Garage Gym Part 2 - Bars & Plates

In Part 1 of this series, we looked at an overview of how I built my garage gym. I built my gym with three major factors in mind. In descending order of importance they are price, quality and space. I have limited resources and limited space, and I want my equipment to last a long, long time. Now we'll take a look at the two most important parts of the gym; the bars and the plates.

BARBELLS

First of all, this is not the place to save money in your gym. Let me say that again. This is not the place to cheap out. The barbell is the most versatile, most useful piece of strength training equipment you can buy. A good, quality barbell will last a lifetime with minimum maintenance. A cheap one will rust, bend, or the collars will stop spinning smoothly. Save money elsewhere.

How versatile is a barbell? Here's a non-exhaustive list of exercises one can perform with a standard barbell. Back squats, front squats, overhead squats, snatches, power snatches, muscle snatches, cleans, power cleans, muscle cleans, clean and jerks, push jerks, push presses, overhead presses, bench presses, thrusters, deadlifts, Romanian deadlifts, curls, lunges, farmer's carries, barbell rows, and lots, lots more that I either don't know, or can't think of right now.

Additionally, a barbell allows you to move a lot more weight than with dumbbells, kettlebells or any other piece of equipment. If you want to get stronger, you have to move more weight. Again, this is not the place to cheap out.

So, a barbell is a barbell is a barbell, right? Not really. I'll explain which ones I bought and why, then I'll cover other options.

I bought the Rogue 2.0 bar (men's bar, $255) for myself, and Rogue Bella 2.0 bar (women's bar, $215) for Aimee. The first thing you'll notice is that the Bella bar has a smaller diameter shaft (25 mm) than the Rogue 2.0 bar (28.5 mm), to better fit women's smaller hands. The sleeve is also shorter, presumably because women don't need quite as much space on which to load plates. Consequently, the women's bar weighs 15 kg (about 35 lb), vs. the men's bar's 20 kg (about 45 lb).

The Rogue 2.0 and Bella 2.0 bars are excellent generalist's bars. They're great for Olympic weightlifting, power lifting and high-repetition, fast workouts, like CrossFit. They're high quality bars with a tensile strength of 190,000 lb/square inch. I'm an aerospace project engineer, and Rogue's workmanship is just as good as ours. They're also made in Ohio. Despite all that, they're still affordable.

What makes these bars great for recreational generalists like Aimee and me?

First, the knurling. Knurling is the checkered pattern pressed into the steel bar. Its purpose is to give you better grip. Power lifting bars have more aggressive knurling for better grip in the deadlift. These bars have less aggressive knurling (like Olympic weightlifting bars), so they don't tear up your hands when performing fast lifts like the clean and the snatch, or fast, high-rep workouts like CrossFit.

These bars lack center knurling. Center knurling is great from back squats, because it helps keep the bar more securely on your back. It's terrible for front squats and cleans, because it tears up the skin on your throat and clavicles.

These bars are also flexible, like Olympic weightlifting bars. When you perform a clean, you want the bar to flex a little. You can see what I mean in this slow motion video.

Olympic weightlifting bars have bearings that allow the sleeves to spin when performing fast lifts. That's great, but bearings that last when subjected to that kind of abuse are very, very expensive, which is why even "affordable" Eleiko Olympic weightlifting bars cost $829 new.

The Rogue 2.0 and Bella 2.0 bars use oiled brass bushings instead of bearings. No, they don't spin as nicely as bearings. Yes, you do have to oil them every couple months to keep them spinning nicely. But, they keep costs down, and unless you have a shot at qualifying for the USAW American Open, you really don't need to spend the money on a high-end bearing bar.

What about other options for recreational lifters? I'll cover Rogue bars only, but you can find equivalent bars at Again Faster.

If you're a generalist, like Aimee and I are, you could go with the Rogue Ohio Bar. It's more expensive than the Rogue 2.0 bar, but you can get it in several different finishes that are more rust-resistant than the black zinc coating on the Rogue 2.0 bar. You can even get them finished in multiple Cerakote colors. My favorite (of course) is the Operator bar ($325), which comes in O.D. green, or desert tan. It's cool, but my garage is nice and dry, so I don't anticipate needing the more protective coating.

If you plan to stick with the slow lifts (squat, deadlift, bench press, overhead press), the Ohio Power Bar ($245 and up) is a better bet. It's a power lifting bar, so it has a larger diameter shaft (29 mm), and higher tensile strength (205,000 lb/square inch). That makes it much stiffer, which is better for the slow lifts. When performing squats, deadlifts and presses, you want the minimum flex possible. Additionally, the Ohio Power Bar has center knurling, which helps keep it on your back during the back squat, and all its knurling is more aggressive for better grip.

