woman in Wright. 
The shooting happened Wednesday night. 
Sheriff’s officials said Friday they had responded to reports of an attempted abduction at a home in Wright. They arrived to find 48-year-old Sammy Michael Fears, of Casper, wounded in the driveway. Fears died on the way to the hospital. 
It’s not clear how the teen became involved. Sheriff’s Cpl. Gary Sams says the teenage shooter had no family relationship to either Fears or the woman.He says Fears and the woman had a history of domestic violence going back a few years. 
Gillette media is reporting that the teen has not been charged.

Wyoming probably has the least restrictive gun laws in the US.  Its laws - like the US constitution - restrict the state, not the citizens.  Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution states that...
The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.
According to the NRA...
Any person 21 years of age or older, who is not prohibited possessor, may carry a weapon openly or concealed without the need for a license. All non-residents must possess a permit issued by the state of their residence. A Wyoming resident may also apply for a concealed carry permit issued by this state in order to be able to carry concealed in those states requiring a permit.  
It seems like that's working pretty well for them.

One final thought: If this young man had shot up a school his picture would be on every front page, but because he committed an act of heroism with a gun, you'll never hear about him in the national media.  Does that seem right to you?


Friday, February 21, 2014

Mark Rippetoe on Stress & Strength at PJ Media

Mark Rippetoe's latest article for PJ Media explains how stress makes us stronger.  First, he defines stress. 
“Stress” is that which causes a perturbation of the steady state of a system — in this case, your physiology. If the stress is mild, it causes no response. It doesn’t disrupt the situation enough to be noticed. If the stress is too great, it can kill you. This is what happens when you fall off a building or get mauled by a bear.
Then he explains how we use stress - and the body's reaction to it - to improve strength.
You apply a stress that is appropriate for you, a stress you can recover from. The process of recovering from the stress results in adaptation to the stress, then you apply a little more stress to your now-adapted self, and the process proceeds in an upward direction, each step resulting in more adaptation to the stress. 
You get stronger by starting with the weights you can do now, and then adding a little bit more next time, and every time you work out, until progress stops. This will be quite a while, many months for most people, and when that happens we’ll get more fancy about programming. 
But not until then — as long as this simple process works to improve your strength, anything more complicated is a waste of time.  
He also explains why strength is the foundation of fitness.
But the funny thing about getting stronger — the thing that makes it better than jogging — is that strength is such a basic and widely applied adaptation that it benefits every other physical characteristic regardless of specificity. 
Strength is the only physical characteristic that benefits all the others. If you get stronger, you run better, throw better, dance better, do everything better, because strength is the most general physical adaptation, the physical basis of all the others. In other words: strength benefits running, but running doesn’t benefit strength. 
Read the whole thing.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

FBI Reports: Crime Drops As Gun Sales Soar

The FBI recently published their annual crime report for 2013, and it shows a drop in violent crime.
Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the nation reported a decrease of 5.4 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for the first 6 months of 2013 when compared with figures reported for the same time in 2012. 
In January, the FBI reported record breaking gun sales for 2013.
The FBI has released new statistics on NICS background checks showing 2013 gun sales hit a new record. The total number of background checks conducted for gun sales last year add up to 21,093,273, beating the previous 2012 record of 19,592,303 by 1,500,970. 
"Liberals" claim that more guns = more crime, and therefore we need to ban guns.  If we do, their "thinking" goes, our country will become a gun-free, crime-free utopia.  You know.  Like Russia.  If "Liberal" "logic" was accurate, crime would have increased, in 2013.  Was that an aberration?  Not even close.

Gun ownership has increased steadily in the US for years.

Source: The Truth About Guns
Violent crime steadily decreased in the US since it's peak in the early '90s.  Homicides in which the killer used a gun dropped by 49%.


At the same time, concealed carry laws improved to the point that, today, all 50 states have some form of concealed carry on the books.


By 2014, the percentage of people living in the Red states, with no possibility of even applying for a permit, has declined to zero. Illinois’ 2013 reforms ended the problem of states not even having a process theoretically available. (The problem persists in DC, but this chart is only for states.) 
As of January 2014, about 2/3 of the population lived in a Green state, with a Shall Issue licensing statute. 
Purple states (concealed carry is allowed without need for a permit) have increased from Vermont only in 1986 to several states comprising about 4% of the population. Currently, the Purple states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, and Wyoming (residents only). 
The Yellow states (arbitrary permitting) were the national norm in 1986, but they are now outliers. Unless the 9th Circuits’ decision in Peruta is overturned, California and Hawaii will have to become Shall Issue states. 
This will leave Yellow states at less than 1/7 of the U.S. population.
I do not claim that more guns = less crime.  "Liberals" do claim, however, that more guns = more crime.  To logically make that claim, "Liberals" need to explain why crime in the US continues to decrease as gun ownership continues to increase.

I've never met one that can.


Mom Defends Her Children With an "Assault Rifle"

Nobody needs an "assault rifle".  Until they do.


Recalling the panic she felt, the mom says "I let them know I had a gun once they were in the house. They said no you don't so I shot off the first round. I wasn't feeling anything at the moment, I got scared afterwards."
In a follow-up, WXYZ Detroit reports:
Her husband is thankful she and the kids are safe.He gave her the weapon just two weeks ago and showed her how to use it."If I hadn't prepared my wife for this kind of situation, I could have came home to a family that was gone," he says. 
Let that be a lesson to you, gentlemen.  Fortunately, the Detroit police chief says "she did the right thing".



