.Do you have an overstuffed dresser drawer? I do, and it’s full of T-shirts. Mostly technical fabric, some cotton some fairly ill-fitting, some I like… Just a bunch of T-shirts. Out of curiosity One Sunday morning, I started counting them. I was amazed to find I had 26 shirts.

How many T-shirts do you need?

​Well, I figured a maximum of two per day-and if you do laundry every four days that would mean eight shirts. Eight.

​...Still, by my count I was 18 shirts over. That got me thinking: how many of each piece of clothing do you need? Isn’t there a sensible way to build your wardrobe that doesn’t require the warehousing of an additional 18 T-shirts? Yes, yes of course. I joke with my wife that someday I’ll be like Jughead in the old Archie comics, wearing the same thing every day. And as I pick up clothes directly from the laundry AND PUT THEM ON, I feel just a bit more jughead-y.

What can you do? Well, without going all obsessive about your wardrobe, you can strive towards minimalism by remembering that each t-shirt is something you will have to wash again, fold again, store again. In this way your t-shirts own you.

No, you don’t have to take those free shirts at the 5k. Or the medal.

No, you don’t need a drawer for shirts and a separate drawer for socks and a separate drawer for underwear. They can all be one drawer, which means less furniture. How freeing.

Your stuff isn’t you. Your character is not determined by the number of t-shirts you own. That’s ridiculous to say, but it’s worth pausing to think about it: your character isn’t determined by the number of ANYTHING you own.

It's just days before the Iowa caucuses 2016, And lo and behold Trump is still in it. In fact he's really in it, and forecasted to win. Cruz is a close second, but these candidates are the front runners, in my opinion, not because of who they are, but who they represent to the electorate. Both candidates have successfully positioned themselves favorably, differentiating themselves from 'the establishment,' and in 2016 'going rogue' ahem *trumps* political sensibility.

Trumps unlikely candidacy is fueled by the populism born of the tea party, the anti-government, anti-establishment, we-don't-care-for-politicians sentiment. It doesn't matter if you have experience. Doesn't matter if you're likable. It just matters if you get things done. Bullies are welcome, in fact that's a strong plus. Donald Trump resonates with these voters precisely because he didn't have a snowballs chance in hell when he started running. The pundits underestimated trumps chances because they under estimated the strength of the populist movement. What's out is in, and like skinny ties, Trumps success is - to say the least - a head-scratcher. On paper, it just doesn't work. But that's exactly why it works. His appeal is that he has no appeal. It's as if his entire campaign is a giant New York middle finger to the political class. Say what you want about Trump - it's still completely entertaining, like watching a train wreck is entertaining. You can't NOT look.

What's interesting is that Ted Cruz is situated similarly, but it's the rational opposite. His "anti-crony capitalism" rhetoric fires up the same base. If your hate for Senate gridlock has you excited about Ted Cruz, I think you're betting for the snake against the mongoose. He's the lawyerly opposite of Trump stylistically, but the words are practically the same - they're just more polished.

Since Trump and Cruz have similar poll numbers, you could draw the conclusion that the populist movement in the GOP at present is extremely significant, and the conservatives are a bit lost in their ideology. You'd be right. Both candidates exemplify this - Trump is socially liberal and Cruz would just as soon shut down the government as have to give an inch on an issue. Both candidates' campaigns are reactions against what the GOP has stood for. Both represent the failure of GOP policy to 'stick' with the GOP base.

Of course they are far different candidates IRL. One of the main differences is that Trump, while a bully on the debate stage, is, according to Sarah Palin, willing to make a 'dill,' while Cruz is the type of politician that is willing to set his own house on fire to collect insurance money.

Both are scary. But both represent how fed up the American people are with their politicians. With the gridlock in the system. The GOP has no one to blame but themselves for this quandary, this choice between two terrible candidates. It's Genghis Khan versus Machiavelli. Who would you rather have as your next president?