Is It Ok To Win A Fight By Running???

The scene was a Saturday night in February. Not just any Saturday night, but Super Bowl Eve. The relative calm before the storm of America's Greatest Sporting Event. The Mandalay Bay Events Center was hosting a fight for the UFC Welterweight Championship, albeit on an interim basis. The principles were the suddenly renowned Nick Diaz and the consistently under appreciated Carlos Condit.

On paper, as the saying goes, this was to be a match of wills. Diaz is an extreme pressure fighter. His long arms and endless cardio power the rat-tat-tat of his constant punching. His very formidable Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu skills virtually forces fighters to stand and strike with him. Condit seems a classic "jack-of-all-trades" kind of fighter. He possesses serious punching power and solid, if unspectacular, skills in all other areas.

There were significant questions to be answered going into this fight. Could Condit stand up to Diaz's pressure? Could Diaz take Condit's power and continue throwing combination after combination? While Diaz rarely seeks to take the fight to the ground these days, would Condit succumb to Diaz's barrage and take the risk of grappling with the Cesar Gracie standout?

What didn't seem to be a question was whether the fight would be "exciting". Exciting in the blood-lusting fan's sense of excitement. Condit had always been known to push the pace himself, and so it was assumed that the two warriors would slam into each other in the center of the Octagon like two fighting rams and we'd see who was the best man that night. But Condit, trained by the excellent Greg Jackson, had other ideas. Instead of engaging head on, Condit moved. And circled. And moved some more. Rarely did he allow Diaz to throw more than two punches in any combination. Rarely did he exchange with Diaz, instead choosing to pick his shots and avoid damage.

The question coming out of that fight read unexpectedly: Is "running" an acceptable strategy for winning a World Championship?

In boxing, many of the greats have "gotten on their bicycle" to beat physically stronger or more imposing opponents. Young Cassius Clay used excellent footwork and movement to frustrate and tire Sonny Liston. Sugar Ray Robinson fought wars against "The Ragin' Bull" Jake LaMotta and used great movement to keep Jake from making Sugar Ray his own personal china shop.

In MMA, however, this strategy is often frowned upon. Fighters are expected to mix it up much more and, given that slugfests sell tickets, they often comply. When Frankie Edgar slapped around BJ Penn for five rounds, the consensus was that he ran to win and BJ would catch him when they fought again. Instead Edgar slapped him around a bit harder. In near perfect symmetry, Carlos Condit won a tight decision over Nick Diaz by using movement and footwork. The immediate reaction is for a rematch, the implication being that Diaz will catch Condit next time. But let's deal with two questions for the fight: Is it ok to win by using movement (you may call it running if you like)? And, did this fight show a weakness in Nick Diaz's game, or was there something else at play?







Let's address the first question, well, first. Some statistics:

While Carlos Condit landed more total strikes and more "significant" strikes, he was actually outstruck in terms of head and body shots. Recall, for a moment, Machida v. Shogun I. In many ways, it was a similar fight to Diaz v. Condit. Neither fight had many ground moments. In both cases one fighter constantly moved forward, even if they didn't land many more shots. In both cases one fighter had huge advantages in leg attacks. In Machida v. Shogun, Shogun was the fighter who attacked more often. He was the fighter who landed more shots (89 to 50), but actually landed fewer "power" shots (15 to 13). His big advantage was in leg attacks (73 to 34). Machida, of course, won a very close decision. The talk after the fight was that while Shogun came forward and landed many leg kicks, leg kicks don't win fights. Whatever.

In this fight, Diaz landed more shots to the head and body (111 to 91), but was badly outstruck to the legs (68 to 6) despite coming forward often. And in this case, Condit got the narrow decision. What might be the difference?

To a large extent the difference might simply be a matter of degrees. Being outstruck more than 10-1 in leg attacks (versus 2-1 for Machida) might have been enough to sway the judges. It also could be simply a matter of different judges and different opinions, as subjective judging is always vulnerable to.

In any case, it is unfair to Condit to say that he won in some cheap or cowardly way. He used the strategy that best gave him a chance to win and executed it almost perfectly. Instead, Nick Diaz fans, along with Nick and his camp, should be focused on the tactical mistakes Nick made in the fight and on closing the obvious holes that Condit revealed. Consider legendary boxing trainer Freddie Roach's take (pre-fight) on Nick Diaz's boxing. Roach made an very important distinction in the video. He said Nick had great hands, but wasn't a great boxer. The interviewer was confused by this and asked the difference. Roach said boxing was about footwork, defense, and head movement also. Nick had great hands, but not necessarily the rest.

