Nice photo Jesse. We would love to get you to come visit us.....anytime.

Four Answers-

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No one knows
4. Maybe, but I guess not at the cost of a 15 basis point reduction in global GDP growth. That would be horrible. Goood thing GDP growth is the only metric by which we measure the overall health and quality of human existence.

Is it really necessary for an independent fitness website to be a mouthpiece for extreme right-wing views? How about an on-line poll of crossfit users, one question asking if they generally agree with the opinion pieces linked, the other if they wish such posts to continue.

Richard,

All who come to this site are free to use it in whatever way they choose. If you choose not to use, discuss, read, apply, etc. the information you find here, that is fine. It is up to you. I would, however, appreciate that you don't choose for me.

Thanks for choosing to read this post.

really good article on the Israeli fight against terrorism. I think more articles and news coverage like this are needed to bring an end to all of the terrorism because all of the bad media restricts the terrorist fighters from getting the job done while at the same time endangering the free world

A few more points:

I take it from your post that you are somehow referring to the links provided today. If I could impose this upon you, please point out the extreme right-wing views you have found. I find this label vague and somewhat poorly applied.

Would you really like an online poll, or any poll for that matter, to determine what should be discussed? That would be the tyranny of the majority. What if 51% of Crossfit users polled said we should not discuss the Olympic lifts? Would you abide by that? Or would you rightfully be disgusted that someone tried to control your liberty of thought because they didn't agree with you? I think a better approach, if you don't agree with an article linked to, would be to discuss it in a rational manner here in the comments section. That's why Coach posts them here.

Have a nice day.

Bottom line...
...it's the Glassmans' site. They can post what they want.

You can agree or disagree, it doesn't really matter.

i used to call myself a liberal. i don't call myself anything anymore, and i'm always glad to hear viewpoints that upset my own opinions.

think of it like crossfit for your perspective. it doesn't feel good while you're doing it, but it'll make you stronger.

I, by the way, agree almost all of the time.

But that's me.

I am just thankful that the fine people at Crossfit.com are gracious enough to share their enthusiasm for fitness with us all for absolutely nothing. Any articles they choose to link at their own website, regardless of perspective, are fine by me whether or not I hold the same view as a particular article. It's always a good idea to see another perspective on an issue in any case even though I apparently hold some extreme right wing views as I find most of the articles agreeable. There is no reason to change a thing as this site is the intellectual property of someone else and we are all just visitors.

I have really enjoyed coming to this site for the last few days as a new crossfit trainee, BUT with political posts such as these, I have to wonder why you would even consider doing something like that that could possibly tarnish your upstanding website.

Remember the rule when you are with your friends out to dinner: never discuss religion or politics.

I think this simple rule should apply here to your friends in the crossfit community who enjoy your website for what it is.

Jesse,
Your da man....sweet picture!!!

Jesse,

That picture freaks me out just looking at it.

Post #3 and #11, you guys aren't getting it, this is Glassman's website to do with what he, the owner, wishes. He doesn't come to your house and tell you how to arrange your furniture, so give him the same courtesy. If you don't like it, don't read it. If you read it, discuss the merits intelligently or don't, it's your choice. That's the great thing about freedom. Semper Fi...

I define my friends as people I can discuss anything with, and they won't hold a grudge against me.

I define my friends as people I can discuss anything with, regardless of what our individual opinions are.

I define my friends as people I can discuss anything with, regardless of what our individual opinions are.

Oh, I got vertigo just LOOKING at that! Augh!

Wow Jesse! Amazing photo, amazing confidence, amazing contol. Obviously from the HPSU portion of yesterdays WOD.

Where did you do the burpees?

Brilliant photo......

I used to vote Republican. Now I vote "right" or "wrong", no matter how discernible or frayed that line of demarcation may be.

As for those of you who don't appreciate the "right wing" views of the moderators of this site: why you start your own copy "Crossfit" site (instead of symbiotically feeding off of this one) and then you can post whatever "wing" of the political front you choose to espouse.

As a follow up (and clarification), I did not say that I agreed or disagreed with the content of what was posted; just the fact that it was posted and that the crossfit site is a great site for what it is.

Bottom line: they should stick to what they have earned a reputation doing best.

Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear" is a good read and packs a bunch of technical information on Global Warming or the lack there of. It's a good alternative argument to Vice President Gore's own bit of fiction.

Here is the link to Crichton's website and his take on intermixing science and politics.

http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/

Pete #21

Actually, I think that this website has gotten itself quite a reputation for stirring up alot of emotion and thought during the rest days. I would be interested to see what the stats are for net traffic during rest days vs WOD.

Like is always said, its like crossfit for your head. And if you truly dont believe most of the postings than you would have to at least appreciate the chance to sharpen your argument against more than just the talking points of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity.

Nick

Chomsky: Israel coverage

This is taken from his blog but is worth a quick read on the balance of news coverage for the Israeli invasion.

http://blogs.zmag.org/node/2723

Noam Chomsky: My expectations were pretty low, but the coverage has been
worse than I expected, at least. There are scattered and good reports about the
suffering of the Lebanese. But overwhelmingly, it’s presented from the Israeli
point of view. And there is only oblique indication of the fact that it is a
US-Israeli attack, not an Israeli-attack. One might do a count of the phrases
“Iranian-supplied” and “US-supplied.” The ratio should be about one to 50,
maybe, but I suspect it’s more like 50 to 1. And the US influence is vastly
greater than any Iranian influence, but rarely discussed, because it’s taken for
granted that it is right and just, even “an honest broker.” Same in Iraq. The
journals of the occupying armies report Washington’s concerns about Iranian
intervention. One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

It’s also worth remembering that there are three US-Israeli
operations underway: (1) the West Bank programs of annexation
and cantonization, designed to drive the last nail into the
coffin of Palestinian national rights, cynically called “withdrawal” in the
nation’s press, and barely reported, including the regular
atrocities: (2) Gaza, where the US-Israel continue to carry out
regular crimes in the largest prison in the world: 150
Palestinians killed in July, 19 killed in the first week of
August (including 4 children), along with constant terror and
destruction, scarcely reported; (3) Lebanon, reported, but as
noted, overwhelmingly from the Israeli point of view (with the US presented not
as a direct participant, as it is, but as seeking a peaceful
settlement).

There is also outright suppression. The current
sharp escalation of violence began after the Hamas capture of
Corporal Gilad Shalit on June 25, and the capture of two
Israeli soldiers on the Israel-Lebanon border on July 12. Each
case elicited enormous outrage in the US, and strong support
for very harsh Israeli retaliation. On June 24, Israeli forces
kidnapped two Gaza civilians, the Muammar brothers, a far worse crime.

That was scarcely reported and quickly dismissed to oblivion. The
timing demonstrates with unusual clarity that the posture of
outrage over the capture of Israeli soldiers is cynical fraud,
facts underscored by the (null) reaction to the regular Israeli practice
over many years of kidnapping Lebanese. It also follows at
once that there is no moral legitimacy to either of the two
major escalations against the populations of Gaza and Lebanon.
And of course if we look at the ratio of killings, it’s overwhelmingly
US-Israel, always.

Three things:

First, I am not (neo-)conservative by any stretch of the imagination, and I greatly appreciate the postings on this site.

Second, referring to the Four Questions: This man is not a scientist, why should I trust his opinions? He is obviously a politically aligned person, so I cannot take his opinion on this matter either. He's right about the skepticism of opinions that are not from the scientific community, that I will give him. However, the overwhelming opinion I have heard in scientific magazines (which I read), newspapers, reports from NASA and other organizations that monitor and calculate global weather patterns, is that there is strong evidence for a correllation between human industrialization and global temperature increases. So, the question becomes, do we wait for absolute certainty before we act on our hypotheses, or do our best with what we know when what we know tells us we have a potential global catastrophe? The case seems clear.

Third, I have one thing to say about Worrying about the West:

Hezbollah hides behind civilians. It is a despicable, vile, and evil thing to do. By doing this, Hezbollah endangers the lives of men, women, and children who would normally take no part. But, then, why do the Israelis still fire upon them? Perhaps the IDF must change its tactics in order to better deal with the cowards, but killing civilians in an attempt to destroy Hezbollah would seem to negate any moral superiority Israel had right to claim in this fight.

#21 Bottom Line: who cares whether or not you agree with the content; if you do not like it, change the channel or simply view what you want to view. Since when do you or me have any say what is posted to the Glassman's website, except in Comments? I wouldn't care if they put up old transcripts of Chairman Mao speeches as long as I have my WOD, thank you very much.

Is it just me or is it every rest day, someone gets their panties twisted about something the Glassman's post. How much does it cost each month to access this (their) website? Just askin'.

While it may be a rest day for the body, that doesn't mean the same for the brain. Most people here enjoy intelligent and rational discussion while our body load up for the next smokin' WOD especially since this is not possible to do in the middle of the Rxed workout. It's all about the stimulating the body and the mind.

Erica, as I understand it, the two brothers were two wanted Hamas members and that they were armed. And, when Israel went in to get them noone was killed in the process. So, that would be a capture NOT a kidnapping.

Richard

Comments like your make this quote by one of our Founding Fathers all the more apropos:

"There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation, than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong... In fact it is only reestablishing under another name a more specious form: force as the measure of right."
--JAMES MADISON

Follow the bouncing ball, follow the bouncing ball........ Meanwhile all we have lived and died for has been taken by ignorance and greed.

The real question about all this is are we in this to really win, or to show we merely have large testicles on the world stage?

Personally, I want to win. I am tired of the constant fear in which this country finds itself. The faux terror alerts that do nothing but inconvenience travellers, make me wonder if my email was read or my bank deposits scrutinized.

So...do we want to really win? IMO, I don't think this administration does. Perhaps it's the libertarian-minded cynical quasi-anarchist in me, but I think they like having all the control. Freedom is a messy proposition.

Even if we won, I am uncertain that it would ever be declared, because then what? Dismantle the massive security apparatus that's been created, putting the aparatchik out of a job? I don't readily see that happening.

So...do we want to win? If so, "unleash the hounds" and take off the freakin' gloves.

We need Keyser Soze on our side.

- - -
From a Blog:

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/08/usual-suspects.html

The Usual Suspects

What's remarkable about Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Laureate Tom Schelling, and Hassan Nasrallah is that they probably agree with Keyser Soze, the legendary fictional villain of The Usual Suspects on one subject. Part boogeyman and part urban legend, Soze was a near-metaphysical example of implacable retribution. Soze's presence exists entirely offscreen until the final scene, but his legend is created in a an early bit of movie dialogue.
>...snip...<
- - -

and to close with a quote from Apocalypse Now:

"I remember when I was with Special Forces--it seems a thousand centuries ago--we went into a camp to inoculate it. The children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us, and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile--a pile of little arms. And I remember...I...I...I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out, I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it, I never want to forget. And then I realized--like I was shot...like I was shot with a diamond...a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, "My God, the genius of that, the genius, the will to do that." Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they could stand that--these were not monsters, these were men, trained cadres, these men who fought with their hearts, who have families, who have children, who are filled with love--that they had this strength, the strength to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men, then our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral and at the same time were able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling, without passion, without judgment--without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us."
--Marlon Brando as Col. Kurtz

#3 Richard,
I simply have to ask, why is the sharing of opposing opinions wrong? If the articles posted were generally left wing the rightests would say the same thing as you.

Now my opinion and it may very well be wrong, I do alot of being wrong, is that the very kind Mr. Glassman has a curriosity in the sociological. I know I do, and I know that I may do the same thing as he does with posting articles if I were inclined to do so. My reasoning would be to find out just how many people would "argue" that posting something worth debating about is bad! That would be interesting to me. Why? Because by debating we learn what our neighbours thoughts are, by shutting up and being unwilling to debate and argue a position with which we agree with simply points out either stubborness and arrogance, or a lack of opinion of ones own.

I haven't read the articles, I don't plan to. I'm too busy driving around the United States and Canada meeting as many CrossFitters as possible and posting those experiences on my blog. You know what I've discovered so far? I haven't met a serious, dedicated CrossFitter yet whom I dislike, though I've met some points of disagreement. I hope that doesn't change.

You see I don't need to read the articles, because I come here for the conversation, the fine community and the harcore workouts, I learn much here even when I disagree.

Pierre - if you get to Phoenix, call me at 602-402-7385

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson

#31.... "Hear, Hear".

To erica, comment #25
While reading that page long non-sense also known as a "comment" I couldn't help but ask myself a question:
If it was raining Katuysha rockets in your neighborhood would you come out of this wanna be intellectual fog youre living in? Valid question, they've landed close to me while I was sleeping (no not israel) and they cleared my sinuses to say the least. Just a little food for thought.

Wow. You guys and gals truly rock. For want of another forum I'm posting this here....

I am 10 seconds from perfecting the Navy fitness exam, and can more or less rock the Marine Corp exam as well. This has taken a lot of work. 2.5 years ago I was chunky and couldn't do 15 pushups or run more than a 1/4 mile without puking. I am different person now, fitness has become more than a choice, more a lifestyle. But lately it has stagnated. I was beginning to think I was on top, I was beginning to think I had nowhere else to go. I was wrong.

Those stupid fitness magazines (Mens Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, etc) recycle the same garbage every month under a different headline. "Sizzling hot summer sex with this new ab routine" or "a v-shape that will turn her on". Yaaaaawn. Whatever happened to fitness for yourself, for your own well being? When did the distinction between nice body and physical fitness become blurred? Apparently they market to the weekend warrior, but not CrossFit.

The videos of your routines are amazing, and despite my high scores in the Navy, so far I have been unable to put out at that level (but give me time, it has only been a week).

The L-pullups are crazy difficult, I can't do them yet without swinging around like a monkey (even though I can do 15 pullups with excellent form). BTW, what is the benefit of the Kipping pullup?

Handstand pushups...yikes! Any recommendations for overcoming that natural fear of being upside down?

Anyway I just wanted to rant and say THANK YOU. I should be visiting my local chapter of CrossFit (Oahu) in the next week. It's rare to find a group of people so dedicated to physical fitness, even in the military. Again, thanks.

Pete #11: I always talk about religion and politics when I go out to dinner with friends. I also ask people their age, weight, annual salary and how many guns they have. Who are YOU eating dinner with?

Erica--the fact that Noam Chomsky considers the capture of two Hamas (terrorist) militants a crime should tell you something. And by the way, the prisoner that Hezbollah is demanding is Samir Kuntar, who is in jail for breaking and entering into an apartment in Nahariyah and killing three civilians and a police officer. I wonder if Chomsky thinks it is "criminal" to hold this terrorist and murderer in jail as well.

Isaac 26: If a group of people were killing YOUR kids and hiding behind civilians, would YOU just stand helplessly by because you were afraid of not being able to plead a moral high ground to people who wouldn't listen to you anyway?

Coverages of war depends on where you live... During the beginning of the Iraq war I noticed that French and British TV channels (I now live in Paris) did not do as much edulcorating of their reports as their American counterparts (I have family in the midwest and got to travel back to the States and see the difference for myself). And I bet it is the same thing now with this new chapter of the Middle-East conflict. Am I to assume that there is an army of independant journalists in London and in Paris doctoring all the reports I see? Are all the children crying paid actors? Come on... (if you think so, I can get you a deal on the Brookly Bridge...)

And to #25:

Noam Chomsky is an extremist, an anarcho-syndicalist. He certainly doesn't believe enough in any government (except Lebanon or Palestine, did I mention an anti-semite as well?) to criticize it. He is more concerned about advancing his anarchic, socialist agenda than telling the truth about Israel or American foreign policy. I encourage you (and everyone for that matter) to take his works with a grain of salt, or an entire salt shaker.

