Today's rest day topic: Liberal Racism

To echo a comment made on our previous rest day, I'd like to point out that this just another fine example of "generally designed provocation". Nice work Glassman.

Find out if you are a racist:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

(if you accept there methodology)

It's admirable how you've learned to cope with the guy who's forcing you to come to the site Donald E.

If the study bothers you, then remember orrelation does not equal causation. In God We Trust, all others bring data. Etc etc. Just parot the same tripe that people on this site say when you tell them about global warming.

I know I'm a racist. I could care less. I have a constitutional right to be a racist.

Thankyou, Thankyou, for the link to mobil divices and the text only page. Now I'm gonna be "refreshing" my phone at work regularly..........

BTW, We are all prejudice. How many people can honestly say that they do not feel superior in some small way to every other human being on the planet.

It's kinda like anger. Just because you are experiencing the emotion of anger does not mean it has to be expressed in a hostile, agressive, abusive, demeaning, or explosive way.

We can choose to channel all our emotional energies for the positive benefits of everyone.

LETS ALL PLAY NICE AND CROSSFIT HARD.
Cheers

Nice Jag.

Where is the photo taken?

My knee is back on-line. Weak muscles, but squating BW, and working with lighter weights on the Oly lifts, with no knee soreness.

I really enjoyed the optimal performance article most of it was straight forward and made alot of sense but knowing how to get into these states with mental training will give you amazing results, guaranteed. An article that is very useful for Crossfit training, all i need to do is get into the zone for the 20min round workouts and ill be laughing, thanks for the article, i enjoyed it.

How do you sign up for the WOD for phone?

The political commentary:

Everything is open to debate. If someone can't accept opinions as that, then we are no longer in a free country. The process of questioning any of the most sacrocant beliefs uncovers many false assumptions.

I often stop and wonder about the motive either side has in labeling postions as racist, or pro abortion or anti gun or any of the other buzz words. What is the base intention of such labeling. What is trying to be accomplished? Is the agenda one world totalitarian government controlled by a few elite or is it to break through social morrays that inhibit progress?

My opinion is: Everything should be questioned and debated. If ideas are no longer valid, then it will be revealed as such and disposed of. If an idea continues to be supported, then it remains valid and in productive use. (I am a capitalist)

I admire Coach for posting controversial ideas, policy and opinions. The discussion that follow is alway enlightening.

Don E: I hope you enjoy the debate that follows.

#1 Donald E.,

To echo comments made on previous rest days, if you dont like what is put on the site, dont come here. Coach Glassman and the rest of the fine people here have presented us with a FREE and amazing workout regimen. Be thankful for it.

I prefer to think of myself as a generalist who takes individual traits into considration. Tigers in general attack humans from behind. Individually some may attack from the front or not attack humans at all. But it would be foolish not to recognize that tigers attack humans. The ability to group is an IQ factor.

#3 and #9 So are you telling me that if I don't agree with the articles, and hold my own belief as to the motivation of Glassman's choice of articles, that I should just go away?

Ryan, #2,

It's an interesting test but I doubt it's validity. The test uses the terms "good" and "bad" and presupposes the terms that accompany them are uniformly considered good and bad. I also fail to see what proof there is that the speed component of the test offers a true assessment of opinion. It seems like a way to artificially manipulate results.

Prochargedmopar, #5,

Well said. It seems terms like "racist" are used as an automatic judgement of a persons character; a witch hunt. Frankly, I'm far more impressed by someone who can tolerate or even befriend someone who offends his senses than the person who does the same for someone against whom they have nothing. That doesn't make his sense of offense "right" but it sure makes his actions right.

On a side note, I'll relate a funny story that has stuck with me. I'm not saying it applies to anyone here! An older gentleman I knew used to work in Alabama when George Wallace (an avowed Segregationist) was running for Governor. He was watching the news and saw an African-American gentleman interviewed who stated he was voting for Wallace. When the astonished reporter asked him why he was voting for a Segregationist, he replied, "I'd rather vote for the snake I can see." Probably not the most politically savvy move, but amusing.

Of course liberals are more racist than conservatives and libertarians. Who needs a study for that? After all liberals came up with racial quotas and called it Affirmative Action. Apartheid is what they called minority preferences in South Africa, but here in the good ole USA it's a national policy defended to the death by race mongers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It's evil, it's wrong, it's amoral.

The Optimal Performance article is excellent and is a great fit to CrossFit insistence on perfecting technique in every movement. Only when the technique is grooved to the point of almost being instinct can you get into a zone of performing without thinking.

My own limited experiences of being in the zone were transcendent, and addictive. And they always occurred when I was very fit, and in games that were very closely contested, and then only when the contest was well under way and the game was on the line. I think that truly great athletes like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods have the ability to go into the zone almost at will, and I'm enormously envious of that.

Donald E., I'd say that you have two reasonable grownup paths to choose from:

1. Read the article, develop an opinion about it and then defend that opinion in an adult manner.

2. Realize that rest day articles often have a pronounced libertarian/conservative viewpoint; if you don't like that fact, stay away on rest days. Everyone knows they come around every fourth day. Are you one of those people that must have conflict? If you know the article is gonna piss you off, why are you coming around and reading it?

It's unreasonable to act in a condescending manner ("Nice work Glassman") towards a man and organization that provide not only the table (the site) but the meal (the WODs) as well. Your attitude/response is like that of a bum going to a soup kitchen for a free meal, then complaining about what's being served.

Mr. Glassman's motivations are not up for debate...the article is...and his generosity can't be disputed. If you can't accept and deal with that, perhaps you belong somewhere else.

I think the workout is getting the equipment on to the mountain.

#8 and others: The PDA WOD is not a subscription. Simply a mobile-device-consumable web page. You'll have to hit the page to get the WOD.

Wow, that's quite the picture. I can't imagine trying a WOD up there, nice work!!

Cool picture! Is that Lake Louis, Banf, or Jasper Alberta? Go Oilers Go!

#14 Jim

Thank you so much for providing me with my "grownup" options. I'm not sure I would have known what I could do otherwise. Thank you as well for inviting me to leave if I don't share the "pronounced libertarian/conservative viewpoint". I haven't even stated my position on the article itself yet, and because I'm noting that the article is yet another example of dropping a conservative bomb, you're inviting me to leave. Is that how you like to work?

As far as my condescending manner goes, I am only using a tone and attitude similar to that which I (and others) received from Mr Glassman on previous rest day discussions. If Mr. Glassman has a problem with me, I'm sure he is fully capable of asking me to leave himself.

And finally, when were you put in charge of framing the debate or specifying what gets discussed here? I must have missed that post.

#19 Donald E
No one put #14 Jim in charge of framing the debate, and no one has to. This is a community where every fourth day you are free to read, or not read the rest day post and comment on it. As such, we all get a chance to "frame the debate." Debate & discussion are what's called for. If you see the faults in the posts and can improve on them then do so. If you can only take pot shots at the man providing you with the world's best exercise site, for FREE, then skip it.
#13 Dan McD is right. Welfare reform is more evidence of this. Isn't the best thing for the underprivledged to help them up, or is it better to fight reform and simply give them enough to be a persistent underclass?

I'll bite on the Liberal Racism article...

Only a fringe group on the edges of sanity believe that GWB consciously withheld aid to Katrina victims in New Orleans because they were black. However many do believe that it was a total governmental blunder and as the addage goes, "the buck stops here." GWB is of course going to share blame.

Just because Kanye West gets on national television and spouts more hate than GWB shows does not mean that main stream "liberals" or "leftists" believe it.

What this article should mention is that political pundits jump and bite at every scrap that reinforces a two party political dichotomy or a leftist-rightist paradigm. Nobody with two brain cells to rub together can buy into this crap.

Can someone tell me how I can use the links posted to show up on my cell phone so I can get the WOD without finding a computer?

BW = 169 lbs

June 10, 2006
Saturday 060610
Barbell Thruster 3-2-2-2-1-1-1-1-1-1 reps
Posted on Wednesday 060614

Today:
95 -> 170 (new pr!)

donald, try getting laid every now and then....coach keep up the good work!

Ken:

Your phone needs to have some kind of web browsing ability. If it has that, then point your phone browser at:

http://www.crossfit.com/pdawod.html

Sounds like you may have been thinking about the WOD delivered to your phone via SMS text messaging. That doesn't exist, but it's worth looking into for the future.

