Oh how it feels to be humbled by a sophomore in high school. Sage is an astounding lifter, as well as a coach.

We deserve this!!

I'd love to talk about The Road to Serfdom, I especially think that the cartoon is a great analogy for current political trends (in the U.S. and China especially). However, since this is a FITNESS site, I will not be discussing politics here.

Peace -

Nic Nakis
Team Chuck Norris
"Leave your politics at home"

Perfect tip for me as I was working C&J technique today. My current problem with the C&J is keeping four fingers under the bar as I rise up from the squat.

Try to stand in our shoes. Imagine that your favorite workout site was run by some moonbat liberal, and even worse, he posts bleeding heart weepfests on every rest day. Annoying, right? I can tell you that Crossfit is the hands down, best, most challenging, most exciting, most correct workout system going but it’s a huge bummer for many of us that it is in anyway linked to politics. We can and do get that everywhere else, whether we want to or not. This should be a sanctuary from that crap.

While I certainly do agree with the teachings of Hayek, and I think I secretly like crossfit even more now since they posted this, I must agree with Nic that politics should be left aside.

How about a Seventies Japanese version of Spiderman instead? It being a Japanese production, there are robots involved. Anyone who loves and remembers Ultraman will appreciate...

http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/40930/

Discuss.

Tristram #7,
Those subtitles are hilarious.
"How did Marvel ever agree to this?"

I was forced to read Hayek during my master's. I'm sorry, but I can't do it again! Again, it's the same old argument. I've come to the conclusion that you cannot argue with someone who ardently hates Bush or really loves Bush. Politics aside, I'm hurting from cross fit this week.

"pictures of my brother getting sweet sweet speed"

Yeah, well, just as American stars do japanese ads for spending cash, i'll bet Marvel's oversight of the Japanese production was not very stringent...

"Thank you, Chuck Norris."

-D.

I like Hayek's conclusion: too much government planning leads to too much government power, and too much government power destroys freedom. Planned economies simply do not provide enough opportunity to motivate people. Socialists always promise heaven, but their heads are forever up their ass. Thank goodness people like Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa & Solidarity, Deng Xiaoping, Boris Yeltsin, Tony Blair, and even Bil Clintomn came to realize this.

Vote for Pedro!

STRETCHING: WHat If you have very flexible fingers & wrists and you push your shoulders inward, would it be possible to lay the bar on your shoulder to do a clean or thruster? almost like a front-squat...

HAYEK: On economics i think it's a done deal; US&UK followed Hayek, Europe is still "stuck" with Keynes.
With regard to personal freedom, I wouldn't say it's a done deal. Personal freedom is a very subjective state of mind.
When it comes to wiretapping or Microsoft handing over your search-data to the DOJ, you have people that don't feel their "personal freedom" is being violated, where others would definitely feel it does. The same goes for lot's of other areas like tresspassing, neighborhood safety, advertising, identification and even terrorism threat.
On state level, you have Europe on one hand where people are "taxed to death" but everyone is guarenteed good healthcare and social-welfare, on the other hand the US where there's more economical freedom but also millions of americans that live in poverty with no good healthcare.
The trouble with Europe is that the word "social" got mixed up with "socialism", meaning that europeans are phobic about being called "non-social" towards their fellow citizens, e.g. being egotistical.
IMO Europeans could be a bit more "non-social" whereas americans could be a bit more "social". But Hayek wins over Keynes IMO; they were close friends btw.

Nic, Tristam, Aaron

You come to a free site, collect invaluable information and complain about part of it. What the F%&# is wrong with you?

Your choices are simple; 1)Go to a different free site with equivalent information, 2)Use this site with humility and grace, or 3)start your own site and stop freeloading.

Nic, I'm especially disappointed with you. Taking advantage of people seems to be a habit.

For the crybabies who haven't gotten the message yet, this site involves "paying" for your free world class fitness with political discussion.

Get over it.

Dave W

Tristram,

japander.com

In the stretching photo, Sage Burgener's elbows look like they are pointed more to the side than to the front. I thought the elbows were supposed to be more to the front for the "rack" (something my shoulders don't like one bit). Is that wrong?

Re the rest day politics - not always my cup of tea but if that's what those responsible for this site choose to use the rest days for, that's their prerogative IMO. They don't make me read the political items, and I'm extremely grateful for the rest of it.

Dave W

Love the Crossfit.
Hate the politics.
Would pay for the site.

I'm three weeks in and I just subscribed to the Crossfit Journal, and would encourage everyone who uses this site to do so. It not only pays for the site, but it somehow manages to add information and inspiration to a site that already overflows with both.

It's small price, i know, but I'm hardly a freeloader. Get it? I'd rather "pay" with money. The site has comments. I'm posting my opinion. My opinion is that politics diminishes this site. It ain't crying. It is opining. And i will continue to do so.

Thank you Ultraman.

I never knew there was an actual term for that...

Brian Mulvaney, since the other thread got locked I will continue our excellent debate right here, and it is also quite related to "The Road to Serfdom", so here goes. Just assume that I basically agree with the parts that I don't respond to directly.

""Pragmatist" is an interesting label in so far as in economic terms it can be synonymous with "unprincipled". By that, I don't mean to imply poor intent, merely an approach wherein decisions are guided by expediency rather than by inviolable principle. An existential danger in this is that the road to the charnel house is paved by pragmatic men with good intentions. That is a key lesson from Hayek. Super smart folks (of whom you clearly are) who believe that men can plan better economic outcomes than markets (socialism) prepare the way for totalitarians. Please do spend some time with "The Road To Serfdom". The next CrossFit rest day (special Hayek theme issue) is a wonderful place to start."

Okay, I am once more linked to totalitarian, socialist schemes and what not, so a little clarification is in order. Firstly, I believe that if we are to discuss about economics, a sound theoretical base comes first. I assume you already know all of this, Brian, but I'll write it anyway as it is also useful to those people with no background in economics and whom Mr. Glassman plunges headfirst into his simplistic, mannichean, and ultimately one-sided take on things. So, paraphrasing any decent economics textbook (like Stiglitz, Samuelson & Nordhaus, etc):

In theory, free self-regulating markets are optimal. They are the most efficient, period. This has been proven time and again by A. Smith, D. Ricardo, etc. Thus, free markets are often called a "first rank" optimum. However, for these free markets to be sustainable, a certain number of conditions must be met, including costless information available to all actors, free entry and exit from the market, total fluidity in price adjustments, atomicity(?) of actors, and a couple of others that I can't recall now. The real world, and human nature, unfortunately make it impossible to meet these requirements. 100% free markets are a utopian thought. A "second rank" optimum is thus needed, which is not nearly as efficient, but is certainly the "least worst" solution as it is rooted in actual reality. In this second rank optimum, the state intervenes to prevent the market from collapsing: it enforces certain basic rules to avoid anarchy (anti-trust laws, minimum wages, etc), prevents negative externalities (byproducts of the market, the most typical example is pollution), and encourages positive externalities (such as state sponsored research). It is often argued that democracy is similarly a "second rank optimum", but in the field of political organization (where a first rank optimum would be some sort of omnipotent, omniscient enlightened dictator who centralizes all decision making).

What does this mean? It means that any economy on the world strives to achieve a balance between the dynamic nature of free markets, and the security & overview provided by governmental control. A drive towards 100% free, de-regulated markets is just as crazy as a drive towards 100% collectivization. Look at what happened to Russia in the 1990s, where savage, out-of-control capitalism ruined the country. On the other hand, France and Germany have problems today because their economies have become extremely sluggish, because of welfare state excesses.

As for von Hayek, he makes many excellent points, mainly relative to the historical period that he was writing in. He shows very well how the state can slowly take control of society, like what happened in the few totalitarian regimes that sprung up during his time. However, I wonder how von Hayek would analyse today's Scandinavian countries and Canada, where socialist policies have been in place for a long time without any negative consequences for the citizens' political freedom. These states are extremely committed to democracy, yet the state is very much present in how the economy is handled. I'm not saying there aren't any negative side effects (such as non-stellar growth rates), but there are certainly positive side effects (they are some of the least corrupted countries in the world), and I see no road to serfdom so far for Swedes, Canucks, and Finns.

About The Economist: I wasn't reading it until after 2002, so cannot comment on the change that you talk about. But when you mention how "passionnate" you have become about promoting free trade and free markets, you highlight the difference between you (the idealist) and me (the pragmatist): you seem to believe in the utopian theory of free markets and you take it too far, as a principle, as something that cannot be questioned. You become unrooted from reality, and from the circumstances where free markets fail and need outside assistance. That would be my criticism...

Coach,

Keep posting all the different strands. It seems you guys acknowledge the fact that the way you look at the totality of life and the character you display is of upmost importance. To think that character in any one field of thought is divorced from your character as a whole is a ridiculous farce along the same lines of the seperation of church and state. As if a man/woman's heart values, and ideas on ultimate issues don't shape policy! Anyhow, keep up the good work!

Hello,

I was wondering on the KB swings. If you use a weight instead of a KB do you grip it like a baseball bat in the center or do you grab around the plate?

Thanks

Did not get around to doing this one. Will try to make it up today.

However, been getting together with a group of desk jockeys (like myself) and working out for an hour once a week. They are willing (and happy) lab rats for workouts.

So I threw this one out last night, and noone got killed....

2 on 2 12lb -Ball ultimate:
Played on basketball court, using ultimate frisbee rules. We kept the game up for about 20 minutes, and everyone was blessed trashed. We started out 3 on 3, but had to drop down to 2 on 2 with a "free" player. I need to secure dynamax ball, think it will be much easier on the body.

I just do what the voices in my head tell me to do.

Re Hayek:

Musings

I find it amusing that the more scientific and intellectual an athletic crowd seems to get these days, the more the individuals support The Enlightenment values like capitalism, science, and technology. It is also interesting that a high degree are atheistic or agnostic while supporting freedom and capitalism, while traditionally conservative groups try to provide a religious base for their political values.

A bodybuilding/supplement forum I belong to has an extremely capitalistic/libertarian-leaning following called avantlabs.com.

I believe it is due to the influence of Aristotelianism and Enlightenment philosophy in those who study biological science. Afterall, it is a requirement of science to be pro-reason.

I've also noticed the links on this site in defence of Western civilization (re: Mark Steyn). Odd, since the West continually comes under attack by the intelligentsia. But implicitly, many people understand the West stands for a few essentials: capitalism, reason, freedom, prosperity, science, and life on this earth.

I think this correlates with the fact that those who care about their fitness refute the metaphysical mind-body dichotomy. This false dichotomy either has supporters of the mind, or the body, but none realize humans exist both in consciousness and physically. An intellectual fitness enthusiast separates himself from traditional religious intellectuals who only believe in the spiritual, or Marxist (and now determinists like Dawkins) intellectuals who treat humans as automatic peices of meat. One who has both of these issues integrated neither agrees to personal restrictions or economic restrictins through law.

I am studying to be a philosopher by the way, and am an avid Crossfitter. I'm not going to read the Hayek articles because of time restriction, but I would describe myself as an (almost) Austrian economist, with partial reservations (business cycle theory, fractional reserve banking). I've read most of the literature and understand what the Austrian school has to offer. It is very good, and if you want more visit www.mises.org

Dave W: Choice #2: "Use this site with humility and grace" -- practice what you preach.

To Mikael:

"What does this mean? It means that any economy on the world strives to achieve a balance between the dynamic nature of free markets, and the security & overview provided by governmental control. A drive towards 100% free, de-regulated markets is just as crazy as a drive towards 100% collectivization. Look at what happened to Russia in the 1990s, where savage, out-of-control capitalism ruined the country"

Russia was never even approaching a capitalistic economy. Since the Soviet breakup, it has always been a "hampered market economy," a term coined by Von Mises. The economy and political situation in Russia were and still are thoroughly authoritarian, bureaucratic, and influenced heavily by corruption like cronyism. Capitalism is not cronyism.

Now, when we look at actual economies that come close to capitalism, we see the prosperity that results. Present day Hong Kong, Singapore, 19th century America (which brought itself up from a poor, war torn country into the most advanced industrial civilization in the world), and the city of Dubai. None are fully capitalist, yet they are real-world evidence that the more capitalist a country becomes, the more prosperous it will be.

You've injected ideas like "minimum wage laws" as "balances" to unregulated markets which somehow promote growth. In reality they cause unemployment by locking out those who cannot work for the value of the minimally determined wage, as well as increasing the prices of goods. Hong Kong has no minimum wages. But I'm not going to refute all the theory. You've shown yourself as very receptive to new ideas, so you can travel to Mises.org and read about all of the economic fallacies you've shown here.

Coach,
Thanks for the articles on both exercise & thought, I look forward to both each day. And special thanks for the picture today, it's a weak point that I've been working on and this looks as though it's the tip that I needed. JB

#15 DaveW - I completely agree with you. We are guests of this site and it's impolite to criticize how your host throws his party. I think that Coach has every right to put up anything he damn well pleases, whether it pleases any of us or not.
And for the record, I generally disagree with Coach's politics. But I'm not here for that, so I don't really get into the postings.

