Greaaaaaaaaaaaat, we got a picture of people with guns and an article about the frickin' Hummer, the most offensive vehicle ever created. Well done.
Anyone putting a positive spin on this rediculous beast of a vehicle that is just a big gas-guzzling, road-hogging, 12 parking-lot-stall-using symbol of excess and greed has GOT to be working for the company. If I was independently weathy or an anarchist I'd spend my days vandalizing Hummers or at least throwing rotten vegetables at them as they come out of car washes.

intersting article, but i'm not buying into the "hug a hummer" hoohah.

good website: http://www.fuh2.com

For all you Hummer haters out there.

Hmm, I think I smell Patchouli Oil???? Time to go and top off my 5.3L Vortec.

"But the biggest reason why a Hummer's energy use is so low is that it shares many components with other vehicles and therefore its design and development energy costs are spread across many cars."

in other words, the real reason hybrids are so energy ineffecient is that there aren't enough people buying them.

more importantly, hybrids are not a final step in the process, they're simply a transition and need to be regarded as such. anyone who thinks they're a permanent solution has been hitting the crack pipe even more than me. and to think that returning to large, remarkably energy-inefficient vehicles is the answer is what a far less conscientious and compassionate individual than me might call "retarded".

bottom line - if hybrid sales increase, more will be manufactured and the energy costs will decline. it will also send a message to the appropriate industries that there is a significant demand for alternative energy sources, which will force increased R&D and result eventually in products that surpass the very limited but genuine success of hybrids in terms of moving past dependence on finite resources.

and as an until recently owner of a 2003 honda civic hybrid, i can tell attest to the mileage - even with my habit of far exceeding all speed limits, at worst i got 40 mpg. if i observed the law, i was able to hit nearly 50. and the civic isn't huge by any stretch of the imagination, but seriously, comparing it to an aveo is adbsurd (http://www.carspin.net/images/991_05_chevy_aveo_2.jpg)

is sunday a rest day ?

This is about fitness, don't make this site into a political forum...that would be the quickest way to bring things down. If you have time & energy to "hug" a hummer & then talk about it (either for or against) maybe you should double up on your WOD.

#8, P.K.--Rest days are usually given to non-fitness articles and discussions. Popcorn optional.

Now sit back, because I predict this one will be a doozy . . .

Nice article, Coach, looks like that degree I got in Transportaion planning will finally pay off . . . . :-)

P.K.
1. This site is about fitness on every day but a rest day.
2. Coach always puts up an article that is guarenteed to cause a little mental gymnastics, or a cerebral deadlift on the rest day
3. The site is free to all of us who use it, if the Glassman's want politics on their site they're damn well going to get it. If you don't like it, remember not to read it on the rest days.

And as for me, the only thing I'm allowed to drive right now is the original Hummer (with lots of added armor)......or a Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. And I don't think to many people are worried about the mpg cost of either of these babies. Enjoy your rest day everyone.

i'm gonna try the deck of cards for sunday with handstand holds, situps, pullups, broomstick squats, and 1 min burpees when i flip a joker. i saw this idea on the message board for homemade wod and tweaked it. this should be tough but fun like all the other ones

I've hugged a Hummer real tight a few times. Usually because I was scared shitless or happy it got me somewhere else. Mine didn't have the armor. Travis - I know I don't need to tell you, but anyhow, be careful over there.

A truly pathetic article of convoluted details and blatent lies.

Greg,
but my 5spd 2002 Jetta TDI gets 55miles to the gallon on a bad/cold winters day! And I surely paid more than you did for your Civic, all of $19,000 Canadian for this fully loaded piece of German engineering. The only time my milage comes close to 45miles/gal is when I'm hauling my trailer with 1500lbs of gym equipment in it.

Oh, I almost forgot that you can't register a diesel car in California. Why? It produces fewer emmisions than most high efficiency gasoline cars.

While I agree with your statement that if more people purchased hybrids, hybrids would be cheaper, and thus create less of an energy defficit. And also that the hybrids are a precursor to alternative fuel sources. Like say coal fired-steam power, or fusion! Maybe even ionic propulsion, that would work if we lived in a vacuum.

I think the real issue is that those alternative energy sources are either so far beyond us, or more likely simply placed on the backburner of research and development. Maybe the solution is to look back and realise that CrossFit the Zone and Paleo has the answer to our current combustible fuel crisis!

If everyone ceases the consumption of grains, we could produce enough clean* burning alcohol based fuel** that we could put patroleum to better use like artificial flavouring***, and baby formula!

* ("cleaner", not so much clean but cleaner than gasoline or diesel)
** (which on a side note the combustion engine was originally designed to consume)
*** (or flavoring for you Americans)

You know what really grinds my gears?
The fact that we think we can control everything within our environment. We can't and those of us who try are doomed to failure. All we can do is be ready and hang on for the ride! Dudes I should surf!

Anybody else think this Pierre guys is whacked?

55 mpg in a jetta??? hmmm....

This is gonna a be a great thread on this topic. Coach thanks for the pic of "Elements of Gun Fighting". I LOVE THE 2nd Amendment!

'habit of exceeding the speed limit' Greg, do you frequent Highway 99 much? Hmmm.

#6 you're completely right, it's simple economics. Also, those "dust to dust" calculations are very ambiguous, few of the specifics are mentioned. It provides room for plenty of misleading statistics.

From #3 buck's "good website":

"So while our brothers and sisters are off in the Middle East risking their lives to secure America's fossil fuel future, H2 drivers are pissing away our "spoils of victory" during each trip to the grocery store."

Anyone who thinks that we are off in the Middle East securing America's fossil fuel future is totally lost in the media's spin. It would have taken only one small Iraqi child who learned a few English words just so they could run out of their home and yell "Thank you America!" or "Freedom!" with their fist in the air as we drove by on partol, or one elderly Afghan woman to wave and smile uncontollably when they saw American soldiers because it was the first time in their life that they got go outside without having their face covered, for me to realize that we were not over their for our fossil fuel future. But there was more than one. A lot more. You won't know anything about this by watching CNN, but we don't do it for oil. We don't do it for medals or ribbons. We don't do it for braggin' rights, or stories, or accolades. It's just what you do when you care about Freedom. Not just Freedom for me, or my family, or my country, but for everyone on Earth. It's easy to sit in your air-conditioned and heated 3-bedroom house, watching one of 3 televisions, deciding which car you're going to take to go see Fahrenheit 911, and say that everything was perfectly fine over there until we got there. Sure stability in the Middle East (or the lack there of) will affect gas prices here, but the fact that you really think that is anyone's main concern bothers me. I pity you.

The entire analysis is a bit flawed. It's based on a cost of production and operation in dollars. This does not necessarily equate to an energy cost, or environmental cost. I can't give numbers to contradict this article, but the logic used is not appropriate to the focus of the article. Possible alternatives to petroleum may cost more on a dollar/BTU basis (given current political/economic conditions) but bear less of a load environmentally. There's a lot more involved than the analysis takes into account.

what an incredible collection of lies, distortions, and emotionalistic grand standing. That and the picture of people playing with their "guns" is rather ridiculous.

I trust you can do better.

I'm not a Prius owner and am skeptical of the cost-benefit ratio of a hybrid versus an otherwise similar gas-only vehicle. At present, it doesn't make economic sense to pay extra for a hybrid. The most recent Consumer Reports automobile special issue provides some meaningful comparisons.

That said, I think the article is full of misinformation. Try googling customer satisfaction of the Prius and you'll find myriad reports of 95% plus customer satisfaction. This is supported by my own anecdotal evidence of the half dozen or so people that I personally know who own a Prius - 100% satisfied.

I also agree with gregEverett concerning the faulty analysis of the energy cost in design and development. The logic in the article is flawed. Energy cost is economic cost, and if Toyota can't see a long range profit, they wouldn't bother trying to design, develop, and sell hybrid cars.

As the price of gas/oil continues to rise, we'll soon discover whether hybrids are an econonically viable substitute for gas-only powered cars.

Finally, note that the Government is encouraging the purchase of hybrid vehicles with a small tax credit, which I believe to be about $3,500. This pales in comparison to the incentive that the government offered for purchase of a Hummer or other vehicle, at one time equal to a 50% credit! I can't recall the specific details, but this credit was intended to assist small businesses in purchasing light trucks, but as with so many federal programs, they left a loop-hole large enough to drive a Hummer through, which many self-employed lawyers, doctors, and small businessman were happy to exploit.

Have a happy rest day.

Will,
what the hell does that mean? "people playing with their guns"? "Emotionalistic grand standing"?? Is that a word? (Actually, it is. I know. But talk about being able to "do better". Sheesh.)
And what does the picture have to do with anything? If you have been here for any length of time you would see all kinds of pictures, some of US and other countries' servicemembers in uniform. Would you say about them, "look at those pictures of militants playing soldier"? I mean, what the hell does that have to do with anything?