Richard:

If you consider Victor Davis Hanson "extreme right-wing," then you are either poorly informed or from the moonbat left who, in a grand bit of political irony, likens Joe Leiberman to Joe McCarthy. There is nothing "extreme" about supporting our allies (that's Israel); denigrating Western Civilization's common enemy (that's Hezbollah and terrorist organizations of their ilk); and calling BS on many weak-kneed members of the Western press who consistently go out of their way to minimize the utter barbarity and 7th century kookiness of Islamic Fascism in the Middle East and throughout the world.

Should the Crossfit crew post any of this political stuff? Well, it's their website. If you don't like it, don't read it. Better yet, start your own stinkin' website. You can call it "SurrenderFit."

Randy,
Well put. "surrenderFit" is perfect. I was thinking "I'mweakonnationaldefenseFit" but that is to long and confusing.

TomH,
Kipping Pull-Ups produce POWER! Speed and momentum baby thats the ticket. As far as inversion start with what I call mild inversion. Start with feet elevated push-ups and work your way up to vertical. Use parallettes to increase the range of motion and before you know it you'll be inverted doing all kinds of craziness. They only way to get around it is to suck it up and be a man (or women in many other cases ;) get yourself inverted.

As far as fear goes hows this? I hate heights with a passion but for some reason rappelling is one of my favorite things to do, particularly when done from helicopter skids. Not that I will be doing it anytime soon as I've left the army.

TimW,
It appears I may be in California for the better part of September, but on the way back out east I think I will travel the southern states as I've never been. I've got your number in my phone now and I will certainly use it when I come through.

George Galloway on Hizbollah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uxrtgO6NuY

Treelizard

A decade or so ago, when many in the Middle East felt peace between Arabs and Israelis was possible, whenever people mentioned the word “peace,” a cynical friend of mine would ask how it was spelt. Then he would go on to explain that Israel wants “piece,” not “peace”.

Until today, his theory is that Israel is, and will always remain, a colonial, occupationist entity — paranoid and full of military power. I must admit that he has even more proof for it today on the basis of more than a decade (since the start and collapse of the peace process) of violent and subversive Israeli actions.

Peace is not a priority for the Jewish state, because if it were a priority, Israel would make it happen.

This is why, according to my friend, whenever it decides to withdraw from an area (like in Lebanon or the West Bank and Gaza) it is “piece”. Similarly, whenever Israel decides to occupy or reoccupy a piece of land (say in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza, or even in the region beyond), it is also “piece.” Give a piece here and a piece there, or take a piece here and a piece there, but never make peace.

Now that Israel has halted its onslaught on Lebanon, which resulted in the occupation of a “piece” of land (in addition to large-scale destruction of a sovereign country and its people), and it is talking about arrangements for its security, I am reminded again of my friend’s theory.

What is the aim of Israel’s reoccupation of this piece of Lebanon? The declared aim, reiterated by both Israel and its supporter the US, is the destruction of Hizbollah. There are two problems with this theory. First, if this is the aim, then Israel has failed to do so. It has not even succeeded in weakening Hizbollah; in fact, the opposite is true.

Secondly, those in the Middle East have learned not to take Israel’s or the US’ declared intentions at face value. Maybe Israel has other aims or secret agendas.

Assuming, however, that Israel hit Hizbollah and reoccupied part of Lebanon for the sake of its security (as the US also says), my position would be that this is the wrong way of going about it.
First of all, violent acts breed violent acts, and occupation instigates resistance. If Israel does care about its security (and if the US cares about Israel’s security), the solution would be peace.

No matter what Israel does, and no matter how it and the US manipulate media discourse to force, enforce, and reinforce their arguments, it looks like the peoples of the Middle East believe in the basics. And no matter how much pressure Israel and the US (and the advocates of their discourse) exert, people will refuse to be side-tracked.

The basics are,according to my research: Israel has, in flagrant violation of international law and of all civil society laws, occupied Jordanian, Palestinian, Egyptian, Lebanese, and Syrian land by force, and continue to do so. If peace were to happen, and Israel’s security were to be guaranteed, the Jewish state has to give back the land it occupied, all of it. It has returned (under my friend’s piece theory) Egyptian, Jordanian, and some Lebanese and Palestinian land, but it has to give back all occupied Arab land, and it has to do it in a manner satisfactory to all the concerned parties.

This is the bottom line. Any other arrangements, no matter how smart or attractive they may seem to some, are insignificant and will fail to satisfy the needs of the peoples of the Middle East.

This is why, while one is happy that Israel has ended its bloody venture in Lebanon, one is not enthusiastic or even interested in Israel’s and the US’ arrangements for the security of Israel. Such measures are peripheral, minor and ultimately unimportant.

What Israel, the US, and the international community need to be thinking about is security for all peoples of the Middle East, not just Israel. The guarantee for the security of all is peace, and nothing but peace.

42: thank you.

I shouldn't have used the word 'fear', as being upside down isn't much of an equivalent to facing down a great white in the open ocean. Rather I'm uncomfortable - upside down is something I need to get used to. In the last video a female did a nice forward flip onto her hands....I tried to replicate that manuever at home to disasterous results (I broke a lamp). Apparently she was used to handstands.

Erica, I'm not calling you a plagiarist--that's your business. But your post (#43) is remarkably similar (as in word-for-word) to a recent opinion piece by Ahmad Y. Majdoubeh in the Jordan Times. Perhaps some attribution is in order, yes?

TomH,
yeah lamps and other fragile objects can become collateral damage when owned by CrossFitters.

Erica,
From a military stand point consider this. If I were hizbolah I would be thanking Isreal for not annihilating the entire country that was Lebanon. I'm not condoning the situation, and I'm not saying it could not have been avoided. What I'm saying is that Isreal could have wiped Lebanon and all of its people from the face of the earth and they didn't. The situation at hand could have been much, much worse. Hizbolah in my opinion was a kitten fighting a Lion and they didn't know it, because the Lion was just playing with what it thought was a fur-ball! I have more respect for the Isreali military (and I mean this militarily not necessarily morally or ethically) today than I did prior and I had much respect for them before this all occured.

War sucks, accept it and move on, because often so does life! We all will die, some of us more violently than others, thats our choice, its unfortunate that others may find the same fate when they are not deserving of it!

Erica, instead of posting the arguments of others in whole cloth, I would hope that you examine rigorously and intellectually the issues they cover. In your rush to educate us by forwarding Galloway's and Chomsky's missives, you are missing the points of the article posted:

1. The ever increasing failure of Western news vendors to examine the reports - verbal and photographic - coming out of the Middle East.
2. The failure to correct the initial reports of dead and wounded that are clearly inflated for Western consumption, and inflated to inflame the likes of Galloway and Chomsky, who swallow what Hizbullah, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority say without question.
3. The fact that news reports regularly exaggerated damage to Lebanon, while, if not minimizing the damage to Israel, scarcely covering it.
4. The precipitation of this crisis by Hizbullah, through a sovereign act of war (ie. The kidnapping and killing of Israeli soldiers ON ISRAELI SOIL).

In response to your first post, the Muammar brothers were in fact terrorist operatives. I include the link to the article rebutting Chomsky's claims, backed up by fact and sources. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23543

On a personal note, I will be happy to host you on a visit to Israel. I invite you to bring a Palestinian or Lebanese friend to Tel Aviv where we can sit at a number of coffeehouses, restaurants or homes undisturbed and discuss the nature of democracy and peaceful solutions in the Middle East. Afterwards, if you like, we can take a trip to Gaza or Lebanon, but I urge you to wear clothing for which you have no further use, as it will most likely be ruined when I am lynched and my body ripped to shreds by crowds screaming "Itbach al Yehud" ("Slaughter the Jew").

Randy 45, thanks for catching that. Here's the URL that Erica forgot to cite: http://www.jordantimes.com/fri/opinion/opinion3.htm

I, too, used to be lost without my neat list of talking points that were written for me by other people. But I did somehow eventually manage to put them in my own words and I think you can too. I heard your buddy Noam Chomsky speak once. I drove all the way from Chicago to Cleveland to hear him speak. There was someone in the crowd who went up front to ask a question, and Noam disagreed with him, but instead of engaging him in dialogue or using the opportunity to present a teaching point, our buddy Noam (yes, I'm rolling my eyes) said, "You don't know what you're talking about" and got security to escort him away from the microphone.

I think you can do better. Erica, I'm curious as to whether you've ever spent any time in Israel, since you seem to think you know so much about it.
Maybe you could explain to us in your own words why countries who have enough money to sponsor all kinds of terrorism and the killing of civilians all over the globe can't house any Palestinians, not even refugees. Is this really about land? Was the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina about land?

That editorial seemed to imply that when Israel gives land back, and they often do, usually under pressure from the United States, by the way, these innocent Palestinian terrorist groups attack them from the very land that they gave back.

If Israel wants peace, they would "make it happen." Oh sure, they want civilians to get bombed in their cities and soldiers to put their lives at risk. (Yes, I'm rolling my eyes again.)

It stuns me how people that have never been to Israel think they know so much about it simply because they can regurgitate information written by terrorist sympathizers.

Tell you what, you can root for terrorists whose founding principle is "death to Israel," and I'll root for the good guys. You may want to spend some time in Syria and Iran, though, to figure out what you're really supporting. But I hear they don't care for women very much.

I was going to attemp to respond to each article in turn but I started to ramble. I'm on my second tour in Iraq, I was lucky(?) enough to be in the same place both times with different units with enought difference in time to be able to notice the changes in what was once "my neighborhood". Control has been given over to the Iraqi Army, and guess what, people are constantly getting blown up, killed, kidnapped and just genrally assaulted now that the U.S. is no longer patrolling that sector. That didn't happen the last time I was here, we were hit by two IED's in sector with maybe 10 more being detonated in 12 months, that's a full year. I hear that many IED's being detonated in a week, and those are only the ones I can hear. I think, and this is my personal opinion, not that of the military, that we've gotten into a "siege mentalilty" as our way of thinking. The problem with that is if the army laying seige has the patience they always win. This is there country, not ours, they don't have anywhere else to go. I do. They win? probably not. Unfortunatly our politicians are hard headed enough to think that if we dump more money and more troops into the region we can win. We aren't fighting the people of Iraq, we are fighting their culture. We are fighting it in the enemy that hates us and detests our way of life and we are fighting it in the Iraqi soldiers we are attempting to train to support their own country. The Iraqi army has had some of the best Soldiers, NCO's and Officers the U.S. Army has to offer training them for the last two to three years, have they gotten any better, yeah, a little; but they still shoot themselves in the foot. Literally, they haven't been able to get their own soldiers to maintain proper weapons orientation; the brigagde and battalion level officers will order subordinates to cut electrical wires to their soldiers quarters and work areas so that the generator will be able to better power the air-conditioner in their offices. True story: It was payday for an Iraqi Army unit. They had been paying the unit all day, under the supervision of the military training team, and when they were told that the line would be shutting down for the evening a Lieutenant tried to cut line. When an American Soldier attempted to correct him he gestured to his holstered pistol. When the Soldier continued to correct him he actually removed the weapon from it's holtster, and waved it in a threatening manner. Can we help them? That's a good question. Should we help them is a better question.

is there something wrong with my computer or is the posting frozen? i know my recent post is under review and hasn't been posted yet, but i just wanted to check...

question answered...

Ali G and Noam Chomsky:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro

Looks like I'm an Unfrozen Caveman Voter...

Coach,
How did you manage to find that interview? I was crying from laughing so hard.

I'd like to take a moment to point out the extremely repetitive nature of the rest day posting, and forum responses. There is minor contextual variation, but generally it always follows the same pattern:

Rest Day

1) Coach posts a handful of articles, always containing at least one incendiary political piece on terrorism or global warming. This article will express a radically right wing view (maybe not radical by American standards, but to the rest of the world, it's pretty out there) from a very questionable news source.

2) Forum responses will follow the same pattern. Maybe a handful of posters will say "Great article, Coach!" but eventually the same thing always happens. Some left-leaning reader, enraged by the nature of the article, posts something along the lines of "Please Coach stop this madness."

3) Enter forum rebuttal. A half dozen or so posters, usually from military backgrounds, will post "If you don't like the articles don't read them."

4) Lefty posters continue to rage.

5) Someone posts antecdotal views on the middle east, "you've never been there so shut up your face."

6) Repeat in three days.

Does this really seem to be provoking lots of valid discussion and thought, or is it just the same stupid arguments over and over again?

The peak of a roof for a handstand shot is a good idea. Gives the image of being on the edge of something one can fall off of, while still offering some degree of safety. I like it.

Of course maybe I am in the wrong... is Jesse on the edge of a flat roof?

Damn, Jesse! I'm getting a nosebleed just looking at the picture. You are a stud--and maybe a little nuts! Hang in there!

Excellent choice of articles today, thanks!

I thought the posting was slow last night (I last posted at 10p) but it was just because you all were writing your masters thesis to post! Good grief. Its a wonder I get any work done during rest days!

Daniel #55 I see the rest days as a conversation. For me personally, reading opinions and articles here forces me to go out and do my OWN research and form my OWN opinions pro or con to what was been stated here. Besides that, crossfit is "ELITE" fitness used by various military groups, law enforcement groups, public safety groups etc. Those of us who are NOT in the above categories should be grateful that we get to learn and work out along side those who are either elite or dead.

Dennis Miller is my favorite caveman:

"What I like is Bush doesn't over-think the situation. He wakes up in the morning, puts both feet on the ground, scratched his balls and says "Let's kill some F&^#ing terrorists today".

Global warming is the real deal folks. Threat #1 to our way of life.

"I'm not a scientist," everyone says so they don't read the evidence.

Well, the evidence is damning. Human beings have changed the climate starting in 1860. Carbon dioxide emissions are the culprit.

I recommend THE WEATHER MAKERS, by Tim Flannery. Bottom line=99% of scientists (and remember, you are not one) are certain that climate change is being driven by humans.

I think that we will look back at our current political debate with a huge Homer Simpson, "Doh".

How can we stop worrying about Israel? The Middle East's only democracy, and our only friend in the ME. Of course, we had no enemies in the Middle East before Israel, but they're invaluble anyway.

Global warming... oh boy...

Chemically, the atmosphere is changing, and that's not because we got hit by a nuke, meteor, or bombarded by some other catastrophic event. We're pumping crap into the atmosphere at a sadly damning rate. When the ozone starts to break down and leaves a gaping hole above the poles, something is wrong (not the same as global warming, but certainly an indicator that we're messing something up). When temperatures increase even 0.5c of a degree, there are serious global rammifications. The author suggested that having the bread basket move to siberia wouldn't be a bad thing; consider this - his ignorance is made obvious by the fact that the soil in Siberia would take years to catch up with the climate. Meaning that no crops would be growable at the rate which they are now. Stockpiling, etc. would most definitely ensue. Not to be an alarmist, but having the climate of the ENTIRE globe change is most assuredly NOT a good thing.

I am a scientist, not one of great experience, but certainly one who is smart enough to know not to cite articles from 1975 as a case for 2006 standards.

Rode the "Dutch Branch" route this morning:

11.4 miles
44:44
Avg HR: 142
Max HR: 165
Avg Spd: 15.6 mph
Max Spd: 27.9 mph

For #61, try www.realclimate.com.

I see no one wants to talk about climate change by the way; indicative of our worrying ignorance about the subject. I guess if we read Michael Crichton's NOVEL we'll all be perfectly informed seeing how he's such a good writer. It reminds me of how the lead in TEAM AMERICA saved the world with his ACTING. Bravo.

Global warming is the cold war propaganda for the new millennia. Better than the cold war or Y2K, because its shelf life is indefinite.

Maybe the earth hates our freedom too.

Treelizard - Do you live in SO Cal? I saw your post yesterday where you mentioned your swamp cooler.

Did yesterday's WOD today. 29:56. great workout.