Mikael,

Here’s what leads me to conclude that you are a Socialist:

• You call me “right wing”. My lefty friends call me “right wing”; my righty friends call me “left wing”. I am a Libertarian, albeit, a militant one – I’m super supportive of beating dictators off of anyone, anywhere. Your calling me right wing, in my eyes, makes you far left.
• You call yourself “pragmatist” in response to being called Socialist. This seems to duck the subject entirely. Folks of every political stripe claim pragmatism. Pragmatism is politically agnostic.
• You believe Socialism can work “in certain times, in certain circumstances…” Libertarians and Right Wingers fear it like the plague. I think it is always and forever the slippery slope to serfdom and never other than wrong.
• You claimed that Hitler while a Socialist was a right winger.
• You stated that anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia, ultra-nationalism, and militarism are “by definition” right wing traits. You even went so far as to say they were defining traits and then back tracked to all racists are right wing but not all right wingers are racist.
• You see the only threat to liberty in Europe coming from the right not the left. This flies in the face of European history. Nazism and Communism, competing, even warring, Socialist factions took tens of millions of lives. This was the line that convinced me, hell scared me, “As I have proven time and again in this thread, there is no threat to European democracies right now except maybe right wing racism, xenophobia, and fascism.” (Spelling corrections mine)
• You invoke Chile as a counter to Nazis and Communists. The legacy of the worst of the right wing states is/was authoritarian government not totalitarian. The difference is profound. This alone may have little meaning but I hear it from Socialists all the time. (Jeanne Kirkpatrick's "Dictatorships and Double Standards" is a seminal work on the importance of the distinction.)
• You called my acceptance of “Europe’s commitment to democracy” and belief that Europe will surrender her “political rights and freedoms one day to the next” a “big fat contradiction”. I can’t avoid seeing this as a denial of the gradual decline to totalitarianism that is Socialism’s legacy, and that this process can be electoral. You even saw my juxtaposing of democracy and loss of liberty as “brain farts” and said that I must be “tired from my day job” to make the nexus.
• This one is, I’ll admit, a bit thin in that it may be harder to support, but your line that began “Honestly I think I know better than you on this one. I studied this very topic…last year at my university” demonstrates a conceit and arrogance that is not only academic but peculiarly academic leftist (Hayek’s “Fatal Conceit”). Conservatives and Libertarians generally don’t/won't rely on university or professorial consensus to affirm anything outside of the track record of the universities to spawn and support political misery and terror. (Paul Johnson’s “Intellectuals” and “Modern Times” are stunning on this trend.)

Mikael, isn’t it interesting that we are both claiming middle ground? I see you invoke The Economist, and my heart gladdens. We may be closer to consensus than either of us realise (I deliberately spelled that with an “s” as a token of my flexibility and commitment to understanding.).

I vote Republican, support Republicans, and usually quietly allow myself to be labeled “conservative” and “right wing” comfortably and proudly (though sometimes with private chagrin and concern) because I see Socialism and the U.S. Democrats as a profound threat to the freedoms, culture, and prosperity that define this great Nation. I see this threat in nearly every aspect of Democratic policy. When Republicans scare me, and they do occasionally, I can usually laugh them off as most Americans, even other Republicans, have learned to do.

I spent election night 2000 in South Beach, Florida dining behind the stage of the Gore entourage with a friend/client who’d financed what was hoped to be Al Gore’s victory night celebration. He observed that I looked miserable, even sick. He lifted his wine glass and toasted loudly to all in attendance, “this has to be the worst day of Greg’s life” and laughed hardily. I tried to laugh. Then he very soberly, politely, seeming to sense my nausea, asked, “What in the world do you like about George Bush so much?” I responded, “Al Gore” laughing this time but all by myself.

Mikael, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your civil discourse, commitment to discussion, determination, and good spirit. I can learn from you. (I also spelled your name correctly three times.)

I'll second JB, #28. I enjoy the cognitive challenge almost as much as the physical.

Thank you Greg and Lauren for providing this resource, and for the huge commitment of your time and energy in keeping it vital.

Tristram #7
On spiderman: I wish I could get some "sweet sweet speed on my bike"

Oh, Sage. So strong.

I generally stay out of these discussions, but since there has been some Coach bashing on the site recently, I'm jumping in.

CrossFit.com is arguably the most content-rich fitness site in history (depends on how broadly you define the term, I suppose). Not only is it free, you don’t even have to login to read or download any of the content (Journals excepted). There is no minimum participation level in the workouts, discussions, or ideology (in this way I disagree with DaveW #15). There are diverse opportunities to learn (such as the Olympic lifts in snippets with Coach Burgener and Sage). There are no obligations anywhere beyond adhering to the basic rules of the Message Board, though I am fighting for a working knowledge of the information contained in the FAQ to be a prerequisite to posting here.

These daily Comments often have the richest discussions on the site, and I read most of them most every day. Frankly, I have never understood the objection to political discussions on rest days. If you aren’t interested, don’t read them. There is rarely unique and invaluable fitness information contained in them. If you do read them and don’t like what you read, disagree publicly with the ideas presented. Or don’t. But why object to others’ discussions?

Why can’t we all just get along? This is a childish notion that has no place in society, historical, present or future. The human ego requires disagreement and conflict (if anyone doubts this, email me). We can only get along by tolerating differences of opinions and setting boundaries on behavior (thoughts of murder are different from their acts). Victor Hugo said, “Freedom is self-governance.” If we take care of ourselves, no one else has to get involved, at least until our actions restrict another's freedom to self-govern. Throughout history, men have fought to control others. The opportunity for even this discussion only exists because of the men and women who have fought with their lives for our freedoms.

To state perhaps the obvious, Coach’s post this morning demonstrates his complex nature and sets the tone for civil discourse. He enthusiastically (forcefully?) presents his opinions, backs them up with evidence, disagrees strongly and emotionally with many of Mikael’s ideas, and ends with an affirmation of Mikael as a member of the CrossFit community.

Contrary ideas are always welcome on CrossFit. Welcome does not mean eagerly embraced or even passively accepted. This is true politically, ideologically, and with all matters fitness. It is by the passionate debate of ideas that progress is made. The fear, aversion, and especially prohibition of public debate are disastrous.

The minute contrary ideas (within the boundaries of civil discourse) aren’t welcome on the site is the minute I quit my job. If the politics discussed on the site make you less interested in the fitness presented on the site, you probably don’t care that much about fitness.

Coach can do whatever he wants. It is his site, but this site has created a community and that community (so far) has maintained an amazing amount of civility and unity for an website where interaction is encouraged. I don't understand why we want to drop this into the middle of it when it's primary result will be to divide the community.

If we really want to have these discussions, it seems like they should at least reside in the message boards so that we don't have to wade through the shouting to find out what sort of exercises/stretches/skill work people are doing on their rest day.

Coach can post what he wants. He asked for comments. Here's mine.

One point I think gets missed in the "politics" discussion is how it devolves into a Republican/Democrat thing or a liberal/conservative dispute, missing the point entirely. Liberalism, or perhaps more properly termed libertarianism, is not a democrat/republican thing. Republicans claim it in certain areas and democrats others, but neither consistently in a principled way, but only as part of an agenda that picks and chooses where and when "liberty" should be preserved. (There's a pretty good argument they're both just opposite sides of the same coin. I'm not a fan of the two party system as it has become. Look at our last election - the best this country can put forward is two D students from Yale? That's it? That's the best we can do? You know classmates of theirs were like, "Bush? George Bush? And John Kerry? I was in econ with those guys and they were clowns!")

Coach, your post above shows a depth of knowledge that, to be frank, I was unaware you had because of the abruptness of other posts I've seen here. I realize now that may have been a premature judgment.

Mikael (and even you too, Brian) - I think Hayek explicitly agreed on the need for some governmental controls on market actors, but only in the sense that they allow for a level playing field and further competition, not that they make choices about how the competition should ultimately come out. For example, the RD piece specifically says that "[t]he successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services... There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function." You guys are both going all or nothing.
"To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies – these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity." So, I don't think Hayek was unaware of the ills of a completely unrestrained free-market economy. In other words, I don't think Hayek's theory is a "first order utopian" economic ideal with some socialism mixed in (as you seem to advocate, Mikael) as the "pragmatic" solution.
The problem with a little dash of "socialism" is that it restrains individual liberty in an insidious way, for the sake of the "General Welfare", and freedom gets redefined. "Freedom formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men. Now it [is] made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us. Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth." And socialism is just another name for redistribution of wealth, which has a certain compelling ring to it whenever there are those who have a lot more and those who have a lot less. That's how you get totalitarianism through the election box.

Tristram - that was hilarious. How about this translation - "he goes around in his fancy suit and beats up generic looking bad guys." Awesome.

Two Years ago today CF-NorCal celebrated its grand opening. I want to thank everyone in this community for your help and support as you all share in our success!

Coach- Thank you for the FA Hayek link...today is my birthday, you could not provide a better gift than a reminder of economic systems and thier link to freedom or the alternatives.

Going for the 10k run today...will probably have the Japanese Spiderman song in my head the whole time, great.

As for the politics, for those that like posting about it, go for it....for those that don't (like myself) don't bash em, just choose not to participate.

I don't like to discuss these rest day articles because I feel like I'm not very good at articulating my thoughts. I do like reading them though. Honestly, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Can't we read these and just be happy? Even if the politics don't align with your own, this is a great opportunity to see another viewpoint. Who knows, you might even learn something. I happen to be conservative in my politics, but I read a "liberal" newspaper and listen to "liberal" radio programs. The fact is, they're still excellent news sources, and if I can't be exposed to them without endangering my precious political beliefs, then I gues my beliefs weren't very strong in the first place, were they? Finally, if you really genuinely hate the site's politics that much, or if you hate political discussion, then I might point out to you that the ratio of WOD to political posts follows an extremely predictable pattern. I hope people of opposing viewpoints will always discuss the articles, because that's pretty much the definition of a discussion. I'm sorry I wrote so much. I know I'm just an FNG.

Pedro offers you his protection.

Great discussion. I learn a lot reading this stuff and appreciate it.

While communism is the road to serfdom (grant me some poetic license here), lets not forget that serfdom is the road to communism. Sooner or later people, for whatever reason--shortsightedness, neccessity, instinct--alienate their "inalienable" rights leading to a ripe constituency for a tyrant. And so on and so forth. The trick it so somehow prevent the first from happening. This in my humble and highly uneducated opinion is the role of "culture". With more thought I may come up with an opinion on the role of "double quotation marks". One question I've sometimes pondered is to what extent you can impose "rights" on a people. It seems to have worked to some extent in the USA in that the Constitution is a pretty frail looking piece of paper yet packs a pretty big punch. Societies seem to understand that there must be some limits to freedom--should I be free to sell myself to another and become their slave?--but now we are already on a slippery slope.

What happened to the last 20 comments from Friday's postings?

They went missing since last night.

I'd like to agree with everyone who supports Coach's prerogative to post whatever he'd like on his website. As to what it has to do with fitness, I resort to the dictionary.com definition:
FITNESS: noun;
1. The state or condition of being physically sound and healthy, especially as the result of exercise and proper nutrition.
2. A state of general mental and physical well-being.
3. The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.
Fitness then is more than definition 1, regardless of whether you agree with the ideas we are asked to examine here, don't you think all around fitness requires more than just a sound body, but that you should exercise your reason and participate in debate about those issues you hold so dearly? Does anyone think we should we all just bury our heads in the sand and work out, ignoring the world around us? As long as we look good and stay healthy forever should we just allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that is all that matters and we shouldn't discuss the world? To me that is like asking for your food not to touch on your plate (which my wife has a thing about). Just like attempting to keep your pecan encrusted salmon out of your mashed cauliflower you can't separate issues that are so intrinsic to your life and being, so why try?
This is my opinion, and I respect your right to disagree. CrossFit has a rest day every third day, if you don't want to see/hear the politics or the discussion they generate then just don't look!
But if you choose to "break a mental sweat too" (a la Dodgeball), then I will keep reading, and I actually look forward to it.

And congratulations to CrossFit NorCal!

How can a site claim to support fair and open debate when many non-offensive, on-topic comments are deleted, as in the 20 Jan 2006 thread? Additionally, the thread was closed.

Lynne Pitts claims:
"The previous rest day's comments get closed when the next rest day's comments get opened; and all comments get closed after a week, because otherwise the spam-bots fill things up with ads for porn, pills, and gambling. So depending on when you hit a comment, that may be what's going on."

This is misleading at best, as the threads for the previous and following days still allow comments to be posted.

I see that I've misread Lynne's comment. The previous "rest day's comments" is the operative phrase. I had interpreted this as "previous day's comments."

I apologize for my lack of understanding.

You know there are enough bumper plates for a small army in the back of that photo!

Mikael said:
"The real world, and human nature, unfortunately make it impossible to meet these requirements. 100% free markets are a utopian thought. A "second rank" optimum is thus needed, which is not nearly as efficient, but is certainly the "least worst" solution as it is rooted in actual reality. In this second rank optimum, the state intervenes to prevent the market from collapsing: it enforces certain basic rules to avoid anarchy (anti-trust laws, minimum wages, etc), prevents negative externalities (byproducts of the market, the most typical example is pollution), and encourages positive externalities (such as state sponsored research)."

But you make Hayek's larger point. Austrian economics seminal contribution was to correct the untenable assumption of perfect information. You need to read more Hayek. As far as how useful government intervention is to correct perceived market anomalies, the field is replete with empirical studies showing government intervention illuminating "the law of unintended effects". George Stilger, another econ nobel laureate, made his career showing how regulated monopolies, ostensibly created to control the undesireable affects of monopoly, are actually more costly and less efficient to consumers than the natural monopoly outcome. Read more Hayek.

DaveW - #15

"For the crybabies who haven't gotten the message yet, this site involves "paying" for your free world class fitness with political discussion.

Get over it."

You are absolutely right, Dave. That is part of the price we pay. As is occasionally having to read incredibly mean-spirited vitriol posted by the site owner on the message board while others are expected to display "polite behavior."

And for crybabies like you, Dave, part of the price you pay is having to listen to the comments of those that find the above objectionable.

Get over it.

Re: #47; oops, typo. Its "George Stigler"

Mikael,

Its obvious you took your university experience too serious.

"the state intervenes to prevent the market from collapsing" -- State intervention CREATES the market collapse more often than not.

"Look what happened to Russia in the 1990's, where savage, out of control capitalism ruined the country" -- Government corruption at all levels ruined it. Capitalism needs some semblance of laws to provide its benefits (ie. Mexico).