Is there some logic in your post that I missed? I think the stats used in the article are a bit of "fuzzy math", but I fail to see the point of your post.
Let me rephrase it for you - "The picture of those people exercising their Second Amendment rights is rather ridiculous."
Now, again, which is ridiculous? The picture or your post?

Just a few comments: Does everyone realize that the production of Ethanol produces negative energy. Basically, it costs more to produce than the energy you get out of it. Same concept regarding this article. Until you have economies of scale both will not be as efficient as they could be. Maybe or maybe not this will eventually occur. Also, everyone debates the gasoline issue. But most people forget that petroleum products are an ingredient to almost everything that effects your daily life. Plastics, Food, Insecticides, Non-Cotton fabrics, Comsmetics, Drugs, Chemicals, etc.....

I own many guns, though fewer these days from selling them.

I own a pick up truck

I must have a small penis.

comment #24: "Basically, it costs more to produce than the energy you get out of it."

Right but if you are using solar energy to produce something that is a substitute for oil, the country is better off. The goal is to save oil, not energy. Energy can be harnessed in a variety of forms. You can put 1000 people on bicycles and feed them wheat and power a generator to produce ethanol. You wind up reducing oil consumption and that is the goal.

Regarding the article, the argument comparing the "dust to dust" energy of a Hummer to a hybrid was simply silly. If it costs me $10,000 in energy to produce a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon and lasts 100,000 miles, we are saving oil when the alternative is a car that costs $3000 in energy to produce but only gets 3miles to the gallon even if it has a life of 300,000 miles.

The goal is to save oil, not simply conserve energy.

Very short-sighted analyzis. First and foremost because the Hummers are part of an existing production apparatus, which is up and running, and therefore is finetuned, while the Hybrid car's have had to have their own technology developed, which means that the fewer existing production facilities isn't delivering in bigger numbers, therefore keeping the component price and energy expenditure up. Hummers also use existing combustion technology, while the Hybrids are closer to the experimental stage, meaning they're less effective, efficiency to a great extend comes with time and harvested experience, which the Hybrids haven't had as much as yet, as the regular automobiles. But I'm sure Ford had to use a whole lot of energy to builds his first automobile plants, while the makers of horse carriages had a very cost efficient industri. As people eventually grasped the idea of automobiles, the 'efficient' horse carriages simply went down the drain. Same picture with the Hummer vs. Hybrids.

Only thing that can put an end to that development, is the fact that americans are so fat, that all that CAN transport them is a Hummer.

Among many other things, such as the anxiety industri and burger chains, the Hummer is one of those thing's I'd wish never had left America in the first place. When I see the gunfighting and the Hummer – and also is supposed to take it seriously! and think of it as an integral part of life – I'm sure glad I'm not an american, and I truely think this is the flipside of CrossFit. Very disappointing ...

Hybrids are crap. A marketing gimmick to relieve some of the guilt people feel of benefiting from a parasitic economy. Or a public figure that wants to score some green points, so they park one next to their Bentley. Her numbers are correct, and a prius is more polluting, while the fuel consumption is more down to restricted driving. A Diesel does a better job, without restriction. Though the effecient combustion of the newest Diesels create smaller particles that shoot though any catalyst, and are able to be absorbed in the bloodstream via the lungs.

There is no way to maintain the current energy consumption. Any other sort of energy needs a lot of energy to be created. The only solution is to consume less energy. And for most people, who hold up the economy but never really benefit from it, this will be a positive change. Globelisation will be over b/c we won't have the energy to ship resources around the globe. We'll go back to a small scale agracultural society.
The economic aristorcracy will want to cling on to their power, hence the whole foreign policy of the political branch of wallstreet, the neocons. Create instability, steal their resources. You should read the following books, if you want to know where the world is headed in terms of energy:
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465027261/103-5004645-8679029?v=glance&n=283155
Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil
http://fromthewilderness.com/store/books.shtml

The article is very politically motivated though (in the broad sense of the word). If I can demonstrate that Paul Pot killed more people than Hitler, what does that make Hitler? Should we go out and hug him?

The least polluting vehicle is an old car. It may not have the latest clean technology, but it's already been build. I doubt the small increase in effeciency of a new vehicle, over an old one, can outweight the energy it took to make it.
The production of a new car takes 40.000litres of fresh water, for instance. Another thing we're running out of.

An old is what the article should have suggested, if it really intended to make a ecological point.

#6 -
"hybrids are not a final step in the process, they're simply a transition and need to be regarded as such."

A transition to... electric cars? Sorry to say it, but we've already been there and done that. Unfortunately the fad wore out and everyone went back to their normal cars.

hmmm, electric cars sure are crap...jeeze, motors only produce buttloads more torque over a wider rev band than gas engines, are far more efficient, lighter and more compact, and cost much less to maintain, but hey, I like my pushrod V8, it makes loud exhaust noises and makes my penis feel bigger.

next generation electric cars are coming and they beat gas cars in every way, I look forward to test driving a new Tesla Roadster (based on the Lotus Elise).

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

#13, #21 Thank you for your enlightening contributions to this discussion. Your posts are so well reasoned, so illuminating that I am completely persuaded by the force of your argument. I'm swapping my pickup for a rickshaw tomorrow.

#19 Jose, God Bless You.

#20 You might be right. A criticism/weakness of free market forces has long been that it does not incorporate all costs into pricing, but I believe that tends to be self correcting in the longer term. Many environmental costs that in the past were not included in the costs of production and use are now included, in large part due to liability for environmental damage and clean up costs.

Greg Everett is right to observe that economies of scale have not kicked in yet on hybrid vehicles, but even with higher production numbers the lightweight alloys and other exotic materials that go into these cars will never become as cheap as ordinary steel.

A larger point of this article is not so much whether the author is right or wrong about Hummers being more enviro friendly than Civic hybrids, it is that total energy and environmental costs of any car (any product) always go well beyond the usage costs of the product, and are not always easy to calculate. And it is important to at least attempt to consider those costs.

For those who think grain based fuels are a great solution, you're not considering the energy costs of producing that grain, nor the tremendous water usage involved. My brother in law farms and his equipment, fuel, herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer budgets would knock your socks off, and that's not considering the energy costs of converting corn, soybeans, whatever to alcohol or diesel fuel.

#27 Good point about old cars. My personal preference, and it seems to be the solution in Cuba. Hard to get them to pass the emission test though. Your wish for per capita energy consumption to go down is never going to happen, it will only go up, and not just in the USA. What about the energy source that must not be named? Why won't the enviros consider nuclear power?

There are no bumper sticker answers, and the article does a good service to remind us of that.

Re the picture: Lisa Ray, "Be The Pistol"

The practice firearm training is a martial art, one far more relevant to modern society than all others. By "modern society" I mean the years since 1375, when the first known handguns were used (this date varies depending on the source but it’s widely accepted that firearms have been around since the 1300s unlike the internet, which, I’m guessing, most people who despise guns are proficient with). If you find violence to be vulgar than the sight of a room full of people playing with swords should be just as offensive as today's picture. Guns are tools, just like blenders, cars, shovels and computers. All of these items have different uses but proficiency with them could really help out at some point in life. Learning to use a gun doesn’t mean you have endorse them or own one, just like learning to drive doesn’t mean you have to own a car or even like driving. However, the necessity for such skills may arise one day, how ready are you?

An ounce of prevention...

-D.

PS- Interesting article but Humvees have a certain 'je ne sais quois' when it comes to lameness. I get the feeling that the makers of Axe Body Spray, hair-plugs and the Humvee are targeting the same market.

The Hummer article is limp, pedantic, and sophistic.

It addresses two companies, Ford and Toyota. It appears to have a strong bias towards "those asian" companies. I detect a certain MPG-envy towards the civic. How is the Honda Civic anyone's enemy??? (except in a union, perhaps?) I wonder if the cost analysis took into account the R&D that the army had to put into the Hummer. Doubtful.

The hummer is a FREAKIN' MILLITARY VEHICLE. The problem that people have with the hummer is its use in civilian life.

Next article to be posted on a rest day:

Why we should drive tanks instead of cars.

The most helpful answers to these problems is personal repsonsibility and self-education, which Americans of all ethnicities are basically not inclined to indulge in.

Dan, how can you compare a gun with a blender? Been threatened to your life by anyone lately?

There are two kids in the picture. I can understand recreational soft air gun shooting for childen but learning them "Gun Fighting" seems a unthoughtful.

Bo-

If you are asking if anyone has threatened my life lately (it’s not really clear) the answer is yes. It happens frequently.

If you are taking issue with the comparison between a kitchen utensil and a dangerous weapon consider the fact that guns often used to fell game for eventual consumption. Also, many weapons commonly associated with Asian martial arts are/were dual-purpose weapons and farming tools. I don’t belong to the NRA and I’m not what you would likely label a ‘gun nut.’ Hell, I even enjoy Michael Moore’s TV shows, books and films (for the most part). Yet I, for one, would much rather my kid learned how to handle an item such as a firearm from a trained professional in a controlled environment than from Grand Theft Auto. Burying one’s head in the sand doesn’t make evil, violence or the tools used in the furtherance of both go away; nor, might I note, would I want my child learning how to use a blender, food processor, stove, oven, kitchen knife or other similar device absent some basic instruction as to the function of said items. I’m sure you would agree.

