It's all about the logic.
What so many people don't get is that I'm all about the logic. Make no mistake, I experience emotion, too - albeit on a much reduced scale than most. It's just that emotions do not drive my behavior.
This whole blog - all seven years and 100,000+ page views - has been my logical take on things. In the rare instance I feel something about a topic, I mention it in passing. But I realize that the vast majority of people are driven to action by their emotion.
Normally, if someone writes hundreds of words about something, it's because they are mad or sad, or insert emotion here. If you actually see me mad or sad, there's a 99% chance it's an act to motivate another person into doing something. Nothing written on this blog was motivated by emotion of any sort.
The only other driving force you will find is a sort of ocd about getting the proper information out there. Misinformation is something I cannot tolerate, and must be corrected. These days, it's fine if someone keeps at it with purposeful misinformation - I fully realize that they either have a "mission" to the contrary of logic (often rooted in rebellion) or are a troll.
So, for clarity and fairness, I shall name this entry - "Post Zero"
If you want further clarification, send me an email and ask, I'll be happy to post about it.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
It's all about the logic.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Luke 22:36 - HCSB
Then He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money-bag should take it, and also a traveling bag. And whoever doesn’t have a sword should sell his robe and buy one.
Recently, Dr. Jerry Falwell, Jr. openly encouraged students at Liberty University to get concealed carry permits and carry.
Recently, John Piper openly discouraged the carry of guns in church.
If you've read this blog even once before, you know how I feel... both about guns, as well as Piper. And if you haven't read this blog before, first - let me say welcome and thank you for reading, second - look at the opening Bible quote and guess which way I'm going with this.
It seems I disagree with Piper on, well, the whole Bible, and now on guns, too. Not surprising. And when he endorses Hillary or Bernie for president, we will add to the list.
For the record, I legally carry everywhere I go. If I cannot legally carry, then I don't go there. I legally carry at church. My pastor, the church staff, and the Elders know I carry. It is with their collective blessing, as well.
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Monday, December 28, 2015
I saw Star Wars: The Force Awakens with my family on opening night. It was a fun movie. Probably about the most entertaining movie of 2015. It WAS the first Star Wars movie my children had seen in a theater. Here are some of my random thoughts on it:
Yes, there was a sense of feminist propaganda in it. Find me a movie these days that doesn't feature that. I took it as an opportunity to teach my kids about what's realistic. If you feel the movie shouldn't be seen because of the feminist BS (at least two major manosphere blogs denounced the movie for same), then why overlook the fact that so much more of the movie is BS - lightsabers, the Force, FTL space travel, laser guns, etc., etc., etc.
The reason I go to see a movie is to be entertained. One thing I find entertaining is to see something I don't see every day. This movie does that.
It was slightly troublesome that a Force initiate was somehow able to hone Force abilities that it took Jedi years of training to accomplish. But the plot hole was needed to move the story forward in the direction it's going.
Kylo Ren - one minute he's a badass, the next, he loses command of the force with only minor distraction. I can forgive him losing command of the Force after stabbing his father, Han Solo. That has to be an emotional moment for anyone. Further, I can see him losing some command of the Force to anticipate Chewie's blaster bolt. Then he's injured, so I can buy it that the injury distracts him some... but not as much as it did. A stormtrooper shouldn't have cracked his defenses in a sword battle. A Force initiate shouldn't have had more power in the Force. There's no way Rey should have bested him in a duel (hello - Luke vs. Vader 1).
Abrams stuck with x-wings for the default good guy ships. I like that. You immediately knew which ships were good and which were bad in a fast moving fight scene.
Don't piss off a wookie. Accurate depiction in my mind of what would happen if you did.
I suspect Luke is Rey's father. If not, she is Han and Leia's daughter. Failing that, she is Obi-Wan Kenobi's granddaughter.
I really didn't like that Kylo Ren's lightsaber didn't have crisp edges. I know the intent was to give it a flaming, edgy look. Just not my favorite. It needed to be crisp like other sabers.
- Captain Phasma has a greater role in the next movie.
- Snoke is really a small creature, not 3 stories tall.
- The series culminates with a lightsaber battle of Luke & Leia & Rey vs. Kylo Ren & Snoke.
- The Millennium Falcon gets destroyed... but a new (similar) ship is introduced.
Friday, December 25, 2015
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Christmas is upon us. I am reminded of a story from my childhood.
I was a boy of ten or twelve. At that time, Pops was really enamored with woodworking. He still is, but can only do so much these days. Anyways, we were out shopping one day, and we came across a set of tables like the one pictured. The set of four plus the stand was priced around $50. Quite a tab for the mid-1980's.
Pops looked at the display tables. He picked them up, opened them, looked at them from every angle, and also looked at the carrier. To say he looked at them is a disservice. Pops analyzed these tables from every angle. He was studying them the way a gemstone expert might evaluate a rare and priceless diamond.
Later that day, we went to the Home Depot, and Pops purchased several batches of wood and other supplies.
Over the next few weeks, he busied himself in his workshop, building away. The saws buzzed, the drill whirled, and the hammer banged.
The weekend before Christmas, my family hosted a party. We had several families over. A dozen, perhaps? Toward the end of the gathering, gifts were exchanged. Pops went to his room and pulled out a set of four TV dinner tables, plus a carrier, for each family. There were "oohs" and "ahhhs." The men weren't having any of it, as they said the gift was too expensive!
Even as a boy, I understood that these people thought Pops had purchased these tables at a store for them. That was a compliment as they could not tell that the tables he gave them were hand made. The tables worked perfectly and actually looked better than the ones at the store. Surely, he had spent over $500 buying gifts for them all, they must have thought.
Little did they know that he had spent only a fraction of that. Maybe $50 in materials for the entire lot of it. And the joy he had in building them added to the benefit of knowing he had pleased his guests with a useful gift. The satisfaction and pride of having his handiwork be confused for a premium item from a major retailer had to boost his self esteem. All of it combined for a tremendous joy of giving.
Some years later, one of the guests - a close, personal friend of the family - learned that Pops had built the tables. They thought that surely he was playing a prank on them by even suggesting that. But we verified it for him, and the secret was out. In the end, I think it added to the value of the gift for that family - knowing that my father had put so much personal time and effort into constructing something they used with great frequency.
There are several great things to take from this story, what did you take from it?
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
After reading that article, a friend of mine pointed out that Obama seems completely detached from reality. Of course, most liberals are detached from reality.
But I have a different theory... one that explains Obama's every action exactly and without fail.
