I’m going to be tracking my workouts at a new Tumblr I created. Please follow if you’re interested in finding out what organic meal replacement I like to drink or what Lil Wayne song I like to listen to while doing shoulder presses.
This is a project I’ve been meaning to start for a long time — create a Tumblr to publicly track and share my workouts, so that I force myself to go to the gym regularly.
I’ve been going to the gym for a few years now, but never consistently. For instance, I’ll go regularly for a month or two, get lazy for another month, then go back for another few weeks, then get lazy again… As you can imagine, my results have been uneven, like a haircut your 6-year-old nephew gives you. I want to change that.
So, Why ‘Ectomorph’?
I’ve been thin my entire life. I have high metabolism and it’s hard for me to gain weight no matter what I eat. (I’ve probably alienated 90% of the people reading this. Darn.) So, I’d like to put on some weight. And get stronger. Better. Harder. Basically, I want Daft Punk to write a song about me.
In other words, I’ll track my attempts to build my body from its current Frankie Muniz Malcolm In The Middle-era physique to a Frankie Muniz Agent Cody Banks 2: Destination London-era physique. And just like any Muniz-related venture, you’ll find the experience slightly humorous and probably question why it exists in the first place.
Here’s hoping I keep this up.
Pretty cool! I started a similar project last January. I haven’t kept up with it as much as I should (my diet sucks and I’m not getting to the gym 3 times a week like I was) but even still I’ve gained about 10 pounds of muscle (from 162 to 172) and appreciate the added strength and modest size I’ve gained. There’s something awesome about being able to squat more than you weigh.
I learned basically everything from a really, really awesome forum at Something Awful forums. Check it. That’s the link to the main FAQ; tons of good links about diet and routines. Just a great resource. Their Ultimate Transformation thread is pretty crazy and inspiring too!
Consider Starting Strength. You don’t need to buy the book; a simple Google search will reveal a ton of resources. It’s a good program for a beginner and will teach you all the main lifts you should be doing. The book is great though, let me know if you want to borrow it.
Don’t use machines! Machines work 1 muscle at a time, and that’s not how the human body was designed to work. Free weight programs (like the ones in Starting Strength) use complex excercises that will work most of your body in some capacity, either for lifting or stabilization. More muscle work = more exercise = more gain.
Diet is important, especially when trying to gain mass. Depending on your job and current eating habits, eating right will either be really hard or really easy. Luckily, trying to gain weight, you can still eat whatever you want, but you’ll see much better results eating a ton of good stuff and not a ton of crap. Basically, eat a ton of meat all the time and wash it down with a protein shake.
I expect one of you smart people to find some essay out there the properly explains to me the true motivation of the people who showed up to support Glenn Beck. Not a snarky one line dismissal. Thousands of people? Why? What is it, truly and fundamentally, that makes them so mad they are there?…
I originally wrote a post full of rage, because these people really get to me. For the sake of my soul, I decided to meditate on what these people might really feel and want.
The best I can come up with is that emotionally, they are enraptured by the idea of “simpler times.” They don’t like the contemporary world and so they have checked out in favor of the dream. The dream of a stay-at-home in civic clubs; a father who is able to provide for his family by his job alone; a young wholesome Army hero saving us from the dehumanized enemy; chaste teenagers; people taking pride in their appearance, work, and life; the young couple that gets married if they get pregnant; clean streets; all children having fathers; gay people who live as “roommates” and are tolerated because they are discreet and don’t go marching anywhere demanding rights; a world without terrorism; vigilante justice.
That type of thing. I get it. I don’t agree with all of it, but I get the emotional pull. Their instinct tells them the more progressive viewpoint is threatening to this utopia, and they don’t like complicated ideas and solutions. For instance, I think we all want mothers to be able to spend time with their babies. And yet many of these people are against guaranteed maternity leave, because instead of seeing “a woman caring for her baby” they see a woman who feels entitled to both a family and a career when in their ideal world, all mothers have the luxury to be home.
A lot of it is taxes too, though.
It’s cheesy, but as Anne Frank said, “Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart.” I get that some people work their asses off at a job they hate, send 30% to the government and are bitter as hell about it. And I do believe that some conservatives have a sound ideology. But lemme tell you— when Beck says that his rally is “about God, not politics” I fucking want to cry.
As tumblr/improv’s resident conservative, I figure I should take a crack at this.
First, I should say I don’t really understand the hysteria that surrounds Glenn Beck. He’s a showman; he knows it. He’s said he took inspiration from Network's Howard Beale. He's bombastic and cries and puts on a show because he knows it gets the message across. ”But Joe,” you may protest, “people actually listen to him! They believe what he says! Isn't that dangerous?” Well, I don't think it is. Glenn Beck's show gets anywhere from 1.5 to 2 million viewers on an average day. In today's fractured media market, that's nothing. During World War II, progressive priest Father Charles Coughlin's radio program was listened to by 40 million people weekly. Glenn Beck is a nothing in the world of public opinion. He’s a cable news host who puts on shenanigans for fun and profit. Yes, it’s incredibly rude of him to try to alley-oop off the day MLK gave his famous ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, but that’s his game.
