An Old Man Jogs

Something different today.  I am 71, almost 72 years old.  In my twenties, I started running in an effort to get my weight down.  I was then around 200 pounds.  I read a book, can't remember by whom, but some Australian guy made the claim that if you could run a mile in 10 minutes, you were fit.  That got me thinking, and while I had not run much before, I started jogging, and within a month or so I was running 1 mile in 10 minutes.  I went on to running 3, then finally 5 miles in 8 and change minutes a mile. Of course I wasn't going to win any races, but I lost weight in the process down to 165 pounds.  Today I find myself wanting to get down to 200 pounds, and running again seemed like it might help.  

Now, all this running was done without any coaching or technology of any sort.  I wore Addidas indoor training shoes, because that is what we wore on my high school track team, rather like the one on Jim Fixx's book The Complete Book of Running.  I realize that the shoes Fixx is wearing are not Addidas, but my Addidas were very similar in the amount of cushioning.  Namely, there ain't much there.  I quit running and started cycling.  But quit that as well to concentrate on motorcycling and other pursuits.  In the process, I gained weight...a lot of it.

After my cancer surgery last October, which I admitted took a lot out of me, I have been slowly recovering, but Mrs. PolyKahr has noticed that my balance was less sure than before.  I noticed that climbing stairs was now requiring that I hold the railing.  What to do...what to do.  I started walking, since balances is largely an issue of muscular strength.  Now one of the great things I have today, that I didn't have 50 years ago is the interwebs.  One can find pretty much anything on the internet if you go looking for it.  There is now something called Zone 2 training. 

The various zones, there are 5, are defined by the amount of effort that is required to operate at that zone.  Zone 1 might involve very light exercise.  Zone 5, by contrast is an all-out effort that taxes the body at close to the maximum heart rate.  Zone 2 is enough that you can carry on a real conversation, but you work up a sweat.  The benefits of zone 2 are:

a) As you jog in zone 2, you slowly build up the speed at which you can run and stay in zone two.  In other words it has excellent effects on cardio-vascular health, building out the vascular system and cleaning out the arteries.

b) As you jog in zone 2, you build up the number of mitochondria in each muscle fiber.  Mitochondria supply the ATP that powers the muscle.  You slowly get faster up to a point.  Your muscles also become more efficient at oxygen uptake, so you can run faster and stay in zone 2.  You also build up the strength of the bones.

c) It trains the body to use fats as a fuel source, which becomes really important once you begin running really long distances, say 10 miles to the ultra-marathons.  Yes, people run continuously as much as 100 miles!

d) You are unlikely to injure yourself if you stick to zone 2 religiously.  You can get fit and not suffer injuries that competitive runners often suffer and sideline them like knee injuries, shin splints and various fractures.

None of this is really new.  Joe Henderson first coined the term "long slow distance" in 1969 which is the same as zone 2.  80% of a runner's efforts should be at a pace that fits in zone 2.  More recently, in Japan, Professor Hiroaki Tanaka has written a book called Slow Jogging though I think Tanaka is being too kind. I call it the "old man's shuffle" though it seems to be working. When I started a month and a half ago, it was very slow going. But the speed is creepy up, imperceptibly.

For Father's Day, Mrs. PolyKahr got me a heart rate monitor, a Wahoo TICKRfit that you strap on your arm as you run, and you can keep track of your heart rate as you exercise.  I can keep my effort in the zone 2 range pretty easily with this technology and it has been an eye opener.  I start with a quarter mile walk, at the end of which my heart rate is only 96 bpm.  Then I start the "old man's shuffle" and my heart rate slowly rises to 135 at which I start walking again until it is down to 120 bpm, where upon I start jogging again.  I do this for a total of 1.25 miles. 

