Fit Recovery

Home » 2013 » January » 13

Daily Archives: January 13, 2013

Advertisements

Winter Manscaping

With most of the US in the middle of winter, I figured I would write a bit about the frequency and importance of winter manscaping.  With the exception of some women enjoying furry men, being the human equivalent of a wooly mammoth is quite out of style.  In the summertime, when you’re running around shirtless and in smallish gear, meticulous manscaping is a must.  There is another theory at work as well.  The common saying with crunches and belly fat goes like this:  “What good are washboard abs if you have the laundry piled on top”?  The same can be held for wooly mammoth hair – what good is having a cut, glorious body if you’ve got the fur of a german shepherd covering it up?  At the very minimum, trimmers should be applied to all manly body hair.  Length is optional and it always helps to consult with the better half to determine acceptability.  I have covered darned near everything I can think of in my series – the links to which are provided on this page.

The question is how often must we perform these tasks when we’re covered up for the winter?  There is much open to personal preference here but there are a few things that should be considered:

1.  Do you swim through the winter?  If so, sad to say, you’re not going to want to change from your regular season regimen, unless you want some extra drag for resistance training – it would be like wearing a parachute when you run.  Hey, you never know, eh?

2.  Everything above the shoulders – and I mean above the top of your shoulder, which includes the entire neck beard area, should be maintained on a weekly basis, depending only on how fast said hair grows.  Under no circumstances should you go longer than two weeks lest ear and nose hairs get out of control.  And there is one thing that is absolute:  If your neck beard is long enough to curl (or is longer than the hair on your head) shame on you.

3.  Torso (shoulders to waist, including arms):  Every two to three weeks should suffice, you want to keep from being fuzzy.

4.  Legs:  Legs are a tough one.  Generally I would use hunting season to grow my leg hair long enough that my wife wouldn’t have to complain about my being “prickly”.  This year, because I simply couldn’t get away, she requested that I continue shaving.  I’m certain to a man that half of this is a fair request, the other half has nefarious undertones.  Either way, her happiness is without judgment on my part though.  I have complied as requested.  Otherwise, trimming every two or three weeks through the winter months should do.

The important areas to maintain impeccably are:  Ears, nose, eyebrows and neck – without exception or excuse.  Men, fuzziness and long (or missed) facial hair is unacceptable, period.  Why spend all of that time sculpting your body just to let your overgrown bushiness wreck it?  If you look and feel like a hundred dollars, then you must maintain yourself as such.

Advertisements

Will Banning Certain Guns Get Them Off The Streets?

So making certain guns illegal will get them off the streets and “keep us safe” according to the politicians who will act “in our best interest” to keep us safe?

The obvious question in response is how is that working for drugs?

Or would this make more sense:  Certain groups will eventually be busted for possessing illegal firearms and the jails will crowd up. Then those same politicians who said that certain guns just had to be banned will claim that those violators have to be set free.  After all, their arrests were due to their environment and the law unfairly “targeting” them. That’s exactly how it works with drugs.

If you need any other obvious evidence that it won’t work, let’s dredge up Eric Holder and Fast and Furious again… How did that program help keep guns from the Mexican Drug Cartel’s hands? The reality is crooks will just get their guns on the black market – and if you’re silly enough to believe (or argue) that a black market won’t be a viable option for crooks, just ask the Mexican government about that – their black market was supported by he very people who claim they want to ban guns to keep you safe.  Contrary to the US, owning a gun in Mexico is difficult.  It takes months of waiting, a mountain of paperwork and they are only allowed in the home of the owner, yet upwards of 30,000 guns in a year will be confiscated by their government (only a fraction of which will come from the US) – in short, the crooks are armed while citizens rarely are.  Gun bans will do absolutely nothing to make the law-abiding citizens safer.  In fact, bans will do the opposite – it will simply ensure that normal people have to throw rocks at semi-auto wielding crooks. The real facts are that while gun purchases have doubled over the last 15 years, violent crime and murders are down 49% in that same period. Of course the seething, howling Left ignore those numbers and use their crises as they always have, to enact (or would that more aptly be “exact”?) legislation that isn’t Constitutional and is ridiculous.

My favorite political blog, Power Line takes that a step further and poses another interesting question, humorously. Jay Carney, the president’s press secretary, recently said that Mr. Obama isn’t convinced that more guns in schools is the answer to Newtown.  Really, more guns? According to law, there shouldn’t be any guns in schools.  Schools are “gun-free zones”, or let’s simply say that guns are banned in schools.  John Hinderaker and others are asking that the White House, in the interest of safety of course because having more guns in schools is obviously a problem, be made into a gun-free zone as well. The theory being ‘if gun-free zones are good enough for our kids…’ Be sure to sign the petition.  Actually, to be truthful, having more guns in school is only bad for certain kids (namely yours).

The notion is preposterous of course, in fact the president just effected lifelong Secret Service protection for presidents after Bill Clinton. Why simply banning the murder of ex-presidents and making areas around them “gun-fee zones should be enough protection, eh?  Oh wait, I almost forgot – murder is already banned! How silly.

The reality is that the wealthy, those who can afford an armed guard, are perfectly happy with armed security for themselves, they’re just against anyone else being able to defend themselves or their families unless they too can afford that armed security detail. Oh, they’ll argue that those whom they hire are highly trained and therefore beyond reproach… The same exact training is available to normal gun owners – I should know, I’ve gone through quite a bit myself.  In reality, a fella like me is far more committed to proper training – I have to pay handsomely for my training while police officers have their training and the time they put into it, paid for.  Of course, and this is the beautiful kick in the pants that I love, almost everything I put into that training – including ammunition and firearms – can be written off as a business expense.

The Left always claim to be the intelligent folks – and to one extent they are right… It takes intense, focused brilliance to do what they do:  To present an often resoundingly convincing argument that it would somehow be wise to cock-up anything good and worthwhile, no matter how stupid doing so would be.  They then convince their constituents that it’s the fault of someone or something else when the inevitable and obvious results. When the left celebrates intelligence, this is exactly what they celebrate.  John Maynard Keynes is a perfect example. He made the math of Socialism seem plausible and for that he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. He was celebrated as brilliant for presenting the argument, even though none of his math added up.

The end result of any gun ban is that we’ll be less safe, less able to defend ourselves from those who don’t care about silly bans. Stupid is as stupid does, Forrest – even if it seems, on first glance, to be intelligent.