Indeed throughout the fight, two things were apparent to me. One, Nick Diaz didn't have the skills to cut off the ring with footwork. He consistently got himself out of position to hold Condit in one area by over-committing to punches early in an exchange. Nick loves to throw a hook as his 2nd or 3rd punch, while many of his more powerful shots have a natural loop to them. To throw the hook, Diaz moved in on Condit (often after only one setup strike) and Condit simply used the closeness to move away to whichever side the hook wasn't coming from. If you can't literally press your opponent against the fence to hold him in place, you must keep a bit of distance between yourself and your opponent and straighter punches (along with good sidestepping footwork) to hold him in place until he covers up or commits to exchanging. Then you can unload harder techniques. Further, the obvious way to slow down movement is to use leg attacks. Like BJ, Diaz was partially victimized by not having that tool to slow Condit down.

Two, Nick was unable to go to step 2 in any attack. Step 1 is simply throwing a technique to land. An example is throwing a jab to hit your opponent in the nose. Step 2 is throwing a technique (which can also be footwork or a feint) to setup a secondary strike. An example is throwing a jab to cause a reaction from your opponent and hitting him with an overhand right. For Nick, he tends to throw strikes only to land flush. The point isn't to land the jab, but rather it is to "setup" the overhand right. Against someone who is using movement to stymie you, sometimes you have to feint techniques to get them to commit to going one direction and then take advantage of that movement. One of my favorite examples here uses either the spin back kick or spin back fist. Fighters are taught to circle way from their opponent's power (in my case right) hand. So they circle to my left (or their right) to avoid "running into" a power shot. As time goes on, I give the impression that I'm chasing them with my right. I give them confidence that they are doing the right thing by moving to their left all the time. Then, when they are comfortable, I fake an attack and throw the spin technique. They run right into it.

Diaz didn't seem to make this adjustment in the fight. Rather than wading in with strikes, use some feints to get Condit to commit to which way he's going to circle out, then attack him while he's moving that way. It's a great way to get someone to run into shots and, perhaps most importantly, lower their confidence and decisiveness in their movement. The latter is a key ingredient in scoring a knockout.

One final point: I read a headline asking "What can we do about boring fights?". To the keen eye, this was not really a boring fight, but I get the point of the question. To the general fan, Condit v. Diaz must've been a disappointment as it was on some level to me. The fact is, however, that boxers have two advantages to catch their "running" opponents that MMA fighters do not, a square boxing ring and many more rounds in which they can "impose their will". The Octagon is larger than most boxing rings and the absence of corners make it harder to keep fighters on one side of the cage. Since the obvious solution, go to a square cage, is not going to happen, fighters must build their games to meet this reality. They will need to build good footwork, a few long range weapons (ie. lowkicks), a strong clinch game (to take advantage of those precious moments when they do "corner" the opponent), and they must learn some advanced, many would even call them intermediate, striking tactics. It is vital for fighters to not simply pile technique upon technique without any notion of context, timing, or setup. Instead, they must learn to make the fight a story in which they are setting up their opponent for the punch-line. Thank you, thank you.

For the re-match, if Diaz works to improve his footwork, sense of distance, and setups he can win. Otherwise, I predict 5 more rounds of Condit sticking and moving his way to a date with GSP.

Will Vitor Crack Anderson's Code?

From a pure talent perspective, it's hard to think of a fight between two better fighters in UFC history than Anderson Silva vs. Vitor Belfort. For fans who've been around the sport for awhile, the image of Vitor running Wanderlei Silva straight backwards with blistering punch after punch and driving him into the mat like a tent stake with still more punches is forever etched in memory. "The Phenom" was seen as the most apt nickname around, as Vitor used breath-taking hand speed to close out opponent after opponent.

Every fight it seemed as if his mythical status grew. We heard rumors of the Gracie's saying Vitor was the best they'd seen (which is like Michael Jordan claiming he's seen the greatest basketball player in the world both from a knowledge and ego vantage point). With a black belt from Carlson Gracie and as a member of his legendary team, Vitor combined that jiu-jitsu pedigree with his explosive south-paw boxing and you got the best in the world.

At age 19, Vitor debuted inside the octagon and fought a grand total of 190 seconds in 4 fights crushing everyone in his wake. Vitor then met Randy Couture and was ground out in what would become classic Couture fashion.

