Early Evening Open Thread With Some Links and Mini-GAINZZZ Thread (Really a Question)

So, the Daily Beast doxxed Pamela Gellar's four daughters, who were halfway celebrities on Instagram, and got them fired. And they did this knowing that ISIS has terrorists plotting to behead Gellar.

The one Obama holdover at the Cabinet secretary level -- the VA's Shulkin -- fears a damning IG report that will reportedly expose him as having used taxpayer money to fly himself and his wife to Wimbledon. A staffer supposedly forged an email talking up a fictitious award he was to receive in Denmark to justify his wife's air travel.

The Supreme Court took up a case about a man being asked to remove a shirt reading "Don't Tread on Me" at a polling place -- electioneering being forbidden in Minnesota. But "Don't Tread on Me" doesn't explicitly electioneer for any candidate; apparently in Minnesota, they guess at the political leaning your apparel is urging.

But only in some cases, as this line of questioning by Justice Alito shows-- note that in almost every single case where Alito offers the example of an arguably, questionably political statement on a t-shirt or cap, the Minnesota lawyer defending the state's enforcement claims that the ambiguously liberal slogan would be legal, but the ambiguously conservative slogan would be "political" and hence impermissible.

JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt with a rainbow flag? Would that be permitted?

MR. ROGAN: A shirt with a rainbow flag? No, it would -- yes, it would be -- it would be permitted unless there was -- unless there was an issue on the ballot that -- that related somehow to -- to gay rights.

JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt that says "Parkland Strong"?

MR. ROGAN: No, that would --that would be --that would be allowed. I think --- I think, Your Honor --

JUSTICE ALITO: Even though gun control would very likely be an issue?

MR. ROGAN: To the extent ---

JUSTICE ALITO: I bet some candidate would raise an issue about gun control.

MR. ROGAN: Your Honor, the -- the --­ the line that we’re drawing is one that is --­ is related to electoral choices in a ---

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, what’s the answer to this question? You're a polling official. You’re the reasonable person. Would that be allowed or would it not be allowed?

MR. ROGAN: The -- the Parkland?

JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah.

MR. ROGAN: I --I think --I think today that I --that would be --- if -- if that was in Minnesota, and it was "Parkland Strong," I --I would say that that would be allowed in, that there's not --­

JUSTICE ALITO: Okay. How about an NRA shirt?

MR. ROGAN: An NRA shirt? Today, in Minnesota, no, it would not, Your Honor. I think that that's a clear indication --and I think what you’re getting at, Your Honor--

JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt with the text of the Second Amendment?

MR. ROGAN: Your Honor, I -- I --I think that that could be viewed as political, that that --that would be --that would be ---

JUSTICE ALITO: How about the First Amendment?

(Laughter.)

MR. ROGAN: No, Your Honor, I don't---­ I don't think the First Amendment. And, Your Honor, I --

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No — no what, that it would be covered or wouldn’t be allowed?

MR. ROGAN: It would be allowed.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It would be?

MR. ROGAN: It would be. And -- and I think the -- I understand the -- the idea, and I've --I've --there are obviously a lot of examples that --that have been bandied about here --

JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah, well, this is the problem. How about a Colin Kaepernick jersey?

MR. ROGAN: No, Your Honor, I don’t think that that would be under --under our statute. And I think--

JUSTICE ALITO: How about "All Lives Matter"?

MR. ROGAN: That could be, Your Honor, that could be — that could be perceived as political.

Below, Condoleeza Rice explains gun rights, and also, a mini GAINZZZ entry

So, on GAINZZZ, not much new to report; had some a really good run of about three weeks of adding weight consistently, now I've hit a stall again. (On most lifts, actually.)

Here's a question I'd like help with.

What do I eat?

So I've been playing around with trying to "Eat Big to Get Big," that kind of thing, and keeping less to my IF/low-carb diet. I'm not sure if this actually produced solid GAINZZZ, tho, especially because I just hit a plateau on most lifts.*

Also: Well, I did re-gain some of the weight I'd previously lost, which I was okay with, and had accepted as inevitable, if the additional food was gonna get me some bigger GAINZZZ.

I'm not sure it did, though.

An idea I've been playing with is a full-day fast once a week. The feeding plan would look like this:

Lifting Day -- eat extra (with 6 hour IF window)
Post-Lifting Day -- eat, but less; also keep to a shorter IF window (4 hours)

And do that for six days, and then on the seventh day (the extra day of rest after a rest day), do a full day fast (or even a 36 hour fast).

I figure most gains in muscle would all be baked into the cake 48 hours after lifting, so I wouldn't be giving up much (if anything) with that one fast day.

I'm hoping that this one day fast each week would get rid of some of the inevitable fat gain from the "Eat Big" strategy on lifting days.

Any thoughts?

Or does anyone have any general advice for eating for both muscle gain and fat loss?

* Eh, maybe it did help. I did have a good three weeks. I guess that's something.

But... I was hoping that it would continue, and that I wouldn't hit another wall.

posted by Ace at 07:18 PM

| Access Comments