Imagine that you genuinely hated America and everything that the US has been and has stood for over its 200+ year existence. Now imagine that you have been thrust into a position to do something about it. And finally, imagine that you wish to destroy America, but you want to give at least a half-assed cover story so as to prevent a civil war. A civil war you'd most certainly lose - so you have to prevent it.
If a person looks at Obama's actions under that light, then everything he does makes sense.
Monday, December 21, 2015
A recent written conversation was observed:
Infidel Patriot - I'm as wary of the real threat the militant Muslims bring as anybody out there. Regardless, we cannot sell out our rights for perceived security. On this (freedom of religion) or any other right. That said, a moratorium on immigration is not selling out any rights and would make perfect sense at this time.
Liberal Idiot - That makes absolutely no sense. By that reasoning, white men should have been outlawed by now based on all the bombings and mass shootings they've done...but no one talks about that.
Now, clearly, the first comment has to do with not allowing Muslim refugees or immigrants into the US, at least for a time, due to concerns over jihadist activity. A rational comment would address that topic. But here, the Liberal Idiot (LI for short) intentionally changes the topic to avoid discussion of whether a refugee moratorium is needed. Classic emotional response as opposed to rational.
You expect a young child to change the topic when she is in the wrong. It would explain a lot to presume that liberals simply have the mentality of said child. In fact, it could explain almost everything they do or say.
If you find comments like this in your social media feeds, ignore them, or force the issue at hand. Do not let yourself be pulled into their rhetoric. Force logical argument. Or simply dismiss the comments as irrelevant.
Friday, December 18, 2015
From a friend on Facebook -
Im not an Obama fan but from what I see people posting, you clearly didn't listen to his speech. Seriously, why make posts without facts. I get that people hate him, which I'm sorry you have room for hatred, but twisting and adding words makes it false. Maybe I heard it differently, but I know for a fact he said nothing about taking away our guns, he definitely called out the muslim community to handle their radicals and work with us to stop them. I get that you dont like him, i dont either, but don't just make shit up to push your agenda, it makes you just a dumb. On the other hand props to the Australian Prime Minister, she definitely has a pair!
I get all of these points. I don't agree with them, but I do understand where they come from.
The main sticky point here is one of semantics. When Obama and his ilk speak of making it harder for some people to get guns, he ultimately means he wants to make it harder for you to get guns.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Why are do many liberals and feminists turning atheist? Here are some possibilities:
- Attention. You could probably end the discussion here if you wanted.
- Popularity. It's becoming the "in" thing with their ilk.
- Rebellion. It goes against the established way things have always worked.
- Unanswered prayers. Like the meme here, they only pray when there's an active shooter. They pray the shooter is a militia member (hasn't happened), or just a white Christian NRA member (also hasn't happened).
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
My son just asked me why my stomach was so big...I told him it was because I was fat...I then followed it with it's because him and his brother ruined my body....probably not the most diplomatic answer, but I have always taught my children to be honest so I should display that for them, right?
The problem is, that answer is not accurate, and she knows it. Sure, her stomach is big because she is fat. But she is not fat because of having children. She is fat because of a refusal to eat right and exercise.
But, this is a liberal we are dealing with... so, very soon, it will be because of the high-capacity assault forks.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Recently, I attended another training class. This one on breaching and clearing (again, for me), as well as shooting while moving.
Breaching and clearing
Breaching and clearing went much as before, but with some twists. This instructor has among his credentials, time spent teaching CQB to Navy SEALs. So he had a few more techniques at his disposal that the students were familiarized with. In addition to button hooks and modified breaching - which comprised all of what we had done before - we were taught "Israeli Limited" entry. This is a good option if there are only two operators.
Israeli Limited also works with teams of 3 or more, and I like it so much that I think it should be a standard tactic of all fire teams. In fact, I think it should be the default tactic of a fire team. It's even more aggressive than standard same-side entry, and actually safer for the operator at the same time. However, Israeli Limited might not be appropriate if the room to enter has an open doorway.
Areas of Responsibility
Also covered was a modification of areas of responsibility. Typically, a left-right-center or a right-left-center would be the rule of thumb. However, when clearing a large or long room, another tactic might be to go left-center-right (or right-center-left). The catch is that the 2nd operator must not get caught in "the funnel." If the first man goes left, and the second man goes center, but sees contact (an enemy) to the right, then he must shift midstream and apply force to the enemy. The third operator must then take center, reacting to the actions of the second operator.
Also, we covered shooting and moving. First drill was to walk forward with our rifle pointed at the target while balancing a coin. If the coin dropped, you stopped at that place. We did this drill until most of the students could move the entire 20 yards without dropping the coin. I made the entire 20-yard trip without fail all four times.
Shoot & move
We did a drill where seven shooters lined up. On command, the shooters would steady walk toward the target and fire when commanded. One might fire 5-15 rounds per drill. Sometimes, the command was to "fire 2," or even "fire 3."
Sprint & shoot
We did a drill where we had to, on command, sprint several yards to cover, take cover, then fire three rounds at the target. I had fun with this.
I ran each drill with my SPR, my M16A4, and my M4. The A4 wore only iron sights. The SPR has an ACOG with piggyback red dot, and the M4 has a red dot.
The irony of American liberalism is this -
Everything liberals stand for is anti-social.
Every "opinion" liberals hold is anti-social.
Everything liberals value is anti-social.
Without society as we know it, there could not exist liberalism as we know it.
Our society protects its most defenseless - liberals.
Our society offers the luxury of liberalism - as liberalism is not a reflection of "survival of the fittest" in any form and would be destroyed in nature without the intervention of man.
So, the very society that offers them the only opportunity to be liberal is that against which they lash out with their anti-social behaviors, desires, and "values."
Or, as my mom used to say, liberals "bite the hand that feeds them."
Monday, December 14, 2015
And what's worse, they have no clue that they have no clue...
This was a discussion recently witnessed on FB -
Leftist - Who will make sure our drugs are safe?! Who will make sure our food is safe?
Anarchist - You are such a brave woman. I could never trust something that Republicans control to keep my drugs or food safe. You're definitely braver than I am!
Leftist - The FDA isnt a republican/democratic institution. I don't follow
Here, let me make it simple:
See that part that says "FEDERAL?" That means it is controlled by the government. The part of the government that passes laws (makes regulation) is the Congress. This means the FDA is controlled (regulated) by Congress. Congress is currently controlled by Republicans.
Oh, the poor leftist just doesn't get it.
They rarely do.
Friday, December 11, 2015
Laws prevent nothing.