If you're willing to spend more, you could go with the Westside Power Bar ($325), which Rogue co-developed with Louie Simmons, head coach of Westside Barbell, which has produced more power lifting champions than any other gym. Honestly, I don't know what (if anything) makes it any better than the Ohio Power Bar, but if you want to spend the additional cash, go for it.

PLATES

HERE is where you can cheap out, if you want to.

I went with Rogue LB Training 2.0 bumper plates. They're color coded (55 lb, 45 lb, 35 lb and 25 lb), and made of high density rubber with a large steel disk in the middle.

I like them because you can drop them when performing the clean, clean and jerk, and the snatch.



Unfortunately, they're expensive - $883 for a 320 lb set. You can get cheaper bumper plates, but because they have smaller disks in the center, and they're made with lower density rubber, they don't last nearly as long.

But you don't have to spend nearly as much as I did.

Plates don't do a whole lot. They just rest on the bar's sleeves and provide resistance (weight). If you don't care about being able to drop the weights, go with cast iron plates, which are relatively inexpensive, and will last forever. In fact, you don't even have to buy them new. There's always someone on Craig's List or Facebook Marketplace selling plates they were too lazy to use.

Do not buy used bars. You never know how the previous owner abused his/her equipment, and bars do require maintenance. But there's very little one can do to damage cast iron plates.

Make sure you get some fractional plates. You're unlikely to find any used ones, because few people know about them. As your training progresses, you'll reach a point where you won't be able to increase the weight on the bar by five pounds at a time. With fractional plates, you'll be able to increase by 2 lb, 1 lb, or even 1/2 lb at a time, which is a lot better than zero. I got my fractional plates from Amazon, because they were cheaper, but I see that's no longer the case.

Fractional plates in 1 lb, 3/4 lb, 1/2 lb and 1/4 lb. Yes, my OSO collars are pink. Sue me.

Lastly, get some collars. Not everyone uses them, but they're important for safety. I prefer OSO collars. They're a lot more secure than the spring collars most gyms use, which means your plates
won't rattle, which means you won't have to stop and readjust your plates ten times per workout. They're a lot more expensive than spring collars, but unless you're running a commercial gym, you only need one pair.

Mini deadlift bar jack in action.

Bonus: a deadlift bar jack is unnecessary, but it sure is handy. It makes loading and unloading a bar on the floor a whole lot easier and faster. I bought the mini jack, because it's less expensive ($62.50) and takes up very little space. If you have the space and the budget, you might consider a full size jack, which is even more convenient, but also a lot more expensive ($165).

The jack makes changing plates a whole lot easier.

Again, I hope this was helpful. Please comment if you have questions and/or suggestions.

In part 3, we'll go over the second most important piece of garage gym equipment - the squat rack.

Garage Gym Part 1 - Overview
Garage Gym Part 3 - The Rack

Garage Gym Part 1 - Overview

No gym membership could ever be as convenient as rolling out of bed, dragging my lazy carcass into my garage, and - still in my PJs (I'm not exaggerating) - lifting weights. It's not for everyone. For some people, the gym is a big part of their social life. Or, they feel the need for the accountability of working out with a group of friends.

But, if - like me - you're a busy curmudgeon, you might benefit from the convenience of a home gym. Obviously, mine is not the only way to build a home gym. Far from it. Very far from it. But it's a good way, and it might give you some ideas that you can customize to your own situation.

THE THOUGHT PROCESS

I don't have a lot of room. I basically have most of one corner of the garage. Consequently, I decided to only use the most versatile equipment possible. Everything has multiple functions. I plan to add more equipment in the future, but - as sparse as this setup may look - I really don't need anything else, other than more plates (more weight). All the things I have in mind for phase 2 are nice-to-haves, not need-to-haves.

Equipment that has multiple uses also saves money.

THE SUPPLIERS

I bought most of my equipment from Rogue Fitness. Some of it I've had laying around for a while, like the bench, and the adjustable dumbbells in the corner. I don't even remember where I got those.

Rogue is one of my two favorite fitness equipment suppliers. The other is Again Faster Equipment. They're about equal in price and quality, but Rogue has gotten a lot bigger over the years, because they're the official equipment suppliers of the CrossFit Games. These days they sponsor strongman, Olympic weightlifting, and power lifting events.