Lisa - 28:19. Wife beat me again. I told her it was because she subbed push-ups on parallets for HSPU's, but I really have no good excuse.

Thanks for posting the Ali G link, Coach. I had forgoten about our conversation about it.

I just skimmed Lloyd Brown's Article, having little interest in the subject these days. Whether or not Climate Change was a fanciful concern prior to this war is up for debate, but freting about it now, in the face of civilization's greater stuggle, seems to me a bit indulgent. You may have put both articles in juxtaposition for exactly that reason.

I could be wrong. I hope I overstate the signifance of this war, and the greater demographic shifts that underscore it. The inimitable, but rarely uplifting, John Derbyshire gives me hope:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjVkNzU5MDE3MzQ2YjVkMjQxZGFkNjljZjE3YzAzM2E=

First I want to thank crossfit for making me a better athlete. I have found the results amazing in only 5 weeks and tell everyone who will listen to check out the Crossfit site. It's true; there is never anyone on the squat rack or even remotely working muscle groups as opposed to wasted singular muscle movements (the bicep curl). I am stronger, faster and look better than I ever have...thanks all!!!! "Fitness for the people"

On a different note I have to agree with some earlier postings. Leave the politics out!!!!
Crossfit to me is about a shared athletic experience and politics has no place here. America is polarized enough and there are too many opinions and too few discussions....America needs argument in the true sense of the word...not one sided views posted without the benefit of rebuke or rebuttal.

-frederic Ciner

First of all, why get angry about the topics posted, everyone likes a good argument every so often, and if anyone says otherwise, they are lying!
Thought provoking discussion should encourage you to examine the world around you, as well as yourself.

Anywho, on the topic of Isrial, It's my personal opinion that #49 has pretty much hitthe nail on the head. These people (what ever group is currently or ever will be attacking Isrial) are going to continue to harass Isrial because it used to be theirs, and that's what they do. Keep in mind that Isrial was established by the UN in 1950 (ish) So it is made out of little chunks of all the surrounding countries. At the time it was a good idea, because the Jews had just had a bit of a tough time, and everyone felt bad for them. Genocide will do that. Well it's been a few years and everyone has forgotten why the Israilis are there, except for the Israilis, who are not about to let anyone ever get anything over on them ever again. But everyone else wants their land back, since giving it up was a decicion made by a fledging world government, and no one who is in power now was involved wih that decicion. So the Israilis are the neighbor that no one likes and the whole block is pissed, unfortunatelty this is the middle east, so when that situation arises things get blown up. It's the status quo for the whole place, and I don't think it's changing anytime soon.

So where does th US fall into this thing? Hmmmm, tough call. There aren't any actual US assets in Lebanon. We are not a player. Isrial may have a lot of equipment that looks suspiciously similar to ours, but guess what, they are our ally, and that's what allies do. Any one ever heard of the lend lease program from waaaay back in the day? That kind of thing still goes on. Other than that, the only thing the USA has done in this conflict has been to thell them to cut that crap out. And yes, as usual the media has been extremely un fair. Why is anyone suprised? The media's job isn't to report the news. It is to SELL the news. And if I was an on location reporter in an area where people that bad mouth terrorists on world news tonight tend to get abducted, I think that my opinions would be a little skewed as well.

Wife beat me again. - Posted by Delaney

Poor baby. Try a restraining order.

Wife beat me again. - Posted by Delaney

Poor baby. Try a restraining order.

#37 tree lizard: I think your dinner conversation agenda is absolutley charming. I not only have no problem with that, I think I am going to start every dinner with a new friend with those questions. From now on.

#60 Whiskey Sean; Thanks for the Millerism. Its my new favorite quote.

#11. What rule about not discussing politics or religion when out with friends. Sorry, but why? Have these discussions. It doesn't matter if you disagree with your friends. When did good natured debate become taboo? I discuss religion and politics with friends all the time. I've had some great discussions in this arena with other CFers at various events. That's the point of the discussions. Maybe someone has a different viewpoint, and maybe you can learn something...

I started laughing as soon as I saw the headlines for today... Knew treelizard was gonna have a fun day... laughed even harder when I finally read the posts

now this is amusing: I posted an opinion contrary to the group norms, and lo and behold it has been deleted. Weird eh?

#74 there aren't already enough venues for political discussion out there...?

glad to see treelizard put some nice soft gloves on :)

Hehe, to everybody who thinks I'm crazy, don't worry, it's just a good camera angle ;)

Daniel (#55):

Welcome to the fray. You've just added to the din without adding to the discussion.

So tell me Mr. Pot, what color is that kettle?

Two separate comments to make today, in the midst of a number of early posts (it's 8:40 am on the west coast, and there's already 76 posts!):

1. The claims of those who wish to dispel global climate change through the admission of complexity are simply foolish. The argument runs like this: "Yes, we can admit that the earth is warming, but there are simply too many variables to know why, or to know how to counteract such warming even if it were anthropogenic." This logic falls short on multiple accounts: 1) Complexity is never a reason for inaction. Were this the case, we wouldn't develop complex political theories, religions, or even CrossFit (which attempts to manipulate an inordinately complex system, the body). 2) Critical lacuna in data do not indicate a total "ignorance": they indicate scientific gaps yet to be filled. Current climate models have extraordinary predictive capacity, but with some margin of error. Manipulating the margin of error (or standard deviation) in the name of political gain is disingenuous and ignores the explanatory power of current climate models. 3) No antagonist to global climate change (of which there are only a handful) has yet to provide a model which alternately explains the heating of the planet using other than anthropogenic sources. The role of science isn't simply to cast doubt; it is to cast doubt using reliable scientific and peer-reviewed data which present an alternate theory, set of data, or model. This is still forthcoming.

And, in the interest of full-disclosure, I have a degree in biochemistry, and have never known a scientist -- conservative, liberal, or otherwise -- who doubted global climate change.

2. I'm tired of the polemical to-and-fro on these posts regarding Israel-Lebanon/Palestine. Some postings will inevitably be "left-leaning" and cite figures such as Chomsky (who is not an "anarcho-socialist" by the way, which seems contradictory prima facie). Others, likely from Treelizard and IanTelAviv, will inevitably support Israel unilaterally, no matter what she does. Both sides -- left and right -- fail to recognize each other and fail to recognize the weaknesses of their own position. Here, it appears to me, are what we know:
1. Hezbollah receives weapons from Iran and Syria.
2. Israel receives weapons from the U.S., it's largest benefactor (the shipment of bunker-buster bombs to Israel was well-publicized).
3. Hezbollah attempts to kill -- and often does -- innocent civilans.
4. Israel, to our knowledge, does not directly target innocent civilans, but kills them nonetheless. They also -- like Hezbollah -- target civilan infrastructure.
5. Hezbollah uses urban areas from which to mount its attacks.
6. Israel uses urban areas from which to mount its attacks, but may not use civilans *directly* as human shields. (Both of the above arguments are totally ridiculous, though -- does the U.S. do the same? I've lived in Albuquerque and Colorado Springs, where *massive* military infrastructure are within the city itself. Does this mean we use "human shields." No, of course not.)
7. Hezbollah, like a number of other post-colonial organizations, have reacted to foreign occupation and their own internal struggles through the political mechanisms latent within Islam itself: Pan-Islamist political thinking and the "othering" of an enemy. While this is clearly a reaction to 100-years of foreign occupation and meddling (the British, the French, Eastern Europe, and the U.S.), it is also historically congruent with other movements within Islam since Mohammed.
8. Israel, a state formed in the wake of the Holocaust, has always been politically divided between its more "statist" objectives and its more Zionist tendencies. This shows even in the current Israeli political scene, which, one could argue, is more democratic and diverse politically than the U.S. Yet there is a heavy Zionistic tendency (fed by American evangelicals, no doubt) which often swings parliamentary politics, and constitutes a "fundamentalist" wing within Israeli politics.

Given the above, can't we just admit -- like global climate change -- that the situation is historically and politically complex, that both parties are "wrong" in a very essential sense, and move forward? Why is the assessment of blame necessary for consensus-building? Until we recognize that *both* parties and their benefactors are wrong, and often occupying intractable political positions, then we will never move forward from the cycle of polemic, Manichean duality ("they wish to kill us," "they occupied our land," etc.), and persistent and indefinite retribution. Any solution that favors the destruction of its opposition is never a solution.

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20060817_Massmurderintheskieswastheplotfeasible.php

now this is amusing: I posted an opinion contrary to the group norms, and lo and behold it has been deleted. Weird eh?

Comment #76 - Posted by HC

As someone stated, this is not a political forum, which means the politicizing must fit the mods' and host's agenda. As long as you agree on indefinitely expanding the war on terr', you're free to say whatever you like here. Don't be so paranoid, what are you, a terrorist?

#81- "And, in the interest of full-disclosure, I have a degree in biochemistry, and have never known a scientist -- conservative, liberal, or otherwise -- who doubted global climate change."

I have a degree in history, and 500 years ago there wasnt a scientist -- conservative, liberal, or otherwise -- who doubted that the Earth was the center of the universe. If science could prove global warming was due to human activity, this wouldnt be a topic for discussion.

#76 and #81. I dont get your gripe. There are quite a few posts here that are contrary to the beliefs and opinions suggested by the coach.

One side wishes to wipe the other side off of the face of the earth. The other side has made no such claims EVER.

#84
I think it would still be a topic of discussion. Some people still think I was made from Adam's rib.

Cool pic, Jesse! I think you need to be wearing your CF "Dangerous" t-shirt for that.

TomH (#36):
On the kipping pull-up: The CF Eastside website has a post about it (http://www.crossfiteastside.com/2006/01/learning-to-kip.html) that links back to the mother of all kipping pull-up discussions on the CF forum (http://www.crossfit.com/discus/messages/22/8991.html).

Also, CF Journal issue 32 (April 05) has an article the kipping pull-up and issue 43 (March 06) contains EvaT's excellent progression for teaching the kipping pull-up. (http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/journal.html)

On overcoming fear of being upside down & learning handstands, here are just a few ideas. Do forward rolls (Journal issue #38). Work on kicking up to *head*stand against the wall; spend some time in the full headstand position with wall support. Once you're ok with that, try doing the same in the middle of the room, with a trusted spotter to keep you from falling backward. Then work on the handstand by starting with your hands on the ground (keep you arms straight at all times!) and practicing kicking up toward the handstand position, without even going all the way up. Work on that until you're ready to go all the way up. I know I sound like a library catalog (if the shoe fits, I guess...) with all these Journal references, but gymnastics coach Roger Harrell outlines a nice progression for this in issue 46 (June 06).

Good luck, and welcome to CF.

P.S. In general, you'll get better responses to questions like these (and they'll be better archived and searchable in the future) if you ask them on the forums instead of in the front-page comments.

Zach nicely said. Sadly, I expect a quick return to left v right vitriole, it makes people feel much better about themselves. To question for a second that there is an element of doubt to their certainties is too risky. It is easier to use clever words to defend one's colors than embrace doubt.

Wow, I think the discussion in this forum proves that people who endeavor to stay physically fit aren't just a bunch of muscle heads who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. Good for all of us.

500 years ago there were scientists who doubted that the earth was the center of the universe. Most of them lived in the Middle East. In 1514 Copernicus published his "Little Commentary" which first put forth his findings that the Earth was not the center of the universe. That was about 500 years ago.

I found Victor Davis Hanson when I happened upon "Who Killed Homer". From that I don't think you could call him extreme right wing. His interest is in preserving our rights, freedoms and culture by educating the reader.

If he's extreme in any way it's in his ability to support his conclusions and cite references in his book. I look forward to reading more of his work.

#84 JC:

You state: "I have a degree in history, and 500 years ago there wasn't a scientist -- conservative, liberal, or otherwise -- who doubted that the Earth was the center of the universe. If science could prove global warming was due to human activity, this wouldn't be a topic for discussion."

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, here. Yes, people hold -- and held -- beliefs which are often contrary to "reality." However, since the advent of modern science some 200-300 years ago, such beliefs have iteratively been corrected against through careful inquiry and peer-review. Such a method clearly admits fallibility while maintaining some connection to the truth. Prior to Kepler, Copernicus, and Galileo, "truth" was maintained dogmatically through scholastic philosophy and its political benefactor, the Roman Catholic Church.

Science will never "prove" anything. It can only state, with varying degrees of probability (given quantum dynamics, fundamental uncertainty, and the problem of induction) what it sees as a state of affairs. This probabilistic approach should not be seen as the opening into which to drive a political wedge, however. Science has shown, like the splitting of the atom (which was "only" predicted), that global warming is anthropogenic in nature and can have effects which are reliably predictable within a certain standard of error. To say otherwise, contrary to every living Nobel Prize winner in the sciences, every member of the academy of sciences, Bush's own panel on global climate change, every peer-reviewed scientific journal in the world, and every commission which has studied global climate change, flies fully in the face of reality. Some issues which are ambiguous in nature require the political imperative of "balance": in issues which are incontestable by everyone involved, "balance" is merely the call made by ideologues.

WOW,

Chomsky is still alive. I think I read that article 20 years ago but the countries have just changed.

Zach #81

Since your the stated intent of your list was to draw moral equivalences between Israel and Hezbollah I'll temper my instinct to rant against such comparisons, and instead ask that you clarify your point. How does ‘admitting both sides have made mistakes’ help anything?

In keeping with the caveman theme, I’ll just say that only one side of that dispute maintains the stated objective of driving the other side into the sea. I think we should all take them at their word, for they seem less encumbered by post-historical notions like “Any solution that favors the destruction of its opposition is never a solution.”

Interesting thought experiment: We all think we know right-wing thinking from left-wing. It seems likely that everyone on the continuum is correct about SOMETHING. If we take an issue like global warming or Israel, how many "moves" does it take to turn a conservative into a liberal, or vice versa?

Visualize a balance. If you are left leaning, you have a number of weights on one side, and less on the other. You take a weight off one side, and put it on the other. You continue this process until the Right side is the preponderant one.

What are the weights? Is there a single weight that in itself is sufficient to tip the scale? Personal responsibility? Compassion? Faith in science? Mistrust of government?

Phrased another way: how is it that you believe what you believe so strongly, and yet someone else believes something very different equally strongly? How are they viewing the world differently?

As one example, it is self evident to me beyond the need for discussion that the point of Rest Day--the CrossFit Sabbath, so to speak--is not to discuss the discussion. Yet it happens every time.

For the record, I'm just a Caveman who was recently defrosted, and revived through modern scientific methods I don't understand, and I don't know about this whole internet thing, but I do know one thing for sure: Coach will keep doing whatever he wants, and in this crowd will get plenty of support for doing it.

Always thought provoking.
24 minute mountain bike ride. Stretching

Zach

Well thought out and well put.

Comment #37 treelizard

Yes...she does ask those questions. I gave her the nice version of my answer to the "how many guns do you have?" question. :)

Comment #93 WhiskeySean wrote:

“Any solution that favors the destruction of its opposition is never a solution.”

Unless you're Clausewitz. :)

Just thought I'd introduce myself to everyone, this is my first day posting. My name is Travis, I'm 19 soon to be 20, and I'm in the middle of completing my Ohio Firefighter 2 certification.

There is a chance next spring that I may be entering the Firefighter Combat Challenege with some of Firefighters I train with, so I've decided to use Crossfit to prepare myself. I've done variations of Crossfit before, but not up until now have I decided to follow the WOD's religously. Today was my first day! I know it's a rest day, but I decided to start with yesterdays workout and pick up on tomorrows WOD.

I substituted the Handstand pushups for Dive Bomber pushups, ended up being pretty difficult. I've got a lot of hard work ahead of me! Look forward to posting with you all.

5 Rounds for Time:
20 burpees
10 dive bomber pushups
Run 400m

23:12

Somebody tell this Travis guy to take his stinking fitness questions to a fitness website, and leave us to our political squables.