But is the fervor he ignites dangerous? I don’t think so. From my vantage point, the fears of conservative populism have been over blown. Of course there crazies for every cause. Yes, some Tea Partiers questioned Obama’s citizenship. But let us not forget recent history; a mocumentary was made fantasizing over the assassination of George W. Bush. To fear the political opposition’s more fanatical members and ignore your own is a little narrow minded. Just as every republican isn’t the second coming of William F. Buckley, neither is every republican the guy with the vaguely racist sign at the Tea Party.
What of the reasons for the Tea Party? Why are people attracted to it? I think it takes a lot of cynicism to ascribe the the entire Tea Party to malignant ideas like racism, homophobia and islamophobia. Doubtless, those ideas exist amongst some members, but it’s frustrating to see them pointed to as the prime reasons. There are valid reasons the Tea Party crowd is mad, and many liberals have trouble grasping them.
A charge often leveled against the tea party people is, “They’re just scared of progress! They want to cling to their old ideas instead of solutions!” This argument is intellectually lazy; it’s based on the assumption that there are no legitimate challenges to your line of thinking. If you assume there is no argument against single payer healthcare, of course people who oppose it will appear to be backwards-thinking. But try give them a little more credit: there are many, many valid concerns about single payer healthcare financially (how’s England’s debt situation?), administratively ( complexity past a certain point is fraud ), and morally (the famous ‘Death Panels’ argument). You might disagree with these concerns, but they aren’t intellectually empty, fear driven reactions. There is a debate to be had, and good many people disagree with the liberal assumption that their liberal policies are an improvement.
Another argument levied against the Beck crowd is their longing for a Rockwell-style America that never really existed. I don’t disagree, but I do think this emotion is more legitimate than it is given credit for. The term ‘Progressive’, originally describing the brand of liberalism favored by Wilson and Roosevelt, has seen a resurgence in both usage and idea. As a word, ‘Progressive’ sounds wonderful; after all, who could be against progress? In meaning, the original progressives believed in the power of central planning and the idea that experts could mold a better society than what was emerging organically. The Tea Party rejects this brand of elitism, and in doing so longs for a time when it was not the goal government.
On the issue of Palin and Beck not really saying anything… well, I think they are saying something. Palin, as I’ve said before, has the ability to speak truthfully without speaking accurately. Her ‘Death Panel’ soundbite was famously ripped apart for its inaccuracy; Obamacare would create no such life or death decision points. It did, however, communicate a greater truth: that a government financially responsible for a life will at some point be required to balance the equation. Even if she wasn’t accurate, she managed to communicate something her fans understood… and she managed to get headlines doing it. Same with Beck; he communicates a truth his fans understand without needing to explain it academically.
This is getting a little long. It’s a great topic, but unfortunately it boils down into, “Actually, there is a valid, rational reason someone could agree with the Tea Party on issue X, let me explain it. ” I’d be more than happy to expand on something, so feel free to ask. I’ve got some wrinkles in my own opinions, but I understand the archetypical Tea Partier pretty well.
In the interest of time, here is a snarky cliff notes version:
The Tea Party thinks the direction of the country is currently really, really bad. Maybe it could be because there is a black Muslim in the White House (who is probably gay, at this point). Or maybe it’s because they see a government running up record amounts of debt on a failing economic policy, or they’re tired of seeing more and more power being concentrated in Washington DC in areas government isn’t constitutionally allowed to go, or maybe even tired of being told that they’re a bunch of ignorant hicks who don’t know anything and should sit down, shut up, and let the better people ‘fix’ things. :)
Standard Disclaimer: I am wrong about everything and any ‘You’ referenced refers to the generic reader and not anyone personally or the original blog posts this is based on.
We entered this awesome Web Series and Short Film competition at NexTV-and they’re having a special Viewer’s Choice aspect—where, the series with the most votes get sent right into the Finalist round! We’re really really excited about this, and think this would be a great way to get Broad City seen not only by a bunch more people, but by some big-time movers and shakers!
So if you have a moment today, vote! Thanks and we love you!
This is how you do it:
Click the link in this post then:
1.Click on the big blue tab at the bottom left of the page that says, “Shortcut to the Finals” 2. Type in my Abbi Jacobson (or Broad City) in the search bar on the right just above the list of submissions 3. Click on WATCH. 4. Then click on VOTE. (Only 1 vote per submission.) 5. Please spread the word!
I just voted, did you?
Broad City is one of my favorite things on the internet right now.
So, earlier today, I posted a totally self-congratulatory link to an op-ed about Obama and his presidency. I feel kinda dick about that. I know this is ‘my’ blog, but its updates gets pushed out to a lot of people I care about. I realize I’m in the deep minority amongst my friends, and I’m totally fine with that, but there’s no need to sow additional discord with snark and empty logic, especially when it gets pushed out to people and isn’t something they seek out intentionally.
It’s not that I disagree with what it said (I don’t, obviously) but for any political content I post on here, I’d like people to be able to at least say, “I disagree, but this guy’s thought about it and gosh darnit, I respect him.” And what I posted earlier falls short of that. I’m keeping it up because it got some good reblogs that generated discussion… but it was stupid to do in the first place.
