We are Not Anonymous

When I finally decided to take up the question about God and religion again after many of years of apathy, not only did I flock to the book store, but online to research if the belief in God was tenable.

Actually, my first conversations over the issue was via email with a woman I was dating when I briefly lived in the country-ghetto (don't ask) who was a Biblical literalist and fundamentalist. She tried her best to win my soul for poor crucified baby Jesus – even asserting in so many words that God would enrich my bank account too, as long as I was born again. I don't know why I dated her. Oh yeah, I used to have a thing for tall leggy blonds.

Eventually, I made it online and found resources and other apostates like myself.

Non-believers, atheists in Indonesia can now do the same.

"For me personally (going online) is just to share my thoughts and to meet people who think the same way I do, because I don't see many in my real life," said Didi, a 29-year-old architect.

In Indonesia you must declare your religious affiliation on your identity card. Could you imagine that? (They also have religious courts that exist along side civil, secular courts.) One of the great strengths of our society is that if you want your religious affiliation to remain anonymous, you can choose to do so. I choose not too, obviously.

The web presence also acts as a kind of support service. The Facebook group also has discussions on how to broach the subject of religion with friends and family, with most members confessing they think it wisest to keep "wearing a mask".

Um...okay so atheists can not be entirely anonymous in their no-beliefs in Indonesia.

This is furthered expanded upon by Indonesian XYZMan:

"If everyone knew that I'm an atheist, I could lose my job, my family would hate me and also some friends, It's also more likely that I could be physically attacked or killed because I'm a kafir (unbeliever) and my blood is halal (allowed to be spilled) according to Islam."

That's sounds like a pretty good reason to me to remain anonymous.

While the threat of violence isn't much of reality here in the States and throughout the West, I have to admit that being a vocal and public atheist in a section of the state and country which is overwhelmingly conservative and conservative Christian may prove to be liability someday - it's still incumbent on me to "stick my arms out and make room for myself in this society." (Thanks PZ.)

I will not remain anonymous.

And if your in the West and an atheist, neither should you.

(Source)

How to Persecute America's Christians

Just state the obvious.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."

Like Obama did during his seventeen minute inauguration speech last week.

The reaction by right wing, wing nut Christians?

Just as obvious.

"But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don't think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation" stated Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries.

No, you douche bag we have always been a nation of religious dissenters and atheist freethinkers who came here to escape the theocratic rule of kings and churches in Europe.

Otherwise, Yahweh would have been enshrined in the Constitution for which anti-Federalist Patrick Henry would not have decried: "I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain."

That second radical separation was not enshrining God as the basis for the legitimacy of this new nation's laws.

Instead, it is "We the People." Yeah, that's right, we the people.

All us people: Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, nonbelievers.

(Oh and you pagans, heathens, deists, agnostics, and Satanists too.)

(Source)

Charles Darwin, Abolitionist

Darwinian evolution – that is evolution by natural selection and not by divine selection, is often tarred by Biblical literalists and other fundamentalists as responsible for every social ill since Darwin discovery from the 19th century.

Some of these ills run the gamut from the Holocaust, to communism, to teen pregnancy, to Social Darwinism. All false, of course.

New research by science historians, Adrian Desmond and James Moore, shows that Charles Darwin and family were ardent abolitionists in a new book.

"Darwin partly chose to highlight the common descent of man from apes to show that all races were equal, as a rebuttal to those who insisted black people were a different, and inferior, species."

Professor Moore observes that:

"We are not trying to explain away all of Darwin's work as being due to his passion for emancipation, but our argument is that his passion for racial unity is what drove him to touch this untouchable and treacherous subject..."

Adding that:

"Darwin was finally goaded into starting his work on the origins of man in 1865 by a rising tide of scientific belief that the races were separate species."

Darwin was from a saint, but at least he did not believe that the descent of man meant that the races were unequal or subhuman that the literalist would have you believe. In Darwin's day, if you believed in divine selection, you probably were more likely to believe that each race were created, by God, as unequal. Darwin thought otherwise and thought that common descent showed that the different races were equal.