All a law can do is punish something that has already happened. A law cannot prevent the next bad thing from happening.
A thief wants to steal from you.
A socialist democrat wants the government to steal from you.
See the difference?
Both liberty and tyranny can be too much for a person to handle.
Liberty is too much for a moron to handle.
Tyranny is too much for an intelligent person to handle.
It's so adorable when left-wing outlets try to pass themselves off as news and information.
Kind of like when my son used to put on a mask to play as Iron Man.
And both situations involve just as much make-believe.
Gun control never takes guns away from criminals.
Banning guns will not keep them out of the hands of criminals.
What's legal for the government yet not for the people is the Avenue by which tyranny will (not "might") take hold.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Pops was shopping. He was in a motorized cart. He had been shopping in this particular store for about 10 minutes, and had several items in the basket. Also in the basket was Pops' walking cane.
Reminder: Pops has no right foot (amputation mid-shin) and only half of his left foot (another amputation).
Pops was standing to reach an item placed up high, when suddenly - out of nowhere - a fat lady sneaks up and gets in his cart and drives off. She even takes his shopping items with her!
Pops chases her down. She begins all the excuses we have heard before... "oh, it's just so hard for me to walk," etc. Pops had not asked for an excuse, but the guilty often try to preemptively excuse their actions.
But Pops wasn't chasing her down to get the cart back, or anything like that. He picked up his walking cane.
"I just wanted to get my cane before you drove off too far," Pops said - pointing at his pant-leg which was pulled up, exposing his prosthetic leg & foot.
Some people have no shame.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
As always, to understand the liberal point, one must remember that their mindset is the same as a young, emotional child. When one understand this, all of the rest of their points make a little bit more "sense." Add to that the concept that liberals simply wish to "rebel" against conservative ideas more than they wish to actually do anything else. So, they go around looking for conservative ideas, and then they try to "rationalize" a counterpoint.
All too often, the counter point has no rationale.
So lately, the Liberals have been blaming Christians for "not demonstrating love" - all because the Christians don't want to accept more refugees into the country, and risk further terrorist attacks.
Why the liberal argument holds no water.
If a person values the ability to murder an unborn child, yet wishes to preach about the humanitarianism of showing love to refugees, then their argument is completely invalid. Murder one group of people but you must show love to another? Hypocrisy anyone?
Liberals want our government to give the charity to these refugees. But, they don't want to give the charity themselves. This is nothing new. Historically, liberals really don't want to give as much themselves; they just want the government to give, because the government must take from you first.
Liberals were never serious about wanting true Christian morality either. Otherwise, why did they mock Christians just weeks later?
Why the realist ideas to hold water.
It is a demonstration of love, to want to keep your family, friends, and society safe.
It might be true that Jesus Himself might have accepted the refugees. However, He is both all-knowing and all-powerful. Two qualities that humans do not possess. He would be able to tell who intended harm, and be able to do something about it beforehand. People do not have that ability.
There is no violation of Constitutional rights. While all people have fundamental human rights, non-citizens do not have American rights.
And really... why are liberals not holding Muslim countries' feet to the fire, and requiring them to take in refugees too? Where is the outrage there?
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
When different people see this group at the range...
The guy who is a novice - "You missed the bullseye."
He intentionally ignores the fact that if you wanted to, that bullseye would be no more... and he ignores that because he feels useless because he cannot.
The guy who has shot a fair amount, but never had training - "Dang! Been shooting all your life, too?"
This guy thinks the only way to get better is to shoot more - which is partially true. Still, he would never consider getting training.
The person who can shoot similarly - "What barrel / trigger?"
He knows you've trained. He has trained. He immediately knows which of you is better, but it doesn't matter... because he knows you are both on the same side, travelling the same path.
Monday, December 7, 2015
Liberals often cannot or refuse to see their own cases of hypocrisy. One on Facebook made these comments... totally unaware, I'm sure, of the irony.
Statement 1 -
(In response to the question of whether she would accept Syrian "refugees" into her home)
Yes I would. I've worked with the homeless and immigrant population. We have a guest bedroom and an office and I would love to, as an atheist, to extend grace to them, in a way that so many Christians would not.
Statement 2 -
Well, my mom has a way of inviting people to family get togethers without asking permission of the host. This is happened several holidays now with a random African immigrant named [redacted] coming to join in our celebrations.
Friday, December 4, 2015
A few days ago, my friend, Lefty, wrote a good article on some of his random thoughts. The entire article was relevant. Many parts caught my attention, for differing reasons. One part of particular note that stood out to me -
I hate it when people compare liberalism to a mental illness. It’s a slam on the mentally ill. Mental illness is an actual medical condition that is often treatable with medication and/or psychotherapy. The mentally ill can’t help the way they are. Liberalism, on the other hand, is just plain willful stupidity that isn’t treatable.
In the past, I've gone on the record on this blog, Facebook, and Twitter, stating my opinion that liberalism is a mental disorder. So when I read Lefty's post, I immediately agreed... and disagreed. The logic centers in my brain were fired. I was at odds with myself, and being a logical individual, I must say that rarely happens. But why did that happen? Why did my logical brain both agree and disagree?
Usually, when "both sides" of an argument make sense, one side of the argument is shaded by having specific exclusions or parameters. However, on the surface, this did not seem the case, so I dug deeper. What I observed of liberals both in real life, as well as their online personalities, was definitely eye-opening.
It would seem that liberalism is a mental disorder, and simultaneously is not a mental disorder. How can that be? Simple... we must look at the motivations for being liberal. Of note, I found three major motivations for being liberal:
Often, this is the educated person over the age of 30. Think college professors and the like. These people see facts, but just don't want to accept them, so they create a fantasy world wherein liberalism is the answer.
Some people are born smarter than others. We all learned this in elementary school. Some of the more mentally unfortunate wind up being liberals because when a person is more unintelligent, they seem to be more emotional. Vice-versa is generally true, as well. Liberals often confuse the ideas of "I think" and "I feel" and this is your telltale sign.
I'm not 100% sure yet if there are ranges of mental illness that predispose a person to liberalism, or if liberalism is a specific mental illness (or series of mental illnesses) but itself. Either way, the mental illness (which, as Lefty pointed out, is treatable) puts a person into a state of reduced mental capacity such that Stupidity or Willful Ignorance take place. The good news here is that the liberal condition can be remedied with the afore-mentioned treatments.
So, there you have it. My take on three types of liberal motivations. What say you?
Posted via Blogaway
Thursday, December 3, 2015
If you came here looking for a pistol suggestion, then I'm afraid I've got some bad news.
