Why no great libertarian author?

The socialists have the amazing and singular fiction of Kurt Vonnegut and, by extension, Kilgore Trout. (If you haven't read Sirens of Titan, do it now!)

Hawkish small-government get the later work of Robert Heinlein.

Workers rights advocates have Upton Sinclair.

And so on.

All sorts of political ideologies have an ambassador author who produces work ranging from above-average to exceptional.

Except . . . libertarians.

Why is there no half decent libertarian fiction author?
If you look hard enough you might bump into the inane and inconsistent ramblings of Ayn Rand, but that's about where it stops.

Or am I missing something?

Auto Injury

Rear-ended on 495 Thursday night.

Felt fine at the time of the accident, but an hour later pain ensued and it hasn't stopped.

An intermittent pain envelopes the lower back while there's a consistent pain bottom right of center, right above my ass. I don't know what it means.

Medical opinion is to come back in two weeks if the pain is still present.

Tried some light experimental deadlifting and found myself weakened.

Earlier this past week, before the accident, my working set of 5 reps was with a weight of either 410 or 415lbs and felt fine. (I think I could have gone heavier, but I was pushing for slow and steady progress).

I tried to push myself through a light 320lb set, but this was the weight where the pain really felt aggravated so I stopped.

Hopefully this will clear up soon and the path to the 500lb deadlift will continue.

As Much as I love Free Speech, Little Would be Lost Were Ayn Rand's Books Burnes

Just as the automatic values directing the functions of a plant’s body are sufficient for its survival, but are not sufficient for an animal’s
-The Objectivist Ethics, Ayn Rand

The most annoying part is that Rand speaks with such absolute confidence about sh*t she has no idea of, like the differences between plant and animal biology and survival. Even back in the crappy part of the last century when Rand was alive it was understood that lots of jellyfish have no sort of brain, but do have a nervous system providing "automatic values."
Further, Rand isn't just a little incorrect in believing these "automatic values" are allegedly insufficient for animal survival, Rand is enormously incorrect. Jellyfish have not only been around for eons, but are potentially especially well adapted to global warming as multiple indicators have suggested their populations are increasing.

I'm not even going to go into the micro-bio realm where Rand's statement would be equally or more retarded. But again, in this same essay, Rand tosses around the term "protoplams" as if she understands how a microorganism works, then a few paragraphs later posts this retarded sh*t. You know what, let's go micro-bio world after all. Does Rand seriously believe anything beyond "automatic values" are governing the actions of a prokaryote? If I were Ms. Rand's fourth grade teacher I would have informed her that a unicellur organism that doesn't even have a nucleus, and is infinitely older than humans, is surviving perfectly fine with little other than "automatic values."

Sorry for the cursing.

Power Lifting Gear

The world record bench press is over 1,000lbs. Super benchers are occasionally unable to bend their elbows enough to allow lifts as heavy as 800lbs to touch his chest. One of the secrets of these super-humans is their "gear," specifically, their "bench shirts." Clearly the space-age denim-polymer-adamantium bench shirt provides an inhuman rebound when a loaded bar finally makes contact with his body.

I've known the above to be true for awhile. And that knowledge has biased me, creating assumptions about "gear" in genearl, gear that has nothing to do with bench shirts, to include knee wraps, straps, belts etc. The few times I've seen lifters come to the gym and use serious gear (a bench shirt or squat suit) I'll admit I thought a little less of them. Maybe it was partly due to my jealousy of their 500lb squats. It was almost certainly due to reading Rip's opinion of them. Either way, it turns out I was a little too smug.

It was reading this article, by Gary Gibson, that broadened my thinking. FYI, in a technical sense, even a barbell can be thought of as gear.

The shoulder girdle will contract tighter in the presence of a barbell while engaged in an overhead press than in the absence of the barbell. Similarly, abdominal contractions are tighter in the presence of a belt when performing a low-bar back squat than they could in the absence of a belt. Just as the shoulders push against the bar in an overhead press, so do the abs push against the belt in a low-bar back squat. So, by failing to use a belt when performing a low-bar back squat, we are not allowing our abs to contract as tightly as they otherwise would. We are denying ourselves the chance to work as hard as we can, and by extension, the failure to push as much weight as possible denies us the chance to become as strong as we can.

Using a belt doesn't just train a person to squat when using a belt.

By using a belt, we increase the amount of weight that we can squat without a belt.

Will I be jumping into a thousand dollar space-age bench shirt anytime soon?

No.

Will I be using a belt once I reach a squat weight approaching some semblance of respectability? (Perhaps 1.5x bodyweight?)

Absolutely.

FIRST_ENTRY

This is the first entry where I lay all this shit on the line.

BAM!

1) I am seeking a 500lb deadlift. I will eat, lift, kill or otherwise disable EVERY OBSTACLE IN MY WAY.

2) Sometimes I will diverge from the deadlifting topic and talk about my support for gay marriage, drug legalization, how objectivitsts are beyond retarded, or other things that any half-intelligent libertarian (lowercase "L") knows to be true.

3) On the day I reach my 500lb deadlift I will erase this blog, flip over a car, drink myself into a stupor, and then sob quietly while I try to figure out a new life goal.