23 minutes ain't bad for a rook though. Good job.

#84 - If science could prove global warming was due to human activity, this wouldnt be a topic for discussion.

There are many topics that have long been put to rest by science, history, etc that are still being debated today as if there was some doubt about their validity. For example, history has proven that certain events occured - the Holocaust, astronauts stepped on the earth's moon, etc etc. Yet there are still people who think the Holocaust never occured and/or who think the moon landing was staged in some Hollywood studio. Science is one thing, but political and personal motivations are another. Even if science could conclusively prove that global warming was due to human activity (which I believe it has, at least for my level of understanding), I'm willing to bet that there would still be people that would continue to deny that conclusion.

#55 - Thanks for summing up what a lot of us have felt. However, to his credit, Coach does put out the type of articles that cause the most ripples in the least amount of reading time (hey, kind of like crossfit!). I mean, could you imagine if he put out long-winded articles (but from more reputable sources, such as peer-reviewed academic journals)? There would be a fraction of the current level of debate, as I don't think most people would want to put that much time into slogging through massive slow-read articles and debating strangers around the world. The content contained in most of the posted articles is meaningless. But it's more interesting (but really no different) than Coach just posting, "Global Warming Debate...ready, set, go!"

Zach,
My point was this: Many smart, educated people (myself included) have been convinced of a "fact" based on their belief in the scientific method, the scientific community, preponderonce of opinions of people who they deem as smart or knowledgable, etc. But everyday new evidence, new "facts", new opinions come to light that change our world view. One example was the prevalent thought of scientists before Copernicus introduced heliocentric theory. A great example is what I thought I knew about exercise and nutrition before I was introduced to crossfit. I knew for sure my 3 sets of 8 routine, 6 mile slow runs, and pasta dinners were the ticket to fitness and most experts agreed(most still do). I find that the more educated I become, the more I realize how little I know. Thats just me.

WhiskeySean #93:

My intention wasn't to draw moral equivalences between Hezbollah and Israel. Most of what I stated in #81 above (aside, perhaps, from numbers 7 and 8) were what I perceive as facts-of-the-matter.

My point, rather, was to show that the category of "moralizing" simply doesn't apply in instances of international political dispute. Once one becomes locked in the logic of "who's wrong, who's right," the possibility of any peacable solution is jettisoned (I'm sure we've all seen this in personal relationships...I sure have). The moralization against, and othering, of the Israelis is precisely the logic that leads to Hezbollah's stated objective to "push Israel to the sea."

It is also this persistent demand for moralization and blame that has placed the Middle East in the current cycle of violence, retribution, failed peace, and suffering in which it is rapt. This logic -- inherent within the Abrahamic religious traditions -- has clearly failed. Why not try something different?

As to your latter point that Hezbollah wishes to push Israel to the sea: I don't doubt that that is their stated objective. However, there are millions of evangelical Christians (who form a powerful political constituency in the U.S. -- just ask Karl Rove and the evangelical pastor, James Hagee) and Zionists who have called for a fully Jewish state in the Middle East (to the exclusion of the Palestinians, one would suppose).

Needless to say, neither position is tenable, as both support, within their logic, a form of ethnic cleansing.

Again, I'm not trying to draw moral equivalence here -- the logic is inherently faulty. And, anyways, what does morality have to do with war at all?

Aargh, my post that I spent an hour on mysteriously disappeared, so I've rewritten it based on topics and not people's quotes, I'll respond to everyone later.

THE "ARABS ONLY HATE US BECAUSE OF ISRAEL" ARGUMENT

The U.S. did not support Israel much 40 years ago, and Arabs hated the U.S. about the same. Most of them were Soviet client states, it was all Cold War politics. The U.S. wasn’t giving Israel money at the time and wouldn’t even sell Israel the arms they needed, in order not to anger Arab states.

(By the way, the U.S. gives the second amount of aid to Palestinian refugees, right after Israel.)

In any case, if the U.S. abandoned Israel out of fear of terrorists, it would be seen as a sign of weakness, and rightfully so in my opinion, only weak losers abandon their allies in the trenches.

I read an analogy somewhere that asked what would happen if the U.S. told Arab states to stop blindly supporting Palestinians, or else Americans will hate them, and continue to hate them until they comply. Doesn't that sound ridiculous? Is there some reason that Arab nations somehow have the right to support "Palestine" while Americans don't have the right to support Israel? Does sharing political and cultural characteristics, oh, such as DEMOCRACY for instance, mean anything? Do you really think these shared values just COINCIDENTALY produced the alignments during the Cold War in which the U.S. and Israel were on one side and Arabs sided with the Soviet Union?

THE "ISRAEL HASN'T DONE ANYTHING FOR US" argument

Israel estroyed the Iraqi nuclear weapons program at Osirak so the U.S. didn't have to face a nuclear-armed Saddam in '91 and '03, destroyed Soviet anti-aircraft batteries, is the largest secure aircraft carrier in the region for the US and the only one that lets U.S. troops fly over airspace, shares more intelligence with the US, more than all the NATO countries put together (according to a former US Senator), reducing American losses in Afghanistan and Iraq and helping prevent attacks on US soil, is responsible for hundreds (billions of dollars worth) of improvements in fighter jet, and provided the U.S. with the most extensive information in HLS and warfare against suicide bombers, car bombs, etc. as well as providing U.S. Marines with vital intelligence as they fly abouve the Sunni Triangle in Iraq.

(Oh and one more thing--remember when Saddam fired 43 Scuds, 39 of which were aimed at Israel? Israel wasn't even part of the coalition attacking Iraq!)

THE LAND ARGUMENT

This issue isn't about land. Before there was a state of Israel, Arabs were already massacring Jews--in 1929, 1936 to 1939, as well as declaring war on the Jews in 1948, 1956, 1967, with the slogan "throw the Jews into the sea."

Israel is a country fighting for its very existance while being surrounded by enemies sworn to annihilate her. Appeasement is not an option.

The Arabs came to Israel (as trespassers) from Arabia. They aren't native to Israel. The Jews have been living in Israel since they were slaughtered and exiled by the Romans 2,000 years ago, they weren't "put" there.

Also Arabs were OFFERED their own state in 1948 and turned it down. Please do some research on the history of this conflict.

I find it interesting that there are Arab countries that could absorb all the Arabs living in "Palestine" hundreds of times over but instead they let them rot in refugee camps in Egypt. When 22 countries expelled all the Jews from their borders (1,000,000 Jews) in 1948, Israel, like a good country, absorbed them all. Why aren't Arab countries doing the same for their own? The only kindness that has been shown to them is by Israel which lets them--and suicide bombers--into their country to work.

If this is really about land, please tell me why Palestinians elected a group responsible for the murders of hundreds of civilians as well as hundreds of suicide bombings just a few months after Israel unilaterlly turned over the Gaza strip to them.

Haha! I was like wait, what?!?

I'm definitely a rook when it comes to the short time high intensity type workouts. I think I've got a lot of potential to get pretty good at them, but I have a lot of busting ass ahead of me.

Most of my previous workouts have been in the weight room. A lot of Bodybuilding/Powerlifting related workouts. Some Variations of Crossfit every once in awhile, but that's going to change. :)

caveman voter: didn't get that one, or didn't see the relevance. i've read it a couple times and maybe i just don't get political humor.

global warming:Q: Is it happening and are we, the human race, a major contributor?
global warming:A: Yes, and maybe, i could probably be a little more vague but that would silly. it's happening and it will probably swing back the other way eventually, but we won't know until it happens. didn't anyone read the Crichton piece on complex systems. guess what the earths temperature shifts is a complex system.

Worry about the west. yes, I worry everyday that the individuals in the political system of my country are not there doing what they think is right for the country but what is better for themselves. how many pockets get lined but the war in iraq. who's saying what just to make sure they get re-elected. has the civic servant become the civic master?

#36 TomH

Try doing the HSPU near the deep end pool, that's what I do.

It lets you have the whoel body in proper postion and excute the full RoM while still scaling the weight/having to maintain balance.

As it gets eaiser you move MORE to a shallower end. I'm slowly getting to the shallowest end but it's slow going.

Anyone else's opinion on this is welcome.

Ok, I wasn't saying that there isn't a problem with everyone hating each other to begin with. And yes, Isriel is acting correctly as a sovereign govenment and doing what is responsible and right in reguads to their fellow man - both Arab and Jewish.
This is why people should just lay off when Isriel decides that they're going to take care of a threat on their border before it becomes a threat IN their border. Although they have a history of dealing with their enemies with extreme pejudice, it seems to work out well for them, even if they aren't making friends. And in the Hezbolla conflict they were certainly in the right, and I think should have kept pushing.

Jesse: It's okay, man, there's a whole world out there. Whatever problems you've got they can't possibly be that bad. Things change, man. Just get down off the roof and we can talk about it. ;)

Ian 47: Nice link!

Daniel 48: I wasn't saying that people who hadn't been to Israel couldn't speak, just that they might wish to do some more research. A teacher said the same thing to me when I was presenting false information about schools on the message board, and my response was to research it more, say, "Doh! I was wrong" and move on. Is that so much to ask?

Delaney 67-brother, if I lived in SoCal I'd have hit up all the SoCal cf'ers for some beer a long time ago. I'm in Arizona. Nice job on the WOD. You AND your wife.

Frederic 69: that sounds like a rebuke or rebuttal.

Sgt Feather 73: You may want to start by telling people how great they look before asking their weight.

Tami 78: Otherwise I might hurt my fingers. :)

Zack 81: The word is "anarcho-syndicalist"--look it up. And you may want to factor in your "complexity" theory the fact that the world seems to be obsessed with "seeing both sides" of a situation that is clearly not equal on both sides.

Tim 97: Don't worry, I'll just ask your wife. ;)

62, 70, etc. etc. all covered in my post 104

Oh, and by the way, the word is "I-S-R-A-E-L" not Isriel or Isreal. Just sayin'.

Treelizard #109:

I was using this quote from TomH #39 above:
"He is more concerned about advancing his anarchic, socialist agenda than telling the truth about Israel or American foreign policy." A minor point, but it deserves correcting.

And, to point: Wouldn't the use of complexity theory a priori deny any claim to "both sides"?

On Israel-- I'll choose only one statement from Hanson's article to comment on since I hear it so often:

"Hezbollah precipitated the present crisis by kidnapping and killing Israeli soldiers, and launching missiles against Israel's cities"

The problem with this is that it asks us to ignore all history up to this point. If I were a child and I punched a schoolyard bully who had tormented me all year I could rightly be said to have "thrown the first punch" but would that really make me the agressor? It would be more fair to say I was acting in self defense. It is the same with the many incarnations of Arab organizations fighting to defend their lives and their lands from the clutches of Israel which is, in my opinion, the biggest bully on the block.

SteveT,

Before anybody jumps on you, I'd be curious if you would be willing to contextualize that comment. What is your understanding of the history of that conflict?

Treelizard, put the soft gloves back on

I actually hear a theme song in my head

like SteveT is the guy on the surfbboard and you get a sharks view as it swims up towards the surfer

Steve,

You are absolutely correct. Israel is the biggest bully on the block, but with good reason. Israel is a country of 7 million Jews (and just over 6 million Arabs) surrounded by an entire host of belligerent nations. History actually shows that up until around 60 years ago when the British left Palestine and Israelis declared independence according to UN decree, Arabs and Jews lived side by side. During the '48 war, the organized armies of 4 Arab nations numbering 6 million were defeated by an "army" of 600,000 Jews, who in the process suffered the loss of 1% of their total population at the time. Since then we have seen unending hostilities on and off from both sides.

The formation of Hizbullah, a radical offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1982, occured because the Iranians and Syrians wanted a powerful guerilla force in Lebanon to fight off the Israeli "invasion" (I put this in quotations because some considered Israel's presence a necessity to maintain stability and establish Lebanese sovereignty from the Syrian government which up until then had practically controlled the government.) Since then Hizbullah has kidnapped, attacked, and threatened Israel's UN Approved borders consistently. For the last generation, Israel, Hizbullah, and Hamas have all kidnapped and held hostage, traded and negotiated all behind closed doors. Until now.

That is a fairly accurate account and summary of the history. Is Israel a bully? Arguments can be made for that, sure. Is Hizbullah a group of freedom fighters with a noble cause. Arguments could be made for that too. But let's base things in fact and not emotion.

Finally, as far as the throwing around of terms such as "right-wing" and "liberal." Liberal refers to mainstream. The vast majority of people are liberals in some sense. Right-wing refers to conservative, and these days neo-con, or robbing from the poor to make the rich richer with money that they do not need. The word for people who believe in instituting social change, greater understanding of circumstances, and some compassion for those who starve and suffer and ultimately turn to violence --since they feel they have nothing else to live for anyway-- is progressive.

I am one of the right wing thinking people who does not believe much of what the media tells us. Please keep the spotlight on the issues that if not properly dealt with will costs us many American lives. Preach it Brother.

Re: #21...I think the laugh you gave me was unintentional, but thanks anyway...
"stick to what they are best at" - if they followed that principle, if they encouraged US to follow that principle, well, the site wouldn't BE here. A major premise of CrossFit is that you work on your weaknesses until they become your strengths.

So maybe you could just think of rest days as Coach perfecting his...I dunno...pick a skill. :-)

The Four questions:
#1 http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/05/there-is-no-evidence.html
#2 http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/this-is-just-natural-cycle.html
#3 http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather.html
#4 http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/action-on-global-warming-is-suicide.html

There's more than that to respond to each of the 4 broad question areas, I just chose some representative responses... in fact, it would be good to read through the whole guide, it does a good job of summarizing the current scientific mainstream opinion on many aspects of global warming skepticism.

Oh, and as for Crichton's Book, see here for a response: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

As a post-script, the author talks about Syria's brutal occupation of Lebanon. What about Israel's? Syria's assassination of the previous Prime Minister of Lebanon, but what about Israel's systematic assassinations of Hamas and Fatah political leaders? Or their imprisonment without trial? Or, we could go off topic to the holy United States and the Bush administration's illegal imprisonment of Al Quada "enemy combatants" at Guantanemo Bay, which violates the Geneva Convention as well as every civil liberty law outlined by the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The point: legitimate democracies inflict terror as well. What goes around comes around.

Zack,
It's interesting that you're saying that you don't want to draw moral equivalencies between Hezbollah terrorists and Israeli soldiers and then proceed to attempt do just that, and then muddle the issues by saying morals don't apply in political disputes. You think that believing in right and wrong is what has led Hezbollah to want to exterminate all Jews? What is your solution? Let's all just pretend there is no right and wrong?

And by the way, I do not "inevitably support Israel unilaterally, no matter what she does" like you accused me of in post 81. I don't agree with Israel giving land back to terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, for example.

Avi,

I can understand why you would think "compassionate conservative" is a bit of an oxymoron (your, in my reading, unstated subtext).

However, I think a key element in my own thinking, as a relative conservative, is the distinction CrossFit's Patron Economist, Friedrich Hayek, makes between Action to and Action for. In his usage, "Action to" is actually efficacious behavior. Something which accomplishes it's intent, but not necessarily intentionally. Squirrels, in his example, "Act To" prepare for winter by storing nuts, but as near as we can tell they don't consult calendars. They survive by doing what they've always done.

Only humans and sentient creatures "act for", which is developing an intention that is non-instinctual, in order to accomplish something. Sometimes the action is efficious, becoming "acting to", sometimes it is not.

The underlying pattern, in my view, behind all these articles on Complexity Theory and Unintended Consequences, etc., is that philosophers of science have, through a combination of talented polemic, and actual accomplishment, convinced the bulk of people out there that their system can reliably combine "action for" with "action to". Socialism is nothing other than a designed society, which is designed based on economic laws and principles we are told are reliable.