In some recent group training classes I've attended, I've noticed a trend in the side arms worn by fellow Patriot gunfighters. Many men and women wear their concealed carry pistol as a primary sidearm with their battle load out. I wear a full size Smith & Wesson M&P as my battle load out side arm, and a S&W Shield as my concealed carry piece.
It would stand to reason that there are several reasons a person might use a single pistol for both purposes:
- Financial concerns. The gunfighter may only have funds for one sidearm at this time.
- Train like you fight. The gunfighter may not wish to burden himself with learning two different platforms. This makes a lot of sense if a person is concerned he may get the manipulations wrong in the heat of the moment.
- Platform uniformity. This idea is substantially similar to that of training like you fight. The major difference is that a battle load out often has multiple pistol magazines. Therefore, a shrewd gunfighter may decide to consolidate gear as well as training time on pistol manipulation.
Because I've spent considerable time training, and because I keep my platforms simple, I actually feel there's an advantage to having a large sidearm for battle load out, and a smaller gun for concealed carry. If I have to draw a pistol in battle, a lot of things have gone wrong, and I want as big a pistol with as many rounds as possible at my disposal.
That said, there is also wisdom in using your concealed carry pistol as your battle side arm.
At the end of the day, this is a preference - the answer to which is both are right.
Yesterday there was another mass killing.
Again, it was perpetrated by a member of the "religion of peace."
Again, it was in a place with heavy gun restrictions.
Again, it was the centerpiece of a call for more gun control by the left.
Again, the left wants more gun control.
Again, the left refuses to admit the threat posed by the "religion of peace."
Again, the left wants to take my guns and yours, despite the fact that we have never harmed anyone.
Well, I refuse to believe their rhetoric.
Again, there is no logic to it.
Again, it ignores facts.
Again, there is an underlying desire to control in their message.
Why would they be so wrong, so often?
Maybe it is willful ignorance.
Maybe it is plain stupidity.
Maybe it is an untreated mental illness.
But the truth is simple - regardless of the left's motivation for misleading propaganda, I refuse to gain facts from or lend credence to a person who is willfully ignorant, or stupid, or mentally ill.
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
I participated in a training class a while back that covered breaching and clearing as well as serving as an introductory to fire team reconnaissance. It was attended by folks who had done patrolling as a prerequisite. There were 10 of us in the Recon class, and another 7 learning in a patrolling class nearby.
Recon work is a lot like patrolling. The main difference is to maintain noise and light discipline, and to remain undetected.
Our "mission" was to patrol with the intent to do reconnaissance, and we were learning under the cover of night. Upon making contact with a patrol squad, our team immediately dropped into a prone position in order to remain concealed.
Each man in our squad had a sector, or zone of fire / responsibility. It was a pie-shaped area to our front open to about 45 degrees.
We were to make observations -
How many were the "enemy"?
Noticeable traits (weaker team member / etc.)?
Who was the leader?
What seemed to be their target / objective?
Other obvious / important things of note?
After we (successfully) completed our mission, the course took us to more breaching and clearing. We were in teams of five. Not a lot of new information here from my previous class. However, some important notes:
- If your team takes fire while exiting, wounded are to be pulled back deeper into the cleared structure.
- Watching a man breach and clear with an M1 Garand is truly a beautiful sight. Even more so when he uses the bayonet.
- Shoot. Move. Communicate.
It cannot be said enough.
- Don't get caught "in the funnel."
(Inside joke - sorry, sir... uh, I mean... sorry, f***er).
Monday, November 30, 2015
First, you must understand some basics. SHTF situations, are not only plausible, but have a degree of likelihood. Hurricane Katrina, LA riots, etc. So there is logic in being prepared. Since there is logic in being prepared, then those who belittle being prepared are not thinking logically. Instead, they are thinking emotionally.
Human children are known for letting their emotions get the better of them. Sadly, many grown women (and gamma males) have often faced no real consequences in life for their actions, and thusly fall into this category, as well. So, if someone is reacting emotionally (ridiculing your preparations), then the only logical means of handling the situation is to resort to treating that person as the child they are.
If you are new to this type of response, then please, dear reader, Google it. One of the best methods of dealing with children and those ruled by emotion over logic.
Agree & Amplify
This is primarily a method for dealing with shit-tests. However, when dealing with a grown person behaving emotionally, then it becomes a good tool to use. Agree with their statements and amplify them to ridiculous proportions. Best used in situations where looking like a jerk won't harm other interactions.
Dismiss & Ignore
Works in 1-on-1 situations. This might be your best defense. Also known as walking away. The implication here is that the other party's statement is so asinine, that they can no longer be taken as being serious nor credible.
Ridicule & Reframe
This might be a better option in social gathering scenarios than Agree & Amplify. Keep it short, and factual. Remember, people don't win arguments with long drawn out explanations. Arguments are won with zingers:
"So you don't think there will ever be another LA riot or Hurricane Katrina?!?! Let me guess, nothing bad ever happens in your world. I bet you don't even keep a fire extinguisher at your house either! Glad I'm not your insurance agent!!!"
Friday, November 27, 2015
Generally speaking, someone who prematurely interrupts conversations like this to interject will be a liberal, Calvinist, feminist, someone arguing based on emotion, or someone who does not take a stand based on logic. Here are some situations that the author was either a part of, or privy to, or that were submitted by readers:
[The rest of the statement will be put in brackets]
Situation - a trainee and an assistant manager were discussing sales statistics. Goal for promotion was a sales rate of 30%. Obviously, with any statistic, we are dealing with averages. Keep that in mind.
Trainee: So far, my averages [have been over 40%, and it only takes 30% to get promoted.]...
Ass. Mgr.: You don't want to be just average!
***** ***** ***** *****
Situation - at the eye doctor, a patient is discussing his medical history as is pertinent to vision. The patient advises he has diabetes, and the doctor asks how that is being controlled / managed. Evidently, the optometrist felt he was a cardiologist as well.
Patient: I went low carb / Paleo, and eat mostly meats and greens ... [and have lost over 100 pounds, cut cholesterol levels in half, have gone off all meds, and have completely controlled blood-glucose levels]
Doctor: You realize that diabetes carries with it a risk of high cholesterol, heart disease, and these risks are the most prevalent early indicators of heart attack.
***** ***** ***** *****
Situation - two people, recently introduced, discuss their careers. She asks him what he does for a living.