"Canada, where socialist policies have been in place for a long time without any negative consequences for the citizens'" -- Canada has a disarmed citizenry (you ought to always question a government that is afraid to let its people own weapons). Also, every government provided service in Canada is Sub-par...ask a Canadian how long it takes to get a hospital bed in Canada.

"They [Swedes, Canucks, and Finns] are some of the least corrupted countries in the world" -- of course they are...many "corruptions" have been decriminalized. Drugs are decriminalized; prostitution is decriminalized...so OF COURSE there is a lower crime rate.

Coach: Good response. Agree with almost all of it. As always...great site. BUT...more slideshows on the instructionals.

Within this community, who does this remind you of?

"George Stigler was the quintessential empirical economist. Paging through his classic microeconomics text The Theory of Price, one is struck by how many principles of economics are illustrated with real data rather than hypothetical examples. Probably more than any other economist, Stigler deserves credit for getting economists to look at data and evidence."

P.S. Thanks to all the people who do post their thoughts on the articles. I learn a lot and get a better understanding of the articles from following your discussions.

Oh yeah, Coach keep up the good pictures of stretches and proper forms during lifts. I know I could of use that before I attempted some heavy thrusters and jammed my wrist back too far. Injury free is the name of the game too. Thanks.

Hayek's work has always been a reasonable blueprint for the "slippery slope," though one which, in an area of corporate, rather than government, economic superiority is desperately in need of some revisions to maintain its relevance. Dictators in the conventional sense are becoming fewer and farther between- electeted officials who allow themselves to be a conduit for purely business concerns, or who live far outside their appointed powers by way of fear or habit are far more common, in both the developed and developing world.

Mikael's point about the "second optimum" is true- without restrictions on the tools they use, competition no longer can properly compute the proper economic balances. What remains the neverending, and frequently neglected challenge is to try to use those habitat-optimizing tools of regulation and law in the most efficient ways possible, and some of the most exciting work in economics today deals with factor markets, which not only create vast new assets, but although the overwhelming majority of activities like environmental protection and resource sustainability, worker's hours, and a slew of others to be part of the normal economic process, in a manner that both corrects the competition "computer" and protects those (currently) intangibles better than government regulation.

Best comment of the day, IMO:

If the politics discussed on the site make you less interested in the fitness presented on the site, you probably don’t care that much about fitness.

Thanks, Tony B!

Still really like this site, getting back after being sick, a bit sore but it's good.

Here's some real controversy... best form of government ----Theocracy --- Ruled by God directly.
He is coming back and will set this up on earth, just as He now rules the rest of the physical and spiritual universe, like it or not - believe it or not.

ha ha, have fun...

I choose to limit my political intake because I distrust the media. That seems to be the most prevalent source for politics at this moment. I have been amazed by the posts that have surfaced in the comments as of the past few months. I have been learning many things as time has progressed. Amongst these jewels: Coach is a very interesting person with a wealth of knowledge and interests that reach beyond training and fitness, Kelly Moore is a machine (apparently not into running, but a machine nonetheless), and Dan Silver is a funny guy. The most disappointing thing I have seen out in the comments is the requests and demands to keep politics out of the site. I enjoy reading most of the posts. I guess I lead a boring life. Since I am selective about where I go to get my information, I enjoy the option to read Coach's posts and to get another viewpoint on the situation. I have felt the need in the past to voice my opinion that this is the best site for fitness bar none. I am thankful that I have a resource that provides direction, instruction, and motivation free of charge. I think the discourse that usually ensues following an invite to discuss political writings is enlightening. I prefer to read the postings when I so choose. I believe that we all have the choice to not read the posted articles and to not agree with Coach's choice of reading material. I think the solution is simple for those that want the politics removed: Do not get involved. Enjoy the workouts and selectively involve yourself. I wish you all the best in your endeavors.

I could understand it if Glassman had to sweep up after a bunch of obscenity gibbering trolls, but the fact that he deleted dozens of articulate gestures of support voiced in favour of Dan John just leaves me stunned.

If anything, trying to stiffle the support Dan John recieved is an even more petty, classless act than the original baseless insults he hurled around. Does he really think nobody noticed?

I have nothing further to say. Dan John is a class act, a superlative coach, and a great person. My training is better off for having interacted with him and his writings.

First off let me say i have never had such mixed feelings about a workout program. First of all i hate you guys for totaly destroying me every day, reducing me to a shell of a man and making me puke a total of 3 times, one for each month I have been on crossfit. But at the same time I love you guys Im in the best shape of my life, I have lost 20 lbs of fat and gained almost 10 in muscle, this is honestly a program that works if you put the work into it. So thanks for the muscles and the vomiting. This program is the future and I know it will be around for a long time to come.

There are some very interesting, thoughtful, well informed, civil posts today. I feel that I'm in the presence of great minds and lots of folks who know very much more than I do about this stuff, and who are disagreeing and discussing these issues without rancor. Perhaps that's because the insulters and label slingers have been run off. Good riddance to them. I feel unworthy, but I'll chime in anyway with my comments on Hayek.

I have had a picture of F.A. Hayek on the wall in my office for about 15 years. I read "Road To Serfdom" a long time ago, and at the time I thought it was the clearest exposition of a political philosophy that I had ever read. That lead me to read other stuff by Hayek, and most particularly his crowning achievement, the 3 volume series, "Law, Legislation & Liberty," written 40 years later in the 1970s.

"Road To Serfdom" was written in the 1930s, after Hayek had fled Austria to England, after he had observed the Communist takeover in Russia, and while he was observing the Nazi's rise to power in Germany. It is sort of a preliminary examination of the nature of a free society. While it is a great book, which remains valid, it represents only a way point in his philosophy.

Hayek spent a lot of time thinking and writing about the history of ideas, how they evolve, and how they trickle down from intellectuals to the masses. He often stated that socialism was the dominant intellectual idea of the 19th and 20th centuries. Initially it was put forth as a better economic system, and although that claim was destroyed by Hayek's mentor, Ludwig von Mises around 1920 with the book, "Socialism", it took another 50 years or more for even economics professors to start realizing that von Mises was right.

Hayek viewed it as obvious that planned economies don't work as well as free economies, and so he devoted most of his energy to dealing with the relationship of socialism to individual liberty. Along the way he adds what he calls "the knowledge problem" to the economic criticisms of socialism. RTS, to me, is an argument that the effort to plan the economy is destructive of liberty. Simply put, plans don't work unless everyone goes along with the plan, so everyone is required to go along with the plan.

But then, with their economic justifications crumbling, the socialists shifted ground, and the intellectual justification for socialism changed to its present rationale, "social justice," and on that basis it remains the dominant intellectual idea in the world today. Hayek spent the rest of his life answering this justification for socialism. "Law, Legislation & Liberty" is the result.

The title of the second book in the Law, Legislation, & Liberty series says it all, "The Mirage of Social Justice." Our efforts to control outcomes so that they are seen as fair (John Rawls), fail in two respects: (1) the well intentioned efforts don't do what they aim to do, and (2) the effort to achieve "fair" outcomes for everyone is inevitably destructive of liberty, just as the effort to plan the economy is destructive of liberty. I'm with Coach & Hayek on this one, socialism in any form, on any basis, is the road to serfdom.

Hayek also believed that the American experiment of trying to limit government power with a written constitution has failed. What sticks with me most is his statement to the effect that, "Any government which has the power to make laws that favor special interests will inevitably become the whore of special interests." From the Yazoo land fraud, to Mark Twain's "The Gilded Age," to sugar subsidies, to racial quotas and minimum wage laws--I can't help but think he was absolutely right.

Interesting comment that fitness enthusiasts trend toward libertarian. Perhaps it's because they have to earn their fitness through hard work.

My two cents:

Lee wrote"If anything, trying to stiffle the support Dan John recieved is an even more petty, classless act than the original baseless insults he hurled around. Does he really think nobody noticed? I have nothing further to say. Dan John is a class act, a superlative coach, and a great person. My training is better off for having interacted with him and his writings."

Lee-I could not find anything either way, and I wanted to read any such "derogatory" comments by Dan John. If Dan said anything of the such, I would be truly surprized, because he truly is a scholar and a class act.

I am like Tony B and some of the others, and I want to come out in defense of Coach (like he really needs it).........I believe that I am a philosophical "brother" with Coach. If the Libertarian party would ever run a true canidate in any election, I would step up and fully vote for him. I currently wish I could VOTE FOR KINKY down in Texas, because if anything, he is for change.

I see Coach's postings as another means to challenge us and make us use our brains for more than just calculating the next "shortcut" in a WOD. I do not see it as my job to say whether or not the chosen author is right or wrong, but to try to get out of my self-centered viewpoint and see another's. Coach is a hard teacher, and whether we like it or not, he is going to make us think.

Our freedom will end when we start acting like lemmings.

Congratulations Robb! Here's to another successful two years!

I never read the articles,just do the workouts.That my choice and why I came to Crossfit.Everyone else has the same choice.I subscribe to the journal,buy the DVD and purchase the T-shirts because thats what I want.

You are absolutely right, Donn. That is part of the price you pay for objecting to the objections of the objectors to the posting...wait, what??? You get the point...get over it.

My political discourse: All would be different if Republicans or Democrats had someone like Ultraman on their side. That was my favorite show as a kid.

Just remember everyone is free to their thoughts on here and if you think they shouldn't, Chuck Norris is watching you. Chuck Norris has counted to infinity, twice.

What I took away from The Road to Serfdom is that if government is allowed to control too much money and power, even with the best of intentions, sooner or later that power will be used for corrupt purposes, and we’ll all suffer as a result. Abramoff illustrates that adequately, as does the Bridge to Nowhere. And of course there is the market distortion that can occur due to government intervention that can destroy efficiency even when corruption is absent. The relatively empty car pool lanes we have in Seattle could be a good example of this.

Seems to me that the electorate should hold both parties to account for expanding the role of government to the point where it controls about one third of GDP and is perhaps overly intrusive on the regulatory front.

Hi all,
Brian S, try a wider grip.

august k, yes (my trainging partner from years ago jerked that way).
Until later...

Lee- Dan John starting a fight? What? And people around here thrashing back at him? And Coach deleting it? What the hell are you talking about? Dan is gold, he likes us and we like him.

speaking of Chuck Norris: http://gorillamask.net/snlcn.shtml

I would like to suggest reading John Stossel's book "Give Me a Break".

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002X7W5G/qid=1138124801/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8413056-7075013?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

I am not that fond of the title of the book but it makes up for it in content. I found it very informative and it was an easy read. John Stossel describes himself as a libertarian so there is arguments against both camps (Right and Left Wing).

I just posted this in the Message Board, but given the Dan John discussion starting up here again, I'm copying it here.

The issue with Dan John is that there were two comments in the T-Nation thread that he had a moral obligation to correct. The first is that CrossFit stole his ideas and the second is that Greg fabricates soldiers' participation in CrossFit as a marketing scheme.

Dan and Greg had both been training and coaching long before they met. Both are popular and have measured success independent of each other. The content of Dan's articles, especially several significant posts on T-nation, included ideas that he got from CrossFit without crediting them as such. Many of us knew it and found it curious. It wasn't enough of a problem until CrossFit was accused of stealing from him.

Whatever political opinions you may have about the military and foreign policy, disgracing the men and women who put their lives on the line to fight for and defend freedom is offensive. Suggesting that Greg fabricates their participation for his own promotion is loathsome. Dan personally knows many specops who train CrossFit.

Both of these have nothing to do with the comparative efficacy of CrossFit v. T-Nation or any other fitness protocol. They are two facts about which Dan has intimate knowledge. It would have been very easy for Dan to say, "I personally know many soldiers who do CrossFit. CrossFit has never taken ideas or methods from me without giving me credit for them. I think both CrossFit and T-Nation have a legitimate place on the web and in the fitness world."

Dan's apology several days later on T-Nation credited CrossFit for teaching him cartwheels. That is clearly an underhanded dig on a site like T-Nation.

That being said, I know Dan and I believe that he doesn't want conflict and has genuine affection for both communities. Personally, I would love to have Dan as part of our community. Right now, the issue isn't training or anything fitness. It's about not defending his friends against slanderous remarks made in his backyard.

I've got a phenomenal idea that my help some of the liberal users of this site--don't click on the suggested reading on the rest days. That way the rest of us can read the interesting articles that Coach is offering. I assume that as liberals you are "pro-choice", right?

Speaking of stretching to prepare enable a solid rack in the clean, Mark Ripptoe has an excellent stretch for this in his book "Starting Strength". Place a bar in a power rack at approximately 12" to 18" below the point you normally rack. Stand back from the bar, extend elbows as if you to rack, step forward and rest your triceps on the bar, and GENTLY squat down. I have used this stretch in the past with great success.

Roger Harrell (Go Aggies!) also had some great forearm stretches on page 3 of this month's CrossFit Journal.

If you don't have a copy of starting strength (or a subscription to the CFJ), what the heck are you waiting for?