In fact, during the slavery debates that our country engaged in at its founding, it was Conservative Christians who argued that the races were separate and that the Africans were of lower social status because of the belief in divine selection.


(Source)

The Future of Punditry?

The Future of Punditry is on right now on WPR 90.7 FM. This is something that my brother and I have discussed before. We, on the left have been on the attack for the last 8 years, and even more so since the Iraq war. Starting yesterday, the left is now more on the defensive – not that we are ideologically committed to accepting or defending everything that Obama does.

The first part of the show the guest, media columnist Tim Cuprisin, echoed a statement I've made many times about bias in the media. People can not be easily measured in terms of the false dichotomy of strictly "left" and "right" – like the example of give of my folks who vote democrat but voted for the Wisconsin state prohibition against gay marriage. (That's not to say people who are far to "each side" do not exist.) People are a lot more complicated than that.

The guest also noted that this false dichotomy is basically a theme that the right uses as a narrative. Anything that is critical of the right is by default liberal, even if the facts are accurate. Talk radio needs this theme to survive and address topics. Us vs. them. Good vs. Evil. It's the very nature of this form of entertainment. Yes, punditry is entertainment.

If you don't get a chance to listen to it, at least check out the podcast.

Study Reveals Klingon Bias at MKE Journal Sentinel

Introduction
Bias in the media is a very dangerous thing, especially when we are at war. An informed electorate must have accurate information to make informed decisions. Obviously bias in the media abrogates this necessity.


Methodology
I did a three-year study and it is conclusive. It is conclusive because another study shows that a majority of the media, 100%, are writers. Writers are responsible for the content at Star Trek. Since they are all writers... you can see where I am going here. Writers can't help to be rooting for the Klingons.


Research
I did a three-year study and it is conclusive. See chart.

Possible Objections

Good science requires that possible objections made about the study be addressed and defended against at time of publication. To that point, I will remind you that I did a three-year study and it is conclusive.

You'll get none of that from me – so stop bother me about it!

Geez!!!


Conclusion
Since I did a three year study and have a chart (which is more than Jim Hayett's study) I have conclusive proof. Ergo, I win! And because I have a chart and a conclusive three year study, I am an expert.
I am an expert! I am an expert! I am an expert! I am an expert!

So Just take my word for it. I really, really did do the study. I really did! I own lots of science-fiction at home. I love my family. Conservatives, Vulcans, and critics say really bad things about me all the time. Waaah!!!! They are so mean to me! Why should I expect any grief over the things I write. If only that cross wasn't be occupied!

The fact that they are so mean and I have a three year study and chart, makes me an expert!

Hate that American Atheists must contend with

PZ Meyers posted a billboard like this on Pharyngula the other day, and I think it sums up nicely many of the positions that right-wing Christian bloggers and posters here at LCL share.



I am stridently anti-God and especially of that demon in the Bible.

Since I hold that position, am I an anti-American?

If so, what about founder Thomas Paine, the great revolutionary writer who stated that:

"It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes."

Right-wing Christians, generally agree with this reverend's (who died in 2006) position. Therefore, should the people blacklisted on this billboard be on trail for treason and ultimately be executed for non-belief? Perhaps, you think this is to harsh and just prefer that we atheists shut up?

If that's the case, I have to wonder if you really understand what being an American really means.

And I also have to wonder if these right-wing Christians have any clue about American history? And the role that the religious liberalism, freethought, and the Enlightenment that has achieved our great democratic-republic that we enjoy today.

Even for the dear reverend himself.

Bush Offical: Detainee Tortured

What did a top Bush administration official, Susan J. Crawford – originally appointed by Reagen and who served under D ick Cheney, presently serving the military commissions as the top convening authority had to say about torture when interviewed on January 14th?

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani... His treatment met the legal definition of torture."

Furthermore she noted that, despite the fact that these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were authorized...

"You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge."

The report also states that Qahtani interrogation "was so intense" that Qahtani was hospitalized twice with bradycardia, a "condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death."

Bob Woodward also notes that "Military prosecutors said in November that they would seek to refile charges against Qahtani, 30, based on subsequent interrogations that did not employ harsh techniques."

