Mindconnection eNL, 2017-07-16

Home

In this issue:
Good News | Product Highlight | Brainpower | Finances | Security | Health/Fitness | Factoid | Thought 4 the Day

Item 1. The Department of Labor announced on Friday the 8th that there were 222,000 new jobs were added in June. This was higher than experts predicted and higher than the monthly average over the past year. Employers have added about 863,000 new jobs since the beginning of the year. Several factors contributed to this, most notably that Barry Soetoro is no longer in the White House feverishly signing job-destroying executive orders. President Trump has been feverishly undoing those job-destroying executive orders, thus the results you see.

Item 2. Another powerful weapon against cancer. Read the full story here:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/538441/biotechs-coming-cancer-cure

Please note that the vast majority of cancer is avoidable by adopting a sensible diet. For example, prevent esophageal cancer by eliminating softdrinks. Prevent colon cancer by eliminating hydrogenated oil and by eating eggplant (not fried or breaded) regularly. Vastly reduce the inflammation that leads to many kinds of cancer by eliminating corn and wheat from your diet.

Item 3. You know those obnoxious robodialer calls we all hate so much? A company called Youmail estimates that American consumers are harassed by 2.5 billion of these each month (about 83 million per day!). And the FCC is finally going to do something about it. Read the full story, here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fcc-robocalls-idUSKBN19Y29U

What can you do in the meantime? Always hang up the very moment you realize you're being robocalled. Then use your call blocking feature to block that number. Long-standing practices like blowing a whistle into the phone have no effect on these automated callers. Even getting an unlisted number is no cure; the robodialers go through a computer generated list. And unless there's an error message (e.g., that number is no longer in service) they will continue dialing it so you can't even use the old method of screening your calls to get them to stop. Nor can you call them back to complain; the number on Caller ID does not accept incoming calls.

An exclusive money-saving offering from Mindconnection, LLC

• Wizread is PC software that puts the reading fluency aids of the ReadingPen onto your PC.
• The pen scans and reads aloud, but does not provide dictionary definitions. This means it allows students with reading difficulties to take exams on their own.
• Both are easy to use.
• Perfect reading aid for people with dyslexia or anyone with reading difficulties.
• Box includes Exam Pen, protective carry case,  user manual, 2 AAA 1.5V batteries, clip-on scanning trainer, and software download instructions.
• No computer required.

Perfect for anyone with reading disabilities. Also great for kids whose parents want them on the learning fast-track.

See it on eBay

They don't look at the composition of the 23 million people or even ask about it. For example, how many of those people have the insurance only because the individual mandate compels them to? How many would have another, less expensive option available if only the UCA were not jacking costs sky high? And so on.

A Congressional committee has looked at this very issue. Maybe 1/3 of those people would be kicked off the insurance rolls. And a replacement law could provide a safety net for them (as the one currently before the House does).

What the libtards have done is impose a set of fictional, artificial constraints on a problem. In this case, one of the constraints is that the 23 million people all have the same outcome if there is repeal. The only outcome under consideration (yet another artificial constraint) is that they will not have any way to pay for medical care if the Unaffordable Care Act is repealed.

Another artificial constraint is the millions of people who don't have insurance due to the jacked up rates caused by the UCA still won't be able to afford insurance when the UCA is repealed. This crystal ball certainty is delusional, at best.

The reality is that with the UCA repealed, more people will be covered than are covered with it in place. At least more who want to be covered. And if the current House plan is enacted, some of those 23 million will change places with people not presently counted among them; it won't be the same 23 million people. There will be more winners than losers. And the savings will permit more of a safety net for the losers.

Nor does it follow that, just because the UCA threw millions of people under the bus its repeal or replacement will throw even more--or any--people under the bus. Yet, this outcome is a core Libtard spewing point.

In the libtard viewpoint, those who have been priced out of having insurance either do not matter or do not exist; yet another artificial constraint. And on and on it goes, until there is no solution possible because the artificial constraints make a solution impossible.

It's important to avoid imposing artificial constraints onto a problem. Yet, this is exactly what most people do (even if they aren't libtarded).

When someone approaches a problem based on what is actually there, this is often referred to as "thinking outside the box." But what is really going on is the person is thinking with no box present. It's not a matter of thinking inside or outside of a box, but of eliminating the box.

Any time you see an aggregate number, find out what the aggregate is composed of. That one technique will help you avoid those artificial constraints. And when someone is talking aggregate numbers, with no breakdown as to the composition, be alert for constrained "thinking."