You can't go wrong with either of them. The reason I chose Rogue is that I live a lot closer to Ohio than Florida, and that makes shipping from Rogue a lot less expensive. Either way, their equipment isn't cheap, but it isn't cheap, either. You get what you pay for.

In this case, Rogue's customer service was outstanding, their employees were knowledgeable and helpful, both on the phone and over email, and the delivery prompt. I have no complaints. I wish every company was that good.

The platform is made from plain, old 3/4" plywood from Home Depot and horse stall mats from Tractor Supply.

I made the bar hanger from scrap lumber I had laying around the garage.

The chalk bag hanging from the pull-up bar is for rock climbing. I bought it at a place called The Pathfinder in Manhattan, KS back when I was stationed at Fort Riley, but you can find one - and chalk - at REI or Amazon. You'll want chalk. Trust me.

The black-and-blue things are my knee sleeves, turned inside-out to dry. You may or may not want those.

In part 2, I'll cover the most important equipment in the gym, the bars and plates. Please commend with any questions or suggestions you may have.

Garage Gym Part 2 - Bars & Plates
Garage Gym Part 3 - The Rack

The ATF (GASP!) "Defunded"!

Apparently, some people are gullible enough to believe that the ATF has been "defunded" by the Republicans, and "decimated" by the NRA.

No... seriously.

Apparently, these same people are too lazy to type the words "ATF budget" into google, because that's exactly what I did, and this is what I found on the ATF's website.

Some people are allergic to facts, I guess.

Normalizing Political Violence

Back in 2011, thousands of dirty (literally) Communists called themselves Occupy Wall Street and began squatting in their own filth in public parks in major cities all over the country. From there, they committed a long litany of crimes, including destruction of public and private property, rioting, looting, assault, rape and murder.

ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

And Democrats loved them.

Source: CNN

Describing the protests as “serious” and “encouraging,” Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) praised the sentiment motivating Occupy Wall Street and called for Congress to take heed. “It’s got a clear message, and that is frustration with the way that business is being done, the way that wealth is tilting towards the high end and the middle class is shrinking. And that message needs to be given,” Welch, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told me on Wednesday. What’s more he added, “it’s a real grassroots, citizens-led initiative. It’s not a top-down effort, it’s bottom up. In that sense, I think it’s very similar to the tea party.” 

Other progressive Democrats are even more enthusiastic. “I’m so proud to see the Occupy Wall Street movement standing up to this rampant corporate greed and peacefully participating in our democracy,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). The co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus, Reps. Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva, issued a joint statement to express “solidarity” with the movement, describing themselves as inspired by the mass movement. “We join the calls for corporate accountability and expanded middle-class opportunity,” they wrote. “The silent masses aren’t so silent anymore. They are fighting to give voice to the struggles that everyday Americans are going through,” added Rep. John Larson in his own statement supporting Occupy Wall Street. 

Even Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking House Democrat, agreed that there were similarities between the protesters’ message and Democratic priorities. “Certainly, there is an overlap in terms of jobs and economic opportunity, which they want and we want,” Hoyer told me. Though he didn’t go so far as his Democratic colleagues in embracing the movement wholeheartedly, he said that one “positive aspect” of the protests is that they’re “raising issues and raising concerns and asking policymakers to focus on it.”

Democrat presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, praised Occupy Wall Street.



Sanders is a decades-long Communist apologist who thinks so highly of Communism that he spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union (clearly a romantic vacation spot), praised Communist Fidel Castro and the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and to this day states on his Senate website that...

These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger.

Sure, incomes are more equal in Venezuela. They're so equally bad that people are starving. The exception, is, of course, Venezuela's Socialist leadership, whose income is dong just fine. I took a screen shot, just in case he removes that travesty, but so far he seems quite proud of it.

Communism is the most murderous ideology in history. Communists murdered over 100 million people in the 20th Century alone, and the body count continues in North Korea, Cuba, China and Venezuela.

Communists are just as evil as Nazis, and their body count dwarfs that of the Nazis, so imagine if American politicians embraced and praised "protesters" who wore Hitler tee shirts...

Source

... or described himself as "proud" of a movement that called for "real Nazism"...

Source

... or if American politicians expressed "solidarity" with violent Nazi "protesters"...

Source

Would American politicians who expressed "solidarity" with violent Nazis ever be elected?

What if an American politician loved Nazism so much that he spent his honeymoon in Nazi Germany while the US was at war with Nazi Germany? Would such a politician take second place in a major party's presidential primary?

I'm not trying to change any politician's mind here. Politicians are - for the most part - cynical, amoral opportunists. Instead, I'd like to address those who voted for the politicians who praised violent Communist "protesters".