Marketing Rep: I'm a marketing rep for an industrial soap company. It's kind of like a pharmaceutical rep... [only instead of drugs and doctors, I deal with industrial cleaning facilities and soaps]
Airhead: Oh, pharmaceutical reps make really good money. I have a nephew that works for one...
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Recently, I had the privilege of attending a class on breaching and clearing. The instructors for the day included a current US Army infantryman, and two retired US Army soldiers. Attendees included young men and women and several of us in our 40's. About 20 students overall. The course was designed for civilians in SHTF scenario.
Breaching and clearing in a SHTF scenario might be necessary for any of a number of reasons. Reasons may include assault on an enemy stronghold, searching for supplies, or simply reclaiming one's own property that has been taken away. These lessons center around a core 4-man fire team, but can easily translate to 3-man teams and 5-man teams. Only minor modifications are needed for squads (2 fire teams - usually 8-12 men) or platoons (2-4 squads).
First order was to take a look at the basics via Power Point Demonstration.
Second up was a safety briefing, as we were about to go to the live range.
Next part was breaching and clearing in 4-man fire teams. We used actual rifles of our choice that had been cleared (no live ammo, and you'll see why in a moment).
Last was a 1-5 drill.
For a four man team. If the door is locked, the point man calls for the 4th man to come up and breach the door (via kick, crowbar, shotgun, etc.). Once the door is breached, the building is entered swiftly. The point man goes left or right, depending on what he sees. Second man goes opposite the point man. Third man goes center. Fourth man runs security - covering the rear of the team.
The remaining three men bunch up, and proceed to take additional rooms in the same fashion.
At all times, your task is to either shoot, move, or communicate.
Exiting the building can be just as hazardous to your health as entering.
There are special tactics for specific problems encountered by problematic layouts. One such example might be when a fire team is going down a hall and there are two doors - one left and one right - at the same spot. Another such problem is if a hall dead-ends into a perpendicular hallway. All angles must be covered and cleared.
The US Army infantry book has a lot of information. As does the US Army Ranger book.
I ran breaching and clearing drills and 1-5 drills with three of my rifles - SPR, M16A4, and an M4. On my SPR, I alternated between an Aimpoint and an ACOG (with piggyback red dot), and I found most drills to be virtually identical. The 1-5 saw a marked advantage with the Aimpoint.
Having a "musket" (M16A4 clone) limited maneuverability slightly, but not as much as some would have you believe. Oh, and the retired Army guys really got a kick out of seeing a man successfully breaching and clearing with a rifle. When they found out I own an M1, they asked if I'd do a breaching and clearing round with the M1... sadly, I'd left it at home.
Fitness is crucial. I never got winded nor tired. In fact, in a group debriefing, it was a shock to some of my fellow 40-plus folk that I was in their age bracket.
Marksmanship is crucial. It didn't take long (end of the first string of 5 rounds) for the instructors to realize that my marksmanship was tops among the students present. Of course, they were eager to see if I had any speed for the 1-5 drills... and they were not disappointed.
"Driving" your rifle (or carbine) is crucial when changing targets, and when clearing.
I loaned out my rifle and my carbine to other shooters for clearing and shooting drills. The younger shooters really liked the M4 carbine I brought and the Eotech sight on it. The older guys really liked the M16A4 clone. Several asked me about how to build one.
Our host was a remarkable host. Attentive, and a quality instructor. He went out of his way to make sure everyone felt welcome. No names here, but I'd worked with him before, and he is as quality a guy as you're likely to come across.
Watch for windows.
Gear & Weapons
I think I may buy a Primary Arms red dot and put on the M16A4 clone. That, plus the Primary Arms PAC3X scope would make an ideal combo.
My SPR was as fast as any carbine, weighs similar to a carbine, had the least recoil on the range, and still retains most of the velocity of a 20" rifle. This shall be my go-to SHTF gun. Of course, I already knew that... I'd built the gun specifically around that type of mission.
My drop-leg holster for my sidearm drops a but more than I prefer. This shall be remedied.
Aimpoint for total speed, but my ACOG with piggyback red dot is just fine for what I'll likely be doing if SHTF.
Some folks had iron sights fall off, front BUIS fall off, optics fall off, and one gentleman even had his takedown pin fall completely out (whoever assembled it had not put in the retaining pin and spring). My weapons had zero issues, and that was as expected.
Personal Training Notes
How to adapt what I've learned into my skillset, and what I've done in the past that helped in this class.
1. Continue with walking, sprints, pushups, dips, pullups, squats.
2. Speed drills changing targets are good.
3. Marksmanship is essential.
4. Learning mindset is essential.
5. My personal load out is pretty good overall.
We did the 1-5 drill, and it's a good drill. At this time, I would prefer the Army 2-2-2 drill. It will get more shots on multiple targets in a faster time... and still allows for followup if an enemy combatant is not out of the fight after 2 shots. If I have a reader who has seen actual combat (I haven't) who would disagree, post a comment or email me. Don't just say 2-2-2 doesn't work - give me a drill that works better instead.
It is important to be honest with oneself. I labor under no false pretenses of my role in a particular fire team in SHTF. If anyone in certain of my circles makes it past day 1 of SHTF, then my most likely role in a fire team (in order) is SDM, medic, rifleman.
As long as automatic weapons are forbidden for civilians, then I think a civilian fire team should base all movement around the SDM... and that's not just because I can personally fill that role. It's because reconnaissance and accurate fire will become much more important since civilians cannot call in air support. Again, if there's anyone who has actual combat experience who can give me an alternative, then I'm open to hearing it and changing my mind.
Get out there and train. It's one thing to occasionally be able to hit the middle of a target. It's another thing altogether to be able to rapidly and proactively engage multiple threats.
Posted via Blogaway
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Lately, there's been some lobbying by the Miesha Tate camp, stating that Tate would like to be the next match for UFC Bantamweight Champion, Holly Holm.
I would like to see that match, for several reasons -
- Rousey needs some time to recover. Add to that a proper training camp, and a Holm - Rousey rematch should be no less than 8 months from their fight.
- Holm would do well to get another fight under her belt between now and then.
- Tate was declared the #1 contender after her last win. To his credit, Dana White went back on his word and put together a more interesting fight (Holm - Rousey).
Also, now that the UFC judges have seen that a counter-puncher strategy is not only "legitimate," but can also be downright devastating, expect Holm to get a better shake if the fight goes to the judges. In her fight against Pennington, it was a split decision, even though Holm executed the counter-puncher strategy to perfection. The problem is that MMA is still relatively new, as are the judges. Many had never given thought to that sort of style of fighting prior to Holm's win over Rousey.