Vitor would rebound from that loss to win 8 of his next 10 losing only to legends Kazushi Sakuraba and Chuck Liddell. But then, in what would be the defining moments of his career to date, "The Phenom" was not so phenomenal as he lost 5 of his next 7 fights. Those rumors of greatness changed to rumors of laziness, lack of heart, and lost confidence.

Since then, Belfort has won 5 in a row including spectacular finishes of Matt Linland and Rich Franklin. On Saturday night, he meets the challenge of his career and his best foreseeable shot at achieving the pinnacle of his talent. Standing in his way is the pound for pound best fighter in the world, Anderson Silva. Can Vitor overcome Anderson's greatness to find his own?

Vitor's Keys

For Vitor Belfort, the key has always been to start strong and look for the finish. He is only 5-5 in fights that end in a decision highlighting what some have called his biggest weakness: conditioning. Whether that's true or not really depends on your perspective. Vitor has indeed tired in the past, but he's a fighter who relies on explosiveness and speed to win. Much like watching Tito Ortiz take everyone down in the round 1 only to get stuffed every time in round 3, Vitor loses effectiveness rapidly as he fatigues. Knowing that, he must look to damage Anderson heavily early and seek out the finish whenever he can. Certainly, he can't punch himself out or leave himself wide-open to counters, but Vitor must be willing to take risks to beat Anderson. You can't stand and stare at this champion and hope he makes a mistake. Anderson has shown a willingness, frustratingly, in the past to stare right back at you and walk out with a decision.

Vitor does have great speed, probably equal to Anderson, but doesn't possess the versatility that "The Spider" does. He has to be very busy when in punching range and be careful not to sit in Anderson's kicking range when pausing his attack. When clinched, Vitor must look to bully Anderson against the cage or take him down. Several fighters have kindly demonstrated the peril in clinching with Anderson Silva. With Vitor likely to already be at a disadvantage in the conditioning department, the last thing he needs is to have knees to the body sapping his wind.

Anderson's Keys

For Anderson Silva, this will be one of the very rare times in his career where he is fighting someone who approaches his physical talent and ability to end a fight with one shot. That fact alone is enough to make the fight interesting, but there's more here. The reality is, Anderson Silva hasn't fought anyone, because perhaps other than himself there isn't anyone, who has the pedigree and ability to finish fights the way Vitor does. Yes, Dan Henderson was dangerous with one shot, but posed little threat on the ground. Yes, Chael Sonnen nearly ground him out, but didn't possess any ability to actually finish the fight. Yes, Demian Maia was a serious threat on the ground, but had no stand-up game to bother Anderson. In Vitor Belfort, Anderson faces a man who could stop him with one big punch AND who could submit him should he get careless. Additionally, Anderson Silva is coming off the worst beating, despite a victory in the end, of his career. He was pummeled for 4 and a half rounds before finally catching Chael Sonnen.

Boxing fans can name many great fighters who met their peak's end after a particularly brutal fight late in their career. One day the light is on, the next it isn't. Can this happen to Anderson Silva?

All that said, in a fight that is nearly even on paper, Silva still holds the single biggest advantage in the match-up: versatility. While the boxing skills may be virtually even, the champion is a far better kicker, more lethal in the clinch, and more able to fight both conventional and southpaw. He has also shown the ability to go 5 rounds and win (even if it was in boring fashion). Therefore Anderson must simply be himself: patient and willing to lose a round or two in the process of wearing his opponent down. He must be careful of Vitor's power, especially in his left hand, and use kicks and knees to the legs and body to wear down the challenger. Finally, Silva must not back straight up when attacked. That has been deadly for another Silva in the past.

Prediction

It isn't every day that two of the greatest athletes in a sport's history meet, at their relative peaks, for a title. In boxing, we have greats like Ali/Frazier I, Leonard/Hagler, Robinson/LaMotta, and many others that hold a legendary place in our culture's lore. Can this fight live up?

To be sure, this fight has the chance to stink. Two fighters with distaste, but no doubt grudging respect for each other's power, could just stand and stare at each other, or be paralyzed with caution. And I know it isn't without precedent in Anderson's career to find that fight.

But for this one, I am going with greatness for a prediction. It's Vitor's best shot at meeting his potential and etching his name in the history books. A win here, along with some title defenses, would give him claim to a spot in the sports budding Hall of Fame. A loss simply cements the notion that Vitor is talented, but comes up just short in the biggest of moments.