Would it be morally reprehensible to vote for a politician who praised violent Nazi "protesters"? If so, then why is it morally acceptable to vote for politicians who praised violent Communist "protesters"?

Let me make this as clear as I can for my "liberal" friends. By rewarding (with your vote) politicians who praised violent Communists back in 2011-12, you helped normalize political violence in the US. You're part of the problem.

Now, we've had riots at the presidential inauguration. That's now the norm.


Thanks to you, violence against political opponents is now the norm.


Political violence on college campuses is now the norm.

Violently shutting down speech with which "liberals" disagree is now the norm.

As Stanger, [Charles] Murray and a college administrator left McCullough Student Center last evening following [Murray’s speech] they were “physically and violently confronted by a group of protestors,” according to Bill Burger, the college’s vice president for communications and marketing. 

Burger said college public safety officers managed to get Stanger and Murray into the administrator’s car. 

“The protestors then violently set upon the car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and try to prevent it from leaving campus,” he said. “At one point a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. Public Safety officers were able, finally, to clear the way to allow the vehicle to leave campus. 

“During this confrontation outside McCullough, one of the demonstrators pulled Prof. Stanger’s hair and twisted her neck,” Burger continued. “She was attended to at Porter Hospital later and (on Friday) is wearing a neck brace.”

You threw out the old rules of civil discourse, "liberals". You passively stood by - or even applauded - while violent Leftists shut down free speech on college campuses and political rallies, rioted, looted, vandalized and burned. Then you rewarded politicians who praised the violent mobs by voting for them.

What you don't seem to understand is that the old rules were there to protect you just as much as everyone else, and that others can - and will - follow the new rules you created. And when they do, you won't like it.

Confusing Love and Service With Submission

Jesus washes the Apostles' Feet: John 13

Pastor Doug Wilson recently wrote an article titled 7 Reasons Why Submission is not a Dirty Word. The usual, predictable protestations ensued.  I won't address most of them, only the ones I assume to be offered by people who sincerely desire to obey the Word of God. Here we go.

1. "Yeah, well, Ephesians 5:21 says, 'Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.' You're taking the commandment to wives to submit to their husbands out of context!"

Of course Ephesians 5:21 says what it says. No one denies that. In fact, those who fixate on Ephesians 5:21 take Ephesians 5:21 out of context.

First, let's look at the definition of the word "submit". The word translated "submit" in Ephesians 5:21 is hupotassó (ὑποτάσσω). Its definition is:

to place or rank under, to subject, mid. to obey From hupo and tasso; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey -- be under obedience (obedient) 

Now let's look at the root words: hupo and tasso.

hupo (ὑπό): properly, under, often meaning "under authority" of someone working directly as a subordinate (under someone/something else). 

tassó (τάσσω): properly, arrange (put in order); to place in a particular order, appoint. Commonly used in ancient military language for "designating" ("appointing, commissioning") a specific status, i.e. arranging (placing) in a deliberate, fixed order.

Got that? To submit is to obey, to be under obedience, to work directly as a subordinate to someone else after having been placed in a particular order, arranged in a deliberate, fixed order, analogous to a military unit.

Given the definition of the word hupotassó (ὑποτάσσω), and its military roots, it's obvious that Ephesians 5:21 precedes a set of verses (Ephesians 5:22 - 6:9) that establish a deliberate, fixed order that explains which members of the Church are supposed to submit to which other members of the Church. Wives submit to their own (i.e., not someone else's) husbands (Ephesians 5:22, 24, 33). Children obey (submit to) their parents (Ephesians 6:1). Servants obey (submit to) their masters (Ephesians 6:5-6).

Why does Paul begin with wives? Because the family is the foundation of everything else. Rebellious wives raise rebellious children who become rebellious adults.

Obviously, Paul wasn't stupid, or unrealistic. In fact, he wrote the best treatise on human nature in his Epistle to the Roman Christians. He knew that it's human nature to abuse ones authority. He therefore (inspired by the Holy Spirit) tempered the commandments to submit to authority by commanding those in authority to love their subordinates. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church (Ephesians 5:25-33). Fathers, don't exasperate your children (Ephesians 6:4). Masters, treat your servants well (Ephesians 6:9).

2. "But... but... but... what about when we submit to our friends? What about the kind of submission between equals that we would characterize as amiability and good manners?"

That isn't submission. It's not hupotassó (ὑποτάσσω). It's a form of loving ones neighbor.

 3. "But... but... but... what about Jesus washing his disciple's feet? Wasn't that an act of submission? Didn't he teach that we should all submit to one another by washing each other's feet?"