Being an agent of the people and exempt from many of the weapons laws that affect civilians, I don’t really care either way about the Second Amendment. My life would be much easier if the people didn’t have access to any guns at all but, obviously, we are culturally way past that fantasy. Guns are everywhere, like it or not. Either you understand how they work and what they can do or you remain ignorant about an invention that has changed the course of history, and will continue to do so, many times over (even more than the blender).

-D.

PS- If you still take issue with the 'blender thing' forget it, just replace with 'car' again. I'll eat the redundancy.

Never bought into the hype about the Hummer or the Hybrids so this is a non-issue for me. If more folks used their heads for a little more than hanging shades on their eyes it would be a non-issue for them too. Why plunk down $50-75k on a Hummmer or even $30k + for a Hybrid when there are many reliable used vehicles out there that one could buy for cash and that will run for years, or even till the wheels fall off. Thereby your bang for the buck is greatly increased, even when considering vehicle repairs on a used vehicle. Functionality and utility is what I'm after thank you very much.

Man, all I was talking about was all the people that take the time to flip the bird to H2s. Sheesh! Pierre- I want the TDI too. I am in the process of converting my Jeep Liberty Diesel over to biodiesel, but would love a diesel that gets 40+ mpg. I don't have anything against hybrids per say, but I agree with Frank, why buy new when you can get a Geo Metro for $200?

Travis- Keep your head down brother!

This is truly the worst article to be posted on a rest day. I can only think that coach is trying to egg a response out of the left leaning readers, which quite frankly is a bit petty even if it makes him smile. Or he thinks this article is interesting which would lead me to conclude that he is losing it. Not going to rehash its flaws, just wanted to say that for 30 years similar arguments were made by people and scientists, just as cocky, just as arrogant that smoking didn't hurt you, most of the scientists were in bed with guess who? The point is that political websites are inundated with purchased science, ready for the ideological to sweep up and use as proof positive that their policies are righteous. It is amateur.

Jose, I have to say the melodrama is a bit much, I respect your service, but come on, with his first breath an Iraqi child says “thank-you America.” Don’t pity someone who doubts that the empire is doing things for altruistic reasons. Empires throughout history invade under the pretence of saving the savages, or liberating an ally. It was always a resource or a land grab, take away the emotional stuff and it makes sense. The problem for many is that, if they doubt the policies in Iraq they are in danger of realizing they have been duped and used, the personal consequences of such a realization are troubling, but I will leave that for now.

If we are going to go with topics meant to inspire heated debate, I suggest the next rest day focus on the concept of religion, how it affects politics, how there is no scientific evidence of any such existence of god ( unless we go back to the purchased science of the tobacco and anti-environmental people), I bet coach can find an article from an intelligent design website that proves scientifically that god exists.

No handguns or Hummers in Bermuda. I'm going boating. See y'all Monday.

I own a Prius, and it gets no where near the EPA mileage estimates even when driven the sped limit. I am one Prius owner who is not 100% satisfied, not even close.

As for gun training: Ever heard, "He brought a knife to a gunfight." Well, I've survived a gunfight with nothing but my fists. I have since gone to several defensive firearms classes and I'm licensed to carry. Everybody would be better off learning to use a gun from professionals than just buying one and thinking they can protect themselves with it.

Any of you Hummer owners need a tow out of the woods
give me a call. Land Rover the official Hummer recovery veichle!

Regarding posts #20 and #34...

Darby Darrow taught a course on "elements of gunfighting" clearly aimed at the LEOs attending the seminar. Pictured above is the class he specifically delivered to novices with the emphasis on handgun safety! Have no fear, this was not 'playing with guns' and was not teaching kids to 'fight with guns', it was good responsible instruction. It really embodied three of CrossFit’s unwritten aspects: get educated, be responsible for yourself, and use your head!

BTW, my son was one of the kids in the photo and I'd certainly rather him learn safety and responsibility around guns from the collective years (maybe 50+) of police experience in that very picture.

Thanks Darby and Coach.

On the gun issue. Washington DC has a "no gun" law which translates into the worst murder rate in the nation. Why? The bad guys know the law abiding citizens don't carry handguns to protect themselves.

Travis & Cjones,
didn't realize this was a rest day thing. Not familiar with the Bradley's MPG but I have lots of time behind the wheel of an up-armored HMMMWV & the USMC 7-ton truck. Maybe I'll see you in theater, I ship out again in Sept. Doing work-ups now...and I am doubling up on my WOD...just in case.

I own a gun

And, I happily drive my F150 to work everyday.

#20 - Will

they are not "playing" with guns in that picture- that is something a child does; some of us are in a profession that requires us to be proficient in the art of gun-fighting. some of us have a job in which are life could depend our weapon........

oops on the typo....."have a job in which our life...."

Looking for a cost effective option for putting some rings up in our station truck bay for muscle ups/ring dips. Any suggestions?

make up day for missing yesterday

21:53 scaled BP wgt to 125lbs 75% of my BWT (165)

NYC cabbies are now replacing their vehicles hybrid ones. With millions of visitors to NYC soon to be riding in Hybrid cars, I bet there will be a spike in sales.

I live in the country where people drive gas guzzling trucks, but it is to tow trailers or carry heavy equipment or materials. I have never seen a Hummer used for either. Most are owned by people with more disposible income than driving skills and often stay at home even when it snows for fear of wrecking it. The Hummer should remain a military vehicle as it was designed. I own a F-350 turbo diesel and several guns. God bless America. Take the bad with the good because the good is well worth it.
Thank you to our Armed Services.
Thank you coach.

I for one am delighted to export my pollution to Japan in exchange for cleaner air here. That's what I'm paying for, in fact, if I buy a hybrid.

Personally, I own and drive a beat-up old Toyota pickup, which has about 140,000 miles on it, and I expect to get at least another 100,000-350,000 miles out of it (based on other Toyota pickup owners' experiences). I have no idea what the average repair costs for a Hummer may be, but the most expensive thing I've had to do was replace the tires on my rig at 50,000 and 100,000 miles.

I'd buy a diesel pickup (and run it on vegetable oil) before I'd buy a hybrid, but at least a half-dozen people on my block alone own hybrids. In California, an enormous advantage to high-mileage hybrids is that you can drive in the carpool lane at rush hour. This may be worth far more than any fuel savings to most owners. (Don't blame me for that law -- I think it's kind of silly -- but it is the reality out here.)

How does the cost of diesel vehicles compare to that of gasoline and hybrid vehicles, I wonder?

re: DC's no-gun law: I grew up in DC, lived there again recently, and I'm pretty sure the "no gun" law is so that the taxation-without-representation-enduring local inhabitants do not blow away every corrupt senator, congressman, and staffer that drives by...

The highest murder rate in the country apparently moved down to New Orleans some time ago. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such prohibition on firearms in Louisiana!

God i love capitalism.

Micro economic's 101 If it is to expensive and not a good value(being cost of fuel, maintenance, and initial cost, useful life of the vehicle) in the eye's of the consumer it will go away because noone will buy it or the company producing it will have to develope a cheaper way to build it so people can see the value for there dollar.

In a free market economy the market alway's dictate's what product's are on the market and how much those product's cost according to the want's and need's of the consumer.

I drive a 78 Pontiac and it has a 400cui engine and 200,000 mile's on it and a 1991 Ford F150 with a 302cui.

Jeff

Despite the ridiculous propaganda article on the front page, I am still considering a hybrid or diesel (to run with bio-diesel) for my next car.

Anyone that believes a Hummer is more fuel efficient than a hybrid needs to be on the receiving end of a Crossfit "Elements of Gun Fighting" seminar.

I saw a post somewhere saying with our troops fighting for us how can we be burning all that gas by owning a Hummer. I spoke with a high ranking navy man who owns and drives his Hummer when he is not on a mission. His comment as to why he has a Hummer. When you do the things I do for my Job when im home I am still living in my car. After living in tents and in the dirt for months at a time I think this fellow should be able to ride in what ever he wants to. The rest of the time he his hunting the bad guys out to get us.
Thats good enough for me. As for the rest of us if your not rolling in the cash you drive what you need. I have a dodge Darango and a trailer. With alot of property you need a heavy dutie machine. Maybe a better idea would be to come up with ways so those big cars/trucks we need use less fuel or alturnative fuel that they allready know how to produce, they have known for years how do do this.

Interesting article! I have to admit that I always roll my eyes or laugh when I see Hummers in the city... fully support them in their military application. Didn't realize Hybrids were so inefficient.

I drive an 84 Accord, and was sad to learn it's only about twenty (city) miles to the gallon as the reviews said it was more like 32. But it runs so well and has so few problems and will last forever (I've seen Hondas with 300,000 miles and counting) that I think it's well worth it environmentally and economically. Plus after buying it had money left over to get Kettlebells. :D

Gaucoin #1, maybe you should call whine-one-one and get a Waaaaahmbulance!

