Unfortunately for all of us, this classic is out of print. Why, I have no idea!
According to the All Knowing Wikipedia, Percy was born in 1895 and died in 1975. He was an Australian athletic coach, and coached Herb Elliott, who won a gold medal in the 1960 Olympic games.
Now before you go saying “He only lived to be 80, I’m not taking his advice!” realize that 80 is a pretty ripe old age for someone born in 1895 who once battled with cancer – and who actually died of Motor Neurone Disease (called ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s Disease in the US).
His book is about how to live. I think it sums up Cerutty’s “Stotan” (a combination of Stoic and Spartan philosophies) life-philosophy well.
percy picking up a man almost twice his weight, when he was 70!!
Through the “manliness” protocol that was very popular in his era, Percy explains that people (men) should exercise regularly. He gives the why and the how in about as simple and down-to-earth a manner as you would ever want.
Check this book out from your local library (or local university library), or buy it on Amazon used for $25. It’s worth the read!
I’ve been meaning to put this review up for a while, and haven’t had the time. Now’s the time!
Mind Programming, by Eldon Taylor, is a book about persuasion techniques, marketing methods, and self-change.
I SEE YOU!!!
While Eldon is a little redundant at times, and pulls from many other sources in the first half of his book, his summary of mental manipulation techniques is a good one, and worth reading.
The second half of the book is devoted to Eldon’s discussion of the subliminal self-help programs he has created, along with other methods for creating self-responsibility and feelings of self-affirmation.
They say that “knowing is half the battle” (thank you, G.I. Joe), and I agree completely. The other half is taking action on that knowledge. To that end, I really like Eldon’s book, and his presentation of the knowledge, and the know-how to make change.
On the “critique” side, I do think the book is a little redundant and stream-of-consciousness in places. It also begins to promote Eldon’s own views/methods more and more as the book continues.
While there are many facets to recognize in order to achieve true autonomy in our society (if that’s even possible), Eldon’s book does a great job of pointing out the main, media-driven, detractors from autonomy, and for that reason, I highly recommend this book.
I read John Zerzan’s book “Twilight of the Machines” recently. A good friend recommended it after my blog post on the book “The Coming Insurrection.”
After twilight...we gon' let it all hang down!
I enjoyed the book. It was very enlightening. Zerzan says that the “problem” with/of civilization stems from the development of symbolic thought via language. That is, that language itself creates a separation between things. This separation leads to the creation of other separations.
Specifically, the next separation to come was an original division of labor, which resulted in domestication. Some people stayed at home, some ventured out. They became very different.
If you couldn’t tell, this was also the beginning of the separation of the sexes, according to Zerzan. The separation or distinction between what is considered exclusively male from what is considered exclusively female led next to the separation of classes.
But Zerzan doesn’t stop there. Which is good, and bad.
Technology, he says, is the hallmark of the current separation. He discusses the ways in which technology has further separated man from himself and the rest of Creation (not in a “Biblical” sense, there – just, the Totality of What-Is).
He talks about postmodernism, and its apathetic relativism, as an outgrowth of this technology.
Like I said, I liked the book, but I had a couple of issues with it.
First, it’s a book. There’s no call to action within, except for a complete abandonment of civilization as we know it now. Which strikes me as odd. Zerzan wrote his book, presumably, on some piece of technology, and technology was used to reproduce and distribute it.
Apparently, he also does extensive speaking tours around the world. Doesn’t he know that airplanes are technology? And that air travel is considered to be one of the most damaging (in terms of carbon footprint)?
My second issue is more serious. It has to do with his critique of technology, and his critique of civilization.
So why, if we were just as intelligent, would we suddenly create this new mode? Did it come exclusively from the creation of agriculture? Couldn’t agriculture be much older – as the cultivation of certain crops over others – given that homo has had the same level of intelligence for so long?
Was it boredom?
Or is it a combination of forces? The sudden presence of agricultural “technology,” combined with population density and the accompanying pressures and stresses. It’s interesting to note the development of similar practices in very diverse places in the world at roughly similar times (e.g., the development of culture and technologies in Central and South America, similar to those in other parts of the world, and sometimes even preceding those developments in those places).
Which leads to my final critique of Zerzan’s argument. “Technology” is not an “evil.” There are multiple “technologies” that have been used by various peoples at various times. In fact, the handmade axes of 130,000 years ago mentioned in the article above are “technology.”
Computers, “machines,” as Zerzan calls them, are modern versions of technology. But my computer has not stopped me from being physically active, or from connecting back to the earth. In fact, it has enabled me to get closer than I thought I ever would. Yes, I have to leave this technology for another when I go, but that doesn’t make one “better” than the other.