#24 I gotta tell you Charlie, I've been married 18 years, so you know how that goes.

#18
My guess is that it's closer to Calgary than Edmonton, so probably Canmore or Banff. I'd like to know, myself! Although I just looked at the pic again and it could be that they staged it near the side of the road between Banff and Jasper, which is an absolutely beautiful stretch of highway.

Honest question here... is being absolutely rude and being unable to respect conservatives and their views and their respectful disagreement with the counter-party's views, just a part of being a liberal?

I know there are good respectable liberals out there, but the ones who just let loose, due to whatever their motivation, are giving liberals a bad name the same way the fred phelps' people (westboro baptist church) are giving christians a bad name.

Skipped wod on Sunday - Went SURFING instead for 2 hours. Great waves at Diamond Head here on Oahu. Supposed to be even bigger Monday. I'll do Sunday's then and surf for the remainder of the "rest" day :)

Wow. Fascinating article on liberalism and racism. (For all of you who are offended by it, I just want to point out there are TWO other articles you can comment on...)

I looked up Franklin Gilliam and found this:
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/menu/people/faculty/franklin_gilliam.php

Sorry, boys and girls, the guy teaches with Al Gore. Also, if you look at the website for the organization he founded, you will see he is much more interested in responses to Hurricane Katrina based on the race of those surveyed.
http://uclaccc.ucla.edu/katrina.htm

When looking at the data, it stated that of the 2300 people surveyed, only 276 were Republicans. Hardly a representative sample.

I'm also not entirely convinced that the research points to bias based specifically on race. The research indicated that exposure to news stories on looting caused people to associate hurricane victims with criminals. Since most of those pictured on television happened to be people of color, is it really all that surprising that the majority of people surveyed were less likely to want to give money to those they perceived as criminals? I think the research is more indicative of news coverage influencing people's perception of the victims than it is of racism. Why is it "racist" when liberals are less likely to want to give as much money to people they perceive as criminals, but racial profiling (mostly advocated by Republicans) is not considered racist? You can't have it both ways. Either generalizations based on race IN SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES is racist, or it isn't.

As far as the article posted, it seemed to imply that the research based on people in the U.S. would easily cross over to those in Australia, Europe, etc. which there is just no proof for. Also the article stated that Republicans "were not influenced by race at all"-- so does that mean 0% of Republicans were influenced by race? Would have been more plausible to say that they were less likely to be influenced by race.

Also the study indicated that even with the race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans. I thought it was a cheap shot when the article stated that liberals were "keen on giving away other people's money"--last I checked, liberals AND conservatives were giving away thousands of dollars of their own money in donations, as well as their time. I know I did. And we all pay taxes... Also, Republicans were willing to give out $10,800 of "other people's money," about half as much as Independents and Democrats.

As an Independent, I didn't appreciate being lumped in with Democrats. lol

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060701177.html
for more info

Great liberal whitewash

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Ask for the boundary conditions, the confidence level, and who funded the poll before trusting any statistics that you see.

Optimal performance:

Then for athelets that compete against opponents or on teams, your best performer may be one that can flip back and forth between flow state and being in the zone with relative ease (e.g., change tactics to put the opponent "on their heels")?

Wow, so all liberals believe in affirmative action and no conservatives do? Talk about sweeping generalizations... What about Arthur Fletcher, the so-called "father of affirmative action" who advised four Republican presidents? Was he a racist? Just curious.

I apologize in advance for writing a whole book!! Just had a lot of thoughts on this one.

My $.02 on the article on peak performance. Wow, what a great article.

1. I read the book that they kept mentioning, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, and although it's been ten years I still remember a key component of the book that the article left out when they wrote that "peak performances occur when skill level matches demands and challenges"--the book actually stated that peak performance occurs when the demands and challenges are ever so slightly beyond one's skill level. It has to be challenging enough to not be boring, so slightly above your skill level, but if it's too challenging, you get overwhelmed (I believe the word they used was "anxiety" and that there was a pretty chart and everything.) This is something that probably every coach (or teacher) can understand; the idea of pushing somebody, but not too much... or giving them just a little more than they can confidently handle... hitting them just a little harder (in martial arts), etc. etc.

2. I will respectfully disagree that the need to look things up eliminates "zone" or "flow" state, and that task irrelevant distractions must be minimized. Perhaps looking things up can be a part of a task, and some people tend to work better with a plethora of distractions, sometimes for the challenge, see #1.

3. I will agree that letting go of distractions, internal chatter, etc. is very important though. For me this often comes in the form of voices in my head that tell me how much I suck at whatever it is I'm trying to do. I do think that the idea of isolating one's self from critics is both unrealistic (since they often come from within) and unnecessary (since it's much more useful to just learn not to let other people manipulate your emotions.) I think meditation is really helpful with this.

4. The idea of helping others is awesome. Almost everyone I've talked to (which admittedly is a small amount of people and merely anecdotal, but whatever) who has had a "zone" or "flow" experience, says they were doing it for someone else. Whether this is like my buddy who won a soccer game because he was playing for his brother (who had a broken leg and was watching in the sidelines) or something more important than children's games...like the soldier who is thinking about his family back home before acting heroically, my guess is that this egolessness is NECESSARY for peak performance. I'm certainly no expert on peak performance, but I know that my best run times have come when I thought of running as a prayer, and sweating as my sacrifice. I'm sure if I was running to catch game so my family wouldn't starve, I'd run faster still.

5. Ironic that self-confidence is what athletes need to succeed, since I feel that athletics are what CREATE confidence, and not necessarily winning either... I read a study once upon a time that showed that women who were in high school sports teams had higher confidence... will have to look it up sometime. Somehow I feel like having functional fitness ability (e.g. knowing you can run to get help, or can lift something heavy if you need to) is a better confidence builder than sports... Not sure though. I guess my experience is different because the only sport I do right now is martial arts. I train with a group of guys who can kick my ass quite easily (most of 'em anyway) and yet I feel like just by the act of training my confidence has increased tremendously. I'd love to be able to tap out technical guys who are three times my size, but I'm not going to lose too much sleep over it if I can't, knowing that I've got a much higher chance at beating untrained fighters in real life...but this is perhaps an awful example, because I guess the idea of running faster than an untrained person probably won't excite people too much. Heh.

6. Mental rehearsal--I continue to be amazed at how well this works. One time I couldn't train in a technique for a whole week (working too much) and just visualized it, and it worked. The idea of being able to do things that aren't memorized and rehearsed (physically or internally) and to respond appropriately to whatever the situation dictates, though... whole 'nother story...

7. Anyone happen to know where one can take the attentional and interpersonal study inventory? I want to see how I score. :)

Anyone using those VTX plates pictured in today's photo? Can anyone describe their construction?

We need to becarefull... The world may come to know our Conservative secret. And once the truth is known, who knows what kind of Anarchy will erupt... Cats and dogs getting along, the press telling the truth(The whole truth), people who only post on rest day start actully doing the WODs and posting their scores. I don't know if I can live in a society like that.

love this web site!
good for ur mind and body.

Good work on the mobile devices links. Keep up the good work.

Read Blink http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316172324/sr=8-1/qid=1154339794/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8241442-2572960?ie=UTF8 for an interesting and insightful take on racism (Only one of the topics covered).

I'm going to keep my opinions to myself on the article about racism. Great debate, but, for me, one better left to a one-on-one conversation.

As for the article on optimal performance, what a great piece. Surprising that no one has yet mentioned the correlation between flow and zone as it relates to military training. Only through multiple rehearsals can troops get into the zone when it matters most - combat. This obviously starts in boot camp/OCS and progresses to higher level unit tactics. It always amazed me how many times I could push my NCOs to do drills over and over again to perfection. I wonder now, in light of the flow discussion, what effect higher ranks have on a transition, if any, from a zone state to a flow state. I know I don't want the battalion commander in the zone when he needs to think about the bigger picture (i.e. flow state), yet I want my lieutenants and NCOs leading the charge - and in the zone. At what point, if any, is there a transition? Almost like someone who's been an elite athlete and now coaches others. Is the thought process different? I would say that it is and that it needs to be.

Liberals don't need to be on the defensive, b/c they aren't in charge of anything. If you choose to support the wallstreet crew, you loose your claim to underdog status. You are not being victimized by the evil libertarian army.