Oh no Ian, you do not SPEAK of Chuck Norris...you fear him. Reasons why:
24 Chuck Norris Facts

1. Chuck Norris’ tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
2. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
3. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
4. The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.
5. Chuck Norris defines love as the reluctance to murder. If you’re still alive, it’s because Chuck Norris loves you.
6. Chuck Norris isn’t hung like a horse. Horses are hung like Chuck Norris.
7. If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can’t see Chuck Norris you may be only seconds away from death.
8. Rather than being birthed like a normal child, Chuck Norris instead decided to punch his way out of his mother’s womb.
9. There are no disabled people. Only people who have met Chuck Norris.
10. Chuck Norris can win a game of Monopoly without owning any property.
11. There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.
12. In fine print on the last page of the Guinness Book of World Records it notes that all world records are held by Chuck Norris, and those listed in the book are simply the closest anyone has ever gotten.
13. Chuck Norris invented cancer because he was tired of killing people
14. In an average living room there are 1,242 objects Chuck Norris could use to kill you, including the room itself.
15. Chuck Norris is the only man to ever defeat a brick wall in a game of tennis.
16. Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
17. When Chuck Norris goes to donate blood, he declines the syringe, and instead requests a hand gun and a bucket.
18. Chuck Norris has two speeds: walk and kill.
19.When Chuck Norris jumps into a body of water, he doesn’t get wet. The water gets Chuck Norris instead.
20. Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
21. Chuck Norris can set ants on fire with a magnifying glass. At night.
22. When Chuck Norris runs with scissors, other people get hurt.
23. Chuck Norris recently had the idea to sell his urine as a beverage. We know this drink as Red Bull.
24. A Handicap parking sign does not signify that this spot is for handicapped people. It is actually in fact a warning, that the spot belongs to Chuck Norris and that you will be handicapped if you park there.

There was a mention of Kinky Friedman and that reminded me of his stance to close the border with Mexico. Since I have very strong liberterian views on economics does anyone else believe that government intervention into the labor markets is wrong, especially when it comes to immigration. I live in Texas and illegal immigrant labor adds a great deal to our economy.

Taylor - laughing so hard my sides literally hurt and I can barely see...
You complete me...

sorry, taylor, no one, not even Chuck Norris, can beat the wall at tennis

the wall is relentless
-Mitch Hedburg

Kalen and Karl

Lee in post 58 did not mean that Dan John was starting a fight. I believe his grammar was just a little loose.

The "he" in his second paragraph was referring to "Glassman" in his first paragraph.

If you have a chance, reread the post with that in mind and it makes sense. Sadly.

I will post my reply to Tony B in both places he posted his message:

Tony B,

Your misrepresentation of what Dan John said is an outright fabrication and an attempt to spin the situation.

You said this:

"Dan's apology several days later on T-Nation credited CrossFit for teaching him cartwheels. That is clearly an underhanded dig on a site like T-Nation."

What Dan said on T-mag was this:

"I love crossfit...always have. The thing I like best is what I call getting "exposed." I have found that something as simple as doing cartwheels from "both" directions to expose my athlete's weaknesses (and mine) as fast as hours of testing."

So, would you care to comment upon this blatent misrepresentation? Why would you make something up like that?

Did that Chuck Norris thing morph from the Vin Diesel thing or was it the other way around?

Goddamn, Tony B. You aren't heard from for a while, and when you come back, you hit it out of the park. Well done. Well said. Good to see you back.

Re: Hayek. I love the picture book. I don't always have time to read treatises or even articles, even if they are the "Reader's Digest" versions. I understood the general tenor and message and agree. Surprising for me as a Dem, but as I get older, I see things differently.
My only question regarding Hayek:

Is Selma Hayek a distant relative? If so, that's totally hot.

Dan,
Perfect "Dodgeball" quote, even if it was missed by some. I found that the first time I saw "Dodgeball," I didn't like it. After the second, third, and fourth viewings (as it is on HBO every hour) I find its humor and subtle nuiances to my liking. That and the chick in it is really hot.

Visiting posters and various trolls.

Welcome. That's the door behind you. Use it as you see fit. You don't like the discussion, skip the rest days.

I'm going back to listening to Pennywise for a while before I get caught.

Taylor,
Chuck Norris fought a pirate once. The pirate won. Chuck hasn't been the same man since.

Mikael:
You wrote: "However, I wonder how von Hayek would analyse today's Scandinavian countries and Canada, where socialist policies have been in place for a long time without any negative consequences for the citizens' political freedom."

Ever try owning a firearm in either of these countries? As pointed out by another, why would I trust a government that doesn't trust me to be armed?

Coach indicates you said something to the effect of "all racists are right wing, but not all right-wingers are racist."

Please look up "House of David" and "Nation of Islam" and then tell me if you still agree with that statement.

Finally, to Coach:
Keep up the variety of stuff. Fitness isn't only physical.

If you rearrange the letters in Vin Diesel it reveals his credo: "I End Lives."

Can anyone reconcile Hayek with "The Future Doesn't Need Us," Bill Joy, Wired Magazine? I'd appreciate that discussion. Thanks.

Eric

clayton,

I also live in Texas and I like some of the stuff Kinky is saying. On that note I am also a liberterian and beleive that there should be free markets and free trade. With the liberterian policy the borders should also be open. I do agree with this yet deep down I still have some hang-ups about it.

"The Road to Serfdom" has been on my radar for quite a while--look forward to reading it. The cartoon is too simple (as are all cartoons, Doh!) to draw any conclusions from.

4 rounds:

15 85# HCSQ
15 1 arm push up (each side)
15 oull ups

20:03

Baz

Posting this here as well for clarity, but let's keep it to the Message Board from now on.

Steve,
I accept your clarification of the two quotes verbatim. My intention wasn't to misrepresent Dan at all. My point is still that using cartwheels in any defense of CrossFit on T-Nation is an underhanded dig. Do you know the expression "Damning by faint praise?"

Even if you disagree about whether this is a dig or not, it is not the real issue. The real issue is that Dan didn't deny that CrossFit stole his ideas.

Level of political discussion beyond my level of comprehension/sophistication.

Sub with reply to #50 Zag who said, “Canada has a disarmed citizenry (you ought to always question a government that is afraid to let its people own weapons). Also, every government provided service in Canada is Sub-par...ask a Canadian how long it takes to get a hospital bed in Canada."

Reply:
Canadians are not disarmed. There are restrictions on who can attain what type of firearm. Handguns are restricted/regulated. Canadians are generally not armed because we do not feel a need to be armed since we generally do not live in fear of one other. In spite of what some say, violent crime is consistently down in Canada. Most crimes committed with firearms are perpetrated with illegally attained handguns smuggled in from the States.

Every government service is sub-par? Well… most of them I will concede.

Health-care waiting times - I have waited six-hours in Emerg and I have waited 6 seconds. I have seen one of the best Children’s Hospitals is action – more than I’d like… but I’m damn proud to support them and the job they are able to do! Overall it is dependant on the service, facility, region and need in question. Also a variety of factors such as an aging population requiring more care, escalating costs of everything, technology, and a shortage of doctors and skills because they tend to move to the US where they can earn more and work less. Perfect? No. But then, who/what is?

Chris, Left-wing Tree-Hugging Dirt-worshipping X-fitter

Shawn C,

Since your taking it on yourself to be the great defender for wrongs done to Dan John, where is your commensurate defense of wrongs done to Coach? Would t-nation allow a constant posting to be displayed pointing out their 'flaws'??

"Dan is also a great athlete, who holds national records. Can Glassman claim such feats?"

This is a tiresome and moronic charge that I see constantly thrown out there like it represents some form of logic. So the case you make here is that all coaches/trainers in say, the NFL for example, should be able to actually play as well or better than the athletes they coach else their knowledge and expertise is invalid??? You make yourself look petty and stupid with this argument that amounts to no more than name-calling and I'm fairly certain Dan John can handle himself.

Coach, thank-you for the link to the condensed version of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom". Please keep the links coming. I appreciate this chance to discover and learn a little more historical economics. I would never have read a word of Hayek without a strong recommendation. Now I'm glad I have.

Rob M.,
Good point.
Bart Starr: Great quarterback; lousy coach.

Worked on Pistols, HSPU (assisted), and strict and kipping pull-ups

Just did the 10 K run. Time was 58.30. Not much of a long distance runner but I got it done. haven't run that far in years. Thanks for the challenge coach.

Zag, comment#50

I have done my best to not get caught up in these political discussions. Don't care for'em.
Mainly due to people like you.

But Zag, do you now, or have you ever lived in Canada?

If yes, we can talk

If no, well then perhaps you shouldnt talk about the politics of a government you obviously know nothing about.

"Canada has a disarmed citizenry"

WRONG!
I live in a rural area where EVERYBODY has a gun, or 2 or 3.
We just happen to live in a more civilized society, where fortunately its not necessary to walk around with a gun. I feel fortunate to live in Canada, where I have never, ever felt the need to walk around armed.

"You ought to always question a government that is afraid to let its people own weapons"

How about questioning a government that refuses to put some restrictions on the ownership of a firearm, despite the fact that it's citizenry is killing one another at a rate never seen before. Thats the kind of government that I would question.

"Every government provided service in Canada is sub-par"

WRONG again
You mention hospital beds. So lets talk about that. I work in the emergency services. Ask me how long it takes for somebody to get a bed. I'll tell you. IMMEDIATELY
If they don't get a bed immediately, their condition probably isn't serious enough to warrant one.

It's ignorant, uninformed comments like yours which are bringing Crossfit down.

I hate this BS.
Looking forward to tomorrows workout.

Steveo

Nick #22,

You can hold the dumbbell (when you write "weight" in your question, I assume you're referring to a dumbbell) one of the three ways shown in the picture for the 10/29/03 WOD:

http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/000214.html

Or the picture itself:

http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/grips.html

I prefer the baseball method (the middle photo) but that's just me.

Hope this helps.

Ron Nelson: Good choice in tunes...

I'm looking forward to reading the condensed version of "The Road to Serfdom" later tonight. Thanks for posting it Coach Glassman.

Re: Comment #48

Yes, Donn this site is free for World Clas Fitness...but understand that from this site I buy the Crossfit Journal, not a big cost, I have spent over $250 for shirts, etc, thinking about traveling from Florida to CA. for the olympic classes, etc...I then spend money from other sites listed on here, well over $1000 for equipment...

So yes this site is free, but there comes alot of money after the fact for other items...Free speech is everything and sure Coach can list any topic on here that he wishes and we as a community can read or not read, respond or not respond..

I personally would love links to articles where I could learn more about fitness..but hey like you said it is free...but you know what...I can always take my income and spend it else where...nothing is ever free...there are revunue streams created for Crossfit and other vendors associated with Crossfit...I can take that revenue and spend it else where and so can other crossfitters who become dis-satisfied with political banter back and forth...maybe Coach does not need the revenue...

Just my opinion...

Eric, #84

Good question. I will read Joy's article again, but I think the answer to your question may be found in "The Future And It's Enemies" by Virginia Postrel.

A free society in Hayek's view is similar to a biological organism. It is evolved. It evolved without purpose or direction, and it must continue to evolve or stagnate, as ancient China did. A free society is what he calls a "spontaneous order," as are all living organisms. The chief characteristic of a spontaneous order is that the laws all apply equally to everyone, like the law of gravity or the rules of a game, and thus society has no "purpose" or direction. It just is.

Any attempt to direct an economy or a society, however well intentioned, e.g. "make GM keep its plants open so the workers don't lose their jobs," or in the case of Mr. Joy to direct the course of scientific development, interferes with the processes by which evolution and progress take place.

We may create Cylons and they may turn on us and wipe us out. Something to be aware of, to prepare for, but not a reason to stop robotics research.

As many rounds in 20 minutes of:
135 lb Hang squat clean, 6 reps
Bar dips, 12 reps
9 rounds complete

Dan MacD, #84:
You have captured another one of Hayek's key contributions. With "spontaneous order", Hayek anticipated by decades the whole field of Complexity Theory (i.e; the study of self-organizing complexity). One important point to note is, yes economic planning gets done, but it is best, most optimally done, by agents "on the ground"; agents who are 1) apprised of and 2) accountable for the costs and benefits of the possible outcomes of their plans in a milleu of semi-chaotic, imperfect information. Yes, there are instances of imperfect markets and government intervention is sometimes warranted but this intervention should be subjected to the same degree of dispassionate scrutiny (see Stigler) as that placed upon the "imperfect" market lest intervention make matters worst; empirical studies tend to show that, more often than not, government intervention results in "third or fourth order optimum solutions". Hayek was the first to explore the economics of imperfect information.

I appreciate the opportunity to post and, again, appreciate the very collegial give-and-take on board.

As a supporter of von Mises views, and hence von Hayek's in many areas, I hate to be the bearer of bad news. We have never broken the Keynesian grip!

This grip entangles both sides of the political aisle from its centralized perch atop the power pyramid--the Federal Reserve. The Founding Fathers were adament about their desire that there should be no central bank; and they deliberately stated so by giving Congress, and Congress alone, the sole power in Article I, Sec. 8:

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

Coin is not paper money--it is gold or silver--period!

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was the 4th attempt by the moneychangers to foist a european-style central bank on the United States. They knew that once that was accomplished, and the power to create credit (and money) was in the hands of private bankers, then pushing us down the road to serfdom would be within their grasp.

The Fed is not a government agency. It is a cabal of private bankers and there is no reserve. The only leash that restrained them was the gold standard. FDR decoupled the domestic economy from gold in 1933 by confiscating and then outlawing private ownership of gold. He then revalued it from $20.67/oz to $35.

How do you think you'd feel the day after complying with the order to turn in your gold coins only to find out the next day it was worth that much more by presidential decree?

In 1971, Nixon severed our international ties to gold when (mainly) the French decided to redeem all their excess reserve dollars for gold. We didn't have enough gold to back up all the paper dollars floating around the globe, so Nixon defaulted on our promise to pay. This set the world on a truly floating fiat-paper money standard for the first time in history.

The broadest measure of the money supply (M3) has grown tenfold since then. Mises and Hayek are spinning at 10,000rpm in their graves. Our system is so distorted and imbalanced that something is going to snap. The politicians of any stripe are powerless to stop it at this point. It has gone too far.

Now, Ben "Helicopter" Bernanke is about to takeover the most powerful seat in the world. One of his first acts will be to halt reporting of the M3 money stock on March 23, 2006. Ironically, that is 3 days after the Iranian Oil bourse begins operation. The Iranians intend to compete directly with the USDollar denominated NYMEX and IPE by selling Oil in Euros. Saddam tried that, too.