At base, Zerzan’s argument appeals to me – I do believe in the need for people to return to their own physiologies, and through that, to a deeper connection to and understanding of the earth. But the method he recommends is suspect to me.
According to Duff, citing a recent journal article from the Archives of Internal Medicine:
More than half of the nation’s medical residency programs to train doctors in internal medicine accepted financial support from the drug industry, even though three-fourths of the programs’ directors said accepting the aid was “not desirable,” a survey found.
Posted in Uncategorized on February 23rd, 2010 by Josh
Chris at Conditioning Research posted a great entry about the different benefits of squatting and deadlifting.
What really caught my attention was this quote from Matt Metzgar, taken from a post on his blog:
“Toddlers squat constantly, but it is all “mobility” work. The squats are done for the purposes of movement, not for the purposes of lifting a weight. If a toddler wants to lift a weight, they shift into a deadlift position.”
we all used to do it...what happened?!
The Back Squat
As far as squatting goes, there are a ton of squatting types/forms. What the authors above are talking about is a natural full-squat position, similar to the resting/seated position used by most people in most “undeveloped” countries:
many still do...
The exercise called “the back squat” involves placing a bar across your upper back, and squatting with it. As the authors mention (and Mike Boyle harps on), this can cause injury if proper form isn’t maintained – that is, if you progress too fast in weight.
The body is only as strong as its weakest link, and, in most “modern” people the lower back is a very weak link. When you put that weight on your shoulders, and squat down, if your mobility sucks, you bend forward, and all of that weight goes to your weak link.
Then the weak link breaks.
The “back squat” though, is called the “back squat” not just because you put the weight on your back, but because it is a back exercise. The back squat, traditionally, was thought of more as a strengthener of the back than of the legs. The deadlift, as the authors above mention as well, was traditionally a leg exercise – though not even the “predominant” leg exercise…that was the “front squat.”
The Front Squat
The front squat involves supporting a bar across the front of your shoulders, and squatting with the weight held there.
The front squat usually allows for a much greater range of motion than the back squat, because the weight is ahead of the individual. It also uses the quadriceps much more than the back squat, and can take a lot of the loading off of the lower back, as the back is necessarily kept in a more upright position (to avoid falling over).
This is the squat used in Olympic lifting, where lifters frequently achieve weights in excess of 3 or 4 times their bodyweight. And it uses the “full squat” (“mobility”) position.
The Deadlift
The deadlift was called “The Health Lift” by most writers before 1970. It was considered the single best lift for achieving total body strength. I think it still is.
However, the deadlift has its own problems, which are, or can be, very similar to those encountered in the back squat.
If form is sacrificed in the traditional deadlift, and the lumbar spine rounds, the load, again, is transferred to that spot, and the weakest link goes.
The Goal – Maximal Strength within Proper Technique
The problem with all of these discussions is that they try to make a claim that one exercise is “better” than another. That “better” can mean “builds more strength,” or “is less dangerous,” or “has a higher functional carryover.”
But there is no absolute truth…except, maybe, this:
If you do any exercise with proper technique, to the current limit at which you can sustain proper technique, and progress as you are able, you will be fine.
No exercise is “better” than any other. They’re all good. They all have their time and place.
The problem happens when people try to rush things, and sacrifice technique for “success.”
He’s trying to get some insight into the factors affecting child development – from parents, educators, and policy-makers. I’m sure that he’d even accept some ideas from folks who have an educated opinion, but don’t fit into any of those specific categories.
Supposedly, “thousands of sports educators, coaches, athletic directors, recreation directors, association members, sponsors, students, and parents across the country will show their support of the Day and of this year’s theme, “Stay Strong, Play On.”"
I hadn’t heard anything at all about it. But, congrats girls and women! I’ll back you up any day of the week!
Posted in Life Lessons on February 23rd, 2010 by Josh
Guy McPherson’s most recent blog post over at Nature Bats Last garnered a lengthy response from me that I’d like to share and expand upon here.
Guy reviews Tom Blees’ book “Prescription for the Planet.“ While I haven’t read the book (and that’s partly the point), Guy cites some issues he has with it. Namely, that Blees’ recommendations don’t call for any radical (root) change in the way things are done, but merely use alternative forms of the same (destructive) system.
Guy says:
Ultimately, Blees’ plan boils down to two “solutions,” both of them extremely suspect. First, he claims we can we can ramp up production of renewable energy systems and also fourth-generation nuclear reactors to keep the power on. Indeed, Blees claims our lives depend on electricity. As such, he dismisses the first two million years of the human experience. If our lives depend on electricity, it’s because we’ve abandoned a viable, durable set of living arrangements in exchange for endless opportunities to destroy the living planet. Second, Blees promotes the notion that boron-powered automobiles will keep us on the highways. And he thinks that’d be a good thing. After all, boron seems to be essentially limitless on this world. Just as crude oil seemed, not so long ago.