So what if liberals are racist. Freedom of thought is a pillar of liberalism. And liberal organisation have been known to defend racist organisation's right to be racist. The article's attack on how "the liberal" thinks about an issue is a neat demonstration of facism. I think George Orwell called it "the thought-police". It's not ironic that liberals are racist. It's an expression of their liberalism. The writer is calling a liberal ... a liberal.

Geographical borders are a lot more meaningless than race. At least race is a real thing. You can see it on a person. Countries are merely an abstract name on a piece of paper. Yet we are supposed to sing at flags according to this geographical location, and pay them money to the privilage. We are told to be proud of the geographical location, yet we are not allowed to be proud of our race. Something that is a more substantial part of our being. If you want to abolish racism in your facist state, then you have to take patriotism with it. And any other form of social organisation that does not submit to the authority of the economic leaders.

I'm not a white supremist myself, but I will defend others right to be. And I will defend people's right to sing at a flag, or not. I won't let anyone tell me, or others, what to think. I won't let the writer of the article pressure me into hiding my libertarism, out of fear of being labeled a racist by association.

I was thinking about the text messaging too for the WOD. The PDA link works great on my phone so the text messaging would not be needed unless I was out of my digital service area. (Verizon) If I'm ever that far out in the bush I'll just grab a tree limb or go chasing bear..............True Paleo style.

Independent of my views on the subject matter addressed in the 'liberal racism' article, I wonder why such an incediary, low-quality piece of journalism would be posted. There is almost no information given on the nature of the study, no validation for where this $1500 race threshold comes from. It's just a lame anti-liberal attack, and hardly a 'thought-provoking' rest day piece. All it seems good for is starting fights.
How about a rest day piece on art history, or the economic modernization of China?

I would post my two cents, but right now, all my thoughts are focused on how I'm going to convince my girlfriend to give me a massage. After yesterday's WOD, I feel like someone beat the crap out of my Traps with a baseball bat.

Got some.

#42 - well said, I was going there. I'm a self-acknowledged liberal (usually), but I'm open to discussion about these issues. I didn't think this article was valuable, though; it presented vague findings without factual support. It's hard to defend your position when you're being called a bad person. What do you say to something like that?

I disagree with some conservative viewpoints, but that doesn't make me an unpatriotic america-hating racist bleeding-heart communist. I just have different opinions on the role of government.

Donald E #1,

On the subject of “generally designed provocation”:

I think it was in the mid nineties that I first heard that protein entanglements were found in the brains of Alzheimer’s sufferers. These entanglements were eventually identified as “advanced glycosylated end-products” or AGE’s. They are caramelized proteins – proteins permanently bound to sugar.

To those of us following the rising specter of hyperinsulinism we at once recognized the process of glycosylation of hemoglobin as being the mechanism by which cells contribute to the receptor down-grade phenomenon that is hyperinsulinism, the root cause of coronary heart disease (CHD) among other health horrors. (Thus the significance and importance of the HGA1C blood test)

Excessive carbohydrate consumption abnormally elevates blood sugar ultimately glycosylating proteins. Fact.

Robb Wolf and I have been asking clinicians for more than a decade to ask the family of Alzheimer’s victims to describe the eating habits of their afflicted loved ones. We did, and the answers were astounding. This is anecdotal, but nonetheless empirical which is how clinicians find much of their most important knowledge and responsibly shape their practices. (Thousands upon thousands of physicians had noticed for at least a century before studies confirmed that primary lung cancer, lung cancer originating in the lungs, was only very rarely found in non-smokers.) We specifically raised the specter of a link between Alzheimer’s and excessive blood sugar in the CrossFit Journal in November of ’02 and November ’03.

The increasing rate of Alzheimer’s incidence, about a 6% increase annually, is interestingly a close match to other hyperinsulinism mediated phenomena collectively referred to as Syndrome X or metabolic derangement. (There’s more too – the reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s in those on NSAID regimens is also consistent with our suspicions of hyperinsulinism mediated Alzheimer’s.)

Could it be, we asked, that Alzheimer’s is another manifestation of hyperinsulinism? We’ve linked here today to some current research that supports that possibility.

This is provocative, no? Could it create anger, derision, and hurt feelings among some? Yes, I’ve seen it and been the target of those hurt feelings. The reactions I’ve seen to suggesting something is wrong with the party line on nutrition and exercise are not different in venom, fevered pitch, or irrationality that we get from suggesting that, say, rent control creates slums or handouts create poverty. This program exists entirely due to my willingness to endure, ignore, hell, even enjoy, charges of apostasy and heresy from the ranks of the faithful.

I ended up in court in the early nineties for discussing and later recommending a balanced diet, i.e., reducing carbohydrate intake from 80% to 50%, while working for a commercial gym running an internationally marketed and promoted nutrition program.

Don E, I’m OK with your anger. I understand that many of the rest day posts challenge beliefs you hold closely and dearly - beliefs that define your very being. I’m sorry for your pain and discomfort but won’t stop pointing out what seems obvious, true or even likely so with some modicum of probability. I’d rather discomfort you and myself with what I perceive to be the truth than massage our egos and belief systems with lies, myths, or theories that are internally inconsistent or contradict trusted data (measurable, observable, repeatable data).

It is in this same spirit that I’ve long wondered how it is that Liberals get a pass on blatant racism while recklessly leveling the charge at anyone that has a problem with socialism. What blatant racism you may ask? Affirmative action is the easy, honest, and unavoidable answer. There’s little as entertaining as listening to the mental gymnastics and slight of hand required of apologists for Affirmative Action. The policy is racist; the justifications for its needs are racist. Its advocates are racists. Anyone want examples of Lefties’ knee-jerk, reckless, and inaccurate leveling of charges of racism? They can readily be found on rest day posts.

For me politics, religion, nutrition, and exercise carry identically charged emotional baggage that souls more timid than I have learned to avoid per the age old advice as to what is proper or not to discuss in mixed or polite company.

Interesting thing being “provocative”, it carries rather positive connotations. Look it up. Compare and contrast by degree the connotations of the words “provoke”, “provocation”, and “provocateur”. There’s a progression from positive to negative. I understand that you don’t see the “provocation” of rest days as being positive. I realize that you see me as a provocateur in the sense of throwing beer bottles at cops from behind the mob in the hopes of drawing fire. You’ve got that wrong, I’m more like the miscreant at the very front of the mob.

Finally, you are welcome here, even if your gripes are incessant and, frankly redundant. No one will make you go away, nor do we wish you to. For better or worse this is your home you will always be welcome – just made very uncomfortable. It is my profound hope that this helps you to relax a bit and open your mind a lot.

THAT's funny. My first thought when I saw 3 articles on divergent topics, was someone is going to pick the political one and whine. I don't have time to do any of the three justice, but did want to relay a story I read in Doris Lessing's "Prisons we choose to live inside".

In a college town, in Anytown, USA (preferably the Midwest, although it isn't specified), renowned faculty members of the Psychology Dept. invite members of the town to a meeting for a research project they want them to participate in. They don't tell them what it's about, just to be at the town square at 10am promptly. Well, a group of several dozen people gather, and 10am comes and goes. They wait half an hour, then start grumbling among themselves. People that haven't seen each other in a while start reviving old hurts, and after a while arguments start. At the point where two people are ready to come to blows, the professors show up, and explain that project was a study in crowd behavior, in the absence of clear directives.

That's the beauty of a Rorschach: you get some idea of what's there, but latent. And it's the same thing here. The proper thing, to me, would be to comment intelligently on one, two, or all three articles. But the same old whining is the first recourse, making it, to me, obvious that was the goal all along.

#42 and 44

You are right the article did not state quotes, dates... to back up his findings, however, if you are a conservative and you pay attention to national and international events it is glaring what the news media puts out on an almost daily basis.

The reaction by the news media and the "victims" that they chose to put on towards Katrina was a sickening display of the worst of people. The media allowed the untrue slandering that Bush is a racist and the conservative attitude has forced these poor "victims" out of their homes. Also there were quite a few Democratic politicians and talking heads that suggested the same.

Democrats did what they do best and that is create "victims." Created a whole class of people who feel picked on and think they have some validity on why they can't do for themselves. Katrina was tragic but the truth is great people rise in these circumstances. The Louisana officials all pointed fingers and blamed humans for a natural disaster. When the going got tough in New Orleans the local and state officials decided to point fingers rather than help the people they are there to serve. When the outside help arrived, 24 hours faster than it arrived for Oklahoma City! they blamed them.