Damitol...now this Bush policy of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and any information obtained through torture can not be used to convict Qahtan.

Crawford, a lifelong Republican, added that

"I sympathize with the intelligence gatherers in those days after 9/11, not knowing what was coming next and trying to gain information to keep us safe...

"But there still has to be a line that we should not cross. And unfortunately what this has done, I think, has tainted everything going forward."

And that is exactly the point. We do not just change laws wily-nily because the criminal in question is the worst kind of human being possible. We apply our treatment of human beings consistently and morally, if our laws are to have any moral authority at all.

I can hear it now, Bush is no longer in office – so why bother with this story?

It's important to understand that the decisions of Bush's administration have now precipitated the decisions that Obama must now make to clean up after Bush and his administration and ultimately resolve.

I should also state, that I want nothing but bad guys to be put away and removed from the world which they have no qualms in harming and destroying. Proponents of these weaselly worded "enhanced interrogation techniques" have maneuvered the debate into a false choice. Either we torture or bad stuff happens. I'm sure the Torquemada felt the same way too, in its quest to uncover witches. Simply, you can treat prisoners humanly, gather information – reliable information, and not torture. It's the way detective work has been done for centuries.

Furthermore, Crawford observes that:

"What do you do with him now if you don't charge him and try him? I would be hesitant to say, 'Let him go.'"

I think she's correct.

Bush and Rumsfled have done nothing but utterly break the system and Obama may not have many options at this point than to hold the detainees who were tortured indefinitely without trial.

So much for torture.

(Source)

A Final Salute from President George Bush

Here's a final reminder of the man that Bush apologist have come to defend at all costs...

At the close of 8 years, this younger Bush can now smirk triumphantly with his 1-Finger Salute at us.

Nice. Really nice.

I'm quite glad that I am not going down on record for defending that guy for all eternity.

Good Riddance! The Nightmare Ends.

I didn't start out a Bush Hater.

In 2001, when Bush was finally declared winner by the Supreme Court of the 2000 election and finally took office, I really didn't care. In fact, I didn't care if Gore or Bush was in office. I had voted for Gore, but could have voted for Bush too. I simply wasn't very political. I had just moved to Chicago, finally finishing college, and was more involved with orientating myself to a new city and a job. I didn't see much party differentiation in those days.

My first job in Chicago didn't work out. The dot com crash was at its pinnacle, and three weeks later I was unemployed. Bad career move, I should have stuck to print and not interactive. It was really difficult to get work in those days, even temp work was impossible. It took me four months to finally land a new job. Just in time to, rent was approaching and I was down to my last $100.Temping did not pay all that much.

Suffice to say, I remember watching a lot of coverage of Bush's transition with all that extra time. I recall, Ari Fleischer briefing the press on how Bush would administrator. I remember being excited. A new president! History! Peaceful transition! According to Fleischer, Bush sounded like a project manager. I could relate. Besides, the elder Bush didn't do such a bad job, I had hoped the apple didn't fall from the tree. (Boy, was I wrong.)

So Bush became president. Gore eventually went on to work on saving us from our excesses for which he won a Nobel. And I went on with my life.

Then 9/11 came and I found myself marginalized and now "radicalized" by the right wing. Suddenly, I learned that the values that I had, were now considered antithetical to America. The right wing defined me as radical and Unamerican using 9/11 as the backdrop for their culture wars. Then, as I did now, valued freedom from and of religion, good public education, science, and a commons which respected the self-determination of its citizens. 9/11 became the bulkhead of Bush's coalition, theocrats and control freaks every damn one of them.

Fact is, I didn't make me a liberal – it was you right-wingers. You pushed me into this position as I had no choice to defend my space in this society.

While Republicans and conservatives (ie. Bush Nationalists) are feverishly trying to convince the future that President Bush and his entire administration was some kind of overwhelming, stunning success that we should be wetting ourselves to thank the man for his "exceptional" leadership, those of us who not blinded by ideological commitment are simply not buying it.

In fact, we are laughing at you.