Indeed, Guy.
The rest of this post is my response, with some editing.
we need power
Welcome to the Machine
It’s not that I disagree with Guy’s sentiments, but it’s worth noting that he and I wrote our opinions (and you are currently reading them) on a piece of equipment that is an integral part of the “omnicidal technology” that we decry.
The roots of the culture of omnicide are not located in any single place. They’re distributed through our culture. This is true of any culture. Culture, as accepted, shared values, is always self-policing. Individuals within the culture accept it, and see anything that is different from the culture as “foreign,” and therefore also “dangerous,” or “threatening.” They then seek to ostracize or destroy that foreign element – whether or not that makes sense.
The greatest example I can think of is the American Civil War. Brother fighting brother, father against son. It didn’t matter whether or not they were family, or that they loved one another (previously, at least). What mattered was that they had become “the enemy” to one another, through a process of enculturation. The Northerner accepted the cultural values of the North. The Southerner, those of the South.
Beneath that lay the dominant drive of life – at any and all costs to expand, to become more (people call it a lust or desire for “power,” though that description seems flaccid to me).
The two forces combine. The Southern father is now a foreigner. A threat to the Northern son’s expansion – and not just his expansion, but his entire culture’s expansion – everything he stands for or represents…a force greater than he himself. A fight to the death is the only option, it seems.
brother, can you spare a bullet?
Wherefore Art Thou, Culture?
The thing is, the roots, the seeds of the “omnicidal technology,” must already have existed in our culture from the beginning, in order to be able to sprout into their current form. I don’t think they were “planted” along the way. I think they were always present, like anything, just needing ideal conditions for their growth.
What happened? How did “hard work” turn into “entitlement?” How did the earth-consciousness of the small farmer turn into the money-consciousness of modern agribusiness?
Some values were (are) allowed to be stressed (or impressed), while others were (are) allowed to be suppressed. How did those allowances occur, or how were those allowances coerced?
This, I think, is the appropriate starting-point. Starting from a discussion of right/wrong tacitly concedes the ground that supports the undesirable state. Once conceded, it is the “dominant system.”
Now (still) the dominant system, any energy put into it, is used by it (not singularly, but in a distributed fashion) to further its cause.
The “antagonist” must fight against an “agon.” There must be a hero for the villain to fight.
I think these are clues to the way out. Any argument that relies on something other – especially any argument that relies on reference to the current (read, dominant) paradigm – will only be used by the current paradigm.
As usual, Games-expert and all-around-good-guy Alan Hebert was the host of practice, down at the fields at Stanford.
Here’s a brief highlight reel of my activities:
In all, I felt pretty good. A LOT better than starting out last year, when everything was brand new. I think this season is going to be a great one! I’ve got a good strength foundation built up over the winter, and some great practice locations. Also, a ton of useful throw tips from Alan. The only event I’m “worried” about is the Heavy Weight For Distance.
Now the only thing is to practice practice practice!
If you’re interested in trying it out, and live in the Bay Area, Alan is going to start holding regular practices on Tuesdays and Thursdays. I’ll send an update as soon as I know more! If you just want to try it out on your own, search Scottish Heavy Athletics, or Highland Games, for your area, and find a club! Alternately, you can go to Alan’s YouTube page and try some of the moves yourself.
The Peckham Experiments have been a series of “experiments” on the effects of social solidarity and access to physical activity on a socioeconomically disadvantaged group (the “Peckham” region of London).
What happens, the originators asked, when a “deprived” group of people are given a place where they can have access to sporting events, physical health monitoring, and other workshops, at a very very low cost?
Very good things – that’s what!
People begin to organize themselves into small groups to achieve creative ends. Health indices go up, and disease indices go down.
This next “experiment” left me shocked and amazed. I hope you take the time to watch the entire 50-minute documentary about this incredible woman, and her experiment.
The incredible woman is Jane Elliot, formerly a 3rd-grade teacher in Riceville, IA. The experiment involved separating the children in her class into two groups – those with brown eyes and those with blue. Whichever group was judged to be “superior” on the first day was given special privileges, the other group had privileges taken away.
Why, you might ask, would someone do this? Ms. Elliot was moved by the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., to teach her schoolchildren about racism and prejudice – by having them experience it firsthand.
While her method would not fly today, watch the video and see what you think about it for yourself.
I think both of these experiments reveal a glimpse of the profound effect that small changes in our environment can have on us.