Ryan

There is a free-market answer to those who dislike the product Coach "produces" each Rest Day:

Start your own website and post the stuff YOU would like people to read/debate/learn.

Though I don't agree with a few things he's posted (though, as a Small "l" libertarian, this is infrequent), this is Coach's website and I am free to read, or not read, as I see fit.

And, I could indeed host my own website for counter-views if I wanted.

the Free-Market RULZ! ;)

Just because glassman provides great free workouts on this site doesn't mean that the rest day articles aren't asinine, purposefully incendiary right-wing tripe. If people want to point out that fact, they should be welcome to. Those who jump on anyone who criticizes the articles, or coach's motivations in posting them, seem to be the type who want to create a conservatives-only clique here at crossfit. I think THEY should be the ones to leave.

These articles aren't about "challenging beliefs." They're about conservative yes-fests were all the good ol boys slap each other on the back and go "yeap! those damn dumb liberals! look how dumb they are! good thing we're so much smarter!"

"Your attitude/response is like that of a bum going to a soup kitchen for a free meal, then complaining about what's being served."

Actually, it's more like going to a soup kitchen for a free meal, then complaining when the servers make asinine straw-men arguments belittling your beliefs.

Coach should stick to fitness -- his knowledge of politics and socioeconomic realities is sorely lacking. If he gets blasted here because of it, he deserves it.

It's because I like the idea of rest day articles that I'm going to post again. I think it provides a definite opportunity to expand the minds of crossfitters everywhere, but I think as yet it hasn't been used to it's full potential.

Let me use an allegory to make my point. Let's say, for example, for the next three months Coach posted only powerlifting-based WODs. We'd become disappointed eventually, not because we dislike powerlifting, and not because we are ungrateful to Coach for giving his time to post the workouts, but because Crossfit used to be a more balanced and effective training program. Some of us may like powerlifting best, but others prefer olympic lifts, and hell I bet there's even a few people out there who prefer long distance running. But we all respect the results of each school of training, and value what each can do to help us meet our personal fitness goals.

I feel the same way about the rest day articles. There is some variety, but there is a definite trend towards articles supporting a particular ideology. I'm not opposing the ideology, just as I'm no opposing powerlifting, just saying that I think we could all benefit from some Crossfit-style variety in our 'rest day workouts.'

Maybe there could be a setup involving submissions for the rest day article. Asking Coach to do tons of extra research is a little unreasonable, but there is definitely no shortage of opinions on the boards, and I'm sure at least a few of us have some literature to back them up.

Your assertion that Coach should just stick to fitness and not post is just as asinine as those who blast folks complaining about Coach's choice of articles.

All parties are free to read, or not read, the articles as they see fit. As I state, yet again, everyone is free to start their own website to promote their own ideas and realities.

If coach gets blasted because of his choice of articles because he "deserves" it, then those who complain about his choice of articles are equally deserving of derision since they are free to come and go as they please.

Free Market, baby. Gotta love it.

Oh...and I find it ironic that some of those who complain (on either side of this debate, actually) won't sack up and post their real names and email addresses.

Pussies.

Keep 'em coming Coach.

Thanks everyone else for the input as well. Yes, that means you Donald.

Me #49, I don't think people mind that you may disagree w/ their view, what seems to bother people is when you resort to name calling and bashing instead of providing logical fact based retort. I think the complaining is a little annoying. That is why you may here if you don't like it go somewhere else, but who knows I could be completely wrong. It is just my opinion.

Tim W

I could not agree more with your #51 and I am all for a free market!!

However, I am dying to know what the difference would be if we all did put our real names and e-mails on this page?

Ryan (or is it?)

I for one enjoyed reading the article on liberalism and racism. I felt it was balanced out pretty well regarding what this site is all about with the Alzheimer article and Optimal Performance State article. So anyone who wants to maintain a complete fitness bent can pick and choose which article to expand their horizons on discussing.

I come from a conservative background, but honestly in the last 5 years I would say I have more withdrawn from politics and strong political viewpoints as opposed to trying to prove some or attach myself to some. I won't say this is a planned thing, I've just focused on my own continued education more.

On the racism / liberalism article, I would probably agree that the liberal side gets a free pass on racism, but more from a "that's our world" standpoint. Conservatives probably get their free pass on economic policy, undeservedly. That also is our world.

More and more I wonder why human nature involves the tendency to separate out into two party segragationalism.

I guess I can understand some from Coach's expounding on his experience fighting the status quo in established viewpoints in fitness. There will always be a status quo, and a force working to overthrow the status quo. Many times the greatest human advancements come in the energy to rise up and overcome opposition. Struggle fosters invention.

Kudos on the invention born by struggle that CrossFit represents

Coach #45,

Your Alzheimer's research, while unpopular, is based on scientific data--"measurable, observable, repeatable data"--just like this amazing fitness regimine that has just blown old school physical fitness out of the water.

Your liberal whitewash article, on the other hand, is based on inconclusive data from a study which in itself seems racist (not to mention the small sample size and the large number of variables. In addition, the article (which failed to mention affirmative action even once) was conducted by a HUGE affirmative action proponent, Frank Gilliam. See http://www.discriminations.us/2004/05/how_many.html

What gives?

Ryan (if that's really your name...hehehe),

There is a saying "A man's word is his honor, his honor is his word."

If someone is willing to criticize, but not put his (or her) name to that criticism, what validity does it really have?

IMO, zero.

My point is that to complain about something (either for or against Coach, in this instance), then post an anonymous name/contact info is, IMO, a lack of conviction in one's beliefs.

Take Treelizard, for instance. Though I am certain this isn't his name (actually, I KNOW it's not his name, as he's emailed me previously), he nevertheless puts his contact info on his posts. To me, this demonstrates a certain confidence and conviction in his statements, regardless of my opinion on his writings.

Anyone can post bold opinions, allegations and such on the web, and then hide behind a Cloak of Anonymity.

But what does that say about the intestinal fortitude of the poster?

Does that speak to a strong belief in one's opinions, or merely a way to "hit and run" without suffering any consequences of their posts.

Coach puts his name out there on his beliefs (or at least his Rest Day articles). I and others (on both sides of the debate) put our names behind our opinions.

Others choose to hide.

That is why I call them pussies.

Oops. I stand corrected. Treelizard doesn't post any contact info other than a "coming soon" website.

I was wrong. I apologize.

See, a consequence of taking a stand. If I'd been some anonymous poster, I wouldn't have cared.

TimW,
My website had my name and contact info on it until it got hacked and I'm still trying to get the damn thing back up, not hide behind anonymity. I had my comments on my home computer set to "remember personal info" but just changed it to include my real name and e-mail addy, just for you. Also my full name is all over the crossfit messageboards. And I'm a woman. :p

Thanks Coach for the articles and the comment/response which was enlightening. Apparently, you have some valuable empirical data (albeit anecdotal) in support of the paper in article #1, and I am once again in awe of your breadth of knowledge and intellectual curiosity. As with so many issues regarding nutrition and health, empirical, epidemiological data have been and will likely to continue to be critical in our understanding risks and benefits of various behaviors and choices. Dietary recommendations in particular must rely on epidemiological studies due to the complex, non-uniform nature of human diet and physiology. With the exceptions of captive animals, no other species consumes a diet that varies so significantly from the "natural".

Regarding Article 2 and several posts today, if "racism" is simply defined as recognizing racial difference, then Affirmative Action is certainly an example. I would guess that for most people, however, the term "racism" also incorporates elements of negative discrimination based on race, which some might argue also applies to the impact of Affirmative Action on those outside the favored racial targets. Without seeing actual details of the study, I would argue that racism is an incendiary and divisive term more suited to a partisan political poll than to a scientific study.

Raise your hand if you realize even now this was an obvious setup.........? Coach implied it, I pretty much said it. Didn't any of the people getting their panties in a wad try and get people's goats when they were kids? Isn't the winner the one who keeps their cool? Isn't that game basically designed to reduce people's sense of self-importance? Are you so childish as to say "IT ISN'T FAIR"?

the legs of the girl doing overhead squats... not cool.

Treelizard

My sincerest apologies for mischaracterizing you as a male. Yet another consequence of my actions. :) and that many names of International origin still elude me as to gender.