No, and no. Let's look at John 13, the scripture that details that event.

John 13:3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power [note the hierarchy and authority in that statement ~ O], and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4 so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. 

6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” 7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” 8 “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” 9 “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!” 10 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

Remember the definition of the word "submit" - hupotassó (ὑποτάσσω):

to place or rank under, to subject, mid. to obey From hupo and tasso; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey -- be under obedience. 

Who was the disciple (hupo [ὑπό]: under authority, subordinate) and who was the teacher in that scenario? Who obeyed whom? Under whose authority did God the Father place all things?

Clearly, Peter was the disciple, the subordinate, the one under authority. Just as clearly, Peter obeyed Christ, not the other way around. Christ wanted to wash Peter's feet. Peter didn't want Christ to wash his feet. Christ told peter that unless Christ washed his feet, Peter had no part with Christ. Peter, then obeyed - submitted (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]) to - Christ, and Christ washed his feet.

Christ did not submit (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]) to Peter. Peter submitted (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]) to Christ. When Christ washed His disciples' feet, it was an act of service and love, not submission. They're not the same thing.

My two-year-old daughter is potty training. She still has potty accidents. Sometimes she wants Mom to wipe her poopy butt when Mom is busy with our six-month-old baby, so I have to wipe my daughter's poopy butt even though she wants Mom to do it. My daughter, then, obeys - submits (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]) to - me and I wipe her poopy butt.

Wiping another person's poopy butt is just about the lowliest, most servant-like act one human can perform for another, yet when I wipe my daughter's poopy butt, it's not an act of submission on my part. It's an act of service and love on my part. It's an act of submission on her part. They're not the same thing.

Love and service are not submission. Obedience is submission.

Christians who claim that Ephesians 5:21 commands all Christians to submit to all other Christians misunderstand the definition of the word submit (hupotassó [ὑποτάσσω]), or they confuse love and service with submission, or they're simply not thinking logically.

How can two objects be simultaneously "placed under" each other? How can two peers "rank under" each other? How can they be "under authority" to each other? How can they "work directly as a subordinate to" each other? How can they "obey" or be "under obedience" to one another? What if they take turns submitting to each other? Doesn't that violate the concept of working directly as a subordinate to someone else (hupo [ὑπό]) after having been placed in a particular order, arranged in a deliberate, fixed order (tassó [τάσσω])? In fact, isn't that the opposite of a deliberate, fixed order?

One has to perform some serious mental gymnastics to misconstrue Ephesians 5:21 as a commandment for all Christians to submit to one another.

4. "But.. but... but... isn't wifely submission just a cultural construct? Couldn't one argue that this is the position of the culture at the time and therefore Paul's admonishing so that the word of God may not be blasphemed was how the outsiders would have understood the ideal household?"

Sure, one could argue that it's a cultural construct, but that doesn't make the argument valid.

1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Is that hierarchy - which includes God the Son and God the Father - an eternal, God-created deliberate, fixed order, or a temporary, man-made cultural construct?

Why do sincere Christians go to such absurd lengths to deny that the Bible says what it so obviously says? Because what the Bible says violates their feminist sensibilities, and therefore embarrasses them. Lest you think that conservative, Bible-believing Christians can't be feminists, remember the quote I keep repeating.

“Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society, the way that a child catches the measles.” ~ Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture

American culture is thoroughly feminist, and has been for decades. The vast majority of modern American Christians - even conservative ones - have marinated in feminism their entire lives, and don't even realize it. They're fish who don't know they're wet.

Let's stop pretending that the Bible says something other than what it actually says. And let's stop being ashamed of it.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.  

Belle is a Stuck-Up Snob

In "honor" of the impending release of the live action version of Beauty and the Beast, I'll address an issue that has bothered me since the first time I watched the animated version in 1992. Belle is a stuck-up snob. Watch this.



Belle patiently and graciously tolerates her neighbors' boring doltishness with little more than a sigh, a roll of the eyes and a shake of her head, but in case we didn't catch her contempt for them, she makes sure to refer to them as "provincial".

pro·vin·cial: prəˈvin(t)SH(ə)l/adjective
1. of or concerning a province of a country or empire.
"provincial elections"
synonyms: nonmetropolitan, small-town, nonurban, outlying, rural, country, rustic, backwoods, backwater;
2. of or concerning the regions outside the capital city of a country, especially when regarded as unsophisticated or narrow-minded.
"scenes of violence were reported in provincial towns"
synonyms: regional, state, territorial, district

In case we still didn't catch the film makers' contempt for rural, blue collar people, they beat us over the head with it during the song, "Kill the Beast".

