20100126

Squat 3×5x305
Ring Dips 10, 11, 9
Chins 11, 10 , 10

20100124

Snatch skill work at 125
Clean & Jerk skill work at 135

Run 1.5mi
Time: 11:55

20100122

Squat 3×5x300
Press 3×5x115

20100121

Snatch skill work at 115
Clean & Jerk skill work at 135

20100119

Squat 3×5x295
Ring Dips 8, 11, 11
Deadlift 1×5x315

Back is feeling almost completely normal again but deadlifting in a 0.5″ heel feels strange.

20100117

Run 1.5 miles
Time: 12:38

Not too terrible for not having done any metcon at all for the last couple months.

20100115

Squat 3×5x290
Ring Dips 7, 7, 6
Deadlift form work at 225

First day using Rip shoes from Rogue.

20100112

Squat 3×5x285
Ring Dips 5, 7, 6
Chins 7, 7, 7

Bodyweight hit 190 today.

BIGNUM

It’s well documented that humans are bad at dealing with large numbers, but there are times in life where quantities reach amazing proportions. Two of those situations are the current national debt of the United States, and the total number of human cells in your body. It turns out that the national debt is greater in magnitude than the number of cells in your body.

The current national debt is about 12.293 trillion dollars but you only have about 10 trillion human cells in your body. The number of bacterial cells outnumbers that by 3 or 4 to 1.

If you had a dollar for every human cell in your entire body, you still couldn’t pay off the national debt.

This one goes out to all the ladies…

I despise engagement rings, specifically diamond engagement rings. That’s not true, I despise women who feel entitled to diamond (or other expensive) engagement rings. That mix of materialism and narcissism is unbelievably off-putting. I will never buy a woman a diamond engagement ring. Ever. Most women who want a diamond engagement ring have never considered WHY it is that they want one. I know precisely why, because the De Beers diamond cartel embarked on a brilliant marketing campaign in the early 20th century in order to increase the sales of diamonds.

In 1902, the De Beers company controlled 90% of the world’s diamond production and were very happy with their lot in life. However, they knew that new mines they did not have control over could be detrimental to their business. Cecil Rhodes, the fonder of De Beers, was aware of this and commented in 1896 that

Our only risk is the sudden discovery of new mines, which human nature will work recklessly to the detriment of us all.

So when diamonds were discovered in German South West Africa in 1908, a new strategy was needed.

Ernest Oppenheimer, part of the De Beers empire but not yet its chairman (which he became in 1927) stated in 1910 that

Common sense tells us that the only way to increase the value of diamonds is to make them scarce, that is to reduce production.

In order to increase sales and profit margins on diamonds in the US, since war was brewing in Europe and Europeans weren’t keen on the idea of spending so much money, Oppenheimer engaged the services of the advertising firm N.W. Ayer & Son. The result of this arrangement is very well described on Gem Nation.

Oppenheimer told Ayer that De Beers had not approached any other agencies and that if Ayer’s plan was accepted, it would become the exclusive agency for promoting De Beers’ interests in the United States. This shrewd tactic proved to be a strong motivating factor for N.W. Ayer, and after extensive research, the agency proposed a campaign to “channel American spending toward larger and more expensive diamonds”.

So far so good. Establish an aggressive marketing campaign to increase profits from diamond sales in the US.

Young men, who purchased 90% of engagement rings, would be bombarded with the idea that diamonds were the gift of love. The first campaign aimed at men was launched in 1939…

And here is where I start to get a little irritated. The idea that love can be demonstrated by acquiring an object of perceived value. Diamonds are not valuable. Their supply is restricted by De Beers, and they aren’t rare to begin with. In fact, rubies are the rarest gem most people use for jewelry. There are some stones that are rarer still, such as painite but that isn’t really available on a sufficient scale for jewelry production.

So by 1940 diamonds are now the gift of love. Which, even though logically incorrect, gives people the impression that the lack of a diamond implies the lack of love. This was a successful advertising campaign and it continued into the 30s and 40s.

By 1941, the downward trend in retail sales had been reversed and in just three years, sales of diamonds in the United States had risen 55%. Ayer’s success inspired the agency to pursue a new goal – to reinforce the “psychological necessity” of diamonds. An estimated 70 million people over the age of fifteen would be targeted with future marketing campaigns.

It wasn’t until 1947 that the now-famous marketing slogan “A Diamond is Forever” was born, thanks to Frances Gerety. Everybody knows how the story goes from there.

So armed with all this background knowledge, why do many women still want a diamond engagement ring? I personally know a woman who held out on accepting a proposal from her significant other until she was presented with a diamond solitaire of at least a 2 carats, with the proper side stones, and the proper setting. It took him just over 2.5 years to scrape together the funds to acquire her ring. Is that love? Does she love that man? If your love for another person is dependent on some inanimate object then you should probably do some serious introspection.

Cases like this aren’t terribly rare. Here’s an example from Reddit where a woman left her fiance after learning the engagement ring he purchased for her cost him only one month of salary.

I have heard one semi-reasonable argument in support of engagement rings, and that is because the woman in question didn’t want the ring per se, but the memories of having been proposed to and given the ring. The future sentimental value was the main motivator, not the current value or compliance with the status quo. I still am not sure what I think about this perspective as it may just be a roundabout way of maintaining societal expectations. This woman was also not set on only a diamond engagement ring, there are other stones which she would also find acceptable. However, the fact remains that a ring with a rock on it is expected. Edit: All that being said, this woman also feels so strongly about her desire for a ring that she would buy her own rather than go without. Although she doesn’t require a significant other to provide a ring, she requires one nonetheless.

I’m not against engagement rings outright, nor am I against wedding bands. What I am opposed to is the idea that if you really love a woman, then you’ll spend an absurd amount of money on hunk of carbon with no inherent value or conversely that a man really loves you if he will spend 2-3 months of salary on precisely the most beautiful engagement ring you’ve always wanted so you can show it off to all your friends, at which point they will swoon over it and make you feel special.

But I’m not cynical or anything.

So ladies, why do you want an engagement ring (if at all)? Why is it important to you? If anyone can explain it to me I’m happy to listen and contrary to what you might think after reading the above I’m completely open-minded about the whole thing. I’m perfectly willing to be convinced as long as your argument is reasonable.

tl;dr

• The “tradition” of a diamond engagement ring is only about 70 years old and was started due to a marketing campaign by De Beers.
• Diamonds are not rare, nor are they inherently valuable. Their value is strictly related to the controlled flow of diamonds into the market by a monopolistic cartel. Rubies are a far rarer gemstone.
• They have words for women who love men in exchange for money or objects, they’re called whores or gold diggers.

P.S. – If you’re a woman and you want a fancy engagement ring, then I want a big fat Dowry. Fair is fair.