Can you imagine how many USTreasuries will come flooding back ashore when all the central banks no longer need to hold them for oil purchases? So, who's going to buy them? The Fed? You bet! And guess what, that's highly inflationary!

Bernanke has also quite frankly said that he will drop money from Friedmanesque Helicopters to stave off a deflationary depression. Not only will he use the traditional Fed means, but he will monetize everything. This includes stocks, corporate bonds, real estate, automobiles, and so on...

Guess what? This is also highly inflationary. Does anyone wonder why they're covering up M3?

So, you see this discussion is sort of moot. The power lies above the politicians; they are the puppets. The moneychangers are the puppetmasters. The old "City of London" dynasty bankers finally reasserted full control over the rogue colonies in 1913 when they usurped the Congress's Consitutional authority "to coin money."

And we will all pay a heavy price--soon--the bill is about to come due. The conundrum lies between the falling exchange rate value of the USDollar and higher interest rates that will explode the credit, housing and equity bubbles. Oh, and then there's Social Security, Medicare and the looming pension crisis, but that's for another time.

Got Gold? Mises and Hayek hope you do!

I have no problem with the political discussion (we could be discussing the pros/cons of polygamy, for all I care) but I have to state that the current format of the comments makes following the several discussions taking place almost impossible, and s*cks M.B.'s big time. YOU NEED TO IMPLEMENT THREADED COMMENTS!

Go to www.slashdot.com if you need an example of threaded comments done right.

We now return yout to your regularly scheduled programming . . .

Comment #94 Steveo,

No offence intended: I don’t think I am ignorant or uninformed. I’ve spent quite a bit of time (even lived in) in Canada (BC), England, Europe, and Mexico…and I love Hockey and Molson…does that endear me at all?

Just on the firearms front:

“Prime Minister Paul Martin says he would like to ban all handguns, period, thereby leaving his fellow citizens even more vulnerable than they are already.

British authorities saw a 35-percent increase in gun violence in 2002 alone – not so ironically, that's just six years' removed from a nationwide ban on personal ownership of most firearms. So bad is the violence now that police say it has "spread like a cancer" across the whole of the country.

Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent – armed robberies by as much as 45 percent.

Couple these examples with the fact that a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released two years ago found "inconclusive evidence" gun-control laws, which include entire bans of certain classes of weapons, have any appreciable effect on gun-related violence.
Toronto Police Chief William Blair has another, more realistic take on the problem. He says gang activity is proliferating primarily because the city is soft on crime and because too many people arrested with weapons are back on the streets before the ink dries on their police report.”

Jon E. Dougherty is the author of "Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.-Mexico Border,"
…
“The ultimate question, though, is what impact these rules might have on violent crime. While Canada's system is too new to discern any impact, the experience in our own country is not encouraging.

In theory, if a gun is left at the scene of the crime, licensing and registration will allow a gun to be traced back to its owner. Police have spent tens of thousands of man-hours administering these laws in Hawaii (the one state with both rules). But, amazingly, there has not even been a single case where police claim licensing and registration have been instrumental in identifying the criminal.

Why? Criminals very rarely leave their guns at the scene of the crime. This really only happens when the criminals have been seriously wounded or killed. Would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons.

So will at least licensing allow for even more comprehensive background checks and thus keep criminals from getting guns in the first place? Unfortunately, there is not a single academic study that finds that background checks reduce violent-crime rates.

Ventura County Sheriff Bob Brooks stated his concerns simply: "It is my belief that this legislation significantly misses the mark because it diverts our attention from what really should be our common goal: holding the true criminals accountable for the crimes they commit and getting them off the street.”
John Lott Jr. -- University of Chicago.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Thank God for it.

DUDE! I didn't see any waves on that link. Major Bummer Bra

Alot of outstanding points being made today. Too many for me to name them all. I love how a simple book can raise such heated conversation, and then see that conversation head down several paths it wasn't intended to. Open up your minds. Read the book and take it for what it is worth... to you. There is no brain washing going on here. Just an opportunity to exercise your mind. If we were on a site that posted a link to a liberal book or article, would those of us on the right start slandering those on the left? Or would we engage in civil debate? Of course that debate would turn heated when the lefts ideas and points started getting blown out of the water. But that's just my oppinion. That and .50 cents right?

The "Young Chuck Norris" link had me almost crying. Any guy that can kill a rat w/his teath while hanging upside down from a tree is a man in my book. How about setting up a match between him and the Japanese Spiderman?

Get some, go again!

couldnt run yesterday cuz of foot problem so took day off today though
cfwu x 3 rds +pushups
me bench press (bwt 237)
255x3,265x2,275x2,285x2,295x1,305x1,315x1,320x1
325x1(new pr)
me c and j
135x3,145x2,155x2,165x2,175x1,185x1,195x1,
205x1(failed bad pull),205x1(new pr)
cant wait to try the 10k though

I wonder what tomorrows WOD will be, I am looking forward to it ......

In 1992 a man told Chuck Norris that he was "on the road to serfdom". Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked Friedrich A. Hayek in the head, thinking it was an insult, killing the author instantly.

After realizing it might be true, Chuck Norris went back in time and roundhouse kicked Hitler in the head for being an ass (again), then killed his dog by growling at it.

Great comments folks!

Coach, great article, like so many of the others. Please keep 'em coming; some day we'll all be better at throwing out strongly supported articulate arguments without the ad hominem BS.

Ron N., I will loan you my skills if you run for ASB Pres... Unless you're running against C. Norris.

Taylor, thanks for that bit.

Tony B., good on you. As one of the "made up" LEO/Military guys who frequent this site, if you ever need a couple knuckldraggers out here to verify we're involved with the program, just ask.

Brand: Do to the chest cold/residual congestion a nd limited recent workouts-- executed the DL WoD from 060121.
205, 225, 225, 235, 245, 255-f/245, 245, 255-f, 245.
-5 sets of 10x HSPU (assisted)
-5 sets of practice cleans: 45 x5, 65 x5, 95 x5, 115-f/105 x3, 105 x3.
-2 matched sets: military sit-ups/back extensions.

Hayek? Are you guys talking about that hot latin actress?

Taylor-
Did you know:
1. Chuck Norris does not hunt because the word hunting implies the probability of failure. Chuck Norris goes killing.
2. The Dinosaurs looked at Chuck Norris the wrong way once. ONCE.
3. When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
4. A blind man once stepped on Chuck Norris' shoe. Chuck replied, "Don't you know who I am? I'm Chuck Norris!" The mere mention of his name cured this man blindness. Sadly the first, last, and only thing this man ever saw, was a fatal roundhouse delivered by Chuck Norris.
5. Superman owns a pair of Chuck Norris pajamas.

Only a "Planner" would try to mold the content of a free fitness site to their own preference.

Thanks Coach for the rack tip. Currently, my rack warmups include "interlocking finger hand rolls" and putting one arm in the rack position and stretching it with the other. However, a finger or two still slip off, especially when I'm tired and/or lifting heavy. This should help build even more flexibility.

Can anyone recommend a good, quick BJJ warmup/stretch? I'm going to my first class tonight. Want to see how my crossfit-conditioned body will handle the class.

Damn, shouldn't of had that Chipotle burrito with the black beans. Someone's going to hate rolling with me tonight.

Hi all,
Workout as follows ALL WEIGHT IN KILOS
Lisa ride one mile; then, CJ 35x3, 45x2, 55x2, 60x1, 65x1x2, 70x1x5.
Bdw. 61 kilos.
Jon 5 miles of walking; ride (Airdyne) 2 miles 5:30; Squat 65x5,105x3, 125x5x5; sw/press 20x5, 40x3, 50x1, 55x5x5 (4:00 rest interval); power CJ 60x2, 80x2, 90x1, 95x1, 100x1x2 (no jerks), 90x1 (three jerks).
Bdw. 82 kilos.
Unti tomorrow...

Until tomorrow...

Stevehb,

If you vote for me, all your wildest dreams will come true. I think.

For the rest of you:

Guns don't kill people; Chuck Norris kills people.

Coach Glassman,

Thanks for the book reference. I'll hunt down a copy through interlibrary loan this week.

I'm not one to take without giving back, so here is a link you may enjoy reading:

http://www.hooverassociation.org/challengeliberty.htm

Today I take the first step into getting back into good condition after a year long hiatus due to surgery. I'm going to follow the program given in CFJ #9, and I'll post from time to time to let everybody know how I'm getting along (and keep me motivated!). Thank you for your good work and contributions to the fitness community.

I have tasted the Kool Aid and found it good.

Zag
Martin, didn't get in, so not to worry.

"leaving his fellow citizens even more vulnerable than they are already"

I'm not sure where you got that quote, But I can assure you, I don't feel vulnerable. Nor does the average, intelligent, well informed male and female in this country.

You have different things going on here. Not even sure you read my comments.

I'll repeat myself.
I took issue with your statement that "canada has a disarmed citizenry"
I said WRONG!
Lots of people have lots of guns in this country. Banning guns, or taking them out of the hands of the average citizen was never an issue.

Your arguments are that of a grade 9 high school boy.

Britain? Australia?
Don't waste my time!
Britain and Australia, dont even have crime, the way the Unites States has crime.

Toronto? Violence?
Toronto is a city of close to 5 million people. Of that 5 million people, there were 78 homicides in Toronto in 05, roughly 50 of them were gun related. The vast majority of them within a small part of TO, known for its immigrant gangs.

Of course banning or restricting weapons will never make a difference to these criminals!

Nor do I think that rifles or firearms should be taken out of the hands of legitimate hunters or sportsmen.
That was never my claim!

My claim was simply this:

Canada is a civilized country where we DO NOT feel the need to walk around armed.

It's a sad statement on a country, when a moron with a mullet and a 30yr old Trans Am, can walk into a Wal-mart and buy a handgun. That handgun will be used on his wife, a Police Officer, or by his child.

Enough time wasted. Go do a workout, and please get your facts straight next time.

Crossfit smokes Chuck Norris like cheap crack...

Ring EDT day:
10x MU attempts
10x jumping MU's, rings above head level
Rings dip ladders: 1 up to 5 , repeated 5x
Ring Pushups 10 reps x 4

Edit: should've read: 10x *pathetic* MU attempts

sorry

All this over a book called "The Road to Smurfdom"...I mean if Gargamel could never find it...I bet Chuck Norris could, and he would Smurf them up.

IanTelAviv... My abs now hurt as much as my back does. Your post had me rolling!

I think I may be the only person on here who read Hayak for fun. Needless to say I loved it. There is an excellent PBS documentary that basically lays out how Hayak was right and how his ideas played out over the last 80 years called the Commanding Heights. It is a few years old so you may have to but it or find a big video store with an extensive collection that rents it but it is well worth it if you don't want to read the book, or as a supplement. Beware, it is 3 parts for a total of 6 hours. A miniseries really.

There's just too damn much to respond to indivudually, so to keep my mental sanity and to make my tennis practice on time, I will limit my response to Mr. Glassman's post and make a couple of general observations on issues that have been brought up. So:

"Mikael,

Here’s what leads me to conclude that you are a Socialist:

• You call me “right wing”. My lefty friends call me “right wing”; my righty friends call me “left wing”. I am a Libertarian, albeit, a militant one – I’m super supportive of beating dictators off of anyone, anywhere. Your calling me right wing, in my eyes, makes you far left."

Fine, then call me what you want (who am I to stop you), but do realize also that my friends at the French Socialist Party call me anything but "socialist", actually to them I am very much right wing (economically). "Far left"? In Europe the "far left" includes anarchists, neo-trotskyists, and other revolutionary nutjobs... so please...

"• You call yourself “pragmatist” in response to being called Socialist. This seems to duck the subject entirely. Folks of every political stripe claim pragmatism. Pragmatism is politically agnostic."

Point well taken. "Pragmatist" is an easy way to avoid being stuck in a political corner. What I meant by "pragmatist" really was that I am open to new ideas, according to different situations and don't believe in any one guiding principle for all situations (such as, "free markets", or "the welfare state"). It is too simplistic for me to tolerate. I feel each different situation requires rigorous examination and then a very specific response for the proper objectives to be reached. It all depends on your objectives of course. You might want to reduce poverty in the USA, I might want to promote GDP growth.

"• You believe Socialism can work “in certain times, in certain circumstances…” Libertarians and Right Wingers fear it like the plague. I think it is always and forever the slippery slope to serfdom and never other than wrong."

My reasoning for why it is not always the road to serfdom comes up a bit later. (BTW, the only "serfdom" that people so far in this thread have come up with in the case of the Scandinavian countries and Canada is... gun ownership... which is a bit far-fetched if you're looking for hints of serfdom, especially when these measures are actively encouraged by public opinion).

"• You claimed that Hitler while a Socialist was a right winger. "

Left wing economic policies (well, sort of) and right wing in the sense that he was a reactionary, repressive force against Communism and other left wing ideologies. Social-democrats just like communists were persecuted in Nazi Germany, not capitalists. I don't see what's wrong with my terminology here, it just illustrates that there is no single right/left wing axis that makes much sense. We have a fundamental misunderstanding that stems from two different political cultures: you, the American, me, the European.

"• You stated that anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia, ultra-nationalism, and militarism are “by definition” right wing traits. You even went so far as to say they were defining traits and then back tracked to all racists are right wing but not all right wingers are racist. "

I don't recall saying they were "defining traits" of the right-wing. I don't see back tracking. All along my point was that they were generally stacked in the extreme right wing, not in the left wing. Again, you disagree because your political culture is different from mine. Let's just agree to disagree on these political terminologies, it's not very productive anyway.