German Union Boss Threatens VW's Chattanoooga Workers

Aren't unions supposed to represent the will of the ordinary worker?  If so, what to do when ordinary workers - of their own free will - vote against the UAW?  Apparently, they make threats.
this latest tidbit is sure to raise more than a few eyebrows, as it came straight from Bernd Osterloh, head of VW's works council in Germany.
I can imagine fairly well that another VW factory in the United States, provided that one more should still be set up there, does not necessarily have to be assigned to the south again. ... If co-determination isn't guaranteed in the first place, we as workers will hardly be able to vote in favor [of another VW plant in the southern US].
In other words, VW's works council, which has to approve any new plants before they can be built, may block further expansion in southern US states due to the area's apparent anti-union stance.
Source: NYT
Or, to put it another way, "unionize or we'll refuse to create any more jobs in your area."  Or, still another way, "VW's American employees are too stupid to know what's good for them, so from now on we'll decide for them if they'll join a union."

The anti-liberty sentiment among the UAW supporters is striking.  Look through the comments to the Autoblog article, and you'll see response after response stating that Southerners are too stupid and/or uneducated to know what's good for them.

I asked the following question in the comments:
Who is best qualified to decide what is in the Chattanooga plant workers' best interest?
1. The Chattanooga plant workers?
2. The UAW?
3. VW's works council in Germany?
4. Autoblog readers?
5. Someone else?
Here's one response from a UAW supporter.
VW Works Council...they have the decision-making power as to which of their plants get new products (work)...since the Works Council make up 50% of VW's board, they are the ones who call the shots...European/German labor unions are very different from American labor unions, they encourage a collaborative nature between management and workers...voting for the union at Tennessee would have brought that sort of enlightenment to the American shores...there is a reason why Mercedes-Benz, BMW and VW/Audi/Porsche/Bugatti/Lamborghini, etc. are some of the most respected brands on the globe...they treat and pay their workers well, management is held accountable and that results in superior products...it would be great for some of that to rub off on the American psyche...god knows we need it...
See?  VW's Works Council knows the Chattanooga workers' needs better than the Chattanooga workers do.

I also quoted a New York Times article on the vote and added some commentary.
"Mike Burton, a VW worker who led the anti-union drive, said many workers felt that they were paid well and treated well without having a union and thus saw no need to have one. He said many workers objected to the U.A.W. having initially sought unionization based on what it said was having a majority of cards signed favoring a union. 
'We don’t need the U.A.W. to give us rights we already have,' he said. 'We can already talk to the company if we have any problems'.” ~ NYT 
The workers voted and the UAW lost. The workers are best qualified to decide what is in their own best interest. They decided. Leave them alone. 
Here's a response to that comment.
The workers were indoctrinated with bullshit from the right they don't know whats best for them. Maybe the UAW isn't the best for them but they deserve some form of workers council.
Ah, yes.  The old "false consciousness" argument.  How Marxist.

Most Leftists on the national stage are smart enough to realize that telling the people you're trying to convince that they're too stupid to make their own decisions, so instead they're blaming Republicans, the eeeeeevil Right and even (gasp!) the Koch Brothers for the UAW's defeat.
I have one word for you.  Koch!
“I think it was unprecedented that outside forces, whether it was the Koch brothers and the money they spent here, whether it was [Republican Sen. Bob] Corker, whether it was Grover Norquist, all these people who were going to come in and threaten the company and threaten workers, to me was outrageous,” said UAW President Bob King, at a news conference after the tally was announced.
Seriously, if the Koch brothers were as powerful in real life as they are in Lefties' fever dreams of them, they'd be masters of the universe by now.

As the NYT article demonstrates, neither Republican politicians nor libertarian activists defeated the UAW.  The workers themselves did, with a lot of help from the UAW's reputation.
Standing outside the Volkswagen plant, Mike Jarvis, a three-year employee who works on the finishing line, said the majority had voted against U.A.W. because they were persuaded the union had hurt Detroit’s automakers. 
“Look at what happened to the auto manufacturers in Detroit and how they struggled. They all shared one huge factor: the U.A.W.,” said Mr. Jarvis, who added that he had had bad experiences with other labor unions. “If you look at how the U.A.W’s membership has plunged, that shows they’re doing a lot wrong.”
Mike Jarvis, by the way, wrote an opinion piece for the NYT explaining why he helped organize opposition to the UAW.

As George Will wrote in the Washington Post:
UAW officials blamed last week’s failure on “outside special-interest groups,” which describes the UAW in Chattanooga. In a characteristically shrill and clumsy intervention before the voting ended, Barack Obama accused Tennessee Republicans of being “more concerned about German shareholders than American workers.” He missed the detail that the shareholders’ company favored the UAW. The UAW, too, blamed Tennessee’s Republican politicians. 
Funny how everyone opposing the UAW is caricatured as an "outside special-interest group" exerting undue influence, but everyone supporting the UAW - including the president of the United States, with the biggest bully pulpit on Earth - is not.

None of that matters.  What matters is that the workers have the right to choose for themselves whether or not they want the UAW to represent them.  The workers declined UAW representation.  That's it.  Period.  End of discussion.

Unless, of course, you believe VW's Chattanooga workers are incapable of making their own decisions and should therefore have their right to choose for themselves violated.  If so, I wonder what other rights the UAW's supporters would like to steal from VW's Chattanooga workers.

It's for their own good, of course.  The UAW and their Democrat allies simply want to do for Chattanooga what they did for Detroit.