I actually ran a blog back in college for a few years. ‘Anti-Anti-Flag.com’ I was a huge fan of the punk band Anti-Flag, and then I realized I was conservative, and I started a site to ‘debunk’ the band. Lame, yes. But I spent a few years online posting stuff, trading links, and running a moderately successful site. I originated the very small wave of ‘Conservative Punk’, actually. The founder of now defunct ConservativePunk.com started his site after mine, and Michael Graves was on a segment of the Daily Show about it. My site actually got mentioned in a NYT writeup about Conservative Punk. So I’ve got that going for me.
I was also a huge asshole. Anyone who disagreed was mocked ad hominem. My site had comments, and anyone who I didn’t like had their account set to post in rainbow text.
I think that’s a part of anyone’s development, politically. When you’re new to the ideas and the idealism, it seems so obvious that you’re solutions are right and you can’t believe no one’s ever thought of them before. Anyone who disagrees with your is clearly stupid, because the correctness of your own views is so crystal clear. It just makes sense that you’re right! After all, if you were wrong, why would you believe it? Early political thought is a teenage boy convincing his girlfriend to do it; If it feels so right, how could it be wrong?
But, ideally, you realize that people come from different places and have different experiences. They value different things. 2 people can look at the same set of data and draw different conclusions. Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions was especially enlightening. He thesis is basically, “If you assume people are ultimately good and society causes flaws, you’re a liberal. If you think people are ultimately bad or neutral, you view society as the check on those flaws and you’re conservative.” There are, of course, a million wrinkles, but that’s the gist of it. And I matured.
Anyway, the point of this all is to say that I went through a very clear ‘asshole’ phase with politics and I’d like to think I’ve matured. When I do things that fall short of that, when I turn into the snarky asshole from Anti-Anti-Flag, I don’t like it.
Deep down, I welcome disagreement and discussion. I like it when people disagree; it’s something to talk about and I find it fascinating. ( Strangely, I also really like dating people I disagree with politically… go figure. ) I hate it when something as inconsequential as personal politics effects real life relationships.
Or even internet relationships. So to the 2 people who stopped following me… I’m sorry. I miss you. Come back. I promise I’ll post even more Community clips and reblogs of Well That’s Adorable.
I’m still right, dammit. Just so we’re all clear. :)
In case you are wondering, no, I don’t get tired of being right all the time.
Well, these numbers really aren’t as noteworthy as Gardiner paints them to be. According to this Gallup page, his approval is still 3% above Clinton, Reagan and Carter at this time in their presidencies. I mean, the numbers are interesting either way, but I guess if you completely remove them from presidential history it becomes easier to paint a more dramatic picture.
heyjb: chut up
LALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALA What fun is it being the opposition party if you can’t indulge in a little fatalism and smug self congratulation? :)
Regarding approval rating and presidential history, it’s true this isn’t uncommon. It’s normal for the ‘in power’ party to get smacked around during mid-terms. Republicans lost seats in 1982 (Democrats already had control of congress, so he effect was not dramatic.) Democrats lost a ton of seats in 1994, with Republicans famously gaining control and bringing Newt Gingrich into our lives, for better or worse.
I think it’s important to look at the circumstances surrounding the presidencies at that time. Reagan took a hit in ‘82 because the economy stuttered. Reagan was already used to working with a hostile congress (and had a famous friendship with Tip O’Neill, Democrat Speaker of the House). Reagan was still able to win support for most of his policy goals from the public and string together a coalition of republicans and small-c conservative Democrats. His policies worked/he got lucky with the business cycle (depends who you ask). Long story short, he rebounded.
Clinton’s midterm losses were mostly a result of policy over-reach in his first 2 years. Hillarycare famously imploded and Republicans were able to capitalize. Unlike Reagan, who was used to working with Democrats to accomplish his legislative goals, Clinton found himself facing a hostile congress. An amazing politician, Clinton triangulated, moving himself into the center and working with Republicans. He declared the era of big government over (an encouraging, but wrong, prognostication) and took up causes that were winning approval, such as welfare reform. This is in contrast to Reagan winning approval for his policies, but the result was the same: a political rebound and a second term.
Will Obama take either of these paths? It seems unlikely to me. He’s proven himself tone-deaf to the American people on issues such as healthcare ( 55% still want it repealed ) and the economy does not appear to be cooperating with the talking points about recovery. He also has not projected himself as a leader, allowing Democrats in congress to control the content of his legislative battles. Reagan succeeded because he got the country to listen to him; Clinton succeeded because he listened to the country. Obama, at this point, is combining the worst of both paths: telling the country to listen to him, and then ignoring it when they say “No.”
Of course, I could be wrong. If Republicans take back congress, or at least split the House and Senate, it’s possible Obama will revert to pragmatic centrist he campaigned as. A few lucky breaks (economy recovers, Israel prevents a nuclear Iran, Afghanistan strategy works, Sarah Palin winning the GOP Primary) and he could totally turn things around.
But, as stated above, I’m right all of the time. :)