We don't like what we don't understand
In fact it scares us
And this monster is mysterious at least
Bring your guns, bring your knives
Save our children and our wives
So save our village and our lives!
Let's kill the beast! 

Got that? Rural, blue collar people (particularly married fathers with children and wives) are narrow minded, prejudiced, bigoted, paranoid, easily manipulated and prone to violence. Why, some might even call them "deplorable".

Sound familiar?

It should.

It's exactly the prejudiced, bigoted opinion that America's coastal and big-city elites hold of their rural, blue collar countrymen in flyover country.

That's not to say that the film makers deliberately set out to indoctrinate children with an animated blockbuster, nor is that out of the realm of possibility. It's likely that the film makers simply projected their own prejudices onto the screen. They probably see themselves as Belle surrounded by American Idiots. After all, writers often write themselves (or facets of themselves) into their stories' heroes.

If you doubt me, check out Meryl Streep's Golden Globes speech, in which she manages to aggrandize herself and her and her fellow, rich, powerful Hollywood elites, while simultaneously making them all out to be victims. That's quite a feat to pull off. Or, check out David Harbour's (of Stranger Things) even crazier speech at the SAG Awards. Theirs is the standard thought pattern of Hollywood elites, and that group includes the people who made Beauty and the Beast.

Back to Belle: her contempt for her neighbors is ironic, considering that their lives would go on just fine without her, but hers is impossible without them. Her neighbors include bakers, butchers, tailors, farmers, fishmongers..... BOOOOOOORIIIIIIING! Right? But if they all disappeared, what would she eat? What would she wear?

By contrast, the movie never shows Belle contributing anything of value to her town. Sure, she's beautiful and smart, but she does nothing of value with those gifts. And they are gifts. Both beauty and intelligence are mostly hereditary. She could teach children, for example, but she doesn't even do that.

Even her father, though eccentric, invents useful machines, and yet the story presents him as a lovable, intelligent buffoon.

This is the same kind of contempt of which I wrote earlier.

... what's wrong with men who work in skilled trades?  After all, they make Ms [Susan] Patton's life, with luxuries and comforts King Solomon could not have imagined, possible.  They extract the fuels and generate the electricity she uses to make a living.  They keep that electricity flowing and swoop in to the rescue when that flow is interrupted.  They build the roads on which every single product Ms Patton owns and uses reached its intended destination, and drove those products to her.  Surely, the fancy restaurants Ms Patton frequents cook with natural gas.  Where does she think that natural gas originated?  How did it reach her favorite restaurant?  She probably doesn't think about those questions, because the men who make it happen do their job so well she doesn't have to think about it.

Note that Susan Patton is yet another coastal elite, a Princeton graduate who lives in NYC and writes for the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, etc.

It's also the kind of contempt for people who work with their hands that Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs fame regularly combats.

So, why does it matter that a fictional Disney princess reflects the contempt with which her creators hold blue collar Americans in flyover country? Because...

“Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society, the way that a child catches the measles.” ~ Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture 

This snobbery towards people (the vast majority of them men) who choose to work with their hands and their brains needs to stop, and as long as Americans swim from childhood in an ocean of slanderous contempt towards hard working, decent people in flyover country, it won't stop.

A (dis)Honest Conversation About Race

Soledad O'Brien claims she wants to have "an honest conversation about race", then proceeds to lie to her audience.

O'Brien tells so many lies of both omission and comission that it would take too long to break them all down, so I'll focus on only one of them.

In a roughly 10-year period in New York [City], approximately five million people were stopped [and frisked] by police. Eighty three percent of them were black and Hispanic men... What does it do to people to be considered a suspect constantly in their own neighborhoods because of the color of their skin?

O'Brien believes that the only reason police officers in NYC - and the rest of the country - stop and arrest more blacks than whites is because police officers are racists. That's a lie. Heather Mac Donald explains why. 

Blacks commit over 75% of the shootings in NYC, even though they make up only about 23% of the population. Whites commit about 2% of the shootings in NYC, even though they make up 34% of the city's population. As Ms. Mac Donald explains, using 2011 and 2012 data...

Blacks are 53 percent of stop subjects, though they are 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites are 9 percent of stop subjects, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population. Therefore, conclude Stringer and others, the NYPD targets individuals for stops based on their race rather than on crime patterns and suspicious behavior.

...

The claim ignores the reality that the preponderance of crime perpetrators, and victims, in New York are also minorities. Blacks, for example, constituted 78% of shooting suspects and 74% of all shooting victims in 2012, even though they are less than 23% of the city's population. 