So, no, I will not thank Bush for ignoring our country's intelligence warnings about Al Queda's intent to use commercial jets as missiles. Nor will I thank him for obfuscating the formation of the 9/11 commission looking into that failure. Bush was president during 9/11, not Clinton. I will not thank Bush for his incompetence.

No, I will not thank Bush for attacking Iraq. He and his cronies cherry-picked evidence and manipulated the media by selectively releasing information to elicit our support for the invasion. I will not thank him for his countless and inane post-hoc rationalizations to justify the war in Iraq, or his allusions that Iraq attacked the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon.,(Incidentally, when an army goes to war, the infrastructure must be paid for in advance. Therefore, I will thank President Clinton for building a cost-effective army at the close the end of the Cold War [still billions more than many country's GDP] to take Baghdad in three, short weeks. However, I will not thank Rumsfeld and Bush for abusing that same army in the years since.)


I will not thank him for allowing Cheney to turn the vice-presidency into a secret office, where his actions are now mostly obscured by the secrets act.


I will not thank Bush for his hamfisted, keystone cop response to Katrina. I will not thank him once, nor will I thank him twice for his incompetence.


I will not thank him for circumventing habeas corpus, nor will I thank him for mandating of data mining by telecoms. Ineffective and a waste of time, and resources.


I will not thank him for turning the United States into a god-damn country of torturers. We are better than that. Bush has sullied us all – liberals and conservatives alike.

I will not thank for Bush for taking our taxes to support religion. Religious charities should be accountable to the market like any other venue that conservatives who say they adhere to free market principles. Bush has now compromised religious independence, as well as damaged church and state separation. I fear a slippery-slope. Government settling theological disputes like some neo Council of Trent and government, once again, enforcing blaspheme laws abrogating First Amendment speech laws.


I will not thank Bush and his administration for redacting scientific information regarding global climate change. Like Iraq, Bush once again twisted evidence to suit his political ends.
I could go on and on – but you get the idea.

If your still one of that 35% who believes that Bush did such a swell job as president, you should be aware of the snickering behind your back. I like to think of you as apologist clowns. From now on, count me as president of the "Bush Hater's" club. He's deserved every ounce of scorn, rancor, and belligerence from the American people.

You know, the other 65% that don't buy this new spin on his legacy.

But I know the drill. The Bush apologists will say or write some love fest over him. They'll be corrected. And when you do, they'll stick their fingers in their ears and tell you to not be mean to poor old Bush and you should move on.

I'm so glad that this afternoon, I won''t have to worry about this clown anymore.

However, their are plenty of clowns still left in the clown car.

Follow the Inauguration! Citizen Photo Journalism

Originally uploaded by spotbott

I write a number of blogs – five if you include content on Facebook, yet still one of my favorites is photo blogging on Flickr.

Here I post random shots of life, family, design work, and some of my more refined studio photography. Yesterday, I live-trapped a mouse and posted the poor little guy's mugshot on Flicker. I relocated him this morning.

Flickr has started a group for people to share and document tomorrow's inauguration festivities.

Check it out.

It's really interesting to see at ground level as events unfold by people like you and me.

Real citizenship journalism!

Village Idiots beligue themselves into believing that waterboarding is not torture

You know that blogger at Lake Country Living who boasted about a three year study that he personally did which was said to conclusively reveal the overwhelming "liberal biases" at the Journal Sentinel and when ask to provided said study, could not? Could not even produce a napkin with hash marks?

You know, that same blogger who is such a BAD PARENT, that he doesn't practice proper internet security and allowed ***gasp*** his 17 year old daughter and adult wife to read his personal email only to become exposed to the oh so cruel violence of a single "f" word?

You know, the one that thinks he is so clever that he has now come to calling his fellow bloggers, "village idiots."

You know, the same blogger, that has hogged the cross for months playing the victim card for sympathy for his views by his sycophants?

You know the blogger I am referring to, right?

Well, this same blogger would have you believe that water-boarding is not torture.

This blogger, states that

Just because the liberal media (86% of our countries journalist are liberal according to the polls) says it's torture

(Care to count the fallacies in this one? Naturalistic fallacy, poisoning the well, non sequitur....)
No you boob, it is not the liberal media who says that waterboarding is torture, but everyone in the civilized world.