I am fairly good with Latin/Spanish names and most Japanese names. The rest of the world, I am hit and miss. In this case, a big miss. :)

I didn't think you hid behind any cloak of anonymity, but a quick check of the link to your name here showed just the URL, and, in that particular instance based on my statement, I was wrong.

:)

Joe #63,

Do you mean in terms of technique...or something else?

DJ #35, it can happen!
http://www.listnow.com/helpingpaws/articles/article_208.html
One out of three ain't bad. :)

Treelizard,

"What gives" is glaringly obvious; you've not learned the difference between editorial and journalism, between journalism and science. Notice the big word "OPINION" on the page, it's a big clue that an editorial follows.

Studies are not needed to demonstrate liberal racism - it's in their parties' platforms and rigorously defended and institutionalized. The "studies" have potential benefit for liberals largely. The conservatives and libertarians have been painfully aware of both liberal institutionalized racism and the reckless ease with which the charge is leveled at those who oppose socialism and racism.

I was meeting with the President of our company today, and said, "I need this line item put in my paperwork, because I'm a dumbass half the time". He says to me: "Barry, don't sell yourself short, you're a dumbass ALL the time." We both chuckled.

You need that sort of thing to conduct political discussions in conditions of differing opinions, and I think it's precisely the confluence of entitlement and self-importance which mitigates against intelligent conversation. Our Founding Fathers, from what I understand, yelled at each other a lot during the Constitutional Convention. But, in my understanding, they were yelling based on PRINCIPLES, and not calling each other big poopie heads, or denying validity "a priori" to differing views. We would speak some other language, like Queen's English, if they had.

#68 Paragraph 2: Bravo, Mr. Cooper. Well said.

Tim--no worries.

Coach--LOL, okay, fair enough. However, the link on your main page says "study exposes liberal racism," and I'd argue that it did no such thing--and I still think it's funny that Neil Brown is relying on "research" by Frank Gilliam.

treelizard #70,

Buddy you've just busted me liberal baiting. Good job.

If I disqualified someone's opinions just because they're racist, I'd not be able to learn from my liberal friends (wink and smile).

Your contributions to this site are wonderful. You're keeping all of us honest.

Thank you.

#2 Thank you for the link. That Harvard test was discussed in detail in Gladwell's book "Blink". I took the test. Yep, I have a tendency to prefer my own race.

Everyone's a little bit racist,
sometimes
Doesn't mean we go
Around committing hate crimes.
Look around and you will find
No one's really color blind.
Maybe it's a fact
We all should face
Everyone makes judgments
Based on race.
-Avenue Q.

Tim W

Well put. I agree with you on all accounts. You're right, taking a stand also comes with a high level of accountability. Keep up the good work.

My name is Ryan and I approve of this comment.

Hey just wanted to shout out to Doug Chapman and his trainers, starting out CrossFit Ann Arbor. Totally awesome facility. Those are going to be some spoiled clients. Check out the CF affiliates page (http://www.crossfit.com/cf-affiliates) for a link to the Hyperfit blog with lots of pics of the setup.

Get some Ann Arbor!

Thanks for the text WOD, going on vacation next week and will not have internet access.

Coach,
Do I win any door prizes? Any way I can weasel that interview with you for my website out of this one? ;) I would love to find out, for instance, after reading the Nideffer piece, how it is that you manage to consistently acheive optimal performance states in both physical and intellectual expressiveness. What do you know that these multiple world record holders don't?

Thanks so much for all the work you do. This site is amazing!

What about a WOD desktop widget?

Anyone out there have the programming skills to do it?

(I sure don't.)

Geez guys, can't wait to get back to workout talk tomorrow. I avoid entire crews at work so I don't have to listen to their political . Can we talk about workout music or supplements or hydration or some other fitness related topic soon?
By the way, back and front delts killing me from yesterday, as well as a distinct tightening of the . Thanx Coach!

Executed the Elizabeth WoD today @ 19:00
-65lbs through 135lbs on the cleans.
-Ring dips as Rx'd.
-Additional various exercises.

You know, when I was a child, people used to argue much betterer.

Let's look at the study. How is the demographic broken down? Democrats versus Republicans. Question: was George Wallace a Republican or a Democrat? How about Abrahan Lincoln? What party did the South align itself with from, oh, 1865 until the 1960's/1970's? If you think of "White people most likely to use the "N" word for 500, Alex", do you go with East Coast Elites, or people who are competing with "them" for scant governmental resources? Is there such as a thing as a "Liberal", and can you safely assume that someone with a Democratic Party affiliation fits that description? If not, then any pseudo-validity the study may have had goes out the window.

With respect to Affirmative Action, it is intended as a corrective. It is demonstrably the case that in the past qualified applicants of various minorities were denied the opportunities for advancement for no reason other than race (or gender, let us not forget, and it is still the case that women earn less income for the same work almost across the board even today). Whether that issue has substantially disappeared is subject to debate, but the intent behind it is precisely the intent behind school integrations, which were legislated by "activist" courts, and forced on State and local jurisdictions by the only power equal to the task, the Federal Govt.

Few conservatives argue that the Civil War was unnecessary, but from the point of view of the South, it was an illegal invasion which stripped them of their Constitutionally guaranteed right not to be molested by powers which the Federal Govt. arrogated to itself, which were not explicitly offered to it in the Constitution.

In both cases, the issue is the intrusion of Washington into local affairs. In the case of "Separate but Equal", I don't think most of us would want to go back to "Colored" swimming pools, backs of the busses, two sets of water fountains, and the generalized hatred and just plain meanness that went with it.

Affirmative Action fits within that whole thread of thought. It may have served its' purpose, and be due for extinction, but it should never be forgotten that there were very real--not imagined--ills it aimed to remedy.

The flow of private enterprise was manifestly unequal to the task of creating equal OPPORTUNITY to persons of African descent. Basically, what the capitalist model asks is: of what economic use is this person? The answer was that black people are good entertainers. And they were used that way. Arguably, they STILL are, in many respects, if you look at who the heroes of most young African-American kids are. Sports and hip-hop. Where does it go from there?

Even though the "breakthrough" may not have been exploited to its' full extent--Martin Luther King may have a lot to say, if he were alive, as Bill Cosby did--the basic idea was one which was well intentioned. Like any idea, it can be turned from living, breathing thing into a Frankenstein-like simulacrum of the original intention, but that doesn't vitiate either the positive intent, or positive effects which have been achieved of workplace diversification.

Hell, I'm not even a liberal. Why didn't one of you ninnies say that?

Alan Alda,

“You know, when I was a child, people used to argue much betterer.” Or were you less indoctrinated so argument held greater potential to carry sway over your thoughts and opinions. Think it over and let me know.

“With respect to Affirmative Action, it is intended as a corrective.” Beautiful, I was waiting for this: racism with admirable intent. When I hear this dangerous distortion of logic and ethics I’m reminded of Bernard Shaw’s “Saint Joan” in which Joan is describing her love for Englishmen being so great that she wanted to unite them with their God. Everyone, your positive intent does not make your racism any less evil.

Your affirmative action belongs to another variant of racism as well - Dispensation of favor determined by race. How about this, tax breaks for all but Blacks? What? I’m just helping everyone – well almost everyone. No harm intended. It’s still racism. Always.

Alan, lock onto this for a moment: Racism is always everywhere wrong. Building better societies (e.g. Final Solution) does not justify hurting or helping people, there is no difference, solely on the basis of race, religion, or other belief.

“The flow of private enterprise was manifestly unequal to the task of creating equal OPPORTUNITY to persons of African descent.” This is patently false. (It also ignores the blindingly obvious feature of affirmative action denying equal OPPORTUNITY.) Capitalism and free markets have always dealt with race and religion much better than government. Gas stations, department stores, business in general, yes, even lunch counters led the way to integration and made acceptable the democratic reforms that remedied a profound societal ill. Much has been written on this. Is there any interest on your part in exploring this further or is the apostasy too much to even entertain for a moment? It seems whether you are “the” Alan Alda or a troll the prospect for “betterer” discussion is bleak.

You may not be a liberal but you are an apologist for evil and argue vehemently against equal opportunity. (Notice I don’t say equal opportunity for whom. Why? Because opportunity is equal to all or not at all equal.)

Age 34, BW 174
Saturday's Workout 060729
Deadlift 3-2-2-1-1-1 reps
Bench press 3-2-2-1-1-1 reps
Back Squat 3-2-2-1-1-1 reps
All @ 135, 145, 155, 165, 175, 185 lbs.