But the truth is, I can't pick against the Michael Jordan of this sport.

Anderson Silva by TKO in round 4.

Of Carnival Games and Economics

Let's pretend for a moment that I told you that you could have washboard abs by doing 50 crunches per day for 6 months. You are told that no extra dieting or exercise would be required and that you need only do those crunches as instructed. So you think, "that's not too bad" and set about earning your washboard abs. Two months pass by and you note that no change is appearing in the mirror yet, but I assure you that if you stay the course those abs will be popping in no time.

After four months you are growing increasingly skeptical. You actually appear to be even flabbier in the mirror. We took some measurements (waist, weight, body fat) before you started the "program" and all of those show that you are failing to progress towards your 6-pack. However I am so confident of my methods. I tell you to continue the program, after all it's only two more months, and the results will come.

After six months we measure you again. You are fatter, heavier, and in worse shape than when you started. Your abs look like somebody popped a can of biscuits in your waistband and your lower back is now aching daily. You stomp up to my door and tell me that I suck as a coach and you want your money back. I respond by saying, "No, no. I see the problem here. You are just a 'hard-gainer' or you have some thyroid issue. I'll tell you what, I'll write you another program, totally free, and you'll get those results afterall." You are still furious but are too out of shape and tired from walked to my office and yelling to punch me before I tell you, "let's up the crunches to 75 per day and increase the time to 8 months". What would you do?

Whether you are the type of person to punch, sue, or just take your business elsewhere isn't the point here. The point is, a person sold you on a method, you tried that method exactly as prescribed and it didn't work worth a damn. The ultimate response to that should be to try a different method and mark that one, at least for you, as bullshit.

Let's move this analogy to Reaganomics. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40th President of the United States. He didn't come to power (and who does?) at a simple and easy time in American history. It wasn't long since Richard Nixon had resigned office in disgrace. Jimmy Carter had served in the White House during an energy crisis and appeared totally incompetant to the country. We had a crisis of confidence in our federal government. In many ways, Reagan was the perfect person to deal with this problem.

He was a brilliant speaker who could inspire the country to believe in itself and in him. As much as anything else, his core political belief could be boiled down to his famous quote "Government is the problem." That sat well with a nation who had grown increasingly skeptical of a government who had muddled through Vietnam, still had forces in Korea, was faced by a super-power in the Soviet Union, and was hampered with scandal and controversy.

We were also in a recession. President Reagan's over-arching economic philosphy can be explained as "trickle-down" economics. The theory here is that the wealthy are the main job-creators. They invest in business, or start one of their own, and hire folks to work there. To better unleash this growth potential, Pres. Reagan instituded large tax cuts for the top income tax brackets. When Pres. Reagan took over in 1980, the top tax bracket (then it was for those making more than $215,000) was 70%. Pres. Reagan raised and lowered taxes throughout his presidency, but when he left office in 1988 the rate was 28% for incomes greater than $150,000.

Now, in case you magically care to read this drivel, but don't understand math at all, that's a 42% cut, plus a lowering of what considered a "top" tax bracket.

For the purposes of this blog post, forget about the fact that Pres. Reagan ran very large deficits, that he ran up significant debt, and about the argument over the Laffer curve. Let's focus on whether these policies led to economic growth and for whom the grown occured.

The graph to the left shows the growth of mean (in red) and median (in blue) incomes over the last 60 years. The point here is that from 1947 to around 1980 the two measure appear to be in lock step. But after 1980 the mean appears to rise faster than the mean and the two remain separated today. Why is this? What is the difference between the two?

Mean is another word for average. Let's say that you had 10 people sitting in a bar whose average incomes were $20,000. In walks Bill Gates. If you re-calculated the average you'd notice that it goes way, way up. Despite that, those 1st 10 folks aren't any richer. It's simply that Wild Bill makes so much that he drove up the average himself.

The median income means the value that falls right in the middle of a range. Let's say you had 5 numbers (2, 4, 6, 8, 10). The median of that range is 6 (the one right in the middle of the range). If we changed the numbers by adding in a "Bill Gates value" (say 2, 4, 6, 8, 99,000) the median of that set would still be 6. Therefore the median income is a more useful measure to determine whether the middle-class incomes are growing or not. The mean is rising faster on that graph because there is a larger gap between middle-income and very rich people. Is that really true?