Also recall that this blogger, in his desperation to take the moral high ground, labels anyone that dares raise an objection to his "arguments" as an "Anti-American," which he bases his judgment from a mid-18th century dictionary. Never mind what the United States Supreme Court has ruled on question of sedition since the founding of the country.

Since this blogger finds it appropriate to use a dictionary, what does the online Encyclopedia Britannica have to say on the matter?

waterboarding torture technique

No doubts there. According to the standards by the BAD PARENT blogger above, the Encyclopedia Britannica must be liberally biased.

But what else can we say about waterboarding?

Waterboarding is a form of torture^[1][2] consisting of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.^[3] It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,^[4][5] politicians, war veterans,^[6][7] intelligence officials,^[8] military judges,^[9] and human rights organizations.^[10][11] As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.^[12]

Again, according to our bad parent blogger above, the Wikipedia article, written and vetted by a diverse number of people, must be all liberally biased as well.

The United States Constitution enshrines the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. It is the rule of law that civil government unequivocally must adhere to - no exceptions. It is what makes us Americans. I guess, the Constitution, must be liberally biased in that boob's mind too.

Quote me on this: "If any American believes that waterboarding is not torture and refuses to acknowledge that such a practice is diametrically opposed to the core values of our country is an Anti-American." (Yes, you are an Anti-American with your twisted and sick values. Live with it, fascist pig. I'll gladly own these words anytime, any place.)

If waterboarding is not cruel and unusual punishment – a torture technique employed by the Spanish Torquemada to force people to confess to witchcraft, and is rejected as an interrogation technique by legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations worldwide, I suppose by the standards of our bad parent blogger above, they must all be liberally biased!

If you ask me, a real bona fide village idiot is someone who refuses to see the evidence themselves and denies the broad, worldwide consensuses that waterboarding is torture.

After you watch a waterboarding – how can you not feel sick and twisted up inside? As far as the argument that waterboarding is effective and reliable, stop over and I will waterboard you into a confession of engaging in the dark arts and witchcraft in no time.

I am sick of you people.

You disgust me, utterly.

40. Yes 40. Bush Scandals.

Remember way back in August 2000 when Bush accepted his party's presidential nomination, Vice Presidential nominee – and sharpshooter, D ick Cheney promised:

"On the first hour of the first day...he (George Bush) will restore decency and integrity to the oval office."

Hey America! How that work out for you?

Over at the Daily Beast, Benjamin Sarlin, has briefly listed 40 of Bush's scandals in not one, but two separate posts.

40 scandals in 8 eight years. That's an average of 5 a year.

So much for restoring decency, if not integrity to the oval office.

Yeah, and I am supposed to thank this president? Good riddance to this man's incompetence.

Ha f'n ha.

Get real you Bush apologist clowns!

Waterboarding is torture. Republicans torture.

In their efforts to obfuscate the fact that waterboarding is torture, Republicans, Bush-Nationalists (afflicted by their own strain of Bush Derangement Syndrome), lovers of torture, and others of questionable moral persuasion tip-toe around the moral implications that waterboarding elicits because of political necessity and commitment.

How many times have you heard the gleeful torture-lover robotically parrot the weasel words, "enhanced interrogation techniques." Ignore the evidence of what waterboarding actually entails, no, relax in the pleasant sounding spin of our rhetoric.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are not afraid to call a spade a spade.

Today, during testimony, Eric Holder Jr, Obama's Attorney General appointee stated in no uncertian terms:

"Waterboarding is torture."

Further observing that the descisions by Bush and Cheney's administation decision to torture that:

"...the president-elect and I are both disturbed by what we have seen and what we have heard."

Holder also signals a return to the rule of law, which is something, if you recall, that only terrorists do not adhere to.

So be on notice, waterboarding sycophants, you support torture.

And the continued use of weasel words belies the weakness of your political worldview, grounded in the putty of your moral relativity.

(Source)

The Devil in Mary, the Mother of God

Since I gave up eating or drinking while reading online, I go through less keyboards than I used to.