"• You see the only threat to liberty in Europe coming from the right not the left. This flies in the face of European history. Nazism and Communism, competing, even warring, Socialist factions took tens of millions of lives. This was the line that convinced me, hell scared me, “As I have proven time and again in this thread, there is no threat to European democracies right now except maybe right wing racism, xenophobia, and fascism.” (Spelling corrections mine)"

I still don't see a lot wrong with my quote. Okay, if I take "right wing" away does that appease you?

"• You invoke Chile as a counter to Nazis and Communists. The legacy of the worst of the right wing states is/was authoritarian government not totalitarian. The difference is profound. This alone may have little meaning but I hear it from Socialists all the time. (Jeanne Kirkpatrick's "Dictatorships and Double Standards" is a seminal work on the importance of the distinction.)"

Yep, authoritarian is not totalitarian and there is a huge difference. Okay, so I see it all just boils down to a different concept of "socialism" (again, we have two very different political cultures. In Europe socialism is generally equated to the welfare state and theories of "social justice", far removed from totalitarianism.)

"• You called my acceptance of “Europe’s commitment to democracy” and belief that Europe will surrender her “political rights and freedoms one day to the next” a “big fat contradiction”. I can’t avoid seeing this as a denial of the gradual decline to totalitarianism that is Socialism’s legacy, and that this process can be electoral. You even saw my juxtaposing of democracy and loss of liberty as “brain farts” and said that I must be “tired from my day job” to make the nexus."

Okay, I will now address why socialism is not always a "slippery slope" to totalitarianism. First scenario: a non-democratic unit comes to power in a social democracy through elections (your point it seems). Yes, democracies are exposed to this danger (look at Iraq now) and to a bunch of others like military coups, but as I have said before, there is no significant political entity that is anti-democratic in Europe now, except a few parties like FN in France (and yes those are classified as extreme-right wing in all European politics textbooks... it's just a label that is related to a different perception of world history than yours). Even those, however, are nowhere close to power now. Public resistance is too strong. Democracy is too strong (more coming up on that).

Second scenario: no dramatic change through elections, but rather a slow and agonizing descent into totalitarianism, through successive reforms. This is sort of credible in the case of weak democracies with no solid foundations (take Italy 1922, Germany 1933 or Russia 1917). However, current democracies in Europe are too solid. Checks and balances work good, there is always a healthy opposition, reasonable public debate, high levels of education, and, very important, the rule of law (constitutional control by the judiciary branch... a very solid democratic lock. Thank you Marbury vs Madison in 1803). Those elements were simply not in place in the three weak democracies that succumbed to totalitarianism in the early 20th century, and that is fundamental.

"• This one is, I’ll admit, a bit thin in that it may be harder to support, but your line that began “Honestly I think I know better than you on this one. I studied this very topic…last year at my university” demonstrates a conceit and arrogance that is not only academic but peculiarly academic leftist (Hayek’s “Fatal Conceit”). Conservatives and Libertarians generally don’t/won't rely on university or professorial consensus to affirm anything outside of the track record of the universities to spawn and support political misery and terror. (Paul Johnson’s “Intellectuals” and “Modern Times” are stunning on this trend.)"

Far fetched indeed. Sorry if I was coming across as arrogant, I didn't mean to. My main point, I guess, was something along the lines of: "whose opinion on a movie do you trust more? The guy who saw the movie and read some reviews, or the guy who just read some reviews?" Of course, even though I studied the subject matter extensively and recently, lived in Europe most of my life and visited almost all European countries doesn't make my point of view infallible, but I do believe it gives me a good amount of background info and knowledge on the topic, when compared to you. Similarly, if we were to talk about physical fitness, I would admit that most likely you possess much more knowledge and insight than me, and I would respect that, and tone down any outrageous theories that I may have.

Academic arrogance is annoying (and sorry again to have come across that way), but still, consider the flip-side: it is better than ignorance (and no I'm not saying that you are ignorant, I simply don't want to see academic credentials lose their value, as that is plain wrong).

"Mikael, isn’t it interesting that we are both claiming middle ground? I see you invoke The Economist, and my heart gladdens. We may be closer to consensus than either of us realise (I deliberately spelled that with an “s” as a token of my flexibility and commitment to understanding.)"

I agree, kind of. But still there is quite a bit of stuff that bothers me in your opinions (I have addressed a lot of it in this post).

"I vote Republican, support Republicans, and usually quietly allow myself to be labeled “conservative” and “right wing” comfortably and proudly (though sometimes with private chagrin and concern) because I see Socialism and the U.S. Democrats as a profound threat to the freedoms, culture, and prosperity that define this great Nation. I see this threat in nearly every aspect of Democratic policy. When Republicans scare me, and they do occasionally, I can usually laugh them off as most Americans, even other Republicans, have learned to do.

I spent election night 2000 in South Beach, Florida dining behind the stage of the Gore entourage with a friend/client who’d financed what was hoped to be Al Gore’s victory night celebration. He observed that I looked miserable, even sick. He lifted his wine glass and toasted loudly to all in attendance, “this has to be the worst day of Greg’s life” and laughed hardily. I tried to laugh. Then he very soberly, politely, seeming to sense my nausea, asked, “What in the world do you like about George Bush so much?” I responded, “Al Gore” laughing this time but all by myself."

I sympathize because I also believe that in both 2000 and 2004 Americans were stuck with very poor presidential candidates. Okay, so I'm kinda surprised that you're not a big Bush admirer, now let me surprise you: unlike 90%+ of my fellow Europeans and South-Americans, I actually thought that the war in Iraq was a good thing (I am undecided now), and most of them called me a pro-American fascist. You didn't expect that now, did ya.

"Mikael, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your civil discourse, commitment to discussion, determination, and good spirit. I can learn from you. (I also spelled your name correctly three times.)"

You're welcome, I try my best. And thanks for spelling Mikael right.
Finally a non-inflammatory, conciliatory post from you. Hell must've frozen over.

Now, a couple of general comments on economics:

about Russian economy failing in the 90s because of the state bureaucracy etc. This actually kinda makes my point: the Russian state was weak and corrupt, completely unfit to look over and supervise liberalization of the economy. No solid rules, bad for business, just anarchy and corruption.

A healthy and strong state, such as the ones in SE Asia that promoted economic liberalization a few decades ago, is essential for the market forces to work well. About Hong Kong not having a minimum wage law, and that being "good": the balance between free markets and state regulation is different in any two given situations. No minimum wage may work in Hong Kong, but try that in western Europe. It's all about different mentalities, different cultures, different ways of operating. Trying to monolithically impose a neoliberal agenda in all cases as a miracle remedy (*cough* IMF *cough*) is not practical. It demonstrates a severe lack of pragmatism. My European friends who think that more welfare and more social rights is always good are guilty of the same mistake, although diametrically opposed.

Props to everyone crossfitting. I tried "fran" today for my first crossfit workout ever. Whoa. I was wrecked. I couldnt even do the whole sets in one. And the I tried to do the kipping pull-ups. Having a little trouble getting the hang of it. Anyway I love it and am looking forward to tomorrow's workout. Its gonna take me a little bit to be able to keep it. But I just wanted to express my new found joy for these wonderful torture sessions. Peace out....

As far as the "Disarmed Citizenry" comment...

Hyperbole = Figurative language that greatly overstates or exaggerates facts, whether in earnest or for comic effect.

Steve Stackpole wrote:
"It's a sad statement on a country, when a moron with a mullet and a 30yr old Trans Am, can walk into a Wal-mart and buy a handgun. That handgun will be used on his wife, a Police Officer, or by his child."

Steve, you were complaining about folks generalizing? :)

"Pot, this is kettle calling...."

This one's too good not to share:

I used to go to a local location of one of the largest gym chains in the nation. Before they did a remodel of the location in '98, there was an ELEIKO Oly bar that no one used because it had a lot of spring and not a lot of knurling. Thanks to my IronMind catalogs I knew what it was, but since I never did any Oly lifting, I never used it either. After the remodel, the bar was no longer at the gym.

As I spent a brief time working for the chain a few years later, I learned that they rarely threw things away; they just stored them. I asked a friend a mine who is the general manager of that location to see if the bar was in storage. The answer, THEY THREW IT AWAY BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT HAD GONE BAD!!! CLASSIC! BUT, they do have 5 different ways to do a mechanized bench press!

4 rounds in 20 min
GHD situps x10
close-grip chins x10
stg tri exts -50# x10
ring dips x 10
double kb cleans (36s) x10

Mikael wrote: "This is sort of credible in the case of weak democracies with no solid foundations (take Italy 1922, Germany 1933 or Russia 1917)."

Russia in 1917? Here's a different slant:

Leon Trotsky was given $20 million in Jacob Schiff (NY Banker with Kuhn, Loeb and Co.) gold to help finance the revolution, which was deposited in a Warburg bank, then transferred to the Nya Banken (Nye Bank) in Stockholm, Sweden. According to the Knickerbocker Column in the New York Journal American on February 3, 1949:

"Today it is estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia."

Leon Trotsky left New York aboard the S. S. Kristianiafjord (S. S. Christiania), which had been chartered by Schiff and Warburg, on March 27, 1917 [along] with communist revolutionaries. At Halifax, Nova Scotia on April 3rd, the first port they docked at, the Canadians under orders from the British Admiralty seized Trotsky and his men, taking them to the prison at Amherst, and impounding his gold.

The British government (through intelligence officer Sir William Wiseman, who later became a partner with Kuhn, Loeb and Co.), and the American government (through Col. House, Woodrow Wilson's brain) urged them to let Trotsky go. Wilson said that if they didn't comply, the U.S. wouldn't enter the War. Trotsky was released, given an American passport, a British transport visa, and a Russian entry permit. It is obvious that Wilson knew what was going on, because accompanying Trotsky, was Charles Crane of the Westinghouse Company, who was the Chairman of the Democratic Finance Committee. The U.S. entered the war on April 6th, [1917]. Trotsky arrived in Petrograd on May 17.

Recently:

On July 12, 1997 Vice President Al Gore's daughter, Karenna married Drew Schiff, a scion of the Kuhn-Loeb banking empire dominated from 1875 by the late Jacob Schiff, the German-born Wall Street financier who bankrolled the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

And backing up:

The Federal Reserve was created at a meeting on Jekyll Island, GA in 1910. In attendance were:

-Senator Nelson Aldrich, Chairman of the National Monetary Commision, business associate of JP Morgan, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.;

-Abraham Piatt Andrew, Assistant Sec of the Treasury;

-Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, the most powerful of the banks at the time, representing William Rockefeller and Schiff's international investment banking house of Kuhn, Loeb and Company;

-Henry P. Davison, senior partner of JP Morgan Company;

-Charles D. Norton, president of JP Morgan First National Bank of NY;

-Benjamin Strong, head of JP Morgan's Bankers Trust Company;

-Paul M. Warburg, a partner in Schiff's Kuhn, Loeb and Company, a representative of the Rothschild banking dynasty in England and France, and brother to Max Warburg who was head of the Warburg banking consortium in Germany and the Netherlands. He later became the a board member of the Federal Reserve.

So, Rothschild, Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Warburg, and Schiff's Kuhn, Loeb were the driving force behind the creation of the Federal Reserve. They were competitors that decided cooperation was better than competition. To this day this consortium of private bankers known as the Federal Reserve controls the creation of credit, and hence the creation of money. The USDollar has lost 95%+ of it's value since the Federal Reserve Act was enacted in 1913. Inflation is a hidden tax.

We bankrupted the Soviet Union bringing the Cold War to an end. The Soviet Union's seed money came from Jacob Schiff's NY investment bank.

Money always wins especially when both sides of the War are financed by the same people. They have played both sides of every war for the last 200+ years. It began when they financed both Wellington and Napolean ending at Waterloo.

The Rothschild Formula:

1) War is the ultimate discipline to any government. If it can successfully meet the challenge of war, it will survive. If it cannot, it will perish. All else is secondary. The sanctity of its laws, the prosperity of its citizens, and the solvency of its treasury will be quickly sacrificed by any government in its primal act of self-survival.

2) All that is necessary, therefore, to insure that a government will maintain or expand its debt is to involve it in war or the threat of war. The greater the threat and the more destructive the war, the greater the need for debt.

3) To involve a country in war or the threat of war, it will be necessary for it to have enemies with credible military might. If such enemies already exist, all the better. If they exist but lack military strength, it will be necessary to provide them money to build their war machine. If an enemy does not exist at all, then it will be necessary to create one by financing the rise of a hostile regime.

4) The ultimate obstacle is a government which declines to finance wars through debt. Although this seldom happens, when it does it will be necessary to encourage internal political opposition, insurrection, or revolution to replace that government with one that is more compliant to our will. The assassination of heads of state could play an important role in this process.

5) No nation can be allowed to remain militarily stronger than its adversaries, for that could lead to peace and a reduction of debt. To accomplish this balance of power, it may be necessary to finance both sides of the conflict. Unless one of the combatants is hostile to our interests and, therefore, must be destroyed, neither side should be allowed a decisive victory or defeat. While we must always proclaim the virtues of peace, the unspoken objective is perpetual war.

Now, think of how much money both the US and USSR spent on the military during the Cold War. Most of that money was borrowed from bankers who charged usury (interest) on the money.

Guess who profitted?

This is how the world really works. You'll never read that in a public school history book. They own those printing presses, too.

Tim
Where does the word "generalizing" appear in anything I wrote?

Steveo

Hey Greg and Lauren,
Its Pierre here back in wintery white Manitoba, thanks for letting me peruse the gym last week.
For hosting two great seminars, and for putting
up with my opinionated self. Eva thank you for letting me crash at your beautiful house, Kevin
for lending me your van, Annie for
correcting every single fault in my form you
could see, Tony and Nicole for bringing the van back to Kevin, Brendon for well not sure why I'm
thanking you but hey you were there! (Thats a joke) And everyone else whom I'm so happy to have met.