WAY TO GO COACH !!!!!!!!

Kudos to Coach and treelizard for their principled, rational posts to today's forum -- that sort of dialogue is all too rare on rest days, or anywhere on the internet, for that matter. Props also to TimW -- I agree that hiding behind a pseudonym is cowardly (you'll see my real name in my email address). If you have something to say that you mean, then sign it. If you're not willing to stand behind your words, then go away, because you're unhelpful.

As far as provocative articles go, whether in medicine, nutrition, or politics, I have some trouble with pieces like today's "liberal racism" one. Most of my problems with it were summed up perfectly by treelizard's excellent post on the article. These weaknesses are, of course, not in any way limited to conservative opinion pieces -- liberals and moderates are just as likely to be sloppy with statistics in order to make a point.

However, the other problem I have with pieces of this nature whether leftist or rightist in outlook, is the tone of self-righteousness, self-congratulation and apparent complacency. I don't see this quite as much from centrists, because I think by definition centrists are less sure of their positions than strong advocates of a left-wing or right-wing viewpoint.

I suppose the point of these pieces is to be provocative -- in the sense that Coach mentions in one of his posts. But in my mind, it's clear that they're not, in fact, intended to provoke honest debate, because they're not intellectually honest to begin with. To me, they're provocative in the sense of a provocateur -- they throw bombs and don't make arguments. I have to say that I can't see how that's helpful.

As for the topic of the article, I have two things to say:
1) to echo several others in this forum, yes, liberals pretty much get a pass on the whole racism thing. I suppose it goes back to the civil rights era, when it was largely (note I say largely, and not entirely) liberals who were taking stands alongside blacks in order to end Jim Crow. In any case, liberals do generally get a pass on racism, even when it's clear.
2) to assert that some (or even many) liberals are racists is pretty unsurprising. Liberals are human beings, and human beings are pretty much pack animals -- not exclusively, of course, but we do like to belong to our groups...and to exclude those that don't belong. For liberals, this exclusion often takes the shape of condescension and paternalism, though it can manifest itself in much worse ways.

I guess what I'd like to see, both on the left and the right, is a little more self-analysis and intellectual honesty. If there was a little more of that, I think we'd be a lot better off: less polarization, less anger in the public sphere. There would still be plenty of tension and disagreement, but maybe life would be more pleasant for everyone.

My $.50 worth...

As for the article on blood sugar and Alzheimers risk, I found these findings to be a fascinatingly accurate description of my grandmothers decline and eventual death. She was pre-diabetic, had high blood pressure, and over the last 10 years of her life descended further and further into a terrifying world of dementia. I would love to see some follow-up studies to this one and a shift in the general diet of the average American. Thanks to CrossFit for helping to show the way.

More thanks to Coach and Lauren for a fantastic site, awesome fitness advice, and all their work to create a broader community of thoughful, fit individuals. You're a huge inspiration to me. Please keep it up!

Yesteday:
2500 Sq' of cedar, shake shingles - Peel, Roll, Deadlift, Carry Across Roof, Push-Jerk into dumpster
4.5 hours

Today:
Dynamic Warm Up
3 rounds:
15 Sit-Ups
10 Wall Ball, 12 lbs

Elizabeth:
Cleans - 115 lbs - 21,15, 9
Dips - jumping - 105, 75, 45
21:31

5x10 squats on balance disks
3x40 seconds, Superman on med-ball

Zach

Coach,

In response to your last post, in which you state that racism is always wrong, do you feel that there are other things that are, on the face of it, wrong, but can result in a positive outcome, and therefore are, on the balance, good?

What I'm getting at is whether you always approach moral questions from a deontological position (one must do what's right -- see Kant) or whether sometimes you favor a teleological approach (one does what results in the greatest good for the greatest number -- see J.S. Mill).

From today's posts, I'm guessing you generally follow the former path. The follow-up question is, I guess, why is racism wrong always and everywhere? Is it because you're treating individuals as members of a group, and not as individuals, and then enshrining that treatment as public policy? I'm very interested in your rationale here, as I just had a several-hour-long debate with my brother on Affirmative Action on Saturday, and neither of us really convinced the other, though each of us made very good points, I thought.

Just for clarity, I was the one who was arguing against Affirmative Action, and he was arguing for. But I didn't use you're racism is always wrong argument. I was coming at it more from a pragmatic point of view: that having Affirmative Action as a public policy had a worse outcome on balance than not having it.

Thanks again for the excellent discussion here today.

Coach,

FYI - if you are white (Of European descent OR Jewish, Italian, etc... because most American's can't tell the difference), male, and living in America, you have benefitted from a form of affirmative action that is cultural rather than a government institution. To deny this, would be the height of arogance.

If the same generation that includes groups of people who fought against integration and equal rights wasn't still alive and kicking (witness the senseless denial of equal rights to homosexuals), then I might agree with you that it's time to do away with affirmative action. Theoretically, Affirmative Action IS inherently racist. However, in practice, it is an effective way of countering the inherent racism of the embedded wealth and power structure of our society..... I'd be happy to see Affirmative Action done away with, but we should give it some more time.

Zach

Re the “Liberal Racism” article: Wow, that’s a pretty poor article. It seems like the author heard about three surveys, made some hasty conclusions about them, combined that with his frustration at conservatives being called racist, and published an article. It takes the common, frustrating, tact of treating all “liberals” and “left-wingers” as if they are some homogenous lump that all thinks and acts the same, and then it attacks that imaginary group with convenient strawmen. No reasonable person I know thinks that all conservatives are racist or that no liberals are – so whom exactly is this article arguing against? IMHO it’s not arguing against anyone – it’s preaching to the choir.

Somewhere in there are three surveys that might actually merit some discussion. That might actually pique some intellectual activity, and serious thought about race relations in our time. But the article is so mired in anti-liberal vitriol, assertions that they’re revealing the true (and non-disputable) “facts” and “reality,” hasty unsupported conclusions drawn from one-liner summaries of these studies, and a partisanism that goes beyond bias and approaches grasping at anything it can to support its preconceived conclusions, and so lacking in any critical examination of the actual results or methodologies of the studies themselves (it doesn’t even have proper sourcing so that readers can do more research on their own!), that it’s frankly boring and useless at best. It’s purposefully incendiary at worst.

The other two articles that coach posted, however, were informative and interesting. Is it really so much harder to find high-quality political writing these days?

The phenomenon alluded to in one of the surveys certainly was interesting (if it was, in fact, a valid conclusion of the survey, which it may not be) – that liberals would tend to donate more money to whites than to minorities. The reason that conservatives wouldn’t is because they didn’t want to donate money to anybody! So really, the conservative fiscal policy *masked* racism in their case, but doesn’t really prove that they weren’t racist (and as I describe below, such “individualistic” fiscal policy can be inherently “racist” in our current society). Really, I think that a full-spectrum survey would find that racism is rampant in our society no matter what one’s political ideology.

As for coach’s later comments about “liberal” institutional racism. Here I must re-iterate my above frustration at “liberals” all being treated as if they think the same way. I consider myself liberal yet I break from the “democrat” mold in many ways. I tend to agree that affirmative action makes the problem worse in the long run. However, I do not believe that “individualistic” solutions are the answer either. A big problem is that there is a huge race correlation with class divides in this country – a disproportionate number of minorities are in the lower class. This condition can be traced back to historical conditions, inertia, and a perpetual cycle of poverty that is difficult for families to break out of. The “individualistic” solution to Katrina – tell everyone to evacuate – was tried and failed. Poor people lacked the same means to evacuate safely that more well-off people did. And unfortunately, a large percentage of the poor in that region were black. Therefore, due to the conditions of the real world, individualistic policy ends up being detrimental to certain groups across race lines, and therefore could also be considered “racist” (though perhaps not intentionally so). That’s why I believe that the solution lies somewhere in between – not arbitrarily elevating people or distributing blind handouts hoping it will force equality, nor just calling out “every man for himself” and ignoring the uneven playing field. The solution is to level the playing field, to improve education and opportunities for poorer citizens, and to help everyone get the means to help themselves.

Fair dinkum.

I'd like the WOD in red-smoke sky writing....right over my place, at 7.00am sharp daily, bold Verdana font 12 please - "Petes Place" lat=-36.0313338927, lon=146.936303256 (google earth)

Please also mow it into my front lawn so the morning sun reflects it off the dew, & onto my bedroom wall when I wake up.