The above graph compares CEO pay (including bonuses and other benefits) to the average hourly worker's pay. Note that over time the ratio has exploded from 24 times to almost 300 times in 2005.

One final picture:

GDP is just a way to measure the growth of the economy. This graph shows that GDP has increased about 45% since 1973. The mean income has increased about 32%. And the median income has lagged at 15%. In other words, middle-class families have not seen nearly the wage growth that upper level earners have seen.

Pres. Reagan no doubt did what he felt was best for the country. We have also experience GDP growth over that time frame. He followed a theory of economics just like liberals do, and theories need data and experience to confirm or disprove them. The puzzling factor here is that we've had 30+ years of Reaganomics. We are where we are. We've had 30+ years of deregulation and cutting taxes for the top earners. We are where we are. At what point are we going to quit doing those damn crunches and try something else?

Ugg, Math Sucks

Let's, once again, talk about the mind-numbingly simple to understand and hard to fix problem of budget deficits. The federal government budget deficit is a function of two very easy to understand factors. One is income. The government gets income mostly from taxes and selling certain good and services. The other is spending. Spending is further divided into two catagories, non-discretionary (that's spending that is required by law), and discretionary (that's spending that is not required by law).


Now, for the sake of clarity, let's agree on one simple concept. If you cut taxes, without reducing spending, that reduces revenue to the government, thereby increasing the deficit. If you increase spending, without increasing taxes, that also increases the deficit. There are those who will argue that either of those scenarios are not true long-term because either may lead to economic growth. When we have job growth, we have more folks paying taxes. That new revenue obviously shrinks the deficit, but unless you are capable of seeing into the future, you can't guarantee that.

Certain policies carry greater odds of increasing revenue than others. For example, if the government hired 100 workers to work on building a road, those workers would cost the government money (even as they pay taxes), but the purchase of equipment and supplies to build the road reaches far out into the economy, possibly spurring growth. Those 100 workers having a paycheck would presumably mean that they would buy things, possibly further spurring growth. This has a reasonable chance of growing the economy because there are several mechanisms by which it could work.

The theory behind simply cutting taxes is that citizens with more dollars in their pocket will spend that money, encouraging growth. So far, we have seen that people are using that money more to pay down debt. Furthermore, because this doesn't directly put more people to work, demand doesn't increase for private companies. If demand doesn't increase, there is no reason to hire more workers. So, while simply cutting taxes could work to spur economic growth, it has fewer mechanisms to achieve that goal.

Please, please note that both of these policies INCREASE the deficit. Neither of them cut the deficit. A person advocating more spending and a person advocating more tax cuts are both advocating adding to the deficit. Let's also be clear on that.

Let's take a more simple example. In your own budget, if you take a pay cut at work (in the government's case this equates to a tax cut), you have to spend less money. If you do not, you will go into debt. Likewise, if you increase your spending, you had better increase your income or you will go into debt. We all weigh these types of choices in our lives on an almost daily basis. We also weigh long-term choices. For example, if you decide to go to college and take out loans, you want to choose a career path that allows you to make a salary that will make it possible for you to pay off that debt. However, because we can't see into the future, we have to be very careful with these types of choices. This is really no more sophisticated than a carefully crafted gamble.

Ok, so Republicans ran on a platform that included, almost exclusively, reigning in "out of control government spending". Their message was that the debt and deficit was a threat to our republic and must be addressed immediately. Fair enough. Let's take a look at some ideas put forth by new and old Republicans.

The Bush Tax Cuts

Republicans have made their number one priority extending the Bush tax cuts for all Americans. They claim that those tax cuts are necessary to spur economic growth. This is dubious at best considering we have had those cuts in place for nearly all of the 2000's and we are where we are. However, putting that aside, what will that do to the deficit? According to the Treasury Department, extending the cuts for all will ADD $3.7 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

Most Democrats have suggested allowing the tax cuts to expire, which will happen January 1st if Congress fails to act, only for Americans making more than $200,000 per year or couples making more than $250,000 per year. The tax rates for those Americans would go from the current rate, 33% and 35% for the top two brackets, to the pre-Bush tax cut rates of 36% and 39.6% respectively. To be clear, we are talking about a 3% increase for the 2nd highest bracket and a 4.6% increase for the highest bracket. Extending the tax cuts for the rich accounts for $700 billion of the $3.7 trillion cited above.