Catholics who claim they have seen the Virgin Mary will be forced to remain silent about the apparitions until a team of psychologists, theologians, priests and exorcists have fully investigated their claims under new Vatican guidelines aimed at stamping out false claims of miracles.

At least psychologists are versed in the sciences, not cranks in funny robes.

Wait! It just gets better.

If the visionary is considered credible they will ultimately be questioned by one or more demonologists and exorcists to exclude the possibility that Satan is hiding behind the apparitions in order to deceive the faithful.

Demonologists and exorists... unh? Satan?

Explain to me why would Satan be propping up the faithful by creating apparitions of the Virgin? WTF? Christians are encouraged to look for miracles in the every day as evidence for their faith. Seems to me that the Devil is doing himself a giant disservice by providing that evidence for Christians. Wouldn't a better use of his powers be spent in undermining the faith?

And since when has faith ever been held accountable to evidence? The Orthodox believe that after the mumbling of some magic words, a cracker (communion wafer) and a glass of wine changes into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. How about testing that article of faith? Oh wait, the evidence against this miracle may overturn this long held belief. No. Can't do that.

I realize that expecting Christians (especially this variety) to be consistent in their application of reason and to think thoroughly their beliefs is a stretch. How do they know that the transubstantiation is not the work of Satan? Have they ever tested it?

Perhaps, along with minister, I can find an online diploma mill and add demonologist or exorcist to my list appellations? At least ministers do something – like marry individuals.

Demonologists and exorcists do crap.

Shysters and frauds every damn one of them.

(Source)

Gap Arguments are Paraded Ignorance, Nonsense

Gap arguments are logical fallacies which posits that an apparent explanation as satisfactory if no other explanation is readily apparent. These gap arguments exploit natural human ignorance, and this is why they are frequently referred to as arguments from ignorance, or appeals to ignorance.

In an op-ed, once such appeal is made by Thomas Crowley:

Science can't explain the big bang - there is still scope for a creator

The title alone begs ignorance. Scope? I read that as "hope." But it's a slim hope at best.

Crowley further defines two types of creationism. "Hard creationism" of the Biblical literal variety, and the kind that eagle eyed Al would recognize and a "soft creationism" that...

...it (science) cannot in fact explain how "something" (the energy of the universe compressed into a volume the size of a golf ball) arose from nothing beforehand (the Big Bang).

Cosmology isn't my strong hand, however, it doesn't take more than basic logic and reasoning to expose a fallacy when you see one. Presently, physics can not overcome Planck Time – a state at which the universe and its laws that we've come to know do not apply.

It's usually at this time the creationist will play Occam's Razor – picking an explanation which they believe best fulfills the requirement to solve the dilemma. In this case, since physics can not say much about this early universe in quantum terms, the creationist will rush to judgment and claim by fiat that the "creator" must be the easiest explanation.

Wrong.

Occam's Razor is a methodology for determining the likelihood of one proposition over another. David Hume famously used this concept for determining the likelihood of whether or not that miracles, or witches, were possible. His conclusion was no, that the explanation of a miracle was far less likely than a person who was lying or erroneous in his judgment or belief. Interjecting another unnecessary assumption only further muddles our understanding, grafting superfluous assumptions where they needed be.

The other big problem with Crowley's argument is that the universe, by its very tautology, means that everything in the universe is part of the universe. There is nothing outside of it. Inserting "the creator" makes a similar unwarranted assumption and Crowley seems to be arguing for creation ex nihilo - creation from nothing.

Something which, if I recall, the Catholic Church doesn't support.


(Source)

Getting Back in Shape? Advice from a Neighbor.

The benefits of fitness are nearly self-evident. It facilitates weight control. It gives you more energy. Some people report being more creative too. (While running on the treadmill, I compose most of my posts, or solve design problems, in my head.) Working out contributes overall to your lifespan, improves the quality of your life, and combats complacency against our office-ridden, sedentary lives. Like mine!

