Training.

12/16 - skip rope, chins, pushups, alt db curls, db side swings, shadowbox

If you can meet the standards, you should get the job.

If you can't, you shouldn't.  Male or Female.  Now, wait for the call to change the standards in 3, 2, 1...

Marine Sergeant Major: Sec Navy Comments on Gender Study ‘Way Off Base’ - Washington Free Beacon: "A Marine war hero who helped conduct the Marine Corps’ study on females in combat operations criticized the secretary of the Navy for questioning the legitimacy of the report’s findings. In a post to his Facebook page this weekend that has since been taken down, Sgt. Maj. Justin LeHew called Navy Secretary Ray Mabus “way off base” for claiming that the individuals who conducted the study were biased against women from the beginning. “The Secretary of the Navy is way off base on this...  No one went into this with the mentality that we did not want this to succeed. No Marine, regardless of gender would do that.”"

Sergeant Major Speaks Out On Women In Combat: "I have been a part of this process from the beginning and I am just going to put it out there. The Secretary of the Navy is way off base on this and to say the things he is saying is flat out counter to the interests of national security and is unfair to the women who participated in this study. 

We selected our best women for this test unit, selected our most mature female leaders as well. The men (me included) were the most progressive and open minded that you could get. The commander of this unit was a seasoned and successful infantryman. The XO of this unit was as good as they get, so good the USMC made her the CO of the Officer Candidate School. I just selected the SgtMaj of the unit to head up our senior enlisted academy at Camp Lejeune, NC. No one went in to this with the mentality that we did not want this to succeed. No Marine, regardless of gender would do that. 

With our limited manpower we cannot afford to not train everyone to the best of their abilities. This was as stacked as a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate as we possibly could. End result? The best women in The GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study. They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations...

The infantry is not Ranger School. That is just a school like any other school and is not a feeder specifically to the infantry. Anyone can go to that school that meets the prereqs, just like airborne school. Kudos to the two women who graduated. They are bad-asses in their own right. In regards to the infantry there is no trophy for second place. You perform or die. Make no mistake. In this realm, you want your fastest, most fit, most physical and most lethal person you can possibly put on the battlefield to overwhelm the enemy’s ability to counter what you are throwing at them and in every test case, that person has turned out to be a man. There is nothing gender biased about this, it is what it is...

To my female Marine friends out there, I love you to death, you are the best of the best and you have my continued admiration for what you do and to the Marines of the GCEITF….you are tops in my book for taking up the challenge…regardless what the SECNAV says about you not being the best that we could have put in that unit because you were….on all accounts."

Point for Jessica.

“We are responsible for some things, while there are others for which we cannot be held responsible.” - Epictetus

What Would a Stoic Do? The Stoic’s decision making algorithm | How to Be a Stoic

Training - "You have two options..."

12/15 - stretch, squats, sauna

ChickenTuna's Blog / Its been a busy year, sorry for not posting or...: "This is my last progress  pic at age 47, I will be turning 48 on dec. 16th.  If I can do it you can do it.. keep going, find out what is possible!!"

Training - "...when you’re in shape, you know it’s the result of doing a little bit every day. Moments aren’t just moments."

12/14 - speedbag/wmup, bench, db rows, back xt

“I like clothes now. I have more energy. I sleep better. My sex drive is up. Blood’s flowing. I’m less susceptible to impulse. I’m in a different mode. When I was way out of shape, the idea of using whitening strips on my teeth seemed terrible. I have to do that every day? I’ll never do it. What you want is instant results when you’re out of shape. You want your teeth whitened in 45 minutes with the use of lasers. But when you’re in shape, you know it’s the result of doing a little bit every day. Moments aren’t just moments. A moment might be a week or a month. So instead of 'Boy, I’d love to eat this hamburger right now,' I’m considering a little further into the future. I’m thinking, I eat that hamburger and that’s 1,200 calories, and I’m gonna work out tomorrow and lose 800 calories. I may as well eat a salad here, still do that workout, and then I’m actually making progress.” — Chris Pratt

My Struggle.

Well, not so much a struggle, really.  More a benefit.  

"The full article details 12 different mass shootings, and looks at "whether proposals might have made a difference in how the guns were obtained, or whether existing laws worked as intended."

Yes, It's True That Gun Laws, Actual or Proposed, Would Not Have Stopped Recent Mass Shootings - Hit & Run : Reason.com: "Not so much news to readers of Reason as we alas have occasion to remind you of this anytime a gun murder makes big national news, but presidential candidate and Florida Senator Marco Rubio apparently shocked some people the other week when he declared on CBS's This Morning program that "None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.” 

This seemed fishy to people who don't pay attention, for some reason, so the Washington Post's fact-checker was asked to investigate.  The full article details 12 different mass shootings, and looks at "whether proposals might have made a difference in how the guns were obtained, or whether existing laws worked as intended." Despite the suspicion that sometimes media fact checkers have agendas of their own, the truth is too obvious in this case. The Post gives Rubio's statement "a rare Geppetto checkmark" as their article demonstrates how neither existing nor proposed gun laws would have prevented them.

...other gun-related fact-checking news from the Post, they also cut through the prevarications from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and others about how their proposed bill killed by Republican in the Senate to pre-emptively deny Second Amendment rights to a class of citizens they like to refer to as terror suspects did not just apply to people on the more limited "no fly" list. Rather it would have entrapped everyone tarred with the incredibly broadbrush and secretive 800,000 people "terror watchlist" of unverified suspicion, with the no-fly list less than 10 percent that big. It was not, despite what you might hear, as simple as "if you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun." "

Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws - The Washington Post: "This is certainly a depressing chronicle of death and tragedy. But Rubio’s statement stands up to scrutiny — at least for the recent past, as he framed it. Notably, three of the mass shootings took place in California, which already has strong gun laws including a ban on certain weapons and high-capacity magazines...  It is possible that some gun-control proposals, such as a ban on large-capacity magazines, would reduce the number of dead in a future shooting, though the evidence for that is heavily disputed. But Rubio was speaking in the past, about specific incidents. He earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark."