To the rest of the posters here, many of whom I now consider friends. This is crossfit.com not some lame corporate entity with no opinons to share due its lack of intelligient lifeforms at its helm. This is the work of brilliant energetic people with a joy de vivre and opinons that are the basis of what they've created here. This is a community they have built rather than a lifeless entity, and opinions must be shared in order for a successful community to flourish. Otherwise the collective minds become stagnant and that is the endstate of the weak. We do not aim to be weak personaly or as a community.

Therefore I, now considering myself part of this community relish to see more of the opinions that these fine people have to share. Not because I lack any of my own, but because if I were to say share not your opinions, because I may not agree it would only put me in a place where I would learn nothing. And this would make me weak.

You fine people, keep sharing what you feel is relevant. Because I have met no one better than the family at Crossfit. The generosity, character, spirit, life, and professionalism you showed me is matched only by your love of what you do.

With complete respect, Pierre Auge.

Playing catch up:

30 min Treadclimber

10 Thrusters @65#
40 Asst. Pullups
30 Thrusters @45#
30 Asst. Pullups
50 Thrusters @35#
20 Asst. Pullups = 14:28

Deadlifts:
(3)95#,(2)105#, (2)115#, (2)125#
(1)135#,145#,155#Fail,145#,145# (pr)

So who would win in a fight? Pukie, or Chuck Norris?

what if pukie had a frickin 12 gauge?

GoldBull#132
So there really are parties like the one in "Eyes Wide Shut" where the really rich people and Chuck Norris hang out.

Chuck Norris would eat Pukie, and willfully barf up his fragments as a statement of irony.

Wow...I feel any bit of intelligent (or supposed intelligent) discourse on my part would, at this point, come off as Walter from The Big Lebowski labelled Donnie "Like a child wandering into the middle of a movie asking what's going on..."

At one time I prided myself in semi-expansive political knowlege, but this was for a high school kid, which isn't saying much. Throughout the years my utter cynicism has kept me from keeping abreast of intelligent political discourse, so coach, I salute you again for yet another infinitely valuable resource provided by your site.

I'll work on catching up, and perhaps some day I will have more to add than unfounded opinion on these points...

What a day's worth of posts!!

Chris H. wrote:

"So there really are parties like the one in 'Eyes Wide Shut' where the really rich people and Chuck Norris hang out."

Chris,

If you only knew.

Don't even get me started Nobel prize winner and father of the Euro, Dr. Robert Mundell's plan for a single world currency. I know it sounds like the lunatic fringe, but it's true.

(AGI) - Florence, Italy, Oct.11 - Nobel Prize winner Robert Mundell reckons that the "long-term goal is world currency", and proposed to call it "Intoro". That's what he said at the international congress of financial directors in Florence. Intoro stands for "oro internazionale, international gold", because the new currency "should be based on the only international metal system, which is gold. The mechanism is similar to the one of the Breton Woods agreement, and is to involve the IMF, perhaps with an initial agreement between the 3 main currencies, euro, US dollar and yen. The following step would be a temporary currency named 'dey' (dollar, euro, yen), and it could then include the pound sterling and the yuan. Such a monetary reform would then lead to the brand new international currency, Intoro."

His plans call for first linking the dollar, euro, yen in a $1=1E=100yen with a World Fed consisting of 4 Americans, 3 Europeans and 3 Japanese. Once they break the world into the 3-linked currency regimes (and including the pound and yuan) they plan to move forward into a single world currency--the Intoro.

Understand that this is the kooky New World Order. A single entity that controls the global creation of credit, and money, controls the world. Once you break down the economic borders, you pave the way for breaking down the physical borders.

As Mayer Amschel Rothschild said:

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."

Eyes wide open!

John B,

You are right about the elbows:

http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/OlympicLifts/ElbowPosition.html

In any case I think what we are seeing with the photo of Sage is a Stretch exercise/warmup not a real lift.

shorter #132: "it's the jews." nice...

here are some amazing random chuck norris facts for your reading pleasure...

http://www.4q.cc/chuck/index.php?topthirty

Chuck Norris' blood type is AK+. Ass-Kicking Positive. It is compatible only with heavy construction equipment, tanks, and fighter jets.

In fine print on the last page of the Guinness Book of World Records it notes that all world records are held by Chuck Norris, and those listed in the book are simply the closest anyone else has ever gotten.

There is no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard. There is only another fist.

The Great Wall of China was originally created to keep Chuck Norris out. It failed miserably

When Chuck Norris sends in his taxes, he sends blank forms and includes only a picture of himself, crouched and ready to attack. Chuck Norris has not had to pay taxes, ever.

Chuck Norris can win a game of Connect Four in only three moves.

There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.

Police label anyone attacking Chuck Norris as a Code 45-11.... a suicide.

Chuck Norris doesn't churn butter. He roundhouse kicks the cows and the butter comes straight out.

If you spell Chuck Norris in Scrabble, you win. Forever.

Chuck Norris once shot down a German fighter plane with his finger, by yelling, "Bang!"

Someone once tried to tell Chuck Norris that roundhouse kicks aren't the best way to kick someone. This has been recorded by historians as the worst mistake anyone has ever made.

Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is based on a true story: Chuck Norris once swallowed a turtle whole, and when he crapped it out, the turtle was six feet tall and had learned karate.

Faster than a speeding bullet ... more powerful than a locomotive ... able to leap tall buildings in a single bound... yes, these are some of Chuck Norris's warm-up exercises.

In the Bible, Jesus turned water into wine. But then Chuck Norris turned that wine into beer.

Chuck Norris can hit you so hard that he can actually alter your DNA. Decades from now your descendants will occasionally clutch their heads and yell "What The Hell was That?"

Time waits for no man. Unless that man is Chuck Norris.

jbeam wrote:

"it's the jews." nice...

Who brought up religion? Only you--most here don't know or care what religion Bill Clinton, John Kerry or George Bush is either. It is irrelevant to this conversation. Don't attempt to diminish fact by slinging anti-Semitic mud.

Can you put up a cogent argument or not?

I do suppose some may argue the worship of money is a religion. Try that one.

Group Moffett completed for time:

20lb dumbell Squat thrusters x 10 reps
40 Pullups
Run 400 meters
20lb dumbell Squat thrusters x 30 reps
30 pullups
Run 600 meters
20lb dumbell Squat thrusters x 50 reps
20 pullups
Run 800 meters

Total time: 23:20:73

Mike OD,
Between that and the Young Chuck Norris video, my s#!tbag day has been made. It feels good to laugh in the face of negative energy.
Ron

I love the link jumping fun one can have after a good Crossfight(tm). Found some interesting stuff at
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/ including this funny (in today's context) quote from everyone's favorite currency trading father of modern statist economics (who probably hung out with Chuck Norris at parties not unlike the one in Eyes Wide Shut):

"Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."
--John "Not Your Cousin Maynard" Keynes

box jumps...how bout a WOD with some box jumps for wednesday?!

Although this is a great novel the issue is dated (with the exception of the rise of the political far left in Central America).

I recomend Milton Freidman "Free to Choose". The problem with Hayek is that he deals with issues related to communism and socialism, two theories that are largely discredited as un-workable.

Freidman's work deals more with the modern issues between Federalism and Central Government control, an issue that is rearing it's ugly head under what is thought to be a republican government.

The bigger issue is that having the Federal Government being overly involved in everyones day to day life is oppresive and ineficient.

Larry

"It's a sad statement on a country, when a moron with a mullet and a 30yr old Trans Am, can walk into a Wal-mart and buy a handgun. That handgun will be used on his wife, a Police Officer, or by his child."

1. what is wrong with buying a handgun at
wal-mart?
2. what is wrong with having a mullet?
3. what is wrong with having a 30 year old trans
am?
4. why do any of these combined or on their own
make somebody a moron?
5. why will any of these make that person use
that handgun purchased at wal-mart kill their
wife, a police officer, or have it be used by
a child?
6. where did you come up with this?

i have a sneaking suspicion that is your statement on our country, nobody else's.

a.m.
Rower: 16.30min 300Cal
Stairmaster: 20min 308Cal
Eliptical: 20min 180Cal

p.m.
20X 135lbs Deadlift
15X 225lbs Deadlift
50X Push-ips
100X Sit-ups Fitness Ball
3X 315lbs Deadlift
3X 315lbs Deadlift
50X Push-ips
100X Sit-ups Fitness Ball
3X 315lbs Deadlift
3X 315lbs Deadlift
50X Push-ips
100X Sit-ups Fitness Ball
1X 295lbs Deadlift
10X 225lbs Deadlift
20X 135lbs Deadlift
50X Push-ips
100X Sit-ups Fitness Ball

200 TTL Push-ips
400TTL Sit-ups Fitness Ball

Randy G,
Shut your mouth. It's all about the Turkish Get Up. Done Chuck Norris style.

Ron, Chuck Norris always can kick negative energy's ass....with a roundhouse of course. I think "Day Off" has officially become "Chuck Norris Day"...so not to anger him. My last Chuck Norris facts..I shouldnt be laughing this hard, my abs hurt too much.

When Bruce Banner gets mad, he turns into the Hulk. When the Hulk gets mad, he turns into Chuck Norris.

If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris.

If Chuck Norris were a calendar, every month would be named Chucktober, and every day he'd kick your ass.

MacGyver can build an airplane out of gum and paper clips, but Chuck Norris can roundhouse-kick his head through a wall and take it.

Do you know why Baskin Robbins only has 31 flavors? Because Chuck Norris doesn't like Fudge Ripple.

Chuck Norris does not own a house. He walks into random houses and people move.

Everybody loves Raymond. Except Chuck Norris.

The original title for Alien vs. Predator was Alien and Predator vs Chuck Norris. The film was cancelled shortly after going into preproduction. No one would pay nine dollars to see a movie fourteen seconds long.

Chuck Norris doesnt wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.

Scientists have estimated that the energy given off during the Big Bang is roughly equal to 1CNRhK (Chuck Norris Roundhouse Kick)

Chuck Norris always knows the EXACT location of Carmen SanDiego.

When taking the SAT, write "Chuck Norris" for every answer. You will score a 1600.

Chuck Norris invented black. In fact, he invented the entire spectrum of visible light. Except pink. Tom Cruise invented pink.

Chuck Norris has the greatest Poker-Face of all time. He won the 1983 World Series of Poker, despite holding only a Joker, a Get out of Jail Free Monopoloy card, a 2 of clubs, 7 of spades and a green #4 card from the game UNO.

Chuck Norris grinds his coffee with his teeth and boils the water with his own rage.

Chuck Norris and Mr. T walked into a bar. The bar was instantly destroyed, as that level of awesome cannot be contained in one building.

If you Google search "Chuck Norris getting his ass kicked" you will generate zero results. It just doesn't happen.

There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Oklahoma.

Chuck Norris doesn't believe in Germany.

Chuck Norris can touch MC Hammer.

Chuck Norris played Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun and won.

Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.

Chuck Norris uses a night light. Not because Chuck Norris is afraid of the dark, but the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris.

Ron. Go to sleep already.

Chuck

Good Keynes quote, Chris. As much as I despise his Fabian Socialist interventionism, he did produce some works that were useful.

I'll leave you with the following quotes:

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” Thomas Jefferson

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” Thomas Jefferson

“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible, to maintain their control over governments, by controlling money and its issuance.” James Madison

“The money power preys on the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.” Abraham Lincoln

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” Theodore Roosevelt

“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men....” Woodrow Wilson

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” Franklin D. Roosevelt

“The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.” Theodore Roosevelt

“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” George Washington

I'll bite:

"It's a sad statement on a country, when a moron with a mullet and a 30yr old Trans Am, can walk into a Wal-mart and buy a handgun. That handgun will be used on his wife, a Police Officer, or by his child."

1. what is wrong with buying a handgun at
wal-mart?
Nothing.
2. what is wrong with having a mullet?
See "Trailer Park Boys" for your answer--google is your friend.
3. what is wrong with having a 30 year old trans
am?
Is that a rhetorical question? Mind you, if you can keep the thing on the road more power to you.
4. why do any of these combined or on their own
make somebody a moron?
Unfair, since the question could really be boiled down to "what does it say about a country when any moron can buy a gun." The mullet and ancient muscle car are pretty obviously just unsuccessful attempts to channel the spirit of Bill Hicks. Ironically, Bill Hicks has the best Chuck Norris joke ever.
5. why will any of these make that person use
that handgun purchased at wal-mart kill their
wife, a police officer, or have it be used by
a child?
This point is pretty much yours. Mine would be that it is Canadian culture and not Canadian gun laws that make Canada less of a shootin' kind of place. Saw a lot more bar fights in Canada though.
6. where did you come up with this?
N/A

#25!

Goldbull,

Keynes is very quotable. I wonder if he would have had so much influence if he wasn't such a clever guy. Interesting banking stuff. I am a bit of a fool with money but I swear no one understands it. I once asked friend who held a very high position at a very large mutual fund how the fed could dictate interest rates and got a HUH! for an answer. I still don't know. Inflation is another one of those things that makes me reach for the tin foil hat. Fed drops the reserve requirement or buys some paper and a bank makes a bunch of loans. Things that people buy with bank loans--think houses--go up in price; things that people don't buy with bank loans--basket of goods for the CPI. Then again, as long as people are drinking the kool-aid, you could lose your shirt in gold ;)

What? You silenced my comment?
That bad huh.

just wanted to thank Coach for the reading and everyone else for the constructive, argumentative comments. ive never been interested in economics (or money, really) and actually had a negative view of it as well as other business-related pursuits. now i realize that they all definitely deserve my attention and everyone else's. got me some learnin to do...

oh, and the Chuck Norris stuff was great, too...i wont deny it.

Cleaned 90 kilos today (bw 82.5). Woot!

I learned from the cartoon that paying my taxes will eventually get me executed in the long run.