In short - I'm all for a Holm - Tate title match. It would be fun. I would predict a 3rd round TKO by Holm to retain the championship.
Take this statement:
People, the government paves our roads, takes care of forests, funds our military, funds our elections, funds our educations via elementary-high schools, gave away lands (ever heard of the homestead act?), the federal government laid millions of miles of phone lines!, the feds build our damns [editorial note - "dams"] which create hydoelectric power, funds our elderly, funds our FDA the EPA (public health!), funds our canals and airports, we let places like walmart pay their employees crap so we fund their food stamps while their owners make billions, we fund basically EVERYTHING....yet the one thing that EVERYONE really needs is to have HEALTHCARE!!! And we don't fund that?! #headfrickingdesk #singlepayer #notallsocialismisbad!
And prior to 1900, the private sector did virtually all of these things, save the Homestead Act. While most people certainly need authority (this "person" especially), the government's job should be limited to doing things the private sector cannot or ought not.
And yes, all socialism is bad.
Monday, November 23, 2015
When this country was founded, it was organized as a representative republic. As time passed and things changed, mostly within the last 100 years, the US has morphed into a democracy. A quick study of history will reveal that a democracy soon becomes a socialist / communist / Marxist state. Another quick study of history will demonstrate that no socialist / communist / Marxist country has ever survived long term.
All socialism / communism / Marxism is bad.
Or, for those who require hashtags...
Restrict the right to vote to only those individuals age 21 and over, who actually pay federal income taxes.
This idea is based on the premise that we keep the current income tax structure in the US.
For those who want a fair tax, then restrict voting rights only to those whose sum of taxes paid is in the top 50th percentile.
Income tax or fair tax, a person who has not met the requirement for at least 2 out of the last 3 years and 3 out of the last 5 years cannot vote.
Require military service as a condition to earn the right to vote. In addition to meeting the tax requirements.
Felons shall be disallowed to vote. However, a felon who has ten full and consecutive calendar years of tax requirements and clean record shall earn back all rights, including the right to vote.
Elected officials would be required to be eligible voters. If, in any calendar year, an elected official lost the right to vote - via felony or failure to pay enough taxes - would immediately lose whatever elected position he or she held.
If any individual wants voting rights, but does not qualify on the basis of taxes paid, then he / she has the option of paying enough extra taxes such that his / her amount paid puts them in the top 50th percentile. Of course, if the person does not meet the 2 out of the past 3 years and / or the 3 out of the past 5 years rule, then enough taxes must be paid to make up the back amounts.
Problems This Would Fix
Some people, this author included, feel women should not be allowed to vote, as they are terrible at decision making. these changes would prevent a majority of women from voting.
Voter ID would have to be built in and required, as the right to vote would have to be proactively earned.
Clearly, government leeches would not be able to vote.
Only productive young people would be able to vote.
Only productive seniors would be able to vote.
Friday, November 20, 2015
Some time back, this was a Facebook conversation I shared with someone:
Me: I do not hit "like" or share memes or quotes by known Calvinists, regardless of the veracity of the quote.
Gamma Wanna-Be Pastor: Sadly, you do so to your own detriment because a teachable person will learn even from those with whom they disagree. I can honestly say I have been inspired to love Jesus more and been taught great truths of the Christian faith by men who fall into both camps. Learn to listen with discernment yes.... but still listen.
Please note the following tactics in the reply - 1. Changing the subject, 2. Denial, 3. Arguing from the exception. Three argument tactics from the emotional and illogical, and frequently used by women.
Me: Ahhhh, but where did I say I didn't listen?
In fact, you'll notice my statement says "regardless of veracity" - specifically because Calvinists do sometimes speak the truth.
But then, Satan speaks the truth about as often as a Calvinist.
Not surprisingly, GWBP did not reply.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Quote from a young liberal feminist on Facebook:
Listening to 90s music with [female friend]:
[Her]: Men were so whiny in the 90s, and women were so hardcore!
Me: That's always, not just the 90s!
Sad reality is that if you only listen to the lamestream crap, you'll only hear their narrative.
Sad reality 2 - though her looks are ok (6 or so), her feminist mindset reduces her SMV. One boyfriend who dumped her in high school, and only two dates in college - the second of which turned into her current (gamma - not surprisingly) boyfriend.
Dump the feminist mindset immediately. Embrace the feminine side of your personality. Do this before you hit the wall (you have 5 years, tops).
Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard about the "controversy" over the Syrian (and some other) refugees. Of course, there is a well known and documented link between these Islamic refugees and Islamic extremists who have carried out great crimes against society (Paris, anyone?). The extremists infiltrate the hordes of legitimate refugees and enter into a court where their next target is.
Yet so many feminists and liberals are screaming out, demanding we continue to accept the refugees. They claim it is about humanitarian goals.
And this is a big but...
These same liberals and feminists are simultaneously lashing out at Republicans, Christians, and Patriots. The charges of not being "Christlike" in the opinion of an atheist feminist is irrelevant to me.
These libtards also try to draw correlation with the lack of acceptance of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany... which has been debunked for multiple major reasons.
There was even one insaw, who had been bombarded by Christians asking if she would be willing to house refugees herself, who actually said that yes, she would house refugees! Of course, we all know this is a bluff. But people this unintelligent and uneducated (this one in particular has an opinion on everything, including why she couldn't finish her college degree) only bluff when they are frightened.
In reality, these libtards are desperate. They are frightened. Not desperate to take in refugees. Not frightened of the harm that the Islamic extremists will cause - so long as that harm is to others. No, these libtards are desperate to find a way to fight the imagined patriarchy, and frightened that the realists of this world - conservatives, Christians, and patriots - will unite in a show of force.
These libtards know that there are enough Christians, conservatives, and patriots with guns and training to make a difference in the country. And if a difference is made here, then it will spread worldwide. America would be great again in the eyes of the world.
At the end of the day, these libtards really don't even have any true emotion in this "controversy" except rebellion. They seek so strongly to rebel against the imagined patriarchy, that they will criticize and condemn anything associated with it.
Just because they are so mentally ill, that they must say "no!" in a whiny toddler voice when reality dictates "yes."
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
This corroborated thoughts that had been swirling around in my head for days. It's a connection between facts... an explanation of "why."
But, I repeat myself. The two are so closely intertwined it's not even funny. Why do so many women turn to these mindsets? There are many contributing factors, so I'll touch on each. But look for the main ones, down the page a bit further.