Saturday 060722
For time:
Row 500 meters
Body weight Bench press, 30 reps
Row 1000 meters
Body weight Bench press, 20 reps
Row 2000 meters
Body weight Bench press, 10 reps

Post time to comments.

BWT 193
BP 135# 30/20/10
Replaced row with sumo lifts 28:39
put wghts away then ran:
1200M , 600M, 600M 16:49 2min. rest between runs

Oh yeah, and as far as guns... training, playing, I don't care what you call it as long as you take it seriously and have my back. :D

Violence Solves A Lot
BY KIRBY FERRIS

One of the more insidiously deceptive lines of the socialist-liberal agenda is the banal phrase: "Violence doesn't solve anything." How much retrospection is required to understand that Hitler wasn't stopped by peace marches, negotiations, or "conflict resolution" sessions. It is a horrible, disgusting task, but evil acts, whatever shape they take, must eventually be countered by a superior, violent force.

The liberal doesn't seem to understand that the threat of counter violence is perhaps the most effective preventative of actual physical conflict. Liberal pacifists in modern times mocked the phrase "peace through strength" as though the pragmatism contained within such an idea were rooted in some atavistic, macho, testosterone-poisoned psychosis that had been propagated by alpha males throughout history.

Can't the liberal understand that bad people are prevented from committing evil acts by their fear of punishment? Perhaps at a childhood level, the threat of adult disapproval or the disapproval of one's schoolyard peers keeps the behavior of the youngster in some kind of conformity to morality. But it doesn't take long for the criminally-minded teenager to realize that he really doesn't care what other people think. Crime pays. Evil is profitable. Bullying works. Unless, that is, you are harshly confronted with the realization that your malicious behavior will be rewarded by a beating, a bullet, or a prison cell.

A peaceful, free society, of which America (even with its flaws) is the most outstanding example in all of recorded history, is preserved by the willingness of its people, either singly or as a group, to commit decisive acts of righteous violence to counter evil activity.

Hebrew experts now declare that one of the Ten Commandments has been mistranslated. "Thou shalt not kill" is more accurately translated from the ancient Hebrew as "Thou shalt not murder." The punishment for murder in ancient Israelite communities was stoning. Murderers were killed by the citizens. They were executed. And stoning was the most effective way to spread the responsibility for the execution through the mass of individuals who were willing to pay the price for living in a peaceful, moral society. Because of its face-to-face horror, the compassionate individual would, one might imagine, actually cast the first stone...to make sure it knocked the murderer immediately unconscious, in much the same way the ethical hunter or fisherman puts his quarry out of its misery as quickly as possible. The ancient Hebrews forced personal responsibility on each individual via the group act of stoning.

It comes down to individual responsibility. It comes down to the individual being willing to act with violence when confronted by certain criminal behaviors. How many of your would idly stand by and watch a man torture a helpless pup? You would first yell at him to stop. If he continued, you might grab at him or throw yourself between him and the bleeding, cringing animal. What if he slaps you aside and continues his barbarity? You look around and see a two-by-four on the ground. How many of you would not take that two-by-four to the man with a clear conscience? Sorry, there are no phone booths around. You can't call the cops or the Humane Society. You have to act now! What do you do? Are you really going to stand by and watch the travesty, all the time telling yourself that "violence doesn't solve anything"?

If you would club the animal torturer with a two-by-four, how much quicker should you come to the defense of a human victim? I grew up in the Marxist-Socialist, namby-pamby Bay Area, and I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard some pompous person tell me "I could never kill anyone!" I even said it a few times myself during my naive teens and 20s. It felt so good to utter that unctuous homily. But I don't feel that way anymore.

I would kill another human being. I would do it to save my own life or the life of an innocent victim. the act would probably make me physically ill. I might have to live with it in my mind for the rest of my life, but I pray I would have the courage,-yes, courage-to stop consummate evil with whatever means became necessary.

And it is for this reason that I am a fervent advocate of the right of the law-abiding and sane individual to possess and carry a firearm. The right to self-defense is not only a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution, it is a duty, a command of "Nature and Nature's God" (to quote Jefferson) that each of us must confront if we are to preserve freedom and moral civilization in our communities and nation.

Modern-day "gun control" is not something invented in America by Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. Adolph Hitler used firearms and ammunition registration to create the paper trails that facilitated the eventual confiscation of the firearms of his opponents in Nazi Germany. The Nazi German law bears such an amazing resemblance to America's Gun Control Act of 1968 that every school child should be made aware of the similarity. Or perhaps we should all think about a very simple fact: slaves can't own guns.

Perhaps the world isn't the way we wish it would be. We all might wish that evil men could be persuaded from their vile behavior with bleeding heart entreaties, a kiss on the cheek, or proper toilet training. But it ain't that way, folks, Pacifism is a sickness, an actual moral perversity, when its effects spread to anyone else beside yourself. You may choose to walk to the cattle car, but damn you if you let your children be led up the ramp. You must never allow any group or government to steal your right to exercise armed lethal force in a just situation.

One of the greatest instructors in the defensive use of firearms used to say to his graduating classes: "May you never have to use what you have learned here." And in that spirit I would like to see an American citizenry that is armed to the teeth and as skilled in the use of pistols and rifles as we are in the driving of automobiles. Am I insane? Somehow, looking at the tragic lessons of history, I don't think so.

Did fridays WOD was unable to do it then.Did 12 rounds with 20lb weights on the lunges (could'nt find the 25lbs)Did jumping P/U we have yet to get a pull up bar in this gym.

For all you "hybrid" bandwagon people, here's an interesting spin. Although gas powered vehicles add to the whole "global warming" thing, the hybrids add even more....(this was on CBS or something), remember that a hybrid has to be powered by electricity, all clean right...well what is the major source for electric power, COAL...not so clean, don't believe me go live next to a coal burning plant. What else, nuclear power? Nah, wouldn't want to live near that either. So while electric may seem good at first, remember where the source is coming from...if we can develop a cleaner electric power then go for the hybrid. Otherwise...go ride a single speed bike and get some exercise!!

The most beneficial aspect of this article is that it makes us stop and think about our impact on the environment and the rate we are consuming what we know to be limited resources. Whether you agree with the article or not, those are two things that more Americans truly need to consider.

Too many people in this country act flippant towards the environment because they feel entitled to consume resources at a rate relative to their paycheck. It's unfortunate that an attitude adjustment will only come when our pocket books get hit hard enough.

Take home messages:
1. Consideration of overall resources used in the prouction of automobiles is important. I won't drink the hummer cool-aide, but its a good point.
2. Media (op def: television, video games, etc.) violence is known to strongly influence behavior, esp in children. Unless you are first an active lobbier against all broadcast violence, then I would be very careful about your comments against kids learning safe handling of firearms, for which there is no clinical evidence of causal behavioral influence.

throwin' this in for a few smiles:
http://www.newglarus.org/ambulance/ambulance_or_suv.htm

glad i live in new york city and ride my bicycle almost everywhere.

#64 - i used to drive gut buckets - ford turbo diesels. one word: bitchin.

We should all lobby for E85 and begin sending money back to American agriculture. Brasil is the prototype for which we should follow using sugarcane as the fuel source in 85% of their vehicles.

The hybrid is a joke and deserves people that can afford to waste money to make a statement such as Leonardo Dicaprio. Someone mentioned how cabs in NY City using hybrid technology would spike demand, it is more likely that they will dream of the opportunity to escape the city and be behind the wheel of a 400HP V8. It makes relative sense for a cab to use it because the initial investment will be realized due to the extreme mileage placed on the vehicle versus the average consumer.

#61
"nuclear power? Nah, wouldn't want to live near that"

Why not? Both scientifically and statistically, nuclear power is the cleanest AND safest form of power production that we have.

The only reason people are scared of nuclear power is because they are not only uneducated, but miseducated about it.

comment #43: "On the gun issue. Washington DC has a "no gun" law which translates into the worst murder rate in the nation. Why? The bad guys know the law abiding citizens don't carry handguns to protect themselves."

The high murder rate is the result of gang violence. The prohibition of guns has nothing to do with the murder rate.

Just a few observations.

1. America is consuming more and becoming physically larger than a normal human being due to consumption of crap food and no exercise because they practically drive everywhere!

2. To compensate, they drive even bigger cars around. (this is obviously understandable in farming country, etc. - e.g. Minnesota, North Dakota, where they do hunting, farming, and everything under the sun. However, why does a housewife that can barely drive need a huge Ford Expedition?

Answer: walk, cycle, get fit, but most importantly - consume less. Understandably, there are areas where there isn't public transport to do this, but I'd like to think that people can change the way they live.

I'm an American and I've lived in London for 6 years, where we cycle, walk, and run everywhere. Not only do we have a congestion charge (16 dollars a day to drive in London), but everything is more expensive - smaller houses (300 square feet costs 400,000 dollars in a decent part of London), clothing and food is four times the prices in the States, and gas is approximately 10 dollars a gallon (1.87 US dollars for one litre of gas).