However, as Hayek points out at length, society can best be described as an Extended Order, the sum total of the details of which is not available to any one person or group of people. If we cannot know all the details--which are in a constant state of flux--we cannot describe it with precision. If we can't describe it with precision, we are guessing. If we are guessing, we are messing with things we don't understand, and are as likely to make things worse as better.

In the case of rich versus poor, it seems to be the case that if you give poor people money and expect nothing of them, they stop working. If they stop working, you create a permanent class of poor people. That is in no one's interest.

In my view what has happened in this country, is we sapped, albeit with good intentions, the will of an entire class of people. Over generations, they lost the traditional values of our culture--self reliance, initiative, perseverance--and now we are in an era where we just don't know how to reintegrate them. We tried to do the right thing, but it backfired. All we can do now is try to learn from the mistake and not repeat it. I just don't believe you can make poor people not poor by giving them money.

If you cut taxes to the middle class, they spend it on cars, houses, vacations. If you cut taxes to the rich, they invest it.

Now, it may seem fair to take from the rich, and give to the poor, but if the rich worked their butts off for several generations--which is usually the case in America, where we have no landed aristocracy--then we hurt our own interests in the long run doing anything at all to reduce their rights to their own property. Hayek is very clear that liberty itself begins--historically, and in principle--with an unchallenged right to private property.

The bottom line is that it is arguably the case that the emotion of compassion, without wisdom, causes more harm than help. I know that within some religious traditions "Acts of loving kindness" are espoused, but surely some attention must be paid to the long term effects of those deeds?

Barry,

Right on! And precisely the debate I had with my aunt and uncle, two very progressive people, one a psychotherapist and the other a mechanical engineer (interesting because they work with totally different sides of their brains.) Now, although I am a student of Politics and Philosophy, I must confess I have not yet read Hayek, but let me say this. I made exactly your argument last night and this was my aunt's response in a nutshell.

Clinton instituted a "welfare for work" program which cut welfare after a period of time and forced people to go to work. Sounds like a great idea which empowers people to take a break, get help, regroup, and then rise up again, right? Now let's say a woman has three children and loses her job. She goes on welfare and cares for her kids until the welfare runs out. That same woman goes to work and makes minimum wage with no aid from the government. Now she has to pay for childcare while she is at work, which is so expensive and care for three kids with no assistance.

So I say, why didn't she get an abortion when she got pregnant at 16 and the father was a gang-banger who couldn't or wouldn't help her care for the kid?

My aunt replies, because the neo-cons are anti abortion and are passing laws which shut down the abortion clinics, forcing her to have the kid, then not helping her care for it.

I also want to point out that there is conservative and then there's conservative. Conservative in the classic sense was related to fiscal conservatism. Clinton was the ideal classic Republican. Today, what being a Republican and a Conservative has come to mean is, I think, completely different.

Barry,

I really should know Hayek since he taught at the London School of Economics and I go there. I'll correct this right away, but tell me what do you think about this dilemma? And what are your thoughts on the article posted this morning?

Tami,

No fear, Steve has obviously Jumped the Shark.

Steve,

I'm not going to say the history contained in following article is unbiased, the title forfeits that ground, but it's fairly informative even if you believe its writer to be a Zionist Neo-con Bully stooge. www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4454

If you have some other version of history you would like to share, Barry and I would love to read it.

Zach,
I know I said I wasn't going to complain about moral equivalences, but you are really test the limit here.
Calling Evangelical Christians who support Israel "fundamentalists", is stretch to begin with, since that fundamentals of that position are a bit elusive. But even so, they have done nothing to earn comparrison to Muslim Fundamentalists. For the sake of the squeemish, I'll resist the urge to compare each groups' respective works.

Treelizard: I also make a point to talk about the "forbidden" topics (religion, politics, $$, sex, etc) in social gatherings, but I make especially sure not to limit the fun and frivolity to friends and loved ones, I'll include anyone within earshot in my personal brand of opinion sharing.

For those of you who think that Israel is something along the lines a terrorist nation, the aggressor, a force to reckoned with, blah, blah, blah. Take heed the few words:
1) Look at a map. Israel is like a postage stamp on a football field.
2) That postage stamp is surrounded by countries whose sole desire in life is to "destroy Israel and drive every Jew into the sea." Sounds friendly enough doesn't it?
3) The U.S. of A., I believe, has been the most blessed nation on earth (to date, at least) for taking this one promise to heart: "I will bless those that bless you, I will curse him who curses you; and in you all families of the earth shall be blessed." (Genesis 12:3)

Treelizard

She won't tell you either.

this was the woman who told the US Census folks (back in 2000) that "X number of people live here, and that's all you need to know" when they called to try and fill in the rest of the survey.

"You don't need to know our salary, our color, or anything else. There are X people living here."

So....good luck. :)

Treelizard #120:

I'm not saying we personally dismiss the categories of right and wrong. Rather, when dealing with morally ambiguous issues which are politically and historically complex, it seems better to engage in dialogue which does not seek to assess blame or culpability with an eye towards direct retribution. Both Israel and Hezbollah engage in this, and it is patently (and clearly) unproductive.

You ask what my solution is. First, given your previous posts, I take it that your solution is, simply put, not appeasing terrorists but countering their violence with an equal and overwhelming show of force. This would, one hopes, lead to the destruction of the terrorists with a minimum of "collateral damage." This may work. This may also kill a number of unintended civilans and increase recruitment to the organizations it wishes to combat. It may also ignore the fact that Pan-Islamic movements are always a reactionary force, and have never been dispelled through the direct use of force.

My "solution," a dialogical one, would be equally perilous. A third party (perhaps the U.S.) should attempt to broker a peace which de-escalates the violence (which has been done), attempts to disarm Hezbollah, reinforces the Lebanese army, and, most importantly, works diligently to root out the cause of all this -- the Palestinian problem. Only by making Palestine a viable state with control over its own borders will the excuses of Hezbollah and others be sidelined effectively. If violence continues after this, then we've already attained the political high ground, and it would then become clear that Hezbollah's intentions were not political in nature, but, as you argue, genocidal.

As a non sequitir, I think it ironic that no one here mentions the elephant in the room: religion. Isn't it ironic that the three most violent religions in the world -- the Abrahamic traditions -- are still at odds with each other? Perhaps Coach's next post should be on the religious dimension of this conflict, and we can all speculate as to why Christians, Jews, and Muslims seek to destroy so much of the world.

Treelizard,

To respond to your statement that Palestinian refugees get the second largest amount of aid after Israel, I'm not sure what they give other ME nations, so that may be true. However, the actual numbers are around 90 million per year to the Palestinian Authority compared to a whopping 2.3 billion per year to Israel. Oh, and did I mention that since Hamas has come to power all aid to the PA from both the US and Israel has been cut off? Again, facts in perspective.

Avi,
Here's some suggestions for your hypothetical
single mom:

1. Don't get pregnant at 16. (www.durex.com)

2. Don't sleep with gang-bangers.

3. Goverment assistance is indeed available for people, even when they have minimum wage jobs, if they need it.

4. Tell her to join Americorps, that way she could get a stipend (not much less than minumum wage), health care, free child care, and a huge wad o' cash for college at the end of the term, while being surrounded by amazing supportive people and learning job skills. This is what I advised my buddy to do when she chose to have her baby.

Tim #126: I was, of course, joking.

I wish I could find a study I read a while ago about bias and allegiance. It involved two groups of equally intelligent people (as accurately as that can be measured), otherwise equal they were both fanatical supporters of different sports teams, not just casual observers, they were of above average intelligence, yet when they viewed an altercation between their teams, the two groups came to very different conclusions about the same fact scenario. How can two equally smart people see the same facts so different such that both see themselves as victims? The both denied each others claims outright. Note that those who were not supporters but just fans were far more likely to engage in debate about their conclusions.

I attribute it to filters we build from our cultural associations and environments, we simply choose not to see what we don't want to see. I can't help put think of this when I am reading TreeLizards posts (nothing personal, your comments are worthy of note is all), in the past some of them seemed quite open minded, but when it comes to Israel, the door slams shut, whether or not I agree with them, it is clear that there is no room for discussion. This is typical in this type of discussion. It usually turns into something like our side incapable of doing wrong, this is often sold as solidarity and common sense. This is the danger of polarization; progressives get marginalized if they do not declare allegiance to one camp or another.

When one's identity is threatened or life even, someone who is for the most part brave enough to question authority retreats as a survival mechanism to the safety of cultural association when it comes to passionate issues, eventually the adversary become the ‘other’ not worthy of the same considerations, dehumanized as a general enemy.

So that collateral damage can be shrugged off as simply necessary because our side is right and they are wrong. I think it gets so bad, that we undermine our long term strategic goals as the Lebanon invasion did. We get so caught up in our self-identity that we engage in illogical campaigns full of righteousness. The world is screwed I fear, not because terrorists are going to take over the west, but because we have lost much of the desire to get to know the ‘other.’ We are macho butt kickers who don’t need to know the ‘other’, we just need an 8 figure grid and a smart bomb, and all the problems will be solved. Sadly the toughest talkers are not the ones in harm’s way, they just sell the story to the soldier so that he buys into the program and makes his /her family proud. No one will write about the innocents who die, they are just numbers, the cost not of war, but of ideology

i really don't understand this fascination with having a problem with what this site posts on rest days, or the politics of its founder(s). i don't agree with some things on here, and after reading them, i go back to watching Laguna beach. and then i do a WOD and am grateful this is not only a free site, but one with arguably the best information available anywhere. the chance to discuss, rather than lament, a disagreeable article's posting exists. You don't like what is on here, don't read it. or formulate an opinion why what is written is wrong. But for Cod sake, don't whine about an article actually being posted here, in the first place.

i can understand not wanting to be reminded that the bogey man exists, but not wanting to read about him doesn't make him disappear. sometimes we all should read things we don't agree with, in order to have access to various opinions and be more well rounded in our lives. If you are the argumentative sort, then it gives you a chance to hear your opponents views, and formulate a rebuttal in advance, rather than having to, perish the thought, think on your feet.

now let me get back to my "project runway" reruns.

Zach,

Great points. Except for the whole US brokering a peace agreement thing. At this point, no one in the US government is a viable or even credible spokesman for peace. Clinton's out of office and Rabin is dead (I'd send out a sad cry for Arafat too, but I'm not sure he was ever good for the peace.) As of now, we're in big trouble as the so called "right-wingers" are trying to take over the free world.

ok......so it's evolving into part neo-con sounding board and part fitness page ....I feel much better with the fitness part but when in rome

Call it Conserfit perhaps....or PatRobertsfit

New topic: why the minumum wage should be changed to a glass of dirty water or perhaps how to use the old and poor as a fuel source.

cheers

Zack: I think Hezbollah has already proven itself genocidal by it's very mission statement.

But maybe the next time my house gets broken into I can offer the criminals a glass of milk and some cookies and see if they still want to kill me, because if they do, I can take the moral high ground.

Avi: My statement was that Palestinian refugees get the largest amount of money in aid from Israel, followed by the U.S.

And if you want to put facts in perspective, maybe you could explain why exactly the US doesn't want to give aid to Hamas.

I believe that Israel was right to invade southern Lebanon. Going after Hezbollah makes sense and the collateral damage to the countryside (civilian deaths included) is just a part of war. Too bad.

As for what we're doing in Iraq, perhaps it's time we were a bit more harsh with our treatment of Al Queda and other terrorists and insurgents. But I think the blame for any failures we're experiencing there lies with the media.

Just over 100 years ago, we fought a brutal insurgency in the Philippines. We suffered for 4 years and lost almost 4500 men. The flip side of this is that over 200,000 Filippinos died. We won! Why? Not because we used brutal force to put down the insurgency, which we did, but while we were winning the hearts and minds of the Filippinos throughout the duration of the conflict, we didn't also have to fight the media, and that's why not many people know much about our involvement in the Philippines.

Can anyone imagine how successful we'd be if the media reported on the positive aspects of the Iraqi conflict? Yea, things aren't great, but they could get better if put in the proper light in the media. Even if the press made the claim that we were winning, perhaps the insurgents would believe it too! Right now, the insurgents are just waiting for us to get tired and go home. A Vietnam-like defeat looms for us without backing from the media.

Treelizard,

This is great advice! We need more people like you in support roles for pregnant women, to tell them where to go and educate them about safe sex, which by the way is also generally prohibited by the Christian right wing since the man is spilling his seed in vain.

Unfortunately, saying don't sleep with gang bangers is as silly as saying "just say no" when the sociopsychological factors at work are so powerful and difficult to trascend. As far as Americorps, they need to improve their marketing campaign. I've vaguely heard of them and am pretty sure there are very few women amongst the working poor who have either.

WhiskeySean,

You really don't think people like Pat Robertson, who call for the annhilation of Palestine, or Jim Hagee, who demands the ethnic purity of Israel, are comparable to Muslims who demand the opposite? Why not? Or what of Jerry Falwell, who helped create the Christian Colition and whose new church was christened by Bush? Wasn't Bush "trained" by a friend of Hagee's? Isn't the 700-Club one of the most powerful political consituencies in the U.S.? Didn't evangelicals "elect" Bush in 2004?

You say the "fundamentals" of their position are "elusive". I'm not sure about that. Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, and others all rely on an inerrant understanding of the Bible that demands a literal interpretation of Revelation, which instructs that Israel ("the Bride") be pure for the return of Christ. None would object to such an interpretation. Nor do any of them want a peaceable two-state solution.

There are close to 40 million evangelicals in America, who, collectively, contribute billions to our campaigns and elections. One would be foolish to think that the most powerful electoral constituency in America (and therefore Israel) didn't have an impact on our foreign policy, or on the aims of our government with respect to Hezbollah and Palestine.

There's a difference between being open minded and having a hole in the head. Nuff said.

Avi,

The reason she had three kids is because she knew (or thought) she could get away with it. What we have bred in the ghetto (and likely rural Appalachia) is a class of people whose sense of personal responsibility has been muted if not erased altogether, by a combination of governmental paternalism, and professional "excuse-makers".

We bring people up thinking that "society" owes them something. That they should be able to avoid misery and heartache somehow because they are entitled to more, because there are rich people out there. If they are rich, they should give some to them, the thinking goes.

So, this hypothetical (and real) woman acts irresponsibly, feeling someone will bail her out. Now, abortions are not illegal, and neither are condoms or the Pill. And, as implausible as it may sound, abstinence is actually a real option. It really is. There is no law of nature or man that requires kids to start having sex when they are 12 or 14 or whatever. 16 is the median age for girls across all demographics, in my understanding, for losing virginity. It doesn't have to be like that. I'm not speaking morally, I'm speaking practically.

It seems to me the only possible solution--and this is a midpoint, I don't know what the starting point is--is to get these kids to actually value education and self-improvement, and to stop blaming the Man for their woes.

I will say, though, I recently listened to some hip hop songs (I'm not totally out of touch, but I normally just change the station when Jay-Z or one of those guys come on), and followed the ruckus following Bill Cosby saying some things that seemed so obvious he shouldn't have needed to say them (for example, B#%h, and N#%$#r are not positive words), and I can't say the direction a lot of poor people--especially black poor people--are going is good. The foundations of accomplishment are not being laid for anything but sports and music performance, at least from a wide angle lense perspective. Obviously, many individuals in many places are working to prove me wrong, or at least I hope so.

Treelizard,

Sorry, I misread your sentence there and totally agree with the problem of the US not giving aid to the Hamas govt. The answer of why is rather obvious. Bush with his chest out saying, "Mission Accomplished! We do not negotiate with terrorists." It's complete crap that we don't give them aid, but we do make it clear why we don't.

I could use the cliche "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," but what is that really saying anyway? Look who's leading the reconstruction effort in Lebanon: Hizbullah. 12K wads of cash for all effected families to buy furniture, rent new homes, rebuild, etc. It's a difficult call to make and the history can be used to effectively argue both sides.