Nah....good idea...and text WOD's would be the sh*t. If you charged each of us 50cents a WOD by text, you would have 18carat Kettlebells and a platinum chin bar. I'd happily pay it.

WOD widget is a great idea!!!!! What Mac you got Timmeh?

"Go-hard rubber-guts" - CF Tshirt slagan #2

Personally I can't stand all this angry pro-conservative garbage for rest day topics, how about sticking with fitness. I've been doing CrossFit for 3 years now and this Pro-Bush/Conservatism crap is just getting worse and worse, if you people honestly believe this country is in better shape than when Clinton was in office, you really are dumb and certainly shouldn't even bother posting your ideas on politics. Glassman at least be fair and give us topics representing both sides.

If you look at a random link: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilrightstimeline1.html
the bulk of the civil rights which were eventually offered to blacks, were backed by guns provided by Federal or State troops, or with legal precedent, as in the ruling "Brown v. the Board of Education." Segregation "worked" within the the socioeconomic system of the South. There were no market forces working for its' eradication, that I can see.

Now, within the economic sphere, sit-in's at lunch counters, and bus boycotts did have an effect. They had the effect that blacks were able to effectively desegregate many busses and restaurants. However, market forces are not omnipotent, and it is difficult to see how they could have brought about the effect of a "Brown v. Board", which had to be combined with a LOT of soldiers.

Anyone studying the history of this nation, and laws such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, knows that while untrammeled trade is a good and desirable thing, there is an inherent centripetal pull towards market consolidation and monopolization. Adam Smith commented that any time three people in the same trade are together, they are talking collusion. Such collusion is a gum which prevents the smooth flow of the wheels of commerce. Could they become unstuck with time? Absent monopolies, yes. Free trade is only free, though, if there are many players. Adam Smith showed that clearly. That is why the Sherman Anti-Trust Act acted towards the enrichment of our nation, not its' detriment, even though it was a restriction, passed by the Federal Government, on free trade, so-called.

Likewise with race. What is racism other than a preemptive restriction on full participation in economic life? Is it not, not hiring "negroes" because of their color, even though they may be well qualified? In this link here: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html it discusses both sides of the issue, and points to an example in Alabama where even black people with seniority, working for a government agency, couldn't get promoted past a certain point.

There are really two issues:

1) Should the government (Local, State, Federal) EVER interfere with private enterprise? The obvious answer is, yes. They regulate fraud, they levy taxes, they dictate the details of corporate governance and accountability, etc.

2) Should the government (local, state, Federal) interfere on the basis of the principle of equality of economic opportunity? If we return to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, it essentially put a monkey wrench in some well-functioning trusts and monopolies. It interfered, on the basis of the principle of equality of economic opportunity, with private enterprise. Yet it seems likely Malcolm Forbes and other scions of economic conservatism, would be able to see the value of such a decision.

The question, as always, is what works, and what doesn't. I don't think Affirm. Action can be condemned on the basis of principle, as it really isn't about white people and black people. It is about the ability of discrete human beings to find work in their chosen fields, in conformity with the principle of equality of economic opportunity.

Quite obviously, too, the people best connected to money are those born with money. The people best able to work our economic system are those who have been working it for generations. Quite often, the skills to work the system can only be learned within the system, and anyone not already familiar with the rules, is always going to be at a disadvantage, and often less qualified than other people.

The masses of poor out there in the ghettoes are by and large not candidates for Affirmative Action--which incidentally means many things to many people. Rather, the programs are intended for those genuinely desiring advancement, and who are willing to work for it.

In your view, who has been hurt, and to what extent, and who has been helped, and to what extent, by Affirmative Action?

Disclaimer: unintelligent discourse should be judged such on its' own merits. Likewise with more intelligent discourse. Please criticise this on that basis.

NickC,

Speaking of crap, isn't that a bit of the pot calling the kettle black? How is your post helpful? Who are you trying to convince? If you want to say stuff like that, say it to people who agree with you, so it can stay what it is: whining and blowing off steam.

I'm unhappy with the Bush administration and I didn't vote for Bush. I disagree with the point of view in many of these posts, but I try to be constructive in my disagreement. Posts like yours just shut down conversation and do no one any good. If you have something to say, say it with some tact and courtesy -- it's the least you can do in response to all the excellent fitness advice you've gotten over the last 3 years.

I'm on my own schedule and yesterday was my rest day, so today I decided to try roll-your-own-WOD. My plan was to do as many rounds in 20 minutes as I could of:
15 pull-ups
15 wall-ball shots (20# ball)
1 ladder drill on the basketball court

I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that Pukie came a-calling less than ten minutes in, so I don't really know how it would have gone normally. I'll have to try it again sometime soon.

Sean Penn and Alan Alda: Pussies.

Unless, of course, it's the REAL Sean Penn and Alan Alda, then I say "welcome, and thank you for having enough sack to post using your real names."

Back to the discussion:

Where does it say that the desire to dump AA is inherently a Pro-Bush/Conservative idea?

I am not a real fan of GW Bush (nor of his father, who did more for the gun control movement than did Bill Clinton, IMO), and if one is equating "conservative" with current Republican policies, I am not one of them, either.

Zach, #88,

What about those of us who are white and male and have been discriminated against by their own government? Do you not see a substantial difference between cultural racism and racism being the law of the land?!

Rest on Sunday, so today
"Elizabeth"
21- 65# 2:45
15-75# 2:10
9-95# 1:25

15 mile bike ride, no tail wind!

CFWU x2 (- pullups on purpose & forgot dips)

Overhead squat 50lb 2x5 (just learning this one. All readings state it will make me more flexible, but how do I get flexible enough to do it in the first place? My toes point way out, my heels rise, my torso leans forward...hopefully it works itself out?)

MJ-CF #6
for time:
50 pullups (me: 35, first 10 wor)
60 ring pushups (me: 60, first 20 wor)
70 situps (me: 70, first 35 wor)
80 squats (me: 80, 35 wor)
time: 27:50

Any techniques on improving overhead squat form will be appreciated!
Steve

Coach do you know a Jeanne (Larson) Glassman who graduated from Bemidji State University (76) in Minnesota and was recently inducted into their Athletic Hall of Fame?

Sorry nothing controversial to say. Rarely read the rest day posts a on the day they are posted. Prefer to print them so I can read at my leisure later and truly try to absorb what they are saying. Love the site. Thanks Jim

Group Moffett

5 rounds for time of "CANDY"

20 pullups
40 pushups
60 squats

Total time 44:44:58

Ken #89 said:

"...the solution lies somewhere in between – not arbitrarily elevating people or distributing blind handouts hoping it will force equality, nor just calling out “every man for himself” and ignoring the uneven playing field."

In a very general sense, this captures my sentiments, and the quietly held sentiments of many other African-Americans.

On another pont, today's discussion is an example of how easily racial discussions become twisted and distorted, even among obviously intelligent and thoughful people. Sort of like a verbal rorschach test that illuminates the speaker more than a solution.

Charles, your 51 y/o Black Republican.

What do these numbers mean?

301-349-299-101
297-234-304-110
397-323-299- 56
354-326-280-222
299-303-272-128
351-398-243-134
345-222-202-101

#102 rfs: is that some sort of logic puzzle?

Affirmative Action in principle is nobly motivated. As Charles #101 indicated, a helping hand to the less fortunate. In practice it has almost always turned out to be a pernicious quota system, whose moral justification boils down to this--two wrongs DO make a right. So it is helpful in any debate to clarify what you're talking about-the noble intentions of Affirmative Action, or the racial quota system.

If the logic of racial quotas were applied throughout our society we would have lawsuits demanding more white guys in the NBA, along with more black guys in NASCAR.

Thomas Sowell, a brilliant man, and one of the most lucid writers I've encountered, has written extensively on this subject, examining racial preference policies around the world and throughout history. The verdict is unanimous. Such policies always increase racial tensions and do much more harm than good. He has several excellent books on the subject, but the best place to start is "Preferential Policies: An International Perspective"

An example of how good intentions can get very quickly perverted is in the area of school desegregation. Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark case which involved a little black girl being bused out of her neighborhood, past the white school that was closest to her, across town to the black school. Within a short time the principle of that case evolved into a strict quota system and black children and white children all over America were being bused past their neighborhood schools, sometimes to the other side of the county, in order to achieve precise quotas of black and white.