Our modern grain - based diet promotes physical and mental disorders. If we start with the acknowledgement that liberalism is a mental disorder, then it explains a lot.
People eat things that weren't meant to be people food, then need drugs to combat the side effects. Not surprising when you view it that way. This is definitely a contributing factor to feminist and liberal minded folks. In fact, when was the last time you met a feminist or female liberal that wasn't heavily medicated? It's ok, I'll wait... after I finish the rest of this article.
Know any conservative professors? Oh, that one? Women are biologically designed to be highly impressionable (very much needed when you have to follow the caveman tribe to survive). Surround their impressionable young minds with liberalism and feminist thought and what do you expect to get?
Combine the above with a court system that favors females and an outdated (by true feminist standards) societal norm of always favoring the female and of course the young woman will feel (and therefore think) she is the center of the universe.
Lack of bearing responsibility
In a world where society refuses to acknowledge facts as facts, to add to the mindset that women "can't be evil" is to doom the masses. Female convicts face milder sentences than men. Female divorcees rarely face alimony or child support. And the list goes on. Yet men are told to "man up." Yet, you never hear a woman told to "woman up."
When you will not face the consequences of a mindset that goes against the grain of society, you have the privilege of accepting mindsets that do not work.
Can you imagine a caveman clan that convinced themselves that bears weren't really going to eat them? This clan would not have lasted long at all.
In short, our ancestors didn't have the luxury to adopt counterintuitive philosophies. If they did, they would have paid the price with their lives and couldnt, therefore, pass the stupidity on to offspring.
Liberalism and feminism are luxuries - no different than my son's nerf gun. The only purpose they serve is temporary amusement of the holder. However, none of them serve a purpose larger than that in society.
And just as you would regard a boy as a silly child should he point a nerf gun at you and demand money; so too should you regard feminists and liberals of either gender.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Watch me whip.
Now watch me nae nae.
True to the name of the song, the words "watch me" appear in the song 77 times, according to A-Z Lyrics.
And that's a big problem in our society today. Had I incessantly said "watch me" more than about twice growing up, I'd have had a belt upside my head. Children were expected to entertain themselves - not require adults to entertain them.
The other side of the coin that is problematic is the fact that for all this watching, there's not a bit of it that's worthwhile. When I was a child, if you wanted someone to watch you, then it was up to you to be worth watching.
That meant, acquiring a skill. And that's something sorely lacking these days in general.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Tonight in my jiu-jitsu class, I taught the students "how not to get Rousey'd." The idea is from the point of view that as grapplers, we cannot make the same mistakes Ronda Rousey did this past weekend against Holly Holm.
Rousey made plenty of mistakes - several of which are covered here. To be fair, I did not read the article until after my class. In that article, two beautiful and honest points mentioned are:
1. The storm of uneducated opinion in the wake of the fight has been deafening and everyone wants to pretend that they always knew how to beat Rousey, they just didn't know if Holm was the 'level of athlete' to pull it off. When someone starts talking about 'A-level athletes' and ranking fighters by 'athleticism', you should immediately disregard their opinion on anything related to fighting.
2. The second moronic opinion that you will encounter is that Rousey lost because she chose to engage Holly Holm in a striking match. This fits nicely into the storyline of Rousey falling in love with her hands, being put on the cover of Ring magazine to sell copies, and so on. But it isn't true.
We had one white belt bring up the second point in class. That person will be excused due to lack of training time. Meanwhile,what I taught my students was threefold:
3. Cover your opponent's hands to clinch. Do not try to punch your way in to a clinch on a world class boxer.
2. Cut off the ring.
This is mentioned extensively in the article.
1. Shoot for the legs.
Ronda stayed with a plan of attacking for an upper body clinch, and it wasn't working. Holm had just enough defense to make it work. It was time for a double-leg attempt.
A Bill has been introduced that would make civilian ownership of body armor illegal.
Why would the government want to take away your right to wear body armor, unless they want to shoot you?
Also - cited were cases of fatalities. Since when has body armor killed anyone?
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Just got back from watching the fight with a few friends. Needless to say, the martial arts world is abuzz. Ronda Rousey was knocked out by Holly Holm early in the second round.
It was no fluke, Rousey clearly lost Round 1. Holm executed her plan perfectly. Rousey got frustrated, exhausted, and sloppy. Holm got precise, and more precise, and more precise. Holm weathered several good grappling attacks - avoiding at least two throws and the dreaded arm bar. At one point, Holm even counter-threw Rousey.
In speaking with friends and on social media over the past few weeks, I had indicated that Holm had the correct style to defeat Rousey. For me, the surprising part was that Rousey wasn't better prepared for Holm's style. Among Rousey's trainers are Rener and Ryron Gracie... who also train Lyoto Machida. Holm's stick and move style is extremely similar to Machida's.
So, with that all said, here are a few observations -
Strikers are well advised to keep distance and work angles. Movement is key. Precision is essential. Do not try to knock out your opponent with every blow... try to land a solid blow. All it takes is that one solid "decisive" blow to open up your knockout punch or kick.
Strikers and grapplers who rely on an aggressive style would do well to learn how to cut off the ring. Rousey totally failed to cut off the ring in her advances. It cost her energy and damage. Those things add up.
Grappling is essential for a fight.
Striking is essential for a fight.
Holm evaded one of Rousey's arm bar attempts from a face-down (turtle) position. This is a staple in Rousey's tool box, and because so few others use it, this technique has been very difficult to defend. However, the defense Holm used was shown on a video I own put out by Travis Stevens and Jimmy Pedro. At one point in the past, Pedro was Rousey's judo coach. There are rumors the two parted company on less than peachy terms, though I cannot verify this as I do not know either party personally. It does make me wonder if Pedro put this information out there on purpose.
Holm appeared to evade Rousey's specific judo clinches. Not wrestling clinch defense (as others have tried), and not typical judo clinch defenses (again, which others have tried). Holm had an answer for Rousey's specific attacks. Finally, someone watched some film and adapted.
Holm appeared to be Rousey's first opponent who actually trained a comparable amount as Rousey herself. Up to this point, most of Rousey's opponents have been part-time fighters. Holm is a professional boxer and kickboxer, so it's good to see the women training in earnest.
Hopefully this will put an end to all the silly talk that Rousey could defeat a trained male fighter.
Sloppy sometimes works. Crisp and clean always works. Sharpen your technique. Then sharpen it some more. And when sharp fails, try sharp again.
When you let your style get sloppy, you lose.
There will be a rematch, and I will definitely watch it.
Congrats to Holly Holm. She's a great fighter and a true martial artist.