Though we may complain, we start to value things - our property, a t-shirt is worn until it falls apart, and you become very cautious about taking that extra, unnecessary road trip.

Sometimes I feel that America needs to stop listening to advertising and marketing campaigns. You don't need another product to complete your life.

By the way, my fully fitted cross fit gym in London is 25 square feet. Complete with a measured city block for running!

Ok I was off a few years on the murder capital of DC.
http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html

So shoot me!

#70 -- you'll be posting pictures of your 5'x5' gym, yes? I'm always interested to see how other people approach the use of workout space when it becomes the limiting factor.

I have a one-car garage with rings, a C2 bought on Craigslist (for $100), bumper plates, a squat rack, a home-made GHD (heavy bag strapped to a sawhorse, and some pipe tees mounted to a flange on the wall studs), and all my skiing and climbing junk.

The car still fits, if we clean up beforehand :-)

with chris s. did deck of cards workout
hearts - unachored situps
diamonds - handstand holds
clubs - pullups
spades - double box jump 24" and 36"

2-9 face value
10-J-Qu-K 10 reps
A 11 reps
joker 1 minute of burpees

pullups were kipping, dead hang, and jumping

total time approximately 1 hr 10 minutes

can see how this can be fun and modified for any situation really liked it, probably shouldn't have done 95 reps of pu's on day off will probably come back to bite me in the ass but get some. go again.

if i had a choice i would have one of those old WWII military style bikes with the passenger car and just drive around with a leather helmet and goggles and a scarf and if i had a dog preferably a lab he could be in the passenger car with the same outfit.

#68

Oh yeah if there are strict gun control laws the criminals will abide by the rules. Right!

Did Friday's WOD
Unassisted PU = weighted for me, so...

10 rounds + 10 lunges

D.

20 minutes of Jeff Martone's shotput fun, followed by some kbs.
44# kb: 10 swings; 10 one-hand swings; 5 high pulls L/R, 6 high pulls L/R; double c&p 3, 1; double cleans 3, 5; double swings x 10
53# kbs: double swings: 6x5

To me, that article highlighted the need for wholistic thinking. If you are truly thinking of the whole, you don't get to pick which parts most benefit your prejudices. It occurred to me yesterday that most bad thinking is characterized by a misunderstanding and misappropriation of ONE'S OWN first principles. Hummers are not the enemy. Stupidity is. And if you are 100% certain you are right, then you are likely wrong in some important way. You can't skip the step of attention, and that step must be repeated, over and over.

I love my S-10 4 banger easy on the wallet and still going at 107,000 miles strong. haven't completed the few WOD's was getting ready for my 1st triathalon (sprint distance). did it in 1:58 not great but it my first. it was the cleveland tri. So I guess tomorrow is back the WOD. I hope there's no squats!!!!!

Shawn (#78)

You a Cleveland guy?

Roger #19:

You refer to the “entire analysis”, but I don’t think that that has been published. I found CNW’s website, and downloaded “The Energy Cost of New Vehicles From Concept to Disposal; The non-technical report”, reportedly 450 pages, which I skimmed. Spinella is the president of CNW Marketing Research, and apparently the author. According to a letter attached to this report, the technical report may be available soon for around $1,000. Spinella answered the letter saying that the full report was available on his website, but the link there was back to the same non-technical report.

The non-technical report says, “Our goal, again, is simply to look at what society has to pay for the energy needed to support various vehicles.” Do you think by that Spinella meant to include environmental costs? And if so, how would you propose to measure environmental costs? For example what are the environmental costs of the technicolor rivers and wetlands in the former Soviet satellites? Or of the glorious smoke covering Tokyo Bay? Or of the zebra mussels choking the Great Lakes?

Are the costs of reducing CO2 emissions in vehicles and fuels chargeable as environmental costs? Assuming the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is dynamically controlled 100% by the oceans, what are the costs attributable to hybridizing autos and reformulating fuels?

Did you mean to say that the cost in dollars does not equate to energy cost? Would you agree with me that to a first approximation it does? If not, would you agree that dollars and BTU track closely where the product is sold in the auction of a free market? After all you did say, “a BIT flawed” and “does not NECESSARILY equate”.

Regardless, I wouldn’t get my skivvies in much of a knot over an article reporting on a non-technical version of a technical report soon to be offered for sale. The article is about as authoritative as a novel.

What say we revisit this subject when the technical report is in the public domain?

was in a fairly bad car accident friday night (relatively minor injuries to all - cuts and bruises) so did light cardio for 30 minutes saturday followed by a lot of stretching. i was very sore after the pullups friday and the accident.
today - i did yesterdays workout. bw = 200 lbs
bench press 185 lbs total time = 36 minutes. rows were cake, bench killed me, first 2 sets broken

I'm not sure what all of these fundamentalistic environmentalists want people with money to drive. Ferraris also get about 10 mpg.

I personally don't have a lot of money, but why should it be my concern that someone who has money is driving a fancy car which uses more gas than my dodge neon. Is driving such a fancy car so much different that my friend with ten kids who drives a 15 passenger van which he rarely uses for more than two or three people?

I generally feel that people who are too busy pushing their views and ideas on other people have alot of their own issues but concentrate on what bothers them about other people.

Personally, litter bothers me alot more than someone driving a car that uses a lot of gas. I could either try to clean up after others and be careful myself, or act like a lunatic making a website with people taking obscene pictures of themselves in front of litter and shouting and making a total fool of myself.

btw, when I was in boy scouts and my whole troop was taught how to properly clean, handle, and fire about 20 different weapons, I am sure that none of us has done anything dangerous or criminal with firearms.

Phil #38

Melodrama is a dramatic form that does not observe the laws of cause and effect and that exaggerate emotion and emphasizes plot or action at the expense of characterization, according to Webster. I won't point out your inaccurate account of my comment about the Iraqi child in comment #18, but maybe you should have looked up the word melodrama before you (mis)used it. Or do you really think that my statement was an exggeration?

Well, it wasn't. That's just what it sounds like when someone writes about something that is truly in their heart, rather than using (and often misusing) big words to debate a point as if trying to impress their college professor.

You speak (indirectly) about me being duped and used by the U.S. Government, and you try to cover it by prefacing with "I respect your service." Your statements are very transparent, and anyone can see that you don't really respect my service, it's just the right thing to say before you bash me (indirectly), to make it sound like you're not. I'm not stupid, Phil.

The truth is that The United States has spilled it's own blood in more places than we know in the name of Freedom and NEVER asked for ANYTHING in return. But it seems that every time there appears to be some benefit that MAY come out of it for The United States, someone (usually a liberal) insists that it must be the REAL reason we're there.

I can figure it out, Phil. When something does't go your way, you think that it's not being done for "altruistic reasons." Your comment is nothing more than a poorly disguised attack on U.S. Policy in the Middle East and an indirect attack on those who you apparenly think to be the mindless pawns of the U.S. Military (like me).

You refer to the U.S. as "the empire." Don't know if you were tying to funny, or if you don't know what an empire is (the more likely possiblity), but The United States in a republic powered by a government that directly represents the will of the people. Far from an empire. I recommend getting a good dictionary and an UNBIASED account of how the U.S. Government works before responding.

Tim #72

What's a GHD?

Missed out yesterdays WOD, so today did some sprint work (walk back recovery). (~20 minutes)
10*22 meters
10*40 meters

crossfit@rawc.org

Age:42, Wt:180

Rode the 5.6 mile river trail at the leisurely pace of 26:47 early this morning so I could avoid the 115 degree heat we're having now.

AHR:120, MHR:154

Didn't feel like resting today so made up for some of the weaker days this past week.

Ran 5K on Treadmill 23m 37s

5 Rounds:
Walking Lunges with 20lb dumbbells (10 reps)
Lat Pull Downs at 70lb (20 reps)

9 minutes flat

100 situp on decline bench

Felt good after all of the crap that I ate this weekend!

Pierre, #13-- Actually, it is possible to register or sell a diesel in CA, it just has to be a used one. There are all sorts of used VW and Mercedes diesels for sale here, and at a hefty premium.

Passenger diesels are not sold here because CA emission standards are more stringent than those in the remaining states. Current passenger diesels cannot meet the NOX (oxides of nitrogen) emmision standard. Trucks are exempt from this standard.

However, both VW and Mercedes have new technology which may be certified in CA come 2008--Vw's pump-duse technology is incredible--clean burning and great MPG.

I'm a long time VW guy-- I'm on my 6th--I tried to buy a used Jetta diesel, but had to settle for the New GTI :-)

Charlton Heston and Ted Nugent MUST be providing financial incentives to Crossfit now.

You GOT to be kidding me!?!?

WaterFuel.wmv - this is an interesting piece in light of the discussion....

If you have never had the chance to be taught by Darby Darrow you are missing out. Darby has been my grappling teacher for several years. I count him as one of my few friends, and I'm happy to have him teach my kids how to handle and shoot firearms safely and well.