Barry,

I don't think we're dealing with a majority of excuse makers as much as psychologically bereaved people and I have never heard any one of these people say "society owes me something." I think they feel downright abandoned by the government and hopeless as a result. No, abortion is not illegal, but alot of clinics have been closed down as a result of lack of funding by our current administration.

With respect to Israel (and MAN, I'm being wordy lately), I think the defining moment was when Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians substantially everything they wanted, and Arafat started a new intifada. In my understanding, Barak, who is a clever fellow, knew perfectly well that was what would happen. His goal was to show the world what Arafat and Fatah (which is moderate in relation to Hamas) actually stood for.

Islam has a formal doctrine, the word for which escapes me at the moment, which states that lying and deceiving in the pursuit of military conquest is perfectly acceptable. You can break any treaty, and say anything to anybody, if it advances the cause of spreading Islam through conquering new land.

One thing which many people don't seem to know is that Palestinians are not just demanding a homeland. They have that. They have a place to live. It's crowded and filthy, but I doubt the population density is greater in the Gaza Strip than in Hong Kong or Singapore. In theory, if they hadn't been living on the charity of others for 60 years, they could actually create their own businesses. Nobody would be happier than Israel were they to do that. Part of the reason that doesn't happen, is every time Israel eases up on the flow of goods, they smuggle in weapons.

The key demand, though, that no one talks about, but which is at the core of what they want, is "The Right of Return". They want to take back the houses and land they lost when they left Israel--they thought temporarily, since how could Allah suffer a small group of Jews to beat back ten times their number of pious Muslims--back in 1948.

Now, you have a group of people who glorify suicide bombing, and the mass death of Israeli civilians, that have no job skills, that have been dedicated to killing Jews for 58 years and driving them into the ocean, and they want to move in and be happy neighbors. Who, even after a four day bout with crack and Jack Daniels, could possibly fathom how that would be peaceful? How? It won't happen.

If the Palestinians wanted anything other than the destruction of Israel, all they had to do is read up on their Gandhi, and practice Satyagraha. There is no nation on earth with more moral pressure on it than Israel. If they were staging sit-down strikes, they would accomplish two things: they would put pressure on Israel, and they would be making a de facto credible case that they could be trusted.

Avi,
I take by your tone that you are pro-abortion? I wonder if you are pro death penalty as well? If so, consider this:
Slavery was not illegal in 1860. Was it still wrong?

If, by chance you, or anyone else, is going to attempt to justify abortion or equate it to the death penalty in some way, be sure to explain how the taking of an innocent life (abortion) to appease the irresponsibility of the mother(generally speaking) and the punishment of a transgressing guilty party (generally reserved for murderers) by the death penalty have any similarity whatsoever.

I am weary of the left's position on abortion as being the "right" of a woman. Whatever happened to the responsibility of a woman (or a man for that matter) to simply abstain from sex or at least to take preliminary measures to insure against pregnancy in the first place.

Avi, just a thought, but for the Geneva Conventions to apply to a combatant, they have to be LEGAL combatants, Meaning that they are a menber of the armed forces of a nation of some kind, and wear a uniform, oh yeah, and attack legitimate military targets. The folks being held at GITMO are criminals, and should be treated as such. Of course the conventions are being followed, and you should really read them before making such an accusation.

barry-
the word you are looking for is "hudna"

one simple sentence sums up the issue. Not the moral issue, but the real, factual, life on the ground issue: "if Hezbollah laid down their arms, there would be no more violence, but if Israel laid down its arms, there would be no more Israel."

Executed yesterday's 060823 WoD today @ ~ 40:00.

Dave: I've read the conventions at some length. It is and has been legally disputed whether or not those at Guantanamo are combatants.

"The folks being held at GITMO are criminals, and should be treated as such."

Absolutely correct. Criminals in the US are given due process: trials and the chance to defend themselves, not five years of imprisonment without any proceedings.

Furthermore, the US is officially in a war against terrorism and terrorists. Well, how can Congress declare war on a stateless enemy and then not consider them LEGAL combatants? I think there's some sort of contradiction at work here. What constitutes a "legitimate military target"? Who makes those rules and enforces them in an anarchic international system where shaky laws have been put in place and then followed by the weak but not the strong?

MajorPayne: I appreciate your sentiment about abortion and agree there is a case to be made against abortion. I really don't want to go there, since there are way too many topics going here at once, but in short, I think people should be held accountable, but not at the expense of innocent children who are better off not being born in the first place than living miserable lives.

As far as the death penalty, I am ambivalent. Again, I see both sides and feel that some people are so dispicable we're better off without them. But as Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye make the whole world blind." There must be a better way. I don't think Stanley Tookie Williams deserved to die. But I think he should have admitted to what he did.

Ian,

Didn't know about hudna. Thanks for posting that. I did a bit of digging, though, and Al-Taqiyya/Taqeyya was what I was looking for.

Here's a link: http://www.isralert.com/archives/2005/03/deceit_thy_name.php

The only way I could do what Jesse is doing is with Adobe photoshop...Yikes

Zach,

As IanTelAviv and others just pointed out, this conflict is about Israel’s right to exist, not to take over the Middle East. A map and a history book prove that much. The moral distinction between the two “fundamentalist” groups, in-so-far as it isn’t that one side is targeting civilians and blowing up it’s own children while the other is casting votes in free elections, is that no matter how nefariously cunning their plan, your Christian Fundamentalists-for-Israel Cabal picked the right side of the conflict.

We can let rest the question over just how fundamental that Christian movement truly is. My point, as is the way of semantics, was admittedly small, and should probably have been left as , “Fundamentalists made poor bedfellows”.

Sean

Frederic (#133):

I don't think there is any evidence that the old would make a very good fuel source, and we need to keep the poor around to tend to our mansions. Hence, I don't believe that you're going to get much support for your proposal.

The minimum wage is already high enough without throwing in a glass of dirty water on top of it. Don't you agree?

#142 Major Payne,

What are you basing your moral judgment that abortion and the death penalty are equivalently "wrong"? i.e. Does this stem from a religious stance or what?

Frederic (#133):

"Kill 2 birds with one stone, feed the homeless to the hungry." RA Heinlein.

Righteous pic Jesse! Noticed the parkour movie "District B13" is hitting on DVD in a week or two, can't wait.

Article 2: We need a longer time frame(like, possibly centuries) and therefore more data collection/examination before I'll start subscribing to global warming theories one way or the other.

Article 1: Yes, another under-represented 'caveman' right here.

Article 3: In "Apocalypse Now", Brando's Kurtz explained with horrific eloquence exactly how to defeat an enemy, especially a fanatic, guerilla-style enemy. The answers to all the worlds big problems can be found in movies. Brando can tell us exactly how to win against Islamofascism as well as Al Gore can prescribe remedy for the environment. Correct?

Gee, seems today's comments are like a 4 or 5 way conversation gone awry.

I loved Phil Hartman's character, and as a practicing attorney I can tell you lawyers aren't above using the argument in court. Successfully.

I would lump myself in the "caveman" category as well. I'm a registered Dem who thinks we should back Israel to the end (mainly because they know how to take care of business), thinks the blowup over illegal immigration is much ado about something you can't fix, thinks that what happened in New Hampshire is pathetic, and feels there is way too much government for our own good. Of course, I'm not convinced our efforts in Iraq are going to pay dividends in my lifetime either, so I retain a bit of my Demoism.

Speaking of Iraq: Has anyone been reading Jill Carrol's first person series on being kidnapped? Today's installment sheds light on the conflict within Iraq that makes it seem a lot like Northern Ireland 20 years ago (and maybe even today) Shiites and Sunnis seem to hate each other as much as the Catholics hated the Protestants, only worse.

Global warming? See me in 20 years and let me know if it killed us all. I'll be living at my seaside retreat. . . in Barstow, which will be then known as Dirtbag Beach.

Israel? read Dan's website. You know where it is.

DJ: Dodgers are down, but not out. . .yet.
I still have hope. Long live the Blue.

Interesting discussion.
Weighted pullups for me today.
5x5 with 10#
5x1 with 35#
hanging straight leg raises 3x5

see that pic just make me think there should be crossfit t-shirt written upside down... I just think it would be cool to see a group of people doing HSPU's all with matching t-shirts that read upsidedown

Avi and Barry

The discussion Avi and Barry are having is interesting. If either of you have the time read a book called "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt, winner of the John Bates Clark Medal, an award given every 2 years to the best American economist under the age of 40, and Stephen J. Dubner.

Levitt is hated by the "Right" and the "Left" for his work on abortion. Unfortunately for the right and the left he doesn't take a stand on abortion. He only utilizes empirical data to get to the bottom of certain events.

A great read regardless of your views.

#151 Randy,

As I understand the facts--and they are open to more than one interpretation--increases in minimum wages correlate nicely to increases in structural unemployment. Some people make more money, some people can't find jobs. What were the riots in France (at least ostensibly) about? Large groups of people who are unemployed for long periods of time and frustrated. Most large nations (I'm thinking Italy, France, Germany and others) that have generous social welfare policies also have double our unemployment rate. Is it more or less generous to create a system which enables those who want to work to do so, or to make it so those who want to work can't, and those who don't are encouraged? Is that kinder? More fair? Most people in this country who are poor are ignorant. They drop out of high school, certainly dont' attend college, and they don't develop plans to make themselves not poor.

People in this country with balls and grit start companies, they work their tushes off week after week, year after year, and they get rich. It's much harder to do that in France. Whatever you want you can get it.

Let's be honest: our poor people have cell phones, TV's, are often fat from eating too many calories, and are forced, if they work, to work 2-3 jobs because they didn't want to work in school. It's unfortunate, but that's reality.

a.m.
Diane 8:30

p.m.
5 rounds
Run 400 M
20 Burpees
10 HSPU
23:30

Not happy wih HSPU this afternoon

#161 barry cooper,

Spoken like someone who has never really truly broke or gone without due to no fault of his or her own (layoffs, caring of a sick loved one, trying to turn your life around, NATURAL DISASTER). I'm not saying that hard work and education isn't a HUGE part of the equation, it certainly is, but it is NOT as simple as you claim.

“They drop out of high school, certainly dont' attend college, and they don't develop plans to make themselves not poor.”

And you know this how? You ever ASK a “poor person” why they make the choices they do? From how you talk it seems like you never have.

Let's look at what you see as “being honest”. Try being in their shoes before you condemn their choices, huh? Believe it, barry, it actually COSTS MORE to be poor than not. It's true, I've been there:

http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=9560

"They have cell phones": cell phones are cheaper than landlines and in this day and age are NECESSARY to getting/keeping low level jobs as your ass has to show up whenever call, they are low on the totem pole have to “obey” or be canned.

"They have TVs.": Yes CRT TVs are very cheap are very cheap and will soon not work because the US govt is require all signals to be HD. Way to screw the poor, I guess they don't need to watch TV anyways. Also a clue, closed captioning of TV aids in the learning a language such as English. A TV is a tool; it’s HOW you use it that matters. And TV isn’t really worth a lick if you don’t have cable or satellite which I can assure you the poor don’t have.

“They are often fat form too many calories.”: Great, now your saying it’s their fault high fat food/fast food is cheaper. If it’s true as you state they “suck and work 2-3 jobs” when are they supposed to have time to cook, genius?

Have more but got to run. Later Days.

Three and a half questions: is life supposed to be easy?

What should my proper responsibility be, in your view, to protect people from poverty? What is their responsibility?

Did you yourself grow up in a poor neighborhood, or have you just been broke?

kettlebell "full body attacks" aka FBA for 20 minutes-
26s: 10+press
35s: 6+press
44s: 6
53s: 10 (deadlift subbed for clean)
26s: 10+press
35s: 6+press
44s: 8
53s: 10, 10, 10 (d/l for clean)

Zach (#81):

Here's a short list of scientists who have questioned several of the premises upon which the religion of Global Warming is based:

Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D.
Willie Soon
Richard S. Lindzen
S. Fred Singer
Roger A. Pielke, Sr.

The list goes on. I’m really surprised that you, with your degree in biochemistry and all, haven’t run into these and other like-minded people at the clubs and bars where biochemists, climatologists and scientists of every kind meet, enjoy happy hour and solve the world’s problems. Maybe you’re not talking to enough people.

With regard to the “historically and politically complex” situation in the Middle East, for which you ascribe blame in equal measure to “both parties” (i.e., Israel and some other, unnamed party), I’m quite sure that Israel would be quite content to save it’s capital and other resources for things other than bombing the couscous out of its neighbors. It’s just that those pesky terrorists, rogue nations, and the occasional Islamic Fascist have made it their business to wipe Israel from the face of the planet. Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I’ve not heard Israel calling for the annihilation of the Palestinians, Iranians, Arabs, or any other group or culture. For me, therefore, it doesn’t seem like reaching when I say that Israel is the good guy, while “the other parties” are the bad guys.

Then again, (in the interest of "full disclosure") I’m not a biochemist. So, I’ve not received the special training in geopolitics that you must have received before obtaining your degree in biochemistry.

“Manichean duality.” That is a great phrase to throw out at parties when you’re trying to impress the girlees. That is, unless they think you’re being a pseudo-intellectual poseur.

Finally, I’m not sure what you mean when you say “[a]ny solution that favors the destruction of its opposition is never a solution.” The solution to slavery in America amounted to the destruction of the institution itself and those who would fight for it. It was violent, it was bloody, but in the end it was worth it. That sounds like a solution, don’t you agree?

Wasn't it scientist who thought and then taught millions of students that Pluto was a planet?

Barry:

As some might say, the broad economic effects of the American minimum wage laws are “historically and politically complex.” But, Thomas Sowell, a conservative economist with the Hoover Institution at Stanford has a very good piece on it at http://www.amatecon.com/etext/mwe/mwe.html.

It’s worth reading.

stop the madness and please post tomorrow's WOD. tx

#31 and #34

Do you just quote movies or do you have an original thought? Explain how we "take the gloves off?" My answer to your idea is borrowed from your own Modus Operandi.

"Worms gotta eat, Buzzards too."
-Outlaw Josey Wells

Comment #126

You speak words of iron that no paper can hold!! I am with you.

All right, my inner cavewoman keeps wanting to come out (thanks for the encouragement, Tami!)

Movie quote for rb:
"My heart bleeds for him as a child. Someone took a child and created a monster. But as an adult, he's irredeemable. He butchers whole families to pursue trivial fantasies. As an adult, someone should blow him out of his socks. Does this type of understanding upset you?"

Anybody know the movie?

That movie is called Manhunter treelizard, it's the original version of the Thomas Harris novel Red Dragon. Directed by Michael Mann, superior to the remake.

Thanks, Jim. I can't find an uncensored version, please e-mail me if you know how I can get ahold of it (legally).

Victor Davis Hanson's stuff is without a doubt top of the line and his article mirrors much of what was written about the war by Stratfor's George Friedman. For more Hanson, beg, borrow or steal his Culture and Carnage, a study of why Western armies have always prevailed over non-Western armies. The chapter on the battle of Midway is worth the price of the book. Thanks for sharing this article with us.

Randy #166:

You got me. I was, as you claim, "intellectually posing" for the ladies. As you well note, my claim to a degree merely emphasized my latent narcissism. Also, a big thanks for pointing out my deficiencies, and for countering sound arguments with character attacks, sarcasm, and one or two legitimate points. I'm also glad you trucked out Lindzen and Baliunas. They usually appear much quicker in discussions on global warming. Perhaps next time you're with your Harvard buddies and Nobel Laureate friends, you can scoff at my ignorance in missing the work of such well-renowned scientists.

sarcasm is the last refuge of ignorance............