So the difference between the two parties boils down to Democrats wanting to add $3 trillion to the long-term deficit by extending the tax cuts for couples making less than $250,000 and Republicans wanting to add $3.7 trillion to the long-term deficit by extending the tax cuts for all. For the sake, once again, of clarity, $3.7 trillion is not smaller than $3 trillion.

Nukes

Back in April, President Obama and Russian President Medvedev agreed on a new START treaty. President Reagan stated the negotiations for START I, which was signed by President Bush in 1991. This new treaty would require us to cut our nuclear arsenal down to a paltry 1500 nukes. I'm not sure how many times that many nukes would destroy the Earth, but it seems rather obvious that if we got to the point where we needed to use 1500 nukes, we've already lost.

Such a treaty requires 3/4 of the Senate voting yes to ratify. The Republicans are lead in this debate by Senator Jon Kyl who has stated that he will not allow this treaty to be ratified during the looming lame duck session because he wants $15 billion in additional spending to "modernize" our nuclear arsenal. Again, that's $15 billion ADDED to the deficit by the fiscally conservative republicans.

Health Care

I think it's fairly clear that Republicans would like to repeal health care. Let's also be very clear by using the Republicans' own media mouth piece, Fox News, to make a point: the health care bill will reduce the deficit, according the non-partisian Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by at least $1 billion over 5 years and "creates absolutely no deficit over that period of time." That FOX NEWS article is found here.

It isn't just the CBO with those favorable projections though. The also non-partisian Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that the health care bill gives "notable improvement to the debt outlook if fully implemented."

So, to bring our score up to date, the Republican plan to shrink the deficit includes adding $700 billion in the form of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, spending an additional $14 billion on nukes when we already have enough to destroy the Earth...well more than once which is all that matters, and repealing the health care bill which is set to shrink the deficit by $1 billion/year in the near term, and up to $1 trillion over a decade.

Defense

The waste found in defense spending is a subject for a whole series of boring blog posts, so I'll let you do some googling yourself, but suffice to say it's a bit ridiculous. For example, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (an awesome piece of machinery) currently has an extra engine built for every plane. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that we don't need the extra engine, but Congressmen from both parties have over-ridden his request at an upfront cost to taxpayers totaling $4.2 billion.

This is just one example. For their part, some freshmen Republican Congressmen, such as Kentucky's Rand Paul, have said that reducing defense spending should be on the table. He was very quickly rebuked by the completely shameless John McCain who claims that defense spending should be untouched.

Considering the staggering costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, both completely unpaid for and debt funded, in addition to the above mentioned dubious defense expenditures, surely some savings could be found in defense.

Let's be serious here folks. Republicans are the same as they've always been. They talk of being fiscally conservative, but they are not.




Note that the debt increased significantly during the Republican administrations Reagan (Mr. Fiscal Conservative), Bush 41 and 43. The debt did not increase at all as a percentage of GDP under democratic administrations Carter and Clinton. The story is yet to be written for President Obama, although it will likely rise significantly during his 1st term considering we are incurring massive tax revenue loss due to high unemployment, massive expenditures due to two rather stagnant wars, and a totally absurd bunch of proposals by Republicans.

Now, none of this is particularly hard to understand. Republicans SAY they are fiscal conservatives who care deeply about debts and deficits. They ACT by championing policies that add to that debt and those deficits. As always, even in Washington, addition makes bigger and subtraction makes smaller.

Kevlar Bullshit

Way back near the beginning of his Presidency, Barack Obama vowed to created a "deficit reduction panel." The purpose of this panel was to inject some reality into an all-to-unreal conversation. Republicans have been harping for two years on the increasing budget deficit (projected to eclipse $1 trillion for the 3rd straight year). To ensure we are on the same page here:

The "budget deficit" is simply the difference between how much money the government brings in in revenue (i.e. taxes) and how much it spends. This number starts over every fiscal year. The "national debt", on the other hand, is the sum of budget deficits over time. For example, if we had a deficit of $10 for the last 4 years, we'd have $40 in national debt. It is actually, and you better sit down, a bit higher than $40. Try not to be bothered by these large numbers though. While the nuts and bolts of fixing the problem is quite complex, understanding it is as simple as balancing your checkbook. If we spend more than we bring in...we'll be in debt.

The Republicans ran on a platform of "reigning in out of control government spending". Their first order of business is to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone. Democrats would like to only extend those tax cuts for individuals and couples making less than $250,000 per year, and the 3% tax cut to expire for those making more. The Republican plan would cost the nation $700 billion over the next decade. Put another way, it will ADD $70 billion a year to our budget deficit for the 10 years. I'm no math major, but ADDING $700 billion to something does not make it smaller.