Coach and all the trainers @ this weekend's seminar in SD:

thank you so much for providing amazing insight into fitness, health, nutrition, training, physiology, and everything in between. it was an honor to train with everyone who was there and i look forward to participating in future events.

big-ups to freddie, lee, and many of the other participants who got picked on to demo the effectiveness of many of the exercises and their substitutes.

i'm so sick of all the name-calling that people resort to whenever any kind of political debate. "Do I smell Patchouli Oil" and "the picture of people playing with their "guns" is rather ridiculous" are great examples of this. making personal attacks doesn't make your argument any more valid, nevermind that it thwarts the whole point of these discussions...to learn new things about a topic. i know i've learned a lot by reading some of the articles people have posted/quoted, and the different viewpoints they have expressed.

so to all of you who keep their head on their shoulders, thanks a lot! please keep up with the posting.

Treelizard - I can't believe we actually agree on something. :)

TimW 96-- Why?? Am I that bad??

One more article to post on a rest day since everyone seems so "offended" about everything lately:

http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2006/02/18/to-not-be-offended-is-noble/

In response to #46

So... out of curiosity... what profession are those kids in that require the knowledge of how to use a hand gun?

And in general...

They look well under 16. I know boys and boys are NOT capable of taking anything seriously at such a young age (the whole maturity thing hits roughly around age 25, if they are lucky). I am sure you all have heard stories of Kids (which crazily... mostly happen to be young males) who wanted to "show" off their folks cool gun and accidentally shot their friend. Unfortunately showing a kid "how" to properly use a gun is a lame excuse for parenting... how about prevention, just like sex and for graduating college they can be rewarded with that kind of class if they REALLY want it.

Funny thing is that we made sure our kids would no longer work in mines for extended periods of time as that is just cruel, but there are some of us who are very willing to expose them freely to weapons, buy them slutty clothes, give them gifts of make up and violent nintendo games. Whatever happen to the days where we just give them bicycles, dolls or the red flyer??? Talk about cruelty!!!!!!!!!

#67 Jbroshek

People are scared of nuclear power because (here's some quick history for you... which apparently you lack) Chernobyl and Hiroshima!!!!!!!!! The largest mistake in nuclear history... you should read about it. Apparently you are the only one who is not educated my dear! And if that doesn't get your worries flowing, come live near Yucca Mountain for a few years and report back if you start having weird growths or if your offspring is missing some libs or somehow obtained a third eye...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Wow. You all are too much. I learned to shoot a BB gun when I was all of ten years old and the world kept spinning!

And yes, I was still playing with dolls.

Boys aren't capable of taking things seriously until they are 25? Maybe if they don't get proper parenting... last I checked, "boys" are dying overseas at the age of 18...

You're right, there are firearm accidents, which is why it's important to get TRAINING.

Yes, guns can be dangerous. So can scalpels. They can kill you or they can save your life. You don't make scalpels safe by taking them away. You make them safe by putting them in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

Here's an idea--maybe people who think their children are too immature to handle weapons and don't become mature until they graduate college when they're twenty-five, maybe those people can spend some more time parenting their children instead of worrying about someone else's.

And I have no idea what makeup and slutty clothes have to do with guns...

One more comment for Jean

You wrote "I am sure you all have heard stories of Kids (which crazily... mostly happen to be young males) who wanted to "show" off their folks cool gun and accidentally shot their friend."

Maybe if those young men got training on how to properly handle a firearm, they wouldn't accidentally shoot their friends.

Seems like a smart, responsible thing to do, if you're going to have guns in the house, to make sure your children know how to use them properly (or keep 'em in a safe.) In fact, I'd say it's requisite.

I'd be interested in seeing stats for gun accidents, to see who is trained and who isn't. And not studies by the CDC either.

"Violent Nintendo games, makeup and slutty clothes."

I am so there.

-D.

Took a rest day yesterday - travelling

and today in a hurry, and my daughter wanted to do a 'quick one'

jog 800
walk/jog/run 800
BP 2/3 bw 3X 10
Bent over row 2/3 bw 3x10

I don't like guns...

Jean 97&98, in response to your comments:

#1: I was shooting automatic- and semi-automatic weapons at age 13. I was completely aware of and accepted the huge responsibility of holding a firearm, even at that age. Throughout our nation's history, kids that age have hunted game to help feed their families. So, just because a kid has a pistol instead of a rifle, are they suddenly no longer able to control themselves?

#2: Current nuclear plants (and all commercial nuclear plants in the US ever built) could not have an accident anything like Chernobyl. It is completely impossible, because of the difference in plant design.

You are the ignorant one in both of these cases, so don't try and reply with something cute. You'd only seem more uneducated.

Dan McD-thanks for the plug, and while I'd love to have been in that photo, looking as focused and strong as Susan Robinson does, I can't take the credit on this one! Once again, we've been mistaken for one another-a compliment as always! Looking good, Susan!

Ah, rest day. Sorry I missed it.
Ran 1.5 miles in 102 degree heat with 70% humidity in Anaheim. Luckily, I had a pool and several Newcastles to cool me down.

As for the article and gun flap; I say, "If Hummers ar outlawed; only outlaws will own Hummers."

Jean,
I was trained to handle and shoot a rifle at the tender age of 14. I took it very seriously.

And I'm a very good shot.

I'll be at Dan's playing Nintendo with the girls in slutty clothes and make-up. Forward my mail.

Ron - I'll bring Excite Bike, and Double Dragon.

The point of the article as I see it:

Hybrids are the new hummer.

Many people who get hybrids are compensating - just like many people who get hummers.

They are trendy. They are cool. Most people get them even though have no idea how, or why, they were designed. They don't even use them right.

For all you people who are thinking of driving a hybrid is better than any other car: get educated, make sure you are doing if for the right reasons.

FWIW, I ride a motorcycle and get about 50mpg. The more I ride, the more I hate people who drive cars and don't know anything about bikes.

Gun training = Great. Gun safety should be taught in public schools. Driving is. Sex is. First Aid is. I wish we lived in a society where we could rely on parents to teach their children these (and more) required skills, but I realize that fantasy is ridiculous. Not educating people about things such as guns is like not educating people about bacteria and disease. It isn't magic, and with a little understanding, accidents will be minimized.

Nuclear Power = Great. The key to solving our energy needs is diversity. Nuclear power can be a strong player in a team of energy producing solutions with little or no risk. Can you put a nuke plant in my back yard? Hell yes. When can you start?

The moral to the story (as it is EVERY rest day)- get f*<king educated, keep an open mind, and don't believe everyting you read. The world (especially the U.S.) is full of people who think they are doing the 'right' thing when they are really just being manipulated.

Coach, I am sorry if I gave away the secret to the rest day political articles.

Age 35 BW 195

As rx'd 15:23

Jonsey,
Cool. All I have is Duck Hunt. Appropriate for today, no?

Dan has DDR (that's Dance Dance Revolution; not the old name for East Germany)

Sex is taught in school?
Surely ye jest.

Sex Education starts in the 5th grade in many schools. Alas, hands on study is not part of the classroom curriculum.

Jose S. (# 83),

-- You said:
The United States in a republic powered by a government that directly represents the will of the people
--

Just to inform you, the United States, at the federal level, is most certainly NOT a direct democracy. It is a representative democracy. That is why neither you nor I, though both citizens, have any vote on any issues of law.

At best, our form of government represents an abstract view (rounded off to accuracy of a political party) of at least 50% of the population at different points in time ... for 2/3rds of the three federal branches.

And also, there is no logical contradiction in 1) disagreeing with the state of our involvement in the Middle East and the potential reason(s) for being there and 2) supporting (loving relatives, praying for friends, caring for their loved ones, befriending friends of friends and relatives) those troops that are/have been in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regards,
Mark

To comment # 7, P.K.

Please do not tell the creator of "this site," that "this site is a fitness site", and not to turn it into a "political forum." "This site," can be whatever the hell he wants it to be... it's his site! And I happen to think he's doing a damn good job of running it, with out your delightful input.

#112 Feanor76

Maybe you've misread, I stated that the U.S is a republic (a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them, again, according to Webster) not a direct democracy (a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised DIRECTLY by them). We directly choose who will represent us by a direct vote, and they indirectly vote for us (represent us) on any issues of law. If enough of our representatives are behind a certain issue (and if, of course, it's not unconstitutional) than Congress, who is direcly appointed by the citizens, always has the last say. Hence "directly represents the will of the people" not "supreme power exercised directly by the people." I think you're arguing with yourself on that one.

I totally agree, on the other, hand with your second statement. Keep in mind, though, that if you "support our troops" by protesting our involvment, you take away their purpose. Sometimes our purpose was the only thing we had. The last thing a young soldier wants to hear after he loses a friend in battle, is that his friend died for oil, or for no reason, or for President Bush's bank account. So if that is your opinion, keep it to yourself. It hurts more than you know. Most could care less if you support us, so long as you support our cause. It's called selfless sevice.