Whites, by contrast, committed just over 2% of shootings and were under 3% of shooting victims in 2012, though they are 35% of the populace. Young black men in New York are 36 times more likely to be murdered than young white men—and their assailants are virtually always other black (or Hispanic) males. 

Given such a crime imbalance, if the NYPD focuses its resources where people most need protection, the effort will inevitably produce racially disparate enforcement data.

Police departments that do their job concentrate their efforts in the neighborhoods with the highest crime rates. In NYC, those neighborhoods are largely populated by blacks. Because of that, most of the people the NYPD stops and frisks are black. But Soledad O'Brien blames that on racism.

To illustrate the audacity of Ms. O'Brien's lie, think about this for a second.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 93.3% of prisoners in the US are male. Clearly that must be the result of anti-male sexism, right? Of course not! Obviously, most prisoners are male because males commit the vast majority of crimes. Likewise, the incarceration rate among black Americans is much higher than the incarceration rate among Hispanic Americans, white Americans and Asian Americans (in that order) because the crime rate among black Americans is far higher than the crime rate among Hispanic Americans, white Americans and Asian Americans (in that order).

In her speech, Soledad O'Brien stated that...

You cannot advance good if you don't confront bad, and you cannot seek renewal if you're not willing to dig into the uncomfortable truths about how we got here today.

She's right. But she also refuses to confront uncomfortable truths about crime rates among black Americans, and the reasons for them. Larry Elder doesn't have that problem.

As I pointed out before, fatherlessness is the number one correlating factor among violent criminals...

According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, 60% of rapists, 72% of adolescent murderers, and 70% of long-term prison inmates are men who grew up in fatherless homes. With regard to girls in particular, those raised by single mothers are more than twice as likely to give birth out-of-wedlock, thereby perpetuating the cycle of poverty for yet another generation.

And as I also pointed out in that article, and Larry Elder points out in his video, our welfare system promotes fatherlessness by encouraging women to "marry the state". Soledad O'Brien can't admit that crime rates actually are higher among blacks than whites because if she did she'd have to begin asking why that is, and as every "good" "liberal", she supports the welfare state that rewards fatherlessness and therefore promotes criminality.

In his video, Larry Elder relates the following advice his hard-working, WWII Marine veteran father, who was born in the Jim Crow South, gave him.

Hard work wins. You get out of life what you put into it. You can't control the outcome, but you are 100% in control of the effort. And before blaming other people, go to the nearest mirror and ask yourself, "what could I have done better to change the outcome?" 

Those are the words of a man who sees himself as an active moral agent, not a passive, perpetual victim. A truly honest conversation about race would ask black Americans to go the nearest mirror and ask themselves what they could do to change the out-of-control criminality in their neighborhoods, but Soledad O'Brien wants them to blame white people for all their problems and pretend that black crime rates are no higher than anyone else's.

Apparently, Soledad O'Brien doesn't see black Americans as moral agents, which means she sees black Americans as either not fully human, or as perpetual children, which is ironic, considering that she accuses others of racism. A person who sees black Americans as fully adult humans holds black Americans to the same standards to which he/she holds white Americans, not the lower, childlike standards to which Soledad O'Brien holds them.



A truly honest conversation about race in America would include discussions about how embracing a victim mentality, a sense of entitlement and fatherlessness, glorifying thug culture, and rejecting individual responsibility can only lead to violence, poverty and dysfunction.



Jason Riley, who wrote Please Stop Helping Us, converses honestly about race in America. He explains how embracing a culture of underachievement holds black Americans back (6:36 - 9:40), and much more. Listen to his whole speech and the Q&A if you have time.



Obviously, Soledad O'Brien told some truths. The most effective lies are seasoned with truth to make them more palatable. For example, it's true that the Tuskegee Institute found that 3,446 black Americans were lynched between 1882 and 1968. It's also true that even one is one too many.

But even then she lied by omission, because it's also true that - according to the FBI's Unified Crime Report - black criminals murdered 4,585 black Americans between 2014 and 2015. That means that black criminals murdered more black Americans in two years than racist Southerners lynched in 86 years.

Which is the bigger, more immediate problem; 3,446 black Americans lynched over 86 years ending 49 years ago, or 4,585 black Americans murdered over two years right now? Why does Soledad O'Brien focus on a smaller problem that ended 49 years ago, and ignore a much bigger problem that is ongoing right now?

Because focusing on the current, bigger problem wouldn't help her sell her lies.