"Import people, and you import their culture."

Hawaiian libertarian: Playing the Red Card to Trump the Cucks: "...authors identify two primary characteristics of this "English" culture that served as the foundation for American culture: self-reliant independence of the citizenry and the limitation of the powers of a society's rulers. As they point out, these cultural values are primarily upheld through cultural transmission [and that] f migrants with different values and beliefs will inevitably change them. There was no magic dirt. There was no shining city on a hill. All that was required for irrevocable change was the arrival of sufficient numbers of people with a separate culture of their own who were both willing and able to hold onto it in the face of native opposition...

While the book is filled with facts, statistics, charts and other evidence to make their case against "conservatives", their strongest rhetoric (at least for me personally, as I can certainly relate) comes from playing the red card: Import people, and you import their culture. Import them on a small scale, as with the Normans, and they may assimilate, but in doing so, they will still influence yours. Import them on a larger scale, and they'll keep their own culture, which will conflict with yours. Import them on a large enough scale, as with the Saxons, and your culture will be the one assimilated. And if that happens, you find yourselves at the mercy of whatever the newcomers decide to do with you. Trust us. We know. Both of our Native American cultures have been all but eliminated. Our tribes were forcibly expelled from their lands and forced onto reservation, where they still live today. Neither of us knows more than a few words of the languages our forefathers used to speak before the arrival of Spanish and English immigrants. The Magic Dirt won't save you...

I've got my own brown card to play, and I'll throw it in with John Red Eagle's and Vox Day's red cards into the middle of the table. As the descendent of a marginalized, occupied, dispossessed and miscegenated-unto-near-extinction indigenous native people, I too echo the warning to those who still value the founding American ideals of self reliance and limited Government. "

"The no-fly list, a notorious, secretive, evidence-free zone in which Americans... are denied the freedom of movement based on secret, sloppy evidence that no one is allowed to see or refute..."

The no-fly list really is a no-brainer / Boing Boing: "Whatever you think of gun control, Obama's assertion that "Closing the No-Fly List loophole is a no-brainer" is pretty brainless. The no-fly list, a notorious, secretive, evidence-free zone in which Americans and foreigners alike are denied the freedom of movement based on secret, sloppy evidence that no one is allowed to see or refute, is a terrible proxy for "people who should be treated as suspicious.""

Over 700,000 people are on terrorist watchlist, according to US gubmint / Boing Boing: "Now I understand why we have to do away with that pesky Bill of Rights -- there are over 900,000 names on US soil on a U.S. government terrorist watch list. The ACLU has a counter to show the latest number."

Victory: No Fly List Process Ruled Unconstitutional | American Civil Liberties Union: "A federal court in Oregon struck down as unconstitutional the government's system for challenging inclusion on the No Fly List. The first-of-its-kind ruling came in our lawsuit on behalf of 13 Americans who have been blacklisted from flying for years based on secret evidence and under a secret standard, with no meaningful opportunity to contest their status on the list and clear their names."

Pic via Grounded: Life on the No Fly List | American Civil Liberties Union

"The “reasons” people give are rationalizations of irrational decisions. That’s why you see so many reasons offered."

If even half of what Trump is doing is intentional, it's scary effective.  Of course, if he means half of what he's saying, that's just plain scary.  Calling the Clinton Top (Trump Persuasion Series) | Scott Adams Blog:  "Today Trump said that Hillary Clinton “Killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity.” He was talking about the Middle East and Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. According to the Master Persuader filter, that statement will set off a week of media yapping about how many thousands of people Clinton “killed” with her policy contributions as Secretary of State. As always, Trump sets a high anchor of “hundreds of thousands” and makes everyone think some form of “Can’t be more than 50,000, tops.” As a bonus, the country and the media will also discuss Trump’s claim she was the worst Secretary of State of all time. That gets you thinking past the sale. The “sale” is convincing you that Clinton did a bad job. If you start wondering whether she was the worst, you have already accepted the premise that she is in contention for the title.  The secret sauce with Trump’s kill shots is that they are never random. This latest one, like the ones that came before, has enough maybe-truth to it (in your mind, if not in reality) that it will stick like sap. Clinton won’t be wiping this one off with a damp rag. It’s part of her now...

Bonus Thought 2: Every week that passes without a champion coming forward to offer an alternative to Trump’s temporary Muslim immigration ban is a week that Trump’s support rises. Trump’s opponents will call him names. They will say his plan is terrible. But they will stop short of explaining in detail an alternate plan. But not because such a plan doesn’t exist to be explained. Some form of whatever we are planning to do now is the plan. But I’ll bet you only hear vague support for treating people fairly, as opposed to detailed support for an alternative plan with strong screening. No one can own the alternative plan because someone might slip through. And if that happens, whoever is the name attached to that non-Trump plan owns it. No sane politician wants a 5% chance of owning a terror attack. Trump set a perfect trap.  But that’s just one interpretation. To be fair, I can’t rule out the Lucky Hitler explanation for Trump’s success. A lot of smart people are adamant about that one. Maybe...

The “reasons” people give are rationalizations of irrational decisions. That’s why you see so many reasons offered. The sheer quantity of rationalizations for why Trump is beating expectations is a tell for persuasion. That’s what I learned in hypnosis class years ago. To put it in simpler language, the Master Persuader filter says Trump would be equally popular no matter which issues he chose to champion, so long as those issues also lent themselves to fantastic statements that could draw all attention to him. "