Anyway, back to the "deficit reduction commission". Confronted with the reality of such absurd proposals, Mr. Obama decided to use a Republican idea and created the commission (composed of civilians and government officials and equally divided between Republicans and Democrats). The Republicans, of course, quickly filibustered their own idea to protect against being seen doing something. President Obama created the panel by executive order. That panel came out with their initial suggestions yesterday. Let's go over the proposals and see how badly poor people are getting screwed by the latest "ideas" coming out of Washington. Quickly, let's again remember that historical irresponsible lending and investing by Wall Street banks got us into this mess. Remember also that our budget deficits are NOT ONLY THE RESULT OF SPENDING, but also the result of less tax money coming in. That's what happens when unemployment is almost 10%. That's 10% of the workforce not paying taxes. On to the proposal.

Reform the Tax Code

This is a good principle to start with. Many correctly note, and my buddy Brody can attest, that the tax code is too complex. It is probably fair to estimate that if you have to hire outside help for doing your taxes, it's too complex. It is riddled with deductions in this special circumstance, but not that. It has tax loop holes for companies and rich folks that poor folks don't have access to. This panels idea is to...wait for it...cut taxes! Yes, while we are bringing in such low revenue, the panel suggests the historical unsuccessful at doing anything good technique, cutting taxes.

But wait, they say, we are going to eliminate some of those loopholes and deductions so that we will still raise more revenue. Ah, ok. So which ones?

Mortgage Deduction: Let's see, who will this screw? Middle and low income families are struggling to stay in their homes as it is. In case you've been, well probably you'd have to have been dead, foreclosures are a problem, to say the least. If you take away the mortgage deductions many of those families may not be able to stay in their homes. This is truly one of the few major tax breaks that comes for middle and low income families. Ok, 1 for 1.

Employer Health Insurance Deduction: Now, at first this seems like it would hurt business owners. However, a moderate amount of thinking will make you realize that this would provide the political cover for companies to stop offering employee health insurance. Even with the new health care bill, buying private insurance will be more expensive and more difficult. Again, screwing the middle and low income folks. 2 for 2.

Social Security

The plan here to to lower the "cost of living" (COLA) increase that comes to seniors. Who needs that COLA? Certainly not folks who have a nice retirement portfolio. Also, the plan would gradually raise the retirement age. It is also here that you can make an argument that poor people aren't getting screwed as much, as the plan suggests paying out more social security to lower income folks and less to higher income folks. A bold step indeed considering the fact that most wealthy folks don't depend on social security much, if at all, because they have their own nice retirement accounts. Also, remember that many companies are rolling back pension plans for their work-force, so those old "middle class" jobs are not providing that service as often as they used to. However, raising the retirement age screws poor people. Studies show that people working in lower income jobs don't live as long as those working in higher income jobs. There are a lot of sociological reasons for this that I'm sure you can imagine, but the point is, by raising the retirement age for all, you are, again, screwing the poor people the thing they look forward to the most, quitting their shitty job, until it may be too late. 3.5 out of 4 for the race to screw poor people the most.

Medicare

The plan here suggests that seniors pay a co-pay for their services. Now this sucks for all seniors, but if you have the "extra" cash to pay for it, you'll be pissed but live. If you don't have the "extra" cash, then what? Again, screwing poor people. 4.5 out of 5.

This proposal is supposedly a "starting point" for discussing the "painful" choices that we have to make about our budget future. We all must "sacrifice" they say. If by "we", I think the rich guys mean "us". The panel really made those 5 main suggestions along with some other less drastic ones. Out of those 5, 4.5 screws poor people. Some starting point. So let's set the picture again for you:

Wall Street bankers and rich government officials game the system since 1980 deregulating banks, making bad loans, "creating" financial products that mean nothing but cost everything, commit fraud on a historic scale both in foreclosing on people's homes and the "investment" packages they sold containing those mortgages. In addition they lobbied Congress for the Bush tax cuts, which overwhelmingly favored them and apparently did nothing to improve the economy or create jobs like conservative dogma suggests. Fact is, they were in place through most of the 2000's and we are still where we are. Fact is, they have been, and are, in effect right now and we have almost 10% unemployment. The argument Republicans are making is, "let's keep doing exactly what we are doing and maybe we'll get a different result."