As for the problems I mentioned at the start, those have both improved.  I am more sure footed and am having less problems with balance.  In addition, I can now climb the stairs again while holding grocery bags in both hands and do not need to hold onto the rails.  Maybe the young can walk faster than I can jog, but I haven't felt as well in a long time.  Oh, and I am losing some weight too.  So I tip my hat to the young and keep on jogging.

It Makes Your Blood Boil

 I have taken a break for commenting in part to have more time for other parts of my life that I have neglected.  As Mrs. PolyKahr has noted, I am an old man, and my influence has faded.  My life has become small, and there is very little I can do about anything.  For me, I will eventually leave this earth.  Still, I must at times alert gentle readers to dangers and lurking situations that may affect the lives of people in the prime of life.

I don't remember who said it first, but it is true that the cause is never the real cause of all the commotion.  That is just a convenient excuse.  The real cause is the revolution.  The real cause is grabbing power.  J. B. Shurk, at the American Thinker yesterday nailed it for us at Our Fiery but Mostly Peaceful Invasion. Before I get into Shurk's piece, however, I must make some explanation about the term "Democrat." Mrs. PolyKahr is concerned that the term paints everyone who votes for the candidate with the "D" behind his name with the odious Communist/Socialist/Marxist label. I don't mean to do that. People have all kinds of reasons for voting as they do. My concern is with Democrat politicians, who darn well know what they are doing. Mrs. PolyKahr also likes to make the moral equivalence argument that there are some "good" Democrats and some "bad" Republicans. While this is true, the difference lies in party platforms. The Republicans still give God and country at least lip service.

Shurk starts out by explaining how our government, other Western governments, in coordination with globalist elites and others (think CCP) have brought about "color revolutions" all over the world. The Los Angeles riots follow the same playbook but are different in that this is really a foreign invasion.

Across the West, the Establishment wages war against national populations that reject the politicians and bureaucratic tyrants running their countries into the ground. Western “elites” undermine democracy in the name of democracy and throw anybody who objects into jail. It’s insanely totalitarian...and entirely predictable.

For months, every American with two brain cells and a pulse has understood that Democrats were preparing for a 2020 “summer of love” reunion tour now that President Trump is back in the White House. Just as they took advantage of fentanyl fanatic George Floyd’s death by railroading four Minneapolis police officers and kicking off a months-long rampage of arson, looting, and murder in Democrat-run cities across the U.S. five years ago, violent Democrats have been salivating at the chance to turn the summer of 2025 into a bloody, fiery nightmare for law-abiding Americans. It’s what Democrats do.

This season’s production of the NGO-financed, Intelligence Community–choreographed, Chinese Communist Party–supported, and Democrat party–organized “color revolution” has a new theme. Instead of bringing back Black Lives Matter for an encore performance of its widely acclaimed 2020 race riots (despite five-star reviews from the Establishment, that “fiery but mostly peaceful” theatrical production turned off much of the public), 2025’s murder spree will celebrate criminal illegal aliens’ war against Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

Forty million foreign nationals will prove why they should be allowed to break America’s immigration laws and bilk America’s taxpayers by burning down American cities, attacking America’s law enforcement officers, and endangering American lives. California governor “Gruesome” Newsom sure is excited. The same tyrant who sent armed enforcers after Christians who refused to mask toddlers over two years into the COVID pandemic (another Democrat-sponsored theatrical production that the press and politicians adored but the public despised) is doing everything he can to help illegal aliens set his state on fire.

It is teeth grinding to realize that the taxes paid to the government have been used against us. Shurk puts it this way:

First, powerful government officials conspire to aid and abet a foreign invasion. Then those government officials cover up the dangers and injuries to American citizens. Finally, the same government officials whose actions have caused real harm to Americans denounce Americans as “immoral” for daring to oppose the government’s malicious, criminal, and damaging conduct.

It’s as if the people who have been “running” this country for decades hate the people whose families have long lived here and love the foreigners who just sneaked in. Perhaps we Americans are a nation living inside a nation being constructed around us! That would certainly explain why the Constitution (and particularly the Bill of Rights) seemed to stop operating sometime over the last century.