What makes me think that Soledad O'Brien is lying, and not just wrong? She worked for CNN, and CNN devotes itself to spreading the lie that blacks are perpetual victims, whites are perpetual victimizers of blacks, and therefore blacks are not responsible for any crimes they commit. For example, CNN pushed the "hands up don't shoot" lie.

Source: News Busters

Michael Brown died because he was a violent thug who stole from a store, assaulted a store employee who confronted him, then attacked a police officer, not because he was an innocent victim of police racism. But CNN pushed the lie before knowing the facts, then, even when it was clear they'd pushed a lie, they refused to admit to their part in pushing the lie and suppressing the truth.

More recently, four black suspects (two males, two females, ranging from 17 to 24 years old) kidnapped and tortured a white 18-year-old mentally disabled man while yelling "f**k Donald Trump" and "f**k white people" at him, and live streamed his torture on Facebook.



If you have the stomach for it, you can find the whole video online, but I won't link to it here.

Chicago kidnapping & torture suspects: ABC News.

CNN's Don Lemon refused to call this horrific crime evil.

I don't think it's evil. I don't think it's evil. I think these are young people and I think they have bad home training. 

When I say who is raising these young people, I have no idea who is raising these young people because no one I know on earth who is seventeen years old or seventy years old would ever think of treating another person like that.

See? It's not their fault, even though they're well above the age of conscience. Why would CNN's Don Lemon refuse to call this horror evil? One of his guests, Symone Sanders, gives us a clue.

We’ve talked about white nationalists and white supremacists and the KKK, but there also, when this inflammatory rhetoric is out there, when someone is repeatedly telling you that your community is the worst of the worst, it brings out the worst of the worst in people. 

That is not a hate crime. Hate crimes are because of a person’s racial ethnicity, their religion, their gender, a disability, it isn’t your political leanings, because someone doesn’t like you’re political leanings and they do something bad to you, that is not a hate crime.

See? It's white people's fault. No matter what four black criminals did to a mentally disabled white man, it's not their fault, because the black criminals are victims of racist whites. Clearly, neither Don Lemon nor Symone Sanders see these four black criminals as active moral agents, like Larry Elder's father saw himself and taught Larry Elder to see himself. Don Lemon and Symone Sanders both display the same refusal to hold black Americans responsible for their own actions that Larry Elder, Chloe Valdary and Taleeb Starkes referenced in their videos.

Clearly, CNN is devoted to pushing lies about race in America, and it stands to reason that they hired Soledad O'Brien because she too is devoted to pushing similar lies.

There's another reason that Soledad O'Brien is clearly lying, and not just repeating a lie she believes. Soledad O'Brien is a professional investigative journalist with the resources of one of the world's biggest news organizations at her disposal. What's more likely; that her investigation never uncovered the facts I presented here, or that she omitted them deliberately? Is it more likely that I'm better at her job than she is, or that she omitted facts that contradict the narrative she wants to push?

The answers are obvious.

Why take the time to expose these lies?

First and foremost, because the truth matters... always. Second, because the lies that CNN and Soledad O'Brien are spreading have gotten hundreds of people killed, the majority of them black.

As Heather Mac Donald states in her video, crime rates - especially murder rates - skyrocketed in many US cities when the "Ferguson Effect" - spurred by media lies about endemic racism among police officers - caused police departments to pull back from high crime, inner city, majority black neighborhoods.

University of Missouri at St. Louis criminologist Richard Rosenfeld has had "second thoughts." Like many academic criminologists, he had pooh-poohed charges that skyrocketing murder rates in many cities in 2015 and 2016 result from a "Ferguson effect" — a skittering back from proactive policing for fear of accusations of racism like those that followed the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014. 

Now, after looking over 2015 data from 56 large cities, he tells The Guardian that he has changed his mind. Homicides in those cities were up 17 percent from 2014. And ten cities, all with large black populations, saw homicides up 33 percent on average. 

"These aren't flukes or blips, this is a real increase," Rosenfeld told reporter Lois Beckett. "The only explanation that gets the timing right is a version of the Ferguson effect."

It gets worse when you look at specific cities. The murder rate in DC increased by 54%. In Baltimore it was 56%. In Cleveland, 90%.

In Chicago, 768 people were murdered in 2016 (as of 27 Dec 2016), compared to 468 in 2015, and 416 in 2014.

How many hundreds (thousands?) of people - most of them black - are dead today because of the lies that Soledad O'Brien, CNN and the mainstream media in general spread?  We'll never know. And Soledad O'Brien, Don Lemon, Symone Sanders and the rest will never care.