LOL i'm sorry for getting caught up in all this.. but i think we all should stop crossfit, cause all the excess heat we produce from our bodies is gonna melt the ice caps!!!!

or all you hot heads need to cool down and stop acting like 40 year old children.. think of the environment

i retract that... stop acting like bickering children... playing like children - good... bickering - bad

that is all

I am new to cross fit and I am curious how much rest time there is between sets when a workout, like the dead lift work out from the other day, is posted as 3-2-2-2-1-1-1-1. I have looked in the FAQ and in the comments; maybe I missed it.
Thanks
Chadwick

Chadwick,
Use 2-3 minutes or as much time as you need to recover to be able to do another maximal effort.
Travis

From your questions you obviously don't get the idea of empathy or being informed but I'll have a go anyways.

Barry: "is life supposed to be easy?"

Irrelevant, besides both "easy" and "life" are weighted subjective terms.

Barry,"What should my proper responsibility be, in your view, to protect people from poverty? What is their responsibility?"

There is a saying, "Place a rational person in an irrational situation and they will behave irrationally." You are assuming the poor are somehow making "bad" decisions for them without understanding WHY they make those decisions. You seem to have a very academic view of poverty but no actual understanding, a little understanding goes a long way.

Barry, "Did you yourself grow up in a poor neighborhood, or have you just been broke?"

Man, you are full of irrelevant questions aren't you. I'm sure whatever I say you'll fine some way to say "it doesn't count, you weren't broke enough" or "the neighborhood wasn't "poor" enough". I could have had $ and grown up in poor neighborhood. Maybe I'm a social worker and see daily how even the best people can be brought low by a series of bad events.

Read the article, it doesn't matter, once you fall below a certain income/asset line nearly everything costs more, now does that sound right to you, people how can afford the least pay more?

Again, get out there actually meet this "most of the poor" you claim to know so much about. Volunteer. Be informed then I'll respect whatever opinion you have.

I'm really surprised that no one has responded to Travis in # 49. Maybe I'm misreading him, but he seems to be saying, as someone with literally both his boots and his life on the ground in Iraq, that our plan there isn't working all that well. This seems like an important point . . . maybe deserves some discussion?

Travis, Sgt. Feather, and everyone else in Iraq: Thank you, stay safe, do what you can, and come home with honor. Your service will not be forgotten, at least not here.

#142 Major Payne,

What are you basing your moral judgment that abortion and the death penalty are equivalently "wrong"? i.e. Does this stem from a religious stance or what?

Penty, thanks for responding. I was beginning to wonder if anyone had any feelings with respect to this subject or not.

First and foremost, I do not believe that abortion and the death penalty are equivalently wrong. I do, however, believe that abortion is wrong. You are, therefore, correct, in your assumption (and what a risky endeavor that is) that my predilections are predicated upon the ideals, principles and statutes of the Bible. I presume by your inference that you do not ascribe to the directions so eloquently laid out and indesputably displayed within its' pages?

I also believe that the "death penalty' is the justifiable means of removing those individuals proven to be a menace, scourge or otherwise intolerable presence in society. Rehabilitation, while a laudible endeavor, without the intervention and willing submission to Christ is just ridiculous.

We live in the real world, Penty. People die around us all day long. No need to add to that misery by adding to the body count those individuals whose only "crime" is being the by=product of an irresponsible union of two irresponsible individuals.

Ian #47

The people will be yelling kill the Jew? Check out http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-dixon220806.htm
where you will find an informative article called:
Israeli Apartheid: The striking
Parallels To South Africa

Also a good book for those who keep slinging the terrorist label at strictly Islamic groups is:

Western state terrorism (Library Binding)
by Alexander George

Finally,as I posted elsewhere, this lLink takes you to a google video documentary that articulates perfectly what is happening in palestine and how and why the media in the U.S. mis-informs the American public. It’s long, but extremely informative and accurate.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696

Manhunter was an awesome movie. Brian Cox was much better as Hannibal than Hopkins was, IMO.

Zach (#176):

I was going to say "patent narcissism," but that wouldn't be neighborly.

Erica (#185):

I'm still not calling you a plagiarist (post #45), but you've yet to attribute the talking points you copped from the opinion piece in the Jordan Times. Until you do, it's difficult to take you seriously. (Not that I take anything too seriously, anyway.)

WRS (#177):

Actually, Dostoyevsky wrote that sarcasm is "the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded." But thanks for playing. (Zach, I find that quoting Russian authors is by far the ultimate in posing.)

Actually, chicks dig Notes From the Underground.

#142 Major Payne,

Thank you, also, back for answering as well. It seems some here post an opinion and then never look back.

Also If I am wrong in an assumption certainly correct me, I am forced to make assumptions because we are not meeting face to face and can’t quickly resolve some point.

MP: “You are, therefore, correct, in your assumption (and what a risky endeavor that is) that my predilections are predicated upon the ideals, principles and statutes of the Bible.”

You said that your reason for being against abortion stems from the bible. Relying on the phrase, “Thou shall not kill.” I assume. Well if your relying on the Old Testament you have to take all of it don’t you?

Exodus (21:22), same book as the 10 commandments so this isn’t some dismissed tenet, covers abortion quite specifically. The text clearly states that the destruction of a fetus is not a capital offense. It is a property crime for which monetary compensation is paid. The rest of the chapter also covers the concept of property, i.e. slaves, oxen and so on. God, himself, doesn’t see abortion as a murder but as a crime of property and as such it isn’t a “mother versus child” issue but a “woman with unwanted property” issue. The bible is quite clear elsewhere that for the most part people are allowed to do what they want with their property.

I’d quote directly but then you wouldn’t’ get the whole context.

Now if you want to be against abortion or for it because of other reasons fine, there are plenty, but apparently falling back to the Bible isn’t one.

Zach,

I would like to say that while I disagree with you--if I didn't, why then I would agree with you-- I appreciate you posting. We need more contrarian viewpoints that attempt to maintain an intellectual high ground. Same with Phil in Ontario, and a few others. You know, I like the idea of explicitly setting for ourselves the goal of creating one of the more genteel discussion communities on the Internet. Penty, I will even thank you for expressing your viewpoint.

In my case, I owned a four-plex in a bad neighborhood. Since I made a bad decision in the specific property, I was out there almost weekly for two years fixing something or other. These were people who had trouble making $350/month payments. One guy kept getting DUI's on his motorcycle, and finally got fired from his job for being a drunk. One gal kept getting fired from jobs at Denny's or wherever for who knows what. At 18, when she got pregnant for the second time, she was hoping to get Federal disability since she miscarried her first baby, making it a high risk pregnancy. Third tenant was on permanent disability, and will never work again in her whole life. Her boyfriend got locked up for theft and failure to pay child support. He was always looking for work, and I offered to pay him to paint some stairs. Since he was broke, I offered to pay him half up front. He spent it on crack. The fourth set of tenants were a couple, and he kept moving in and out. They had an out of wedlock child from one of her previous relationships. He finally got hit by a car that ran a light, seriously hurt, got a settlement, and moved out without giving her a penny. It was one drama after another. I sat down and talked with all of them many times. I'm a friendly person, and I was genuinely interested in how they lived. I'm interested in everything. I took care of them as well as I could, and my generosity was abused many times.

Couple opinions: Poverty is a habit and a mindset. By that I mean it was easier for them to endure their conditions than to try and figure out how to change them. None of them had plans or goals. To belabor the obvious: you can't hit a target you can't see. They weren't aiming for anything more than making the rent and getting messed up as often as they could. It's understandable, but it is, in my view, an inaccurate description of the situation to say they had no control. Hard and impossible are two different things, and it is an irony of life that you often cause people more suffering in doing things for them, than forcing them to do it themselves. Nothing is more empowering than the habit of pushing through difficulty, with a plan.

The other thing I noticed is the complete lack of anything approaching stable family structures. There isn't even an effort to form familys, from what I can tell. The women just have an endless succession of men through there, none of whom will even contemplate taking a major role in raising their kids, much less marrying her. Taking all other considerations out of the mix, there is ECONOMIC value to the family structure. What is the most vulnerable demographic to poverty? The single mother. When foreigners come here, do they get ahead as individuals, or as an extended, mutually protective social order? Who hasn't heard of, say, Vietnamese families that come here, live 25 to a room with goats and chickens, save all their money, then pay cash for a house? It can be done, but there has to be a plan.

Thanks for the additional background, barry.

Over that internet that is something that is often lost.

In response to #49: Boots on the ground...
It is always informing to hear from a soldier with experience on the ground in Iraq. It's great when he can see through to the larger problem they are facing there- Iraqis are not like us in so many ways, and many do not want to be! They shouldn't necessarily have to think, talk, and consume like us.
Bringing their society up to American standards of democracy, capitalism, commercialism, formal education, and civil rights- not to mention military rigor- would be a challenge for anyone.
My question is that when we echo the call for "Freedom in the Middle East", are our expectations based on what we want or what they want?

I don't treat people like I want to be treated. I treat them like THEY want to be treated.

penty #189
With all due respect, have you been smoking crack?

The attempt to justify abortion by usage of Exodus 21:22 perplexes me on several levels. I sincerely doubt your ability to rationalize clearly and interpret the words on the page. No where in the cited text does it even vaguely hint that abortion is justified, merited ot even condoned. (Perhaps you have another translation of which I am not aware)

The referenced text clearly determines that if a woman who is with child is hurt during a skirmish and the child is born prematurely, yet no harm occurs to either of them, then the man will be punished monetarily according to what the husband and judge determine. However, in the verse below (Exodus 21:23) it reads,"But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc." Help me to understand where and how you believe this text in any way condones, promotes or advocates abortion.

Something I found interesting was the similarity in the message conveyed between posts #49 by Travis and post #190 by Barry Cooper. From my understanding of the U.S.’s mission in Iraq is this. We are there to create a better environment for the Iraqi people by building a democracy of the people and for the people. Just as importantly, we are building a society that will be self-sufficient and, in affect, reducing the poverty level. It is my understanding, in general, that it is from the poor that spurs on the high crime rate in the Iraqi cities and the continued recruitment of terrorist. By helping these people see that there is more to life than bringing harm to others or being a member of a terrorist group, then crime is reduced and the terrorist loose man power.

In the United States, it is certain people’s belief that helping people, who may or may not deserve it, out of poverty will reduce the crime rate, street gangs, killings, etc. in this country.

What I find odd is, in general, the conservative mindset and the liberal mindset will write off the one scenario as almost impossible but the other scenario as feasible. Very interesting.

With respect to #49, it seems clear enough to me the current situation is not acceptable. It cannot be the status quo forever and have anything good come from it.

Couple thoughts: our goal needs to be to encourage/provide hope for, Iraqis who support their own economic and eduational advancement. That don't want their kids to be poor and illiterate, as most Iraqis are currently. In tandem, our goal needs to deny any possibility of the hope for success for those who want anything else for Iraq, including a perpetuation and increase in general poverty, ignorance, and violence. To the extent that we are growing one hope, and crushing another, we are succeeding.

It seems to me we often start our thinking with the current situation, and work forward one step at a time. That seems to be what has happened with respect to our occupation of Iraq.

Another possibility, though, is asking: if the best possible thing happens, what does it look like?

In my view, Islam, per se, is not our enemy, and doesn't need to go anywhere. In the best of all worlds, moderate members of the Ummah somehow gain the ears of the Islamic majority, and focus on Jihad as the conquest of negative emotions and sinful thoughts, and focus on becoming more pious, and closer to Allah. Sharia--which in my understanding is not actually in the Koran--is loosened to the extent that economic growth comparable to what is being seen currently in Indonesia and Malaysia, are seen in Arabic nations. Wealth that is not concentrated in the hands of a lucky few, but spread, democratically.

As prosperity increases, more and more Palestinians begin leaving their camps to seek their fortunes in other Arab nations, because they want something better for their children. As this happens, the bitterness slowly recedes. The sharp pain is reduced to a dull ache. In one hundred years, perhaps it will be substantially forgotten.

Iraq is really an experiment in mixing cultures. I can't see any room for doubt that the experience of intermingling with Americans for so long will fail to leave a lasting impression on the Iraqis, provided we truly stick to our values. It's hard to tell right away what you teach other people, when it comes to subtle modes of thinking and behaving. It is a certainty that they will never say "We do this because the Americans do it this way, and they know better." They may, though, over time, come to do things our way, and claim they invented it. That's fine. Perfect, in fact. Invisibility is a virtue. That is a very subtle point.

Consider people have been arguing/discussing over the Bible well before the discovery of crack, I’ll take that as a friendly jab. LOL.

#193 Major Payne: "No where in the cited text does it even vaguely hint that abortion is justified, merited ot even condoned."

I didn’t say, “condoned or merited”, I simply mean the Bible, read God, can’t really seem to be “pro-life” but takes a more neutral stance.

Here is the KJV: "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." Period.

The next verse:”And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

Mischief in this sense is harm to the woman; it NEVER mentions the unborn’s “life” again. The woman’s life, the woman’s eye, her burns, etc should be exacted upon the “hurter”(for lack of a better word.) These are PHYSICAL punishments given to a man and as such losing an unborn child doesn’t equate whereas burning/scarring/foot loss would.

Read how quickly the Bible puts someone to death for murder in other passages, for MURDER the death penalty is handed out right and left isn’t it? Yet it never passes this punishment down for harming a fetus, why? Because biblically it isn’t life, sure, I’ll say in reality it very well might be a life but I can’t get this from the Bible explicitly and to do so seems a bit like fishing. (but then you probably feel the same about my POV.)

The fetus is clearly indicated as property of the husband and NOT a living human, biblically.

You know, I think we really need an American Sales force out there, making weekly calls on prominent clerics and taking them out to lunch or 18 holes of golf. I'm only half joking. We have diplomats, but the Ummah is extra-governmental. We need to be smarter. Prolonged use of force is always a sign something was missed along the way. We need to finish what we've started, but we need to start things moving in a better direction. It's not too late.

Penty, #196

Dude, I am not sure what bible you read because it is very clear:

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)

Therefore, the law tells us that a man who induces an abortion or miscarriage is to be punished, indicating that God values life before birth.

"Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:15)

Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb. (Psalms 22:9-10)

For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psalms 139:13-16)

Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you, `Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; And you Jeshurun whom I have chosen. (Isaiah 44:2)

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone, (Isaiah 44:24)

In addition, there are a number of great men of God (and Jesus) who were called to be God's servants from the womb:

Samson:

Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, "A man of God came to me and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. And I did not ask him where he came from, nor did he tell me his name. "But he said to me, `Behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and now you shall not drink wine or strong drink nor eat any unclean thing, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.'" (Judges 13:6-7, see also Judges 16:17)

Jesus (prophecy):

Listen to Me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me. (Isaiah 49:1)

And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, in order that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength), (Isaiah 49:5)

Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb. (Psalms 22:9-10)

Jeremiah:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

John the Baptist:

"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)

Paul:

But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased (Galatians 1:15)

In addition, the Bible tells us the wicked are estranged or enemies of God from the womb:

The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth. (Psalms 58:3)

#198 rb
Thanks for the clarification and scriptural references. You make an excellent several points.

penty
The Hebrew/Aramaic term "any" used in the verse of scripture you reference (Exodus 21:22) is "kol" (pronounced like "coal") it literally means "the whole, hence all, any or every (one, place or thing), altogether, as many as, thing, whatsoever, whosoever, whole" (Ref: The New Strong's complete Dictionary of Bible Words)

By this definition, which clearly indicates the meaning of the word as used in the context, any means ANY of the people (mother or child) harmed, or this case murdered.

Rebuttal?

Sorry, that I don't have time to comment in detail, and sorry to pick just one out to argue with, but
Zach, #81

You have great faith in climate models predicting a coming calamity, and ridicule skeptics of anthropogenic climate change for not having an alternative model.