But we know why this is happening. Too many Americans have rejected the Marxist globalists and their borderless “New World Order.” So we must be made to pay.

I don't want to be the only one whose blood is boiling, so go ahead and read it for yourselves.

We Are All In God's Hands

 Over at Bearing Arms, Tom Knighton has a piece entitled The Atlantic Has a Piece Premised On Long-Debunked Argument for Gun Control. Gentle readers can read the Knighton's article for themselves, and can also read The Atlantic article. I want to write about the basic premise itself, that the idea that your neighbor has a gun makes you feel unsafe, and that this 'feeling' gives you the right to oppress your neighbor.

The "feeling" of being safe or unsafe is a matter of your internal emotions and is entirely unrelated to the actual environment that surrounds you. Some people feel unsafe if they step out of their home. We tend to call these people agoraphobic and treat them as needing help. Others may feel threatened by being in a wood where suspected wild creatures may attack them at any moment. In both cases, a more realistic evaluation of the surrounding environment, coupled with additional knowledge of how to cope in these surroundings would have made them feel safer.

I have been in a room with 100-150 concealed carriers and felt perfectly safe. This is because I know that before granting a concealed carry license, the state vets a person to some degree. At least they haven't committed a violent crime. But in all cases, the feeling of safety is an illusion. You cannot know when a disaster may strike. You may feel safe driving down the road until another vehicle causes an accident that leaves you paralyzed. You may feel safe in your home until a home invader kicks in the door and threatens you and your wife and children if you don't comply. As these examples show, one's feelings of safety or vulnerability are an illusion.  You may want to emphasize your vulnerability, but that way lies insanity. 

Recognizing that our feelings are a matter of internal emotions, and do not necessarily reflect reality, they do not make a good basis for public policy. Rather than make one more law, which the criminals won't follow anyway, take reasonable precautions, evaluate your surroundings as realistically as possible at all times, and realize that we are all in God's hands. His will be done.

The Fatal Flaw of 'In Common Use'

 Yesterday, at Ammoland David Codrea had a must read piece illustrating, and I think providing evidence of the truth of his belief that the "in common use" test used by the Heller court was basically flawed. You can view his article at Chinese Coil Gun Could Prove Fatal Flaw in 'Common Use' Argument.

“State-owned arms maker China South Industries Group (CSGC) has released footage of its electromagnetic coil gun,” Interesting Engineering claimed Sunday. “Allegedly capable of firing 3,000 rounds per minute, the prototype represents a major technical leap in portable directed-energy weaponry.”

...snip...

“This bullpup gun uses coins as bullets,” a two-year-old video accompanying the story explains. “It is totally legal because there is no gunpowder, and the output power is limited.”

That would even make it outside the purview of ATF. Clearly, whoever presumed “total” legality did not take into account the Democrat mania for citizen disarmament. And the output power can be increased. Let these things hit the market and watch how fast demands to “Close the rail gun loophole” translate into regulatory oversight and outright bans on civilian ownership. Except for the “Only Ones,” of course.

And what about the Second Amendment? They are arms, after all. This is where our “gun rights leaders” may have painted us into a corner, by seizing on the criteria of being “in common use at the time” as the standard to determine if a gun ban violates the Second Amendment. It was never intended as a popularity contest. Since no innovation ever begins “in common use,” a government with the power to do so can ban all new weapon developments from those they would rule, retaining them exclusively for itself. Remember the core purpose of the Second Amendment. To argue the Founders thought sending an outmatched yeomanry to their slaughter would be “necessary to the security of a free State” is insane.

I encourage gentle readers to read the entire article. The anti-gun cracktivists will argue that the founders never imagined rail guns and energy weapons when they penned the Second Amendment. But of course, they would have endorsed those things as being within the scope of the Second Amendment. Just as they couldn't imagine television and social media, but they would have endorsed those as being within the scope of the First Amendment. Codrea is correct that at some point, the SCOTUS will have to confront the real purpose of the Second Amendment and give it its due in protecting our fundamental rights, or else give up on the idea of America.