Outside of education, the racial quota system has given us voting districts gerrymandered to guarantee black majorities and safe seats for black elected officials. Perversely, the conservatives/Republicans are the greatest fans of this practice, because the creation of safe black districts also results in the creation of safe white districts where elected officials do not have to concern themselves at all with the interests of any black constituent. This is bad for everyone.

In the case of government contracting the practice of minority set asides has resulted in massive fraud, benefitting only the elite and politically connected in the black community.

Frederick Douglas on this subject:
“[I]n regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice . The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us… . I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! … And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! … [Y]our interference is doing him positive injury.”
What the Black Man Wants: An Address Delivered in Boston, Massachusetts, on 26 January 1865, reprinted in 4 The Frederick Douglass Papers 59, 68 (J. Blassingame & J. McKivigan eds. 1991) (emphasis in original).

Martin Luther King, Jr. echoed and reiterated these same sentiments in his "I Have A Dream" speech. He didn't ask for equal outcomes or special treatment, he asked for equal treatment. That was his conception of justice.

I love rest day articles & comments.

I think I might agree with 5% of the articles posted.

Dissent is to the brain as weights are to the body. You try to change its position, you gain something yourself: Strength, skill, knowledge.

BWT 203.4
Getting back into the swing...
Helen as Rx: 13:26.64

rfs (#102): A pretty good DL workout?

did "elizabeth" yesterday and was sore for today.

maxed out at 205

205 is an old PR for the jerk. I still had tons of energy for the jerk but could not clean 215 which is an old PR for the clean. Just too spent from yesterday. I know I will shatter that next time when I am 100%

#47

One big lie told about the poor in New Orleans: one that has yet to be addressed in the media, despite how easily it can be disproved by a mere five minutes worth of research. One that was repeated daily for weeks by conservative talk show hosts and columnists, and one to which I was exposed many times a day in my email inbox, thanks to the efforts of right wing louts without the seeming desire to do their homework. Namely, it is the argument that the reason 130,000 poor black folks were unable to escape the flooding was because they had grown dependent on the government to save them, thanks to the "welfare state," and that was why they lacked the money and cars to get out before disaster struck.

In other words, liberal social policy had rendered the black poor unable or unwilling to work, content to collect a government check, and thus, had made them incapable of saving themselves. This lie -- and it is just that, not an exaggeration or simplification or overstatement, but a flat-out falsehood -- has been parroted by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Charles Murray (of "Bell Curve" fame), not to mention such viciously self-loathing black conservatives as Star Parker, John McWhorter and the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, all despite the lack of evidence to sustain it, and the amazing amount of evidence, both contemporary and historical, to refute it.

But of course the media, having long ago decided not to challenge the mainstream public's view of folks on welfare -- and indeed to collaborate with the framing of such persons by politicians of both major parties -- has done nothing to set the record straight, suggesting either that they are incredibly inept at research, or just as incredibly craven in their attitudes towards the poorest of this nation's citizens.

But the facts, however unsettling they may be for conservative mythmakers, are clear.

To begin with, as of 2004, according to the Census Bureau, there were only 4600 households in all of New Orleans receiving cash welfare from the nation's principal aid program, TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, formerly Aid to Families With Dependent Children, or AFDC). That is not a misprint: 4600 out of a total of 130,000 households in the black community alone. Which means that even if every welfare receiving household in Orleans Parish had been black (which was not in fact the case), this would have represented only a little more than four percent of black households in the city.

According to the same Census data, the average household size in a welfare receiving family in New Orleans is the same as the citywide average for non-recipients: roughly 3.5 persons. So the number of individuals receiving welfare in New Orleans, by the time of Katrina would have been about 16,000.

Thus, even if we assume that all of the 130,000 persons left behind were poor, and that no persons receiving welfare managed to escape before the flooding with friends or family, this would mean that at most, perhaps twelve percent of the persons left behind (and whose faces we may have been seeing on national TV) would have been welfare recipients at all, let alone persons who had been rendered dependent on such benefits for long periods of time.

And speaking of dependence, or the notion that the city's welfare recipients had grown content to sit back and collect government checks instead of doing for self, this hardly seems likely when you consider that the average annual income received from TANF, for those small numbers actually getting any such benefits at all, was only a little more than $2,800 per year, in New Orleans prior to the catastrophe.

Indeed, such paltry amounts explain why most of the poor in New Orleans, far from being happy to receive so-called handouts, work whenever they can find steady employment, which admittedly, is not often the case.

But of course, in a media culture incapable of looking deeper than the next 30-second, 100-word soundbite, none of this matters. Indeed, most reporters, news anchors, or journalists of any stripe would be unlikely to even know any of this in the first place. All that matters is the here and now: no need for context, background, or history. And so they give us poor people, stealing from stores, carless, penniless and homeless: how they became poor and why they stayed that way doesn't matter, apparently. And by remaining silent on that issue, the mainstream press leaves venal ideologues to fill in the blanks, for an eager public all too willing to believe the worst about people who, for the most part, none of them have ever met.

Shar,

I wanted to give an intelligent response to your post. (It has all the earmarks of being thoughtful.) I skimmed it first, and then worked to parse the logical flow of the piece. This was what I got:

88 word introduction
43 word premise
32 word attack (racist in part at that, but now I’m editorializing.)
418 word support for premise (dubious premise, but I’m ahead of myself)
128 word summary

Then I went back and started with the introduction - eager to nail down the premise. Something happened immediately. My BS detector started screaming.

“I was exposed many times a day in my email inbox, thanks to the efforts of right wing louts without the seeming desire to do their homework.”

Wait a minute. I know as many right wing louts that won’t do their homework as I do left wing half-wits that think I’m stupid enough not to detect plagiarism; I’d better check.

Shar, you’ve plagiarized Tim Wise:
http://www.raceandhistory.com/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1130670742,28595,.shtml

This is an aside, but I cannot help it. As someone who has repeatedly had intellectual property stolen, and recovered by lawyers, the worst kind of plagiarizing is the “stupided-up” variant - where the thief not only steals my stuff but makes me look like an idiot on his exposure. Like the guy who took my program to Hollywood and then in a filmed interview explained how it works. Please, if you’re going to steal stuff, steal it without sprucing it up. If you weren’t smart enough to come up with it, not smart enough to believe you’d be caught; you’re not smart enough to improve it. Why add insult to injury?)

Read the part again about right wing louts not willing to do their own homework. How about left-wing thieves of intellectual property? How might they compare?

Had someone posted the Tim Wise piece and asked for thoughts/analysis, interestingly, I’d have started exactly like I did for you Shar and what would have come next would have been to ask for substantiation of his attributions from Limbaugh, Hannity, O’reilly, and Murray, Parker, McWhorter, and Peterson. I'm not buying it. (Damned BS detector, again) I can't even imagine Bill O'reilly, who I think is a fool, saying as much. Methinks a Straw Man has been built of lies. That's just a suspicion though. I'd be happy to be corrected.

More importantly, I’d have also gotten to the point of asking what makes Parker, McWhorter, and Peterson "self-loathing blacks"? Is it that they don’t support the Jewish American, left wing, White, and privileged ideology that Tim Wise has assigned to “legitimate” Blacks? Is this racist or just bigotry? It is certainly prejudiced.

BTW, Blacks should be capitalized, and go ahead, accuse me of anti-Semitism. I’m easily entertained.

Here you are Coach,I am in Japan and the computer that I am on has like 4 different signs on one button plus Hiragana so I was not able to put the statement in quotes.Should have included the link,put your detector to work on this one bud.

http://www.counterpunch.org/wise10292005.html

Shar,

I deleted your repeated posting of the piece you plagiarized. The link is more than adequate.

The idea is not to force a reading or fill the page with as many words as possible but to engage others intelligently. Notice the economy of your post without the repeated text.

Your "Japanese typewriter" defense of plagiarism deserves immortality.

BW=169 lbs

Deadlift: 135 -> 315 lbs
Bench: 115 -> 145 lbs
Squat: 135 -> 200 lbs

I`ve found this helpful,just wanted to share.

`A catalog built to help you efficiently find news items, deconstruct the spin, and reconstruct the narrative yourself using primary data sources.`

http://complabs.nevada.edu/~reids/political.html