But your climate models cannot accurately predict next week’s weather. They cannot accurately account for past ice ages and warm periods. On that record, I have little faith that they can accurately predict weather at 5,10, or 20 years from now.
Even without an alternate model for climate change, the fact that the earth has had a constant cycle of cooling and warming for millions of years, that we have had ice ages with glaciers covering much of the earth, and land bridge to Siberia now covered by the sea, ought to be enough to prove to open minded folks that not all climate change is caused by human activity. But in fact there is a scientific model which explains global warming without human cause. It is pretty simple, cycles of change in the sun’s energy output. “Sometimes too hot the eye of heaven shines.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml.
Plug inconstant solar output into your climate model and see if CO2 remains the key factor.

And this, two Russians who, based on their examination of sunspot activity, predict global cooling, and are willing to bet on it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552092,00.html

Sorry in advance in for this being so long. Trying to be clear leads to a more verbose answer.

#198 RB what do you mean “not sure which version”? I quoted my source above quite clearly already, KJV = King James Version. Only the most widely distributed and accepted Bible version EVER.

You however seem content to rifle through several DIFFERENT translations regardless of validity or stating sources to get just the wording you want. It’s clear you have done this because some “quotes” are misaligned, some using “thou”s and “thee”s and others use more modern phrasing and the like. If you have to skip around like that to squeeze out your point is it really that valid?

BTW, your supposed quote doesn’t even have the whole “eye for an eye” thing, which is pretty agreed upon so I can’t really put any weight onto this quote at all as a “real honest translation” etc.. What the heck are you using? The “Pro-life Bible Summary” by Cliff notes?

Still to RB: As to your other quotes, so what? Which of those quotes stand for an antiabortion stance as a way to counter what was REALLY said in Exodus? None. Anyways I’ve tried to address them by person.
-Jesus: son of God and was not “of Man” and thus the Exodus ruling wouldn’t apply to him, e.g. special case.
-Jeremiah: The soul is eternal right; this could have happen even before pregnancy and could have been ANY unborn that soul entered into. You can’t truly abort a soul only a physical thing. It’s the soul that is special not the flesh. You do believe in souls right?
-John the Baptist: See Jeremiah
-Samson:See Jeremiah

Lastly you last quote seems to actually endorse abortion to get rid of the wicked, if there were a way to tell if a fetus was wicked or not. I mean we’re supposed destroy/punish the wicked, right?

#199 Major Payne: “Rebuttal?”

Assuming this “col” is actually correct, I’ll trust you on it cause I’ll admit I’m lazy and don’t want to check, I’ll go ahead.

Knowing that the translation is “col”, I feel solidifies my point not your own so how is a rebuttal necessary? “Whole" woman, that excludes the fetus, because you feel the fetus is separate from the woman as IT'S OWN ENTITY, right? I mean your whole stance above is that the fetus and the woman aren't "col" but separate and each deserving of live, seems like you and the bible disagree there… wait I thought you based your stance ON the bible.

You seem to want it both ways for yourself and it doesn’t work. Resolve it and get back to me.

The verse also DOESN’T state punishment should be carried out to the offender’s family, (i.e. the wife loses and eye so the offender’s wife should lose an eye or that the loss of a child should result in the loss of the offender’s wife’s unborn or real child.) If the WIFE is hurt there “eye for an eye” if the unborn is hurt a property fine is levied as decreed by the judges.

Look at the context; this WHOLE section deals with property. You think God would throw in something as important as “pro-life” among a long listing of property decisions?

“when ordering food, get a combo: hamburger, fries…. Oh, don’t kill unborn people….and a coke.” The verse ONLY fits with the contextual whole if the unborn are property. There are whole OTHER sections that deal with crimes against PEOPLE.

You DO know it’s okay to be pro-life NOT because the bible tells you, right? You can be Pro-life all on your own. That was meant to be my point if you read back.

OK, let's see here now . . .

1) Got your Iraq war ... check.

2) Got your Arab/Israeli conflict ... check.

3) Got your global warming arguments ... check.

4) Got your abortion debate ... check. (didn't even need a link from Coach to get this one off the ground today.)

5) Got your gay marriage ... wait a minute! We ordered the full set of arguments guaranteed to shut down all thought! Where's the gay marriage debate?

Penty,

How do you explain Psalms 22:9-10 or Psalms 139:13-16 from any translation to fit your position? Or any of the others for that matter.

It does not matter if it is a modern translation like NIV or NKJV or the older KJV.

My discussion is not designed to change your mind on abortion. I really think it is your choice to decide not mine. What I do question is your attempt to say the bible-God does not consider the unborn or a fetus as a life. As you know you can take any verse out of context. What does the big picture say? You are basing your position off of a few verses in Exodus. Can you site other example?

penty

I sure appreciate your willingness to continue with this discussion. You're wearing me out, however. I don't think we're far apart on a couple of things, so let me see if I'm correct:

A) I'm pro-life/anti-abortion. I'm quite actually unsure as to your position.
B) I agree that it is alright to be pro-life despite what the Bible says about the sanctity of life.

I also believe we are not seeing eye to eye on some other matters:

A) Your sentence: "Knowing that the translation is “col”, I feel solidifies my point not your own so how is a rebuttal necessary? “Whole" woman, that excludes the fetus, because you feel the fetus is separate from the woman as IT'S OWN ENTITY, right? I mean your whole stance above is that the fetus and the woman aren't "col" but separate and each deserving of live, seems like you and the bible disagree there… wait I thought you based your stance ON the bible."

I AM basing my whole stance on what the Bible CLEARLY says: ""If men strive, and hurt a woman WITH CHILD, (emphasis mine) so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow..." refers not just to the woman in question, but to the baby as well. It does not separate the two because the child cannot survive without the mother, both during gestation and for some time after the birth. If therefore the text refers to both mother and child in this verse it would follow that they are referred to TOGETHER in the following text as well. Hence the word "KOL" (any) means "all parties involved, either one of them or both of them." In that light the Bible and I do not disagree.

B) I also feel that you are taking the entire meaning of the text out of context. It does not simply deal with "property", but the rights of individuals as well. Yes, I will concede that verses 33-36 do deal with property specifically, but that is about it.

God is "pro-life." Why else would He state as such in so many places? For example, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that ANY (emphasis mine) should perish but that ALL (another great word) should come to repentance."

There's that word "any" again. I wonder if it only refers to a certain select few or if "any" really means "any?" God doesn't play games and try to skirt issues by using sesquipedalianistic phraseology or by obfuscating them somehow by saying things like, "Well, that all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" really is." Or in this case, the word "any."

We may never see eye to eye here. I take the word of God literally. Period. The Bible makes its points abundantly clear. Period. Abortion is wrong. Period. Killing an innocent life is wrong. Period.

If you want to justify it somehow, you are going to have to look somewhere other than the pages of the Bible, because that dog just won't hunt.

#201 davidjwood

There is no debate. It is wrong, perverse and the parts don't fit. There is no "natural", genetic, "hypothalmus theory" or otherwise legitimate basis for it other than a behavioral choice.

Oh, thank GOD!

And here I was desperately afraid we couldn't make it through a rest day cycle withou hitting all the major ones.

5) Got your gay marriage position staked out . . . check.

#203 rb. I already addressed the quotes you provided before. Why didn’t you use you BEST PROOF the first time. You’re playing a game or retreat and NOT having a discussion, I’m not hand hold you through the whole bible.

Rb: “You are basing your position off of a few verses in Exodus. Can you site other example?”

How typical now you want another example. You can’t even provide ONE; you’re at zero. You’ve got multiple sources, unquoted, conflicting points and no biblical “pro-life” sources.

What I see it I’ve got one example and you have zero. If you’d given me ONE as quid pro quo I’d answer with another. AS it stands I’m ahead and don’t see the point.

RB:“What I do question is your attempt to say the bible-God does not consider the unborn or a fetus as a life.”

Read my #201 and my others post on this topic here, you are the ones taking the verse out of context. It’s sits right in a discussion of PROPERTY. Either I’m explaining it badly or you can’t, or haven’t, read #201. Waste of time for me either way to repeat myself.

MP:“It does not separate the two because the child cannot survive without the mother, both during gestation and for some time after the birth.”

Yes, it does. If the baby is already born then it is dealing with a son or daughter immediately and the bible handles it accordingly.

The phrase is also “yet IF no mischief”. This means that it is possible for the “fruit to be dropped” and no harm/no foul; how is this possible if the fetus is killed re: forced miscarriage? Why would there be a qualifier if “mischief” is guaranteed by the aborting of the fetus as you claim? Again it makes sense only if the damage is to the mother is there mischief.

MP:“God is "pro-life." Why else would He state as such in so many places? For example, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that ANY (emphasis mine) should perish but that ALL (another great word) should come to repentance."

Okay, first off this is a citation I can’t check for context so it’s not fair to introduce it and expect me to answer. Who says this line? I ASSUME this quote is referring to the Chosen people, correct?

MP:”The Bible makes its points abundantly clear. Period. Abortion is wrong. Period. Killing an innocent life is wrong. Period.”

Killing innocent life is wrong? He, via Moses, leads HIS people through the desert while GOD personally inflicted them with a plague from meat He provided, having them swallowed by the Earth for questioning Moses. Didn’t he destroy 2 whole towns without a chance of repentance? Kill the first-born or every family in Egypt AFTER God himself “hardens the pharaohs heart against Moses"?

Didn’t God, via Moses, orders His troops to execute all the Midianite boys and all the Midianite females except for the virgins AFTER he already killed all the soldiers? You say “God says killing innocent life is wrong” and is “pro life” yet God directs this to happen either personally or through other people?

Who knows, maybe your idea of pro-life is different than mine.

I didn’t go there first nor would I have, you brought it up arguing the Biblical God is somehow pro-life all the way around. Notice how my discussion until now didn’t need to? I’ve no beef with God or any such thing, I think the Bible is holy but it isn’t “the end all be all” for moral codes as some of them we’ve grown beyond morally/ethically (see slavery).

MP:“We may never see eye to eye here. I take the word of God literally. Period.”

Well if you take the Exodus phrase we’ve been discussing “literally” then it actually IS referencing a woman losing fruit and “with child” could very well mean standing around with a 12 year old. Literal is literal. If you accept metaphors (dropped fruit = miscarriage), which apparently you have, then you are accepting that the Bible isn’t literal.

You’re right, it’s been a good discussion meaning I leave knowing more than before and I hope you have too. People like us should discuss stuff more often without getting all pissed off like the rest of ‘em.

(Man I didn’t even get to address your “gay is behavioral” thing you just posted, next time I guess) :o)

MP: feel free to email me is you want to discuss this or other topics further. We’re cool.

20X each Arm 60lbs DB Snatch
50 Push-ups
50 Sit-ups (Fit-Ball)
20 Pull-ups
15 Sumo High Lift Dead Lifts Cable 145lbs Standing on Bussi-Ball
20X each Arm 60lbs DB Snatch
50 Push-ups
50 Sit-ups (Fit-Ball)
20 Pull-ups
15 Sumo High Lift Dead Lifts Cable 145lbs Standing on Bussi-Ball
20X each Arm 60lbs DB Snatch
50 Push-ups
50 Sit-ups (Fit-Ball)
20 Pull-ups
15 Sumo High Lift Dead Lifts Cable 145lbs Standing on Bussi-Ball
20X each Arm 60lbs DB Snatch
50 Push-ups
50 Sit-ups (Fit-Ball)
20 Pull-ups
15 Sumo High Lift Dead Lifts Cable 145lbs Standing on Bussi-Ball
20X each Arm 60lbs DB Snatch
50 Push-ups
50 Sit-ups (Fit-Ball)
20 Pull-ups
15 Sumo High Lift Dead Lifts Cable 145lbs Standing on Bussi-Ball

Verses 22 and 23 are all about the "fruit," not the wife. No mischief to the fruit, pay a penalty for striking the wife. Mischief to the fruit, pay in accordance with the mischief done to the fruit. Substitution of the term "miscarriage" in some versions misses the point. There cannot be "no mischief" to the fruit with a miscarriage, thus making verse 23 superfluous when "miscarriage" is used. But there can be mischief short of death if the birth is premature. It's all about the fruit here, not the wife. BTW, I interpret law for a living, and this is one of the easy ones.

Penty,

Peace out!!

P.S. The verses before are dealing with slaves and I see where you infer what you are saying, but based on my reading of the bible and what I believe God has told me through His word I believe He is pro-life. And you are correct. You do not have to read the Bible to be pro-life. You can look at God's creation and it speaks for itself.

CNN & New Yorker - Bush Planned Lebanon War Months Before

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5eBrfrWoTk

erica

Nice work! It's refreshing to see that yet another liberal like yourself was able to dig up a credible "20/20 hindsight" after the fact
prophet. It's amazing how this guy knew these "facts" and has the where with all to expose them afterward. What a master of piecing the puzzle together. And another big surprise, it was aired on the Clinton News Network!

Newsflash, the bible was written by some dudes in a desert trying to explain a world they didn't understand a few thousand years ago. The fact that we attribute an ancient old text to the words of some imaginary deity just because the writers said so is unsophisticated. This would be the first time I have seen an abortion debate quoting scripture. 'What about the psalms?' Jesus, who freakin cares about the psalms.

Oh I forgot, it was Reagan's advisors who said we didn't need to worry about the environment (as they ripped the solar panels off the White House) because the imminent second coming of the Messiah makes that consideration irrelevant.

Imaginary Deity Living in the Clouds help us.

R.I.P. secular inquiry based on curiosity and openness. Who needs to think when the bible can do it for us.

Phil,

Lets just say the bible is a bunch of stories and rules on living based on as you say what some dude in the desert wrote,,, and someone decided to follow the precepts like: honor they mother and father, love your neighbor etc... Not a bad life right.

Well what if everything it says is true and Jesus was the Son of God and they go the heaven. Great. But worse would be to defy God not believe and go to Hell for eternity.

Ah, Pascal's wager . . . circa 1660 . . . nothin' new under the sun.

I know it's Wikipedia (therefore, do NOT trust), but there's a nice summary here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

rb, I'll fully grant that a life lived according to some (but not all, e.g. Genesis 19:8, most of Exodus 21) biblical precepts is likely to be a good life. It's just *real* hard to swallow it as the unerring view of God's word, and those that do have to live with its casual acceptance of slavery, mass murder, stoning of women (but not men) for adultery, etc.

If you and MajorPayne are good with all that, fine for you (but a lot of Americans are dying to prevent people with that kind of sincere religous faith from gaining power).

Matt (#192): If that's true, where's the hundred bucks I want you to send me?

(Just kidding . . . fifty will be enough)

davidjwood

I pity you. You're an obviously intelligent individual. Probably too intelligent to understand the simplicity and soundness of the sovereignty, authority, authenticity, historicity, eloquence and undeniable TRUTH of God as revealed in the Bible and through Jesus Christ. Please, do yourself a favor and read Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" and/or Lee Stroebels "The Case For Christ" before launching on a tyrade of accusations about "people with that kind of sincere religous faith from gaining power."

Many of the story's contained in the Bible are there for illustrative and demonstrative purposes used to educate us so that the particular events of that period may be either avoided, circumvented or none-the-less repeated. All history is valuable and useful as an educational tool. The beauty of the Bible is that it does not try to gloss over tragedy or paint a "pretty" picture of human events, but rather tells the whole story; the good, the bad and the not so eloquent. That's one way we learn discernment, right?

davidjwood,

"If you and MajorPayne are good with all that, fine for you (but a lot of Americans are dying to prevent people with that kind of sincere religous faith from gaining power)."

Sincere faith does not mean one looses balance. You are mistaken to consider that my "sincere religious faith" is equal to the current situation we find ourselves in over seas. I have not seen any of my fellow christian friends wanting to blow themselves up or others for Christ. I also