We can take this example further, to demonstrate another brainpower tip. The whole "debate" is about the wrong question. Medical care has become enormously expensive. A better application of brainpower would be to solve the problem of the high costs, rather than (as is presently the focus) try to figure out how to spread those costs around and pretend we aren't paying for them. Ultimately, the consumer pays for those costs so the real issue is the costs themselves.

Congress could help with that. For example, we know hydrogenated oil is powerfully carcinogenic. It is such a huge risk factor for colon cancer that it's considered a cause of it. We ban rat poison from the list of ingredients in baked goods because it kills people, but we permit hydrogenated oil to be used even though it kills millions of people. And very expensively; it can easily surpass $100,000 once all the colon bypass, chemo, and other ultimately futile measures are taken. Why not just eliminate a few million cases of this cancer by banning its primary cause?

Then there's esophageal cancer. Again, one huge primary cause. We put warning labels on cigarette cartons that they cause cancer, and that's good. We know that soda causes thousands of cases of esophageal cancer every year but there's no warning label; how can that possibly be good?

The American Cancer Society 2017 estimate for esophageal cancer in the United States is about 16,940 new esophageal cancer cases diagnosed (13,360 in men and 3,580 in women). You think those don't cost money? Of course you don't. You and I both know those cancer victims will consume massive resources from the medical system. And in so doing, they will help drive costs higher for everyone.

I'm not sure that Congress could ban soda, even though it also causes osteoporosis and tooth decay, not just cancer. It's too visible. But hydrogenated oil could easily be banned.

Am I thinking "outside the box" here or am I simply removing the box and thinking about the actual problem?

Dramatically reducing the demand for medical care would, of course, bring the cost down quite a bit. And there are other ways to lower the cost. We just need to think about them. After removing the box.

First-Time Home Buyers Guide: Buying With Student Loans And Debt

https://themortgagereports.com/19172/first-time-home-buyers-guide-buying-with-student-loans-debt-gina-pogol

Here's one scenario. There are scammers who pretend to have injuries by falling on a person's porch or staging a low-speed automobile accident. Then they sue you. Whatever your insurance doesn't cover becomes a target in the judgment. Typically, your home and automobile are off-limits. But that mutual fund you were counting on? It's gone.

How do you protect yourself? It's simple:

1. Go to www.irs.gov (sorry, you will have to involve those people). Apply for an EIN, and make sure you write it down before closing your browser window.
2. Form an LLC or Subchapter S with your state.
3. Open a free business checking acct somewhere, using the EIN and business name from the first two steps.
4. Purchase your shares in the name of that business.

If you have an existing account in your own name, all that money is at risk. You need to move it to the account(s) held by your business. This won't give you immediate protection, because (depending upon the circumstances) there is a "look back" period of (in most cases) five years. So get started on this transfer process right away.

Don't transfer the whole amount all at once. To avoid "false conveyance" issues if sued, set up automatic withdrawals of a reasonable "I spent it all" amount. For example, if you have an auto withdrawal of $500/month it's reasonably something you could have spent. This also is not guaranteed protection, but it helps. Generally if you have a large amount saved up you should transfer most of it right away then proceed with the small withdrawals on some remainder you can move over a comfortable timeframe.

Now, here is an issue that arises. Your city may obtain a list of LLCs or Subchapter S entities that are registered to a home address. Some cities charge a business tax regardless of why that entity exists, and they often throw in some grueling red tape.

You can avoid that by using an address out of state or using a state like Rhode Island or Nevada for your business (you can probably obtain a forwarding address in each state, also). Other options also exist. For example, offer a small business owner (zoned in a business zone) a small annual fee to let you use THEIR address. You can then file a forwarding address with the Post Office so the mail for your business comes to your house anyhow.

Thousands of years before any of us were born, warriors were developing impressive physical prowess using the same principles that successful body builders have been using ever since.

Yes, there is debate over the details. Much of that debate exists because we don't all have the same goals, genetics, and body type.

For example, Bruce Lee trained in specific ways that Arnold did not. They were from the same era. Which man was right?

Both were. Both used the basic principles, but in different ways for different goals.

Arnold also used anabolic steroids, but he had impressive results before he started doing that.

The "new school" methods are, in my opinion, a joke. I've never been a Mr. Olympia, so does my opinion help you? Well, Lee Haney was Mr. Olympia eight times. He has the same opinion.

Mr. Haney and I are obviously not on the same end of the body building spectrum. We are also in spectacular shape for our age (he's a couple of years older than I am).

We differ in how we approach body building; he trains for hypertrophy and I don't. But we are not just two people with different goals. Consider professional sports teams, which have millions of dollars per player at stake. They are also "old school." Olympics, ditto.

