Free the Animal

Cabining

Here's where I'll be for the next four days.

Yes! It's been since sometime in April, so three months. Far, far too long. Ever. Just spent the last two hours since arrival whipping things into shape (water service; hot water service; cobwebs everywhere to dispose of, inside & out; and the outside deck that circles half the house: tree bits and and lime green tree pollen par tout).

I Know

From my brother this morning in email, what a shocker! And, i'll bet it wasn't even a real low-carb diet (<60 grams/day). I've seen stuff well in excess of 100 or even 150 grams being called "low carb." For many, real effectiveness is under 30, or even 20 grams per day. There's more of the asinine and bias, too.

The low-carb diet set limits for carbohydrates, but none for calories or fat. It urged dieters to choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein.

"So not a lot of butter and eggs and cream," said Madelyn Fernstrom, a University of Pittsburgh Medical Center weight management expert who reviewed the study but was not involved in it.

Dumb-ass fucks. Jesus. And even still...

Average weight loss for those in the low-carb group was 10.3 pounds after two years. Those in the Mediterranean diet lost 10 pounds, and those on the low-fat regimen dropped 6.5.

More surprising were the measures of cholesterol. Critics have long acknowledged that an Atkins-style diet could help people lose weight but feared that over the long term, it may drive up cholesterol because it allows more fat.

But the low-carb approach seemed to trigger the most improvement in several cholesterol measures, including the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, the "good" cholesterol. For example, someone with total cholesterol of 200 and an HDL of 50 would have a ratio of 4 to 1. The optimum ratio is 3.5 to 1, according to the American Heart Association.

Now, observe. And do follow the links to the sorts of things I eat all the time. You know what my midnight snack was, last night? Eight strips of thick bacon, dripping in the fat it was cooked in (I never drain the fat, or put my bacon on a paper towel -- right from fry pan to plate, dripping). I guarantee I have a better lipid panel than 99.999999999999% of any low-fatters, vegetarians, or vegans. Hey, Dean Ornish, you self-serving pudge face: how about compare my lipids to any of your unfortunate patients. Huh? C'mon. 3.5 to 1 Total to HDL and lower as ideal? How about 2 to 1? My HDL is higher than my LDL (.98 to 1 LDL/HDL). And I eat bacon, at least 6-10 eggs per day (jumbos), cooked in butter or ghee; ribeye steaks, cheese, and all manner of fatty animal products cooked in animal fats. This is what happens when you're not a biased whore for grant money (and, really, criminally negligent, in my opinion).

You know what? Gloves are officially off. Let the others be "objective." I'm going to be calling these people lots of names. I'm going to do that a lot. It'll be fun. You'll see.

The far more polite Regina Wilshire has links to a bunch or articles about this study.

The Wondrous Craigslist

Still batting 1000 on craigslist.com. First is was the Coleman pop-up trailer I sold for $4,500. Then a black leather sofa for $800, then a nice mountain bike ($350). There's more: in each case, these items were sold for cash on the same day I listed them, for free.

This morning, 'bout 11:30 am, I placed an add to sell my two first gen iPhones, an 8 gig ($100) and a 4 ($75), firm, cash only. I handed off the 8 gig inside an hour, and it was so easy, I upped the price on the 4 to $100 and was flooded with responses. All in all, $200 and both are done deals within a couple of hours.

I understand the lure of an auction to get the most the market will bear, but there's a huge value to me of not having to take hardly any time at all, and to have a done deal and cash in hand within hours.

Stupid if it Fails; Brilliant if it Succeeds

On the heels of my last post, I came across this from Karen. I head about this yesterday from my co-founder on a drive up to San Francisco to meet with a micro-fund venture capitalist. Interesting. Yea, crash & burn, but is that because the business plan stunk, or just the way things work out, sometimes? Essentially, they were funding their rapid business expansion through cash incentives given to them by mall owners across the country eager to both lease space long term and to partake in a potentially hot new retail chain. Commercial real estate is quite a different animal from residential. Giving seemingly huge incentives can be very important to success.

Personally, I think it's a brilliant idea that was probably botched in the execution and/or the business cycle went against them. You have only so many avenues to grow a company rapidly, and if you want to play in women's clothing retail, that's what you have to do. First you've got the initial investment in time, money and sweat from founders; then cash from friends & family if you're lucky enough to have such access. Then you get seed capital, and eventually, venture capital in several stages or rounds. Perhaps some venture debt along the way. VCs are sharks, and they''ll grab your company if you don't prevent it (your company valuation should dictate the venture investment). Steve & Barry's may have had some or all of these elements, but what better way to grow a business than to have someone give you capital? Huh? Millions. And that's a dumb play? Of course, those mall owners were taking a risk, too, one which will apparently not pay off.

For the 2003 fiscal year, which ended Jan. 31, 2004, when Steve & Barry's had 31 stores, tenant-improvement payments totaled $17.5 million, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The payments jumped to $58.6 million the next year, the documents say. The peak came in the 2006 fiscal year, when the company received $122.3 million in payments, but spent only about $59 million to build out new stores, leaving about $63 million in unused cash, the documents indicate. From fiscal years 2004 to 2007, the company received $380 million of payments.

I have no argument with the frugal, always financially sound, risk averse people of the world. Their great great grandchildren will enjoy the companies they create. I just like ballsy entrepreneurs better, and I'd rather enjoy my creations now, or just keep trying for a big play. If timing were different and someone had injected some caution into that plan, like, "we can't live on this forever, y'know," it probably might have worked. Then Steve & Barry would be geniuses.

Is It Time?

As some of you know, I quit trading the markets full time at the end of 2007. I'll not be looking back. I'd rather work on a startup any day. That said, I do still poke my nose under the hood of the financial markets from time to time, and I think we may have finally hit bottom, from which a rather explosive rally could develop.

Yea, I know; I know. America's comeuppance is for a complete meltdown, depression, bankruptcy and asset crashes all over, and the ensuing misery that ought to befall such a financially irresponsible nation.

On the other hand, of far more importance is that I haven't seen such an opportunity to be buying (stocks, real estate) or starting a business in a long time. Guarantees? No, certainly not, but you will be far better off in the long run if you do the opposite of what everyone else does. Go lean and mean when times are great. Then, when recession or other financial woes hit, you can more likely weather the storm; and then when things are at their worst, begin your expansion and big risk taking.

Just looking at all the negative sentiment in headlines all over the world convinces me that we're on the verge of a turn-around. Since when does the press (or public sentiment) ever get anything right, or have any clue what they're talking about? Of course, if things do turn around, it will be seen by all the current Chicken Littles as just another "asset bubble," "credit bubble," "bailout," "giveaway," and so on. I have always come from a different perspective: sunrise has meaning because of sunset; and what would light be without darkness? Euphoria without pain? Effortlessness without trouble? Riches without poverty? How do you know a boom, if you haven't seen a bust?

No guarantees. I have little fear of losing everything I own, and I also understand that I have only limited means to prevent something like that from happening. That's freedom, in my book. I loath the state for getting in my way, and its meddling in everything from top to bottom, but it's but one factor. Freedom offers no guarantees and in fact is something quite opposite. If you think you're getting squeezed by the stochastic interactions of the state's machinations in public policy and the economy, just wait until you have real political and economic freedom. I, of course, would gladly accept that kind of real freedom and the consequences that come with it. But very few others would.