MLM

Many thanks for the "elbows" response and the link. Disturbing to see that the "wrong" pictures in the link could easily have been me (if I was female anyway).

Thanks again

John Biddle

Chris H.,

Traditionally the Fed controls 3 things:

1) Bank reserve requirements: Reserve requirements are the amount of funds that a depository institution must hold in reserve against specified deposit liabilities. They usually run about 10% and changing the number up or down can expand or contract a banks ability to lend.

Let's say you deposit $1000. The bank must hold back $100 and can then lend $900 to Chuck Norris to buy some Crossfit equipment. The retailer deposits the $900 and the bank loans out $810 and so on. Your original $1000 can create (I forget the exact number) something like $17k. The speed with which this happens is know as the velocity of money.

2) Discount rate: The discount rate is the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional Federal Reserve Bank's lending facility (usually overnight). It is the primary tool used to control the short end of the yield curve.

3) OMO: Open market operations--purchases and sales of U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities--are the Federal Reserve's principal tool for implementing monetary policy. If the government deficit spends, then the Fed can monetize that debt with a few strokes at a computer keyboard. They effortlessly create an accounting entry that allows the Treasury to pay their bills. In return the Treasury Dept. sends the Fed the T-bills, notes or bonds. In addition they send them the interest on the debt notes. The Fed created money came from nowehere and is highly inflationary. When the Fed sells any of those securities it takes money out of the system and is deflationary.

These three traditional tools give the Fed their gas pedal and brakes. Gas pedal to the floor=lower reserve requirements, lower discount rate, monetize treasury debt. Stomp on the monetary brakes=raise reserve requirements, raise interest rates, sell treasury debt.

Understand that ALL fiat-paper money in our system comes from debt---period. The USDollar is a Federal Reserve Note--a debt note--backed only by the full faith and promise of our government to pay. This is why our national debt will never be repaid. If all debts were reapid there would be no money! Chew on that one for awhile.

Also understand that the Fed creates all money from nothing and then collects interest on that debt. As the money supply expands (monetary inflation) it eventually leads to price inflation. However, don't confuse the two. Rising or falling prices in and of themselves is not inflation. True inflation is a monetary phenomenon based on the growth in the money supply.

We've been led to believe that inflation is a naturally occurring economic event. Wrong! It is directly caused by the Fed's expansion of the money supply. When the government deficit spends and the Fed monetizes we pay for that twice---once through price inflation and again through the service on that debt. This is how the peoples' weath is transferred to the small group of elite bankers.

The Fed has whittled away 95% of the dollar's value in less than 100 years! They've done so while collecting trillions in interest. This is why the forefathers forbade a central bank in the Consitution. They fought to leave English control to rid themsleves of the oppressive Bank of England. They knew the evils of central banking and did everything they could to ensure we'd have none of that. But look at us now once again ensnared in the ugly debt trap.

Sad, but even sadder is Helicopter Ben's plans to monetize everything---cars, real estate, corporate debt, stocks...That private group of bankers will end up owning everything with money they create out of thin air.

What an abomination!

I recommend the 3G's:

Guns
Gold
Groceries

This doesn't end pretty.

Mikael: love your tenacity brother. Glad we can have a dialog. Probably wouldn't be possible with your French Socialist pals, though perhaps you could attempt to interpret for us.

Pierre A: It was a pleasure meeting you in Scruz. See you in February.

GoldBull: I call bullshit on your guilt of the money changers rant. The appropriate role of central banks is a worthy topic of discussion. But not with you droning on about the dread money man menace that imperils us all. You ask for cogent argument from others but singularly fail to offer one yourself. Please return to whatever nest of conspiracy theorists you arrived from.

Interesting stuff Gold. I wonder what the counter argument is to the house of cards notion that seems implicit in what you are saying. It is very intuitive but it reminds me a bit of the old Bill Hicks joke about watching the news. "War famine death. War famine death. I look out my window. Crickets chirping...Ted Turner is making this shit up..." Then again, it usually takes things really breaking to notice they are broken. I must ponder this. Out.

#165 Operative words "in the long run".

Somebody actually posted the following question:

"What is wrong with having a mullet?"

Awesome.

-D.

I am not afraid to ask the tough questions.

Ah, Economics, the "Dismal Science". I hope there won't be a test on this crap later.

"As you travel 'round this world, you will meet some funny men. Some will rob you with a six gun, and some with a fountain pen." -Woody Guthrie

Chuck Norris has a beard because nature doesn't have metal hard enough to cut it. It stays trim because Chuck wills it to do so.

We have leap years because when Chuck Norris runs, it screws up the Earth's rotation.

Chuck Norris never says anything stupid, because the only man Chuck Norris fears is Dan Silver.

Oh how nice it was to rest

Some of you (many in fact) may find this site quite interesting.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass

Dan Santini-

Awesome, again.

Mike Mueller-

The Norris and I have a mutual fear/respect dynamic going. Kinda like the Cold-War or that Star Trek episode, "Balance of Power."

-D.

Political Compass is indeed a great little site. I took the test and unsurprisingly came out almost dead in the middle between "right" and "left" in terms of the economy, and about a quarter of the way down towards "libertarian" rather than "authoritarian". It further illustrates my point that there is no single political spectrum that makes sense: at least two axis, such as the ones provided in the site, are necessary. It also illustrates how you can perfectly be a left wing leader economically (a "socialist") without having authoritarian or even totalitarian tendencies... The rest of the site is very cool as well, they have a little section on the extreme-right wing in Europe and how it's not necessarily "right wing" economically, but still is labelled "extreme right wing".

Brian: I also enjoy having this kind of dialog with different people, who don't necessarily have the same upbringing, the same political culture, the same cultural references... The real purpose of the debate isn't to convert anyone's opinion (who are we fooling) but rather to come to an understanding of the other person's opinion, and see why it is what it is. At least that's how I see it.

On the Political Compass site, FAQ no13 addresses the exact problem I've had to face with all you pro-Hayek Americains. Read it.

Did the DL's today; the most weight that I have is 300#, and did that successfully last time. So went 10x3 with 205, 255, 265, 275, 285, 295, and 300x3x4. Will try 300 for sets of 5 next time.

From Political Compass, FAQ #13:

"N.B. The death penalty is practised in all seriously authoritarian states. In Eastern Europe it was abolished with the fall of communism and adoption of democracy. The United States is the only western democracy where capital punishment is still practised."

Only until we get it right. Then, we'll see.

Had trouble sleeping. Took some Chuck Norris sleeping remedy. Basically, he gave me a roundhouse kick to the head; I slept like a baby.

For a week.

Mikael, All,

“On the Political Compass site, FAQ no13 addresses the exact problem I've had to face with all you pro-Hayek Americains (sic)”

The “exact problem”, if I may be so bold, is a nearly complete lack of experience with pro-Hayek Americans. If the reference to FAQ #13 is capital punishment, I’m very typical of libertarians, for whom Hayek is nearly a Saint, in being dead-set against capital punishment. I don’t have a moral problem with offing killers (E.G., were I Ron Goldman’s dad I’d be on O.J.’s golf tour with a .308 in my bag next to the 5 iron.); I just don’t trust the state to get it, or much else, right. I would minimize the State’s rights to irremediable sanctions due to a lousy batting average on all actions.

I rushed over to Political Compass eager to play a round of “Quien es mas Libertarian?” (I’m neither impartial nor abashed in my commitment to freedom) only to find, disappointingly, that the questions contain assumptions and vagaries that make completing the test impossible. Being able to complete the test would tell me more about someone than anything the test could possibly reveal. Anyone else find it insurmountably top-heavy with embedded assumptions/vagaries? (Anyone care for examples?). This test belongs in Cosmopolitan Magazine.

“It also illustrates how you can perfectly be a left wing leader economically (a "socialist") without having authoritarian or even totalitarian tendencies...”

Not really; I’ve got a problem with the idea of “Socialism without cost to freedom and rights”. I’ve devised a construct to make a critical point on the subject:

If a government’s revenues are 0% of GDP its people live in ANARCHY. A people so taxed have a government unable to fulfill the charter of even the most limited concepts of governmental responsibility. With revenues at 100% of GDP the people live in SLAVERY. A people so taxed have no choices in housing, travel, assembly, clothing, or food not given them by their government. I’m going to call this the “Glassman Curve” unless I’ve ripped it off while “standing on the shoulders of giants”.

Government’s total revenues, expressed as a percentage of GDP, are an objective, quantifiable, measure of a people’s freedom. Every tax dollar collected is an abridgement of the expression of every freedom and right.

The nature of tradeoffs in economic choices, taxes, and income redistribution is brilliantly explored in Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson”. Hazlitt, a literary editor, not an economist by training, made an original contribution to the study and understanding of the dismal science. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0930073193/104-5589310-8688710?v=glance&n=283155

Peace.

Hey Mr. Glassman,

The point about capital punishment in FAQ no13 is just a footnote at the end. Did you read the entire thing? I urge you to do so, and while you're at it, also read FAQ no15.

I also had a number of problems with the way that the test was devised, which I emailed to the team responsible for the site... however, the test is just an illustration of the site's main concept, which is that at least two axes are necessary for proper political positioning (and I would still object that a single right/left economics axis is oversimplifying economics and overlooks issues of policy mix...)

You, on the other hand, persist with the simplistic idea that authoritarianism and anarchy are embedded in the right/left wing axis of economics. What's more, you now appear to reduce the whole issue to taxation... What about a government that imposes very little taxation but owns most businesses? What about a government that imposes a lot of taxation but privatizes most businesses (in a very simplified and caricaturized way, that is what the French socialist party did in 1997-2002 while it was in charge of the economy...)? Those are just two examples to show that you cannot reduce economics to taxation and place everyone on one side (freedom) or the other (slavery).

"Government’s total revenues, expressed as a percentage of GDP, are an objective, quantifiable, measure of a people’s freedom. Every tax dollar collected is an abridgement of the expression of every freedom and right."

Again, I urge you to read FAQ no13 entirely. It makes the essential point better than me, and spares my hands from typing too much. Your overly simple way of positioning ideas politically overlooks far too many paradoxes to be workable: how do you explain that mid-19th century "socialists" in Europe were largely in favour of free-trade as opposed to protectionnism? How do you explain Pinochet? How do you explain that Adam Smith himself was in favour of strong social security nets? How do you explain that Hitler encouraged capitalism in certain areas? Or that Scandinavian countries, as Political Compass shows, consistently rank highest in civil liberties?

Have a nice day.

Mikael,

I read it again and got as little out of it this time as I did the first time. How many times do I have to read it until it becomes true? I think I like it less each time I read it.

“(and I would object that a single right/left economics axis is oversimplifying economics and overlooks issues of policy mix..)”

It is your straw man that I, or anyone else whom I’ve read in these threads, am proposing one dimensional modeling of economics or politics. I’m sitting here snickering at your discovery that “at least two axes are necessary for proper political positioning.”

“You on the other hand, persist with the simplistic idea that authoritarianism and anarchy are embedded in the right/left wing axis of economics.”

No, what I’m persisting in is that Socialism is always authoritarian because it necessitates economic redistribution and excessive taxation.

“What about a government that imposes a lot of taxation but privatizes most businesses?”

Easy! Such a system would be repressive and destructive of freedom by usurping ALL rights and freedoms through diversion of economic activity away from what people want to what those afflicted with the “fatal conceit” want for them. This abridges ALL freedoms. See how easy my view is when you work with what I’ve said and what I believe rather than the position you claim I hold?

“Again, I urge you to read FAQ no13 entirely.”

O.K., O.K., I’ll read number 13 one more time.

Done… it’s still false. I think you may have read it too many times. Is that possible?

And, here once again is my position - still. Economic freedom is critical to all freedoms. Taking peoples’ money from them limits their freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, property, etc. Therefore socialism, is always antithetical to freedom, and libertarianism is consistent with socialism only if you don’t see the reach of economic freedom, which is a sure sign of economic illiteracy and a fundamental tenet of socialism. FAQ # 13 is wrong - very, very, wrong.

Got it?

"It is your straw man that I or anyone else whom I’ve read in these threads is proposing one dimensional modeling of economics or politics"

It is one dimensional to look at economic freedom (in the sense of little taxation, I see other ways to look at it too) as critical to all freedoms in the exclusive way that you do. It is indeed related to other freedoms, and sometimes, as Hayek shows, lack of economic freedom is the first step towards the complete domination of society by the state (but notice that the transition only occurs if democracy is weak).

"No, what I’m persisting in is that Socialism is always authoritarian because it necessitates economic redistribution and excessive taxation. "

Okay, so authoritarian only in the sense that the politicians elected by the people decide what to do with the money. If the people don't like it, the politicians are booted out in the next elections. That the people (the majority) should fundamentally rule through its political representants is a truism in representational democracy - are you by chance an advocate of direct democracy?. The situation only becomes problematical if the political leaders lose their accountability and democracy weakens. That is an inherent risk in all democratic states (socialist or not), one that at the moment isn't very big in western democracies (including socialist Scandinavian countries), simply because the democratic tradition in these countries is very strong.

"Taking peoples’ money from them limits their freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, property, etc."

So do I understand you correctly, do you think that the richer one is, the freer? Or did you not imply that?

I feel we are actually making progress in our little debate, Mr Glassman, at least I feel we are much closer to a common understanding than we were, say, 2 weeks ago.

Mikael,

“So do I understand you correctly, do you think that the richer one is, the freer?”

I think your question is excellent. My answer is, “Yes”.

When this advantage is politically or legally institutionalized it is shameful, and weeding it out is vital to the health of the body politic. When this advantage arises from free economic activity it is benign, and can in free societies give rise to the betterment of all men.

Sir, Thank you for the discussion! Forgive, again, my edge. And, yes we are making headway, and I am proud of it.

See you next Rest Day!