Now, what I disagree with, is that this is supporting the troops:

From #38
"The problem for many is that, if they doubt the policies in Iraq they are in danger of realizing they have been duped and used, the personal consequences of such a realization are troubling, but I will leave that for now."

On the bright side, you and Phil can save some money and split the cost of that dictionary.

Jose S.: Sometimes the truth hurts. Doesn't mean you should stick your head in the sand.

Jonesy and Ron- I ready when you guys are.

We aren't playing any of that Wii crap though.

-D.

RE: #96

Nintendo Games???

That is so 1996.

You better not look at the games available for PS3 and XBOX360. Your head might explode.

Re: #114

"We directly choose who will represent us by a direct vote, and they indirectly vote for us (represent us) on any issues of law."

I am afraid you are only half right. While the congress and senate are elected as you state. The electoral college votes for the president and have elected on several occasions the candidate with fewer popular votes. The most recent time this happened was in 2000. That's right if the people directly elected the president W would never had become president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

Mario,
Not sure what truth you're referring to. Not sure if you do either. Please expand. You refer to my head being in the sand, but it seems like you're trying to get a shot in from the sidelines by being too vague, hoping I won't respond.

Maximus,
It's sort of like a reading comprehension test; you must read thoroughly, and re-read if necessary (and obviously it is). I was referring to congress. You're right about how it works; it just has nothing to do with my post. And for the record, each individual state has never voted against the population. That happens at the federal level when, for example, one candidate wins by one vote in each of 49 states, winning the election, but the other wins by 50 votes in the other state (just to keep the numbers simple). He has one more vote, but still loses, because, if he won, that would take away the voice of the other 49 states.

P.S. It's hard to type after those pull-ups.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623

Mario, LMAO

Head in the sand? What is that supposed to mean?

LOL

Joe & Vanessa ran in foothills. Joe for ~40 min and Vanessa for ~26 min

Joe & Vanessa ran in foothills. Joe for ~40 min and Vanessa for ~26 min

Hi Jose,
enjoyed your comments in #83 and needed to take a break from the grind at work so wrote you a response. Hope it inspires further lively discussion.

Bought a dictionary today, it is a slow read, just got to "abacus."

OK brother, I will respond even though I am busy, but you seem interested in entering the fray of political debate, let me clarify a few things:

1. I don’t think you are stupid, I don’t know you, please don’t take disagreement as an attack on your person. I was drawn to your comment because you stated you pitied someone who disagreed with your politics, even if you don’t agree with the dissenters, don’t malign them or pity them, we need them to keep politicians honest. Soldiers need them to ensure their lives are not wasted.

2. I am impressed by you ability to use a dictionary, now before we get into more serious political discussions (which should be allowed and encouraged btw) lets expand the library. Also, and I hate to be a stickler here, your definition of melodrama exactly characterizes the point I was trying to make, I am going to ask you to try to see why that is so, without belabouring the point. What if I were trying to point out the folly of the US current policy in Iraq and I stated that no one could argue with my condemnation of the war if they heard the dying breath of an Iraqi boy with his legs blown off by a smart bomb, as he damned America to hell for killing innocents?

Would that be persuasive, or would that be… now wait for it: “ not observing the laws of cause and effect and exaggerating emotion at the expense of characterization.” As your diligent research into a dictionary revealed. It would most certainly be a melodramatic device, just as it is when you used the same technique. There are many causes and effects in a conflict, singling out a few dramatic examples and maintaining that they characterize the entire spectrum of the debate is melodramatic, trust me on this one. Btw, telling someone to buy a dictionary is not that cool, nor effective at making your point, especially when it turns out you are a bit off base is your assertion.

3. You questioned my respect for your service; I am sad that you start from the position that if I disagree with your politics I must not support the troops. You see I have 11 years of Infantry/Airborne experience, have served in numerous war zones, spilled blood, cleaned up the bodies of innocents and buried no less than 5 close buddies lost to hostile fire.

You could not be farther from the truth in your assumption, you must ask why this is your immediate response. Is it a defence mechanism along the lines of the classic statement “you are either with us or against us.” Such an approach asserts that someone else cannot dare disagree with your position without offending your beliefs.

That is the approach of the fundamentalists, whether they are religious or political, “only our version of the truth is valid, all others are wrong or evil.” Curiosity, doubt and analysis require us to depart from certainty in order to learn and grow.

“Supporting the troops” for me, means that the citizenry, through vigorous debate and research ensures that political masters don’t send our troops to fight, kill and die for misguided policy reasons, this is the duty of all citizens, because history shows that those in no danger of dying are quite happy to send others in to do their dirty work. Why are many combat veterans coming out against the war? They are not cowards; they know good men die because of civilians who think it is easy to solve regional conflicts with armies.

They want you to blame the media, because it threatens their hold on the truth. We are the ones burying our friends and carrying the burdens of combat, while they get limo rides to the office and talk tough.

3. Brother we are all just soldier’s doing what we are told, we hope like hell there is a reason for it, but lets be serious, human history tells us that most soldiers die for the interests of the rich and powerful back home. They need us to believe the crap about freedom so that we continue to do what we are told on foreign soil often against the interests of the resident population. There are very few soldiers of competing armies who didn’t think god was on their side, that theirs was the right cause.

Doesn’t that spark the tiniest element of doubt, that maybe, it is not the citizens who question government policy who are disloyal. Perhaps those that send armies to occupy for fiscal motivations and sell it as moralism have some blame in the whole thing. They purposely whip up patriotic fervour to get people to join, leave their families and go to some shit hole across the globe in the name of freedom. While they, and their families lunch at the country club and very few of their kids put a uniform on.

That is why the draft changed the Vietnam debate, because as soon as someone’s kid is in danger of being drafted they start to take notice and once the upper class kids might get touched then the calls start to get made to the elected representatives, as long as it is mostly the lower class doing the fighting, the upper class is good with it.

4. My point about being duped, and it wasn’t directed directly at you, but I can see how it could come across that way, sorry for that. I was speaking more of a populace duped by the simplicity of the message, for example: we are good, they are bad, freedom is good, they need freedom, therefore we kill upwards of 50 000 innocent civilians, lose 2500 friendly dead and tens of thousands badly wounded to save them. Somewhere that has to give you pause for reflection, but that is my point, that first element of doubt is the most dangerous to your convictions, to let it in means that there is a risk that the belief system comes crashing down.

If we aren’t there for freedom, then what are we there for, and if we aren’t there for freedom, then why are my buddies dying, why did I have to shoot up that vehicle with a family in it who misunderstood the checkpoint rules, these are heavy ass questions. So, for our own sanity we must believe we are there for the right reasons, or else what are we? Do you see what I am trying to say, once committed we are almost forced to stay the course, even if it means complete failure and many more dead. I am for changing the course if it is the wrong one, and it has nothing to do with an Iraqi old lady thanking me for fixing her well.

I can only speak for Afghanistan, but when they were selecting targets for bombing runs, the powers that be decided that killing 4 innocent civilians was permissible in order to get one Taliban fighter. So when we got info from the SF guys, who got info from tribal contacts that the 2 Taliban where in a safe house in a village and the only munitions we could use to hit it would also kill the people in the bordering houses, we did our calculation and whammo, 8 family members turned in to ash. Never mind that often the tribal contacts were using us to fight their battles by feeding us bad information, never mind we underestimated how many non-combatants were in each house (on average 7 instead of 4), our bombs were killing innocents. That affects the population, very soon, we are not liberators, how long do we stay? These are tough questions that need debate, not blind obedience.

6. When you say the US has spilled blood on many foreign soils I ponder. This is what empires do, British, Ottoman, Roman, Prussian, Zulu, Greek, Spartan. They all sold their conquests to their own people as wars of liberation; they were for the most part expansionist policies in the struggle for power. And my friend, no one does anything for free, to say the US never asks anything in return is political naiveté in the extreme. Lets look at Somalia, 14 Rangers killed and the US is out of there, despite the huge need for military aid, why didn’t they stay, why do we stay in Iraq, figure it out, it has nothing to do with good deeds, it has to do qwith national interests.

Check out the book, “The Party’s Over.” It will change your life, our world is entering a global energy struggle for the last remaining cheap energy, oil, now don’t get me wrong, I like our lifestyle, so if we have to secure energy lets do it, but perhaps there are better ways than spending billions fighting wars in the middle east to do it. When you are finished with the dictionary, a great read while in theatre is “The Peloponnesian Wars” by Thucydides. The parallels to present day politics are astounding and the book was written a few thousand years ago.

Trust me, even if you think I am a moron, these books are excellent food for thought, but I warn you, if you have the courage to read them they will change your life, you will begin to doubt, and that is the beginning of real freedom.

7. Republics turn into empires, but here’s a secret; they don’t announce it to their populations, they like them to keep thinking everything is the same, so they occupy them with circuses (TV), nationalism, bumper stickers, flag waving and sound bites, and they encourage their citizens to pity those who do not believe….

100 hundred years later history tells a different story.