Since the new year is here and many people make that push back to the gym around this time, I want to offer you a little, practical advice as you begin, or recommit yourself to fitness. I'm no stranger in the gym and just like you, I have a full time job, family obligations, and a part-time business to run. I've been working out, on and off, for about 20 years and an ardent believer of its health benefits. I've also studied nutrition and exercise in college.

This article is written mainly for the person who is interested in adding free weights to their routine, however the concepts discussed are applicable to general fitness.

Here are just a few concepts, I believe, you should consider before heading back to the gym.

The Body Basics

Most people want to lose weight, or to keep weight off. But when we talk of weight, what are we referring to? The body is primarily composed of two types of mass. Lean-body mass and fat mass. Lean-body mass are parts of the body that is non-storage fat. It includes essential body fat, muscle, tissue and organs, etc. Essential body fat is required to keep your body working properly. Muscles are composed of two different types of fibers. Type 1 and 2. Each fiber type is responsible for a different type of contraction. Fat mass is storage fat. It is fat that is non-essential and is the fat that you are most likely trying to lose.

Proper nutritional guidelines should be followed when beginning any weight training regimen according to the kind of training or any pre-existing medical condition. (Way beyond the scope of this article.) Check with a nutritionist.

Basically, you should expend more calories then you consume daily. In the case of men who want to increase muscle size and density, they should consume more protein in their diets. Proper nutrition and protein consumption can help you ward off over-training which can lead to muscle soreness – preventing you from sustaining your weight training efforts. And don't forget water. A good rule of thumb is to multiply your body weight by .55. The number, .55, represents ounces per pound. At 197 pounds, I should be drinking about 108 oz per day. That's just under a gallon! This is a general rule. Your particular training or health condition may require more or less.

Before and during your weight-training, you should get a Body Mass Composition test. It will determine the ratio of fat mass to lean mass of your body. I have tests going as far back as 1993. An Electrical Impedance test or a simple Skin-Fold test with calipers will provide you a very simple diagnostic tool in just a few short minutes.

Any weight training routine should be designed to increase, or maintain lean mass and catabolize fat mass. To do so, you should establish your goals and then plan accordingly.

The Planning

Jumping into the gym without goals or basic understanding of how the body adapts to constant weight training will probably lead to an unsuccessful attempt and boredom in the gym.

Please consider these recommendations.

Goals. What are your goals? Write them down. Lose fat, gain muscle? How much? Using the concepts of lean-body mass and fat mass, establish numbers for you to target to and achieve. My goal is to add 10 pounds of muscle, and lose 10 pounds of fat. There will be an overall weight balance. Once a week I weigh myself and write that number down in a log. (I have logs going back to 1993.) Presently, I weigh 197.1 pounds. What I am training for is ratio of lean mass to fat mass – not overall weight. Therefore, my weight should always hover around same number. Your goals are probably different. All that matters is something to objectively calibrate your training to.

Motivation and Frequency. To keep motivated, I've read of people of using a calender, crossing off each day they make it the gym. I use a similar strategy. (I use a journal.) You should honestly examine your schedule. What days and times can you commit too? Some people work out in the morning. If your evenings are already busy with family or other social events, you may want to consider mornings. Most morning gym rats I know, report feeling more energetic during the day. I'm an evening guy myself.

The Workout Basics

People's bodies rapidly adapt to the stresses we place on them. The body at all times strives to keep itself in a state of homeostasis. Therefore, any workout routine should take into consideration and apply the principles of Progressive Resistance and Workout Variety. Since muscle fiber consists of two type of fibers, Progressive Resistance is the strategy of slowly applying new loads to the muscle. You add heavier weight over a period of time. This requires the muscle to adapt to the new load placed on it. Muscle adapts by increasing the size and adding new fibers. By selecting a number of different exercise per muscle group – at last two, Workout Variety, is key to keeping your workout fresh. As you perform the exercise, be sure to pay attention to the Range of Motion. The Range of Motion is the "flexed position and the extended position of a particular joint or muscle group." Basically, the more full the is Range of Motion, the more you'll stimulate growth in your muscles.