All that is true, plus the fact that our tax dollars bailed out those banks and auto companies. Plus the fact that those same banks are still foreclosing on those people who bailed them out by circumventing the law. And now they put forth a plan that calls for "shared sacrifice" that appears to only be shared by us.

President Obama, for his part, has waited to make comment until the official report is released, which should be around Dec. 1st. What he should of said..."Poor people are not going to pay for our sins. This report is complete bullshit, and go fuck yourself."

Or something like that...

The Importance of Being Barefoot

One of my favorite strength and conditioning authors, Martin Rooney, wrote an article today outline why he believes training barefoot is a great idea. While I'll leave all the particulars to Mr. Rooney, I certainly agree with him.

That article will cover many of the reasons that barefoot training is good for anyone, but for my sport (mixed martial arts) I think it is obviously essential.

Now, you certainly can't go into your local LA Fitness or YMCA completely barefoot and start lifting or running. It is possible to lift in socks, but any small pieces of glass or rocks can be problematic. To combat this, I purchased Vibram Five Fingers (picture above). I've had my Vibrams, as the lingo goes, for 8 months or so. Here's a quick pro/con list for you.

Pros
Feel great on your feet

Allows you to take advantage of the benefits of barefoot training, but provides some protection from injury and the elements.

Great conversation starter

Machine washable

Very versatile (i.e. you can use these for jogging, sprinting, hiking, lifting, jumping, etc. There are different models of shoe to fit your specific needs.)

Seem very durable so far

Cons
You have to be willing to take a step back before enjoying all the advantages of training barefoot.
-To expand on this, if you are used to running 3-5 miles a day, or you do lots of plyometric jumping and training, you will have to lower your volume significantly for awhile to allow your feet to properly condition to being asked to carry the load again. When you wear regular shoes, the high heel, arch support, and thick soles do some of the work your feet will normally do. This naturally de-trains your feet. You will need to work up to running (especially sprinting or long distances) before jumping right into full training

In a related story, you will also have to learn to run properly. Many runners tend to heel strike hard in their gate. The gel, air, or thick insoles in their running shoes allow them to get away with this. When you train barefoot you have to learn to be on the mid-foot/balls of your feet. The good news is, you'll naturally start doing this when you run barefoot. The bad news is, you are probably not conditioned to it. Therefore you'll likely experience a lower level of performance in the short-term. Don't worry, it's all worth it.

Even though they are machine washable, they still stink bad. Trust me.

They have released newer models since I bought mine, but my version of the KSO model doesn't provide good protection at all against stepping on rocks or sticks. This can be annoying because it dictates where you can run.



All in all, I really recommend giving them a shot. Enjoy!

Low Carb Snicker Doodle Cookies

As the holiday season approaches, we all know that we will be faced with a sobering choice between our fitness goals and pleasing our palate. But with a few good recipes, you can eat some delicious desserts and still keep trekking towards your fitness goals. Note: this is not a low calorie food, but a low carb food. I'd advise you that keeping carbs low is a major key to fat loss, but don't forget that total calories matter a lot. Here's the wonderful recipe for low carb snicker doodle cookies:

1.5 cups Almond Flour
3/4 cup Splenda
3/4 cup (1 stick) butter (You can use margarine, of course, but the trans-fats are worse than the butter. I like the butter made with a touch of Olive Oil. Moderation makes butter fine.)
1/4 cup Brown Sugar Splenda (Note that this is a sugar and splenda blend. You can cut a few more carbs out by using a whole cup of regular Splenda here, but the small amount of brown sugar shouldn't hurt much. Moderation folks!)
1 egg
1/2 tsp. vanilla
1/4 tsp. baking soda
1/4 tsp. cream of tartar (optional)

Put half of the almond flour, and all the rest of the ingredients, in a bowl and mix thoroughly. After mixing, add the rest of the almond flour and mix evenly. Batter should be fairly stiff. Put batter, covered, in the fridge for 1 hour.

Mix to roll the cookies in:

2 Tbsp. Splenda
2 tsp. Brown Sugar Splenda
3/4 tsp. Cinammon

Preheat oven to 350F. Roll batter into balls and roll each ball in the sugary mix. For thinner, crisper cookies, smash the balls into thin sheets. For thicker, gooey-er (word?) cookies, leave as balls. Bake 14-16 minutes. Immediately transfer to a cooling rack. Makes 8-10 cookies.

Enjoy!!!