Is Power a Tool or an End in Itself? It Depends

Ted Noel has an article that is, in my opinion, must read, at the American Thinker today entitled Why the Left Worships Power? If gentle readers will read the article to the end, they will discover that Noel is drawing upon two books by the late Michael Heiser. I have read The Unseen Realm by Heiser. It is an excellent book that brings to life much that is taught at the seminaries, but that the Pastors don't teach their congregations. Essentially, the God of the Old Testament does not rule alone, but has a whole council of spiritual beings called elohim and sons of God.  But they do not partake of the essence of God.  Only the unique Son of God, Jesus, has that title.  Once you have read Heiser, it brings the entire Old Testament to life.  It also explains, not directly because Heiser isn't political, the reason the Left worships power above all.

We left my last essay with a conundrum. “What was my Irish Setter supposed to do when he caught the UPS truck?” Or in political terms, “What do the Democrats want to do with the power they are so ardently seeking to seize?” Even so great a thinker as historian Victor Davis Hanson admits to being a bit puzzled by this.

...snip...

The oldest manuscript we have of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the Dead Sea Scrolls, points out that the division of humanity into warring tribes at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) placed each of those tribes under the authority of individual rebellious elohim, celestial beings created by YHWH, the One True God.* Each of them chose to rebel in order to be, as described by Isaiah 14:13-14, “like the Most High,” on a throne “above the Most High.” In short, they gave up service to their exclusive higher purpose in exchange for a quarrelsome “Me, Me, Me” life.

This is the status of the modern left. Various constructions, such as the post-modern “my truth,” point out that the left has no Pole Star for service. At this point, please forgive me if I leave out your favorite example. There are simply too many. Every example has a single key element. The individual is supreme, and there are no exceptions. Any suggestion that the leftist must submit to any higher authority is met with violent opposition, or, in the face of irresistible enforcement, some form of psychological decompensation. We are all familiar with the leftist protester screaming at the sky.

The Left ultimately does not believe in God. If they did, they would say "Thy will be done," and because their will and God's were aligned, their will would be accomplished. But because they stand in rebellion to the One True God, their plans ultimately fail.

Ultimately, the faux power will fail. As YHWH says in Psalm 82:6-7 (quoted by Jesus in John 10:34), “I said, “You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless, you will die like men, and fall like any one of the princes.” (Psa 82:6-7 NAS).

Will we be able to reclaim some of those who have fallen into the pit of depravity, or are they so fully committed to the evil elohim that they simply cannot allow themselves to leave the dark side? My crystal ball is cloudy, so for now, we must spare no effort to right the ship of state and, in the words of Herman Cain, “Save the saveable.”

Why Carry a Firearm

 Somewhere in the past I have several posts telling why I carry a handgun.  You are free to go looking for them if you like, but Mike McDaniel has a pretty comprehensive list at the American Thinker today entitled Why I carry a handgun, and you should too. McDaniel first offers up the usual reasons most of us have:

*Evil exists and may confront anyone at any time and any place.

*Evil exists to destroy all that is kind, good and loving.

*God exists and expects me to protect myself, those I love and those unable to protect themselves.

*Self-defense is a God-given, natural, unalienable right.

*The lives of the innocent—friend or stranger—are worth far more to me and to a just society than the lives of vicious criminals and terrorists.

*By carrying a handgun, I honor the foresight and wisdom of the Founders in writing the Second Amendment, which acknowledges, but does not create, the right to keep and bear arms.

*The Constitution does not bestow liberty; it restrains government from infringing on our liberties. Arms have always been necessary to remind government of that.