The Gym. If you can only workout in the mornings, or perhaps you have odd hours, you may what to consider a "micro-gym" like Anytime Fitness or Snap. With a key fob, you can have access to high quality equipment at the will of your schedule. If the micro-gym is not your style - we are lucky in the Lake Country area to have some really great full service gyms. There are pro's and cons to each, just make sure you choose one that best fits your lifestyle and your training schedule. You should also observe the etiquette at the gym. Please, do not throw your weights down and be sure to break down equipment, return your weights and leave it sweat free, for the next user. Nothing annoys me, and others, more than that. I'm guaranteed to go in pirate mode and become more foul mouth than you can imagine.

I've kept a journal of my workouts since 1996. They are all stored in binder 8 inches thick. I write down what exercises I've done, how many reps per exercise completed, and give some indication how I felt after I've done it. Once I hit my goal with that exercise and can complete it in strict form, I increase the weight. This keeps the body adapting.

You might also want to consider bringing bottled water. I take 32 ounces to the gym. I usually consume the whole thing during my workout. It's nice because I can finish at least a one-quarter of my water requirements in a short time. I also wear a stop-watch to ensure that I don't rest to long between exercises. I usually take anywhere from thirty-seconds to two-minutes between each rep and each exercise. Also, I keep my workouts under an hour. Around 45 minutes. This creates a sense of urgency and really helps to focus my efforts in the gym. I go in for business, not to hang out. It's a matter of mindset here - keeping it serious. But that is my approach, yours will probably be different.

Also should consider the type clothing you'll wear to the workout. Personally, I do not like to wear cotton and shake my head at anyone wearing jeans or denim! (True stories!) I prefer wearing materials that are made of light polyester/spandex as they allow for better heat exchange - meaning, I don't get as sweaty and air can cool me better without heavy or constrictive clothing in the way.

Lastly, I do not recommend MP3 players or similar devices while your pushing heavy, unfamiliar weights around. As a newby, you should be concentrating on the form and range of motion of the particular exercise you are performing.

Sweat a lot? Bring a small hand towel!

The Workout

Now that you've decided to get back in the gym and have outlined your goals, selected your gym, your ready to start.

If your new to weight training, you should try to combine Compound Movement exercises, like squats, bench, press, or dead lifts. These Compound Movement exercises are great for overall development as they recruit a number of different muscle groups. The beauty of compound movements is that they recruit both types of fibers - type 1 and 2. For instance, if your goal is to chest build mass, I would recommend beginning with a bench press. This exercise is known to be a mass builder as it primarily works the pectorals major, and can lead to strength and development in your triceps and and lateral deltoids - the part of your shoulders that face front.

If we stay on the example of chest, after the chest press you should move on to strengthening the secondary muscle groups, like the shoulders and the triceps. The stronger these become, the more adapt you'll be at pressing overall. Many people like to include rows to develop the back - assuring symmetrical development in the two hemispheres of the body.

Since I am an advanced weight trainer, I have a schedule of four days on, three days off. Day 1: chest. Day 2: Back and shoulder. 3: Legs 4: Arms. I incorporate a few miles of running at the end of these days. When doing your sets, I recommend controlling the weight through its range of motion, using a 2-0-4 count. This duration will adequately place your muscle under stress, requiring the body to build bigger better muscle! And do not use excessive body language. Only the muscle should be worked! Control your weight and range of motion and you'll have a great workout every time.

My workouts consist of usually four exercises per group. I set a number of sets and reps, using Progressive Resistance. Once I can complete the goal of set and reps, I increase the weight by five to ten pounds. I then change the order and the exercises I do every 4 to 6 weeks. This keeps the days I train new and my body adapting.

On Body-for-Life, there are pretty good workouts with forms you can download to record your efforts in the gym.

------------

Obviously, I'm not fitness professional but a fitness enthusiast. Through the years, I have found very positive effects from what consistent exercise provides.

I am just your neighbor, but if you have any questions, feel free to contact me and I'll do my best to help you get started.

With that, I am off to the gym today for my Day 2 routine. I can't wait to push my posterior deltoids through an exhausting workout! I literally get hyped every day I go to the gym.

See you in the gym!

Enjoy the New Year! You've Got 3 Left!

I'm So Confused by dugglesworth