Some of the basic principles:

• Put the muscle under continuous tension during the rep.
• Work the concentric rather than letting the weight fall (or tension release, if training without weights).
• Do big compound exercises to stimulate a massive endocrine response.
• Do isolation exercises to develop specific body areas.
• Follow a split routine, rather than a "complete" workout all on the same day.
• Focus on overloading the muscle, not on how much weight you can lift (or reps you can do).
• Use different exercises for the same muscle, targeting a different range of motion with each.

These principles work. Variations in technique, volume, and intensity produce different results as desired.

More, below....

Top photo taken 16SEP2016, just days before 56th birthday; bottom photo taken 3 days after 56th birthday

One reason for that is following these principles is hard work. Which is what gives you the adaptive response. It is axiomatic that the body responds to the hard work, and that's why all serious athletes go through such hard workouts. But "work hard" is hard to sell to many people; they prefer to be lied to in search of some non-existent "easy way."

The typical "alternative" method of weight lifting involves tossing weights up and down, totally ignoring actual training of the muscles. The same "easy way" approach is seen in other types of training, too. The "easy" way does achieve results, they just aren't the results any sane person wants.

Some of the harmful results that "alternative" methods achieve:

• Loss of lean mass. Why: The muscles simply are not stimulated to grow. In many cases, they are stimulated to SHRINK because the method elevates cortisol instead of elevating testosterone.
   
• Damage to connective tissue. Why: Consider the recent fad of "fast twitch training." The effect of this is to bang the protective tissue over the joint faces (and when it's destroyed, banging the actual joint faces) while not putting significant tension on the muscle.
   
• Posture issues. Why: Reversing the roles of stabilizer muscles and prime movers does not make stabilizers stronger. It exhausts them; if done repeatedly, this method progressively weakens them. And it's really rough on tendons and ligaments, causing inflammation among other problems.
   
• Osteoporosis. Why: Many "alternative" methods drive testosterone into the basement. When Lee Haney says, "You have to do your squats" he is talking about stimulating a massive boost in testosterone. This is the hormone that triggers your body to store calcium in the bones. Note also that squats (without weights) are part of training for most, if not all, "oriental" martial arts. Kung Fu, Karate, and Aikido are prime examples.
   
• General fatigue. There is no way a person can properly train a given muscle group three times a week; the human body just cannot recover that fast even when taking huge quantities of anabolic steroids. The people who claim to be doing squats twice a week are kidding themselves. The professional wrestlers based in Kansas City do squats ONCE a MONTH. Overtraining depletes your energy, making you feel chronically tired.
   
• Loss of interest. Every year, many people buy a gym membership as part of their New Year's resolution. After a few months (or even less), they stop going. Why: No results. But plenty of soreness, joint pain, and fatigue.

My introduction to "old school" weight training began with using the wheel my grandfather gave me. He didn't just give me a piece of exercise equipment and hope for the best. He also gave me a demonstration, told me that was really hard, and then asked me to do what he just did. Ugh. He wasn't joking! I couldn't do what he did, but he said to keep at it and I'd be really strong some day. I did, and I am.

Along the way, I've had plenty of tutorials from athletes whose results were proof that they knew what they were doing. My goal was to be a performance athlete, not a competitive body builder. And with my thin bones and light frame, that was the correct choice for me. For some others, a different choice somewhere on the spectrum would be correct.

But choosing harmful training methods is always an incorrect choice. There are no shortcuts. They body responds to the stresses put on it:

• If you don't stress the body, it won't adapt to increase strength or lean mass.
• If you overstress the body, you will only injure it.

Any engineer can calculate the force imparted to a given joint when a weight is accelerated and then suddenly decelerated at the end of the movement. The effect is similar to just slamming your joint ends against the wall, assuming you could pull them out to do that and then put them back in.

Any engineer can also calculate the force per square inch on the joint surfaces. The joints just are not sized to take those kinds of forces.

Lee Haney is still healthy and pain-free. That cannot be said of Ronnie Coleman, an "alternative" body builder who has repeatedly won the Mr. Olympia title after that contest was debauched into a freak show. Mr. Coleman uses far too much weight, greatly exceeding the design parameters of his joints. And he tosses it about; you clearly see this in the online videos where he's deadlifting 800lbs. That's why he's had two hip replacements.

Who is the more successful body builder?:

A. The person who can barely walk at 60, and is facing yet another joint replacement operation.

B. The person who has zero joint pain at 70, and is still an active athlete.

Make your choice today. How you train will determine which body builder (A or B) you are.

• The best workouts are short and intense.
• A good diet contains far more flavors and satisfaction than the typical American diet.