Thanks for the debate, I purposely posted this on the discussion board, I am trying to score points, and I am interested in name calling. I just thought your response was worthy of a retort.

Keep your head down. Pro Patria.

Phil

Hi Jose, enjoyed your comments and needed to take a break from the grind at work so wrote you a response, even though I was busy. Hope it inspires further lively discussion.

Bought a dictionary today, it is a slow read, just got to "abacus."

You seem interested in entering the fray of political debate, let me clarify a few things:

1. I don’t think you are stupid, I don’t know you, please don’t take disagreement as an attack on your person. I was drawn to your comment because you stated you pitied someone who disagreed with your politics, even if you don’t agree with the dissenters, don’t malign them or pity them, we need them to keep politicians honest. Soldiers need them to ensure their lives are not wasted.

2. I am impressed by you ability to use a dictionary, now before we get into more serious political discussions (which should be allowed and encouraged btw) lets expand the library. Also, and I hate to be a stickler here, your definition of melodrama exactly characterizes the point I was trying to make, I am going to ask you to try to see why that is so, without belabouring the point. What if I were trying to point out the folly of the US current policy in Iraq and I stated that no one could argue with my condemnation of the war if they heard the dying breath of an Iraqi boy with his legs blown off by a smart bomb, as he damned America to hell for killing innocents?

Would that be persuasive, or would that be… now wait for it: “ not observing the laws of cause and effect and exaggerating emotion at the expense of characterization.” As your diligent research into a dictionary revealed. It would most certainly be a melodramatic device, just as it is when you used the same technique. There are many causes and effects in a conflict, singling out a few dramatic examples and maintaining that they characterize the entire spectrum of the debate is melodramatic, trust me on this one. Btw, telling someone to buy a dictionary is not that cool, nor effective at making your point, especially when it turns out you are a bit off base is your assertion.

3. You questioned my respect for your service; I am sad that you start from the position that if I disagree with your politics I must not support the troops. You see I have 11 years of Infantry/Airborne experience, have served in numerous war zones, spilled blood, cleaned up the bodies of innocents and buried no less than 5 close buddies lost to hostile fire.

You could not be farther from the truth in your assumption, you must ask why this is your immediate response. Is it a defence mechanism along the lines of the classic statement “you are either with us or against us.” Such an approach asserts that someone else cannot dare disagree with your position without offending your beliefs.

That is the approach of the fundamentalists, whether they are religious or political, “only our version of the truth is valid, all others are wrong or evil.” Curiosity, doubt and analysis require us to depart from certainty in order to learn and grow.

“Supporting the troops” for me, means that the citizenry, through vigorous debate and research ensures that political masters don’t send our troops to fight, kill and die for misguided policy reasons, this is the duty of all citizens, because history shows that those in no danger of dying are quite happy to send others in to do their dirty work. Why are many combat veterans coming out against the war? They are not cowards; they know good men die because of civilians who think it is easy to solve regional conflicts with armies.

They want you to blame the media, because it threatens their hold on the truth. We are the ones burying our friends and carrying the burdens of combat, while they get limo rides to the office and talk tough.

3. Brother we are all just soldier’s doing what we are told, we hope like hell there is a reason for it, but lets be serious, human history tells us that most soldiers die for the interests of the rich and powerful back home. They need us to believe the crap about freedom so that we continue to do what we are told on foreign soil often against the interests of the resident population. There are very few soldiers of competing armies who didn’t think god was on their side, that theirs was the right cause.

Doesn’t that spark the tiniest element of doubt, that maybe, it is not the citizens who question government policy who are disloyal. Perhaps those that send armies to occupy for fiscal motivations and sell it as moralism have some blame in the whole thing. They purposely whip up patriotic fervour to get people to join, leave their families and go to some hole across the globe in the name of freedom. While they, and their families lunch at the country club and very few of their kids put a uniform on.

That is why the draft changed the Vietnam debate, because as soon as someone’s kid is in danger of being drafted they start to take notice and once the upper class kids might get touched then the calls start to get made to the elected representatives, as long as it is mostly the lower class doing the fighting, the upper class is good with it.

4. My point about being duped, and it wasn’t directed directly at you, but I can see how it could come across that way, sorry for that. I was speaking more of a populace duped by the simplicity of the message, for example: we are good, they are bad, freedom is good, they need freedom, therefore we kill upwards of 50 000 innocent civilians, lose 2500 friendly dead and tens of thousands badly wounded to save them. Somewhere that has to give you pause for reflection, but that is my point, that first element of doubt is the most dangerous to your convictions, to let it in means that there is a risk that the belief system comes crashing down.

If we aren’t there for freedom, then what are we there for, and if we aren’t there for freedom, then why are my buddies dying, why did I have to shoot up that vehicle with a family in it who misunderstood the checkpoint rules, these are heavy ass questions. So, for our own sanity we must believe we are there for the right reasons, or else what are we? Do you see what I am trying to say, once committed we are almost forced to stay the course, even if it means complete failure and many more dead. I am for changing the course if it is the wrong one, and it has nothing to do with an Iraqi old lady thanking me for fixing her well.

I can only speak for Afghanistan, but when they were selecting targets for bombing runs, the powers that be decided that killing 4 innocent civilians was permissible in order to get one Taliban fighter. So when we got info from the SF guys, who got info from tribal contacts that the 2 Taliban where in a safe house in a village and the only munitions we could use to hit it would also kill the people in the bordering houses, we did our calculation and whammo, 8 family members turned in to ash. Never mind that often the tribal contacts were using us to fight their battles by feeding us bad information, never mind we underestimated how many non-combatants were in each house (on average 7 instead of 4), our bombs were killing innocents. That affects the population, very soon, we are not liberators, how long do we stay? These are tough questions that need debate, not blind obedience.

6. When you say the US has spilled blood on many foreign soils I ponder. This is what empires do, British, Ottoman, Roman, Prussian, Zulu, Greek, Spartan. They all sold their conquests to their own people as wars of liberation; they were for the most part expansionist policies in the struggle for power. And my friend, no one does anything for free, to say the US never asks anything in return is political naiveté in the extreme. Lets look at Somalia, 14 Rangers killed and the US is out of there, despite the huge need for military aid, why didn’t they stay, why do we stay in Iraq, figure it out, it has nothing to do with good deeds, it has to do qwith national interests.

Check out the book, “The Party’s Over.” It will change your life, our world is entering a global energy struggle for the last remaining cheap energy, oil, now don’t get me wrong, I like our lifestyle, so if we have to secure energy lets do it, but perhaps there are better ways than spending billions fighting wars in the middle east to do it. When you are finished with the dictionary, a great read while in theatre is “The Peloponnesian Wars” by Thucydides. The parallels to present day politics are astounding and the book was written a few thousand years ago.

Trust me, even if you think I am a moron, these books are excellent food for thought, but I warn you, if you have the courage to read them they will change your life, you will begin to doubt, and that is the beginning of real freedom.

7. Republics turn into empires, but here’s a secret; they don’t announce it to their populations, they like them to keep thinking everything is the same, so they occupy them with circuses (TV), nationalism, bumper stickers, flag waving and sound bites, and they encourage their citizens to pity those who do not believe….

100 hundred years later history tells a different story.

Thanks for the debate, I purposely posted this on the discussion board, I am trying to score points, and I am interested in name calling. Oh, and I thought your response was worthy of a retort.

Keep your head down. Pro Patria.

Phil

Phil,
Wow, I was going to read "The Party's Over," but I read your post instead. Did it take all 2 days to write? And I thought #83 was too long; I guess not. I appreciate your humor; I hope you appreciate mine as well.
-Jose

P.S. Good thing for my dictionary skills, or else I would've never known what "belabouring" meant.

Jose (#114),

Fair enough, I gave you too little credit on your use of republic. However, republic has both broader and narrower definitions than the one you gave in #114. What I really take issue with is that the Federal government of the USA (in any of the branches, but let's say Congress) "directly represents the will of the people".

I do not grant that it is a direct representation.

It is a VERY indirect manifestation of the will of the people. Indirect enough to be considered merely a shadow of the will of the people. When you vote for President, you pick between two choices (unless you are in the small percent voting "3rd" party) who have a whole platform of decisions already decided. Perhaps I agree with 60% of candidate 1 and 40% of candidate 2. In that case, I vote for candidate 1 and still disagree with 40% of what he believes.

"Sometimes our purpose was the only thing we had"

And this is why servicemen and women will be more likely to believe that they are there for the best possible reasons. And they may be. But they may also be there for the worst possible. Most likely, they are there for some of the good reasons and, hopefully, less of the bad reasons.

Look, for the solider, sailor, airmen and Marine ... you don't get to choose where you go. That you go is a fact of life. Why you go is known only to those in higher pay grades. All you can do is uphold yourself with dignity and honor. Not all servicemen and women do. But those that do are worthy of -- and have my -- greatest respect.

Regards,
Mark

Dudes, serious posts considering the party is way over.

Come over to Dan's. I've got high score on Excite Bike much to Jonsey's chagrin.