Not only does the amorphous term "evil" exist, but it is actually a person variously called "the ruler of this world, powers, and principalities."  Fortunately, Christ has sealed a lot of us through baptism, so that the Evil One cannot "possess" us, but it is human nature to listen to his calls, and some chose to act on those calls. We see it in the news all the time. These are enough reasons, but McDaniel has more specific reasons as well.

*A government that labels half of the nation “white supremacists,” “insurrectionists,” “domestic terrorists,” “racists” and sends federal law enforcement to spy on and harass parents objecting to the sexual and political indoctrination of their children makes plain the wisdom of the Founders in writing the First and Second amendments.

*So does a government that throws open our borders, admitting known terrorists, violent criminals the diseased and criminally insane.

*It demonstrates, as nothing else can, that I am the master of my government not its slave, that elected officials work for me and only with my continuing consent.

*It reminds politicians every iota of power they possess is on temporary loan from me and every other American on condition of good, lawful behavior. They hate that.

*I am a free man, and no evidence of that fact is more meaningful and convincing than that I own and carry the firearms I prefer.

McDaniel here offers a powerful list of reasons that he carries a firearm and thinks you and I should too. The one that struck me, again, was one I have stated in the past. The government that does not trust its citizens with a firearm is not to be trusted. One thing I will add to McDaniel's list is that, though evil exists, and one must always be prepared to defend oneself, one must also pray to never need to fire that weapon at another human being.

The Left's Evil Plan

Over at Townhall.com today, Kevin McCollough has an article entitled Why the Left Fears Birthrates. Of course, the Left doesn't fear birthrates per se, but rather fears Americans who have large families. They view immigrants comming into our country from third world hellholes as somehow more easily persuaded to the Democrat/socialist/Communist/Marxist party line. Does this mean that the Leftists may be a bit racist? That is for you to decide.

Hillary Clinton—perpetual candidate, bitter scold, and queen of projection—finally said the quiet part out loud again this week: she doesn’t like it when Americans have more children. Especially not when those children are born into households where parents love God, cherish life, and might—gasp—vote differently than she does. Her latest broadside came during a public discussion at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan, where she scoffed at the idea of encouraging higher U.S. birthrates and instead suggested, “That’s why we have immigrants.”

Let that sink in.

In Clinton’s view, building families from within—through childbirth, parenting, and faith—is antiquated and unnecessary. Just import replacements. That’s her worldview: don’t raise your own kids, we’ll bus in a more politically useful class of future voters instead.

...snip...

But who is she to criticize larger families, anyway? She raised one child—amid tremendous privilege, global influence, and the fawning protection of media elites. Meanwhile, millions of American families, some with five, six, even eight or more children, raise their kids with love, sacrifice, and conviction, often in conditions far less favorable. In coastal elite circles, large families are derided as backward or hyper-religious. But in truth, they are America’s best and most vital asset: units of resilience, character, and continuity.

It’s not the size of the family that Hillary and the Left fear—it’s what those families represent.

Let’s not pretend the modern Left even values childbirth. They cheer abortion like it’s a sacrament. They craft laws allowing for the dismemberment of children in the womb up to the moment of delivery. They mask death in euphemisms like “choice” or “reproductive justice.” Clinton herself is the face of this culture—a high priestess of abortion-on-demand who campaigned with Planned Parenthood like it was a cabinet post.

And if a child does make it out of the womb?

Well, then the Left shifts gears: separate the kids from their parents as fast as possible. Not at the border—but in the schools. From age 3, they want to hand your child over to state institutions. Public schools—overseen by unelected bureaucrats and ideological activists—are the new reeducation centers. Parents’ values? Irrelevant. Faith? Silenced. Independence? Quashed. And if you dare object, you might just get labeled a “domestic terrorist” by your own Justice Department.

They don’t want to raise your child. They want to program them.

Go and read the whole article. The Left continues to show its true colors, and those colors are red with the blood of millions. The only people these guys care about is themselves.