Posted via Blogaway
Friday, November 13, 2015
I was wrong. I have been wrong in my thoughts and suggestions for the direction of this country. Since realizing my Libertarian leanings a few years ago, I've pushed that agenda religiously. And while there's nothing wrong with that, per se; it is not a feasible mindset for success for 98% of the public.
That said, I am not abandoning my mostly Libertarian leanings. I might alter some of them slightly. Some will still be preached. Some will remain unchanged.
So why was I wrong? Simple fact is that most people require structure and heirarchy to simply function. This 98% of the public is too stupid to do the right thing on their own... or anything on their own. This 98% of the public is too dependent on heirarchy to ever be able to survive if it was taken away.
Women naturally require leadership. They yearn for it. Sure, there might be like 3 or 4 on the planet that would be okay by themselves, but you aren't one of them, and you certainly don't know one.
Men naturally form pecking orders. The only archetypes that function happily outside of hierarchies are omegas and sigmas. Alphas have to lead. Betas have to lead some and follow others. Deltas have to be led. Gammas have to pretend they lead. Lambdas have to figure out who is top and who is bottom.
So, to simplify, someone has to tell people what to do, or the people get lost. To be sure, Democracy is the worst... rarely does anything good come from consensus (because people need leadership). A Republic give voice to the people, along with maintaining the heirarchy they require. And some things do need to be legislated... while others do not. The catch, as it is in much of life, is the wisdom to know what should be regulated and what government doesn't need to touch.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Facebook is in decline. More and more people with whom I communicate (personally, not online) are deleting their accounts or spending far less time on Facebook. Coincidentally, after I had penned this article and set it to post, Return of Kings had a brilliant article on how Facebook emasculates men and should be avoided.
From my observations, Facebook has degenerated into the following:
Post something happy.
People secretly accuse the poster of artificial positivity, and suggest (behind the poster's back, of course) that the poster's life is in shambles the same as theirs.
Post something negative.
People point out (usually very accurately so) that the poster is attention-whoring.
Post something political.
And then the fight begins.
Post something pro-women.
This would be good, except these posts are rarely accurate.
Post something pro-men.
Usually doesn't happen.
Post pictures of your life.
This is almost the only redeeming value of the site any more.
Use Facebook to set up events and communicate with folks.
The only other acceptable use of Facebook these days.
Observe and collect information.
Hey, you know the government is doing it. You might as well join in - just might learn something. Knowledge is power, after all.
And those final three are the reasons I shall not delete my account, yet. That and my dojo page.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
This meme presents a tidy conundrum.
Clearly, Mr. Hedges, along with anybody who shares this meme on social media, believes in government run health care.
Clearly, Mr. Hedges and those believing this line fear the effect of corporation involvement in health care.
Clearly, neither Mr. Hedges nor his "followers" realize that the Federal Government is the single largest corporation in the US.
If having corporations involved in health care scares you, then having the Federal Government involved in health care should scare the hell out of you.
Monday, November 9, 2015
The United States Marine Corps has officially adopted the M4 carbine to replace the M16A4 as the standard issue weapon. Link to article.
I've heard both sides of the coin, and understand and agree with arguments from both camps. I like the M16A4 and I like the M4. Hope the Marines get glass and free float rails for their M4s. I also hope they continue with the Designated Marksman in fire teams and squads.
Friday, November 6, 2015
Some people give me grief for being so hard on certain Republicans, especially when I draw likeness to their voting record when compared to liberal Democrats. The other day, I was presented with a conversational opportunity I rarely get - someone who didn't know my personal politics, and he was opening up to me about his politics.
First off, he plans to vote for Hillary Clinton for president. This is important to know. He described himself as a life long Democrat.
He likes Bernie Sanders, just doesn't think he can win, and doesn't think he can actually get anything done once in office. My contact didn't say this, but I interpreted his comments to mean Sanders is too much of a BETA (binary - CH model) to get anything done.
My contact likes Tennessee governor, Bill Haslam. Says Haslam is not as "hard right" (read: conservative) as most others in Tennessee.
This individual said he has voted every time for Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker - both in primaries as well as the general elections. Yes, anecdotal, but evidence of what I've always claimed.
This man claims Harold Ford, Jr. Is the smartest politician from Tennessee ever.
As far as Republican presidential candidates? This gets interesting.
He Likes -
He really dislikes -
Ted Cruz (most of all)
Just thought you would appreciate an inside the mind of a liberal... if they actually have minds, that is.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Your father probably told you a few things, but just in case he wasn’t around enough, here are some words of wisdom you might have missed out on:
Buy high quality tools, so you only have to buy them once.
Keep a change of clothes at the office.
Never hit anyone unless they are an immediate threat.
Every hat should serve a purpose.
Never take her to the movies on the first date.
Learn to wet shave.
Nothing looks more badass than a well-tailored suit.
Shave with the grain on the first go-around.
Always look a person in the eye when you talk to them.
Buy a plunger before you need a plunger.
Exercise makes you happy. Run, lift, and play sports.
Brush your teeth before you put on your tie.
A small amount of your paycheck should go directly to your savings account every month.
Call Mom and Dad every week.
Never wear a clip-on tie.
Give a firm handshake.
Compliment her shoes.
Never leave a pint unfinished.
If you aren’t confident, fake it. It will come around.
You can tell the size of a man by the size of things that bother him.
Be conscious of your body language.
The only reason to ever point a gun at someone is if you intend to shoot them. Period.
Always stand to shake someone’s hand.
Never lend anything you can’t afford to lose.
Ask more than you answer. Everybody likes to talk about themselves.
Never have sex with anyone that doesn’t want it as much as you.
Go for women out of your league. You may end up surprised.
Manliness is not only being able to take care of yourself, but others as well.
Go with the decision that will make for a good story.
When you walk, look straight ahead, not at your feet.
Nice guys don’t finish last, boring guys do.
Find your passion and figure out how to get paid for it.
Don’t let the little head do the thinking for the big head.
No matter their job or status, everyone deserves your respect.
The most important thing you can learn is personal responsibility. Bad things happen; it’s your job to overcome them.
The first one to get angry loses.
A man does what needs to be done without complaining.
Never stop learning.
Always go out into public dressed like you’re about to meet the love of your life.
Don’t change yourself just to make someone happy.
If you’re the smartest person in the room, you’re in the wrong room.
Luck favors the prepared.
Women find confidence sexy as hell.
Do whatever you want to do, but be the best at it.
No one is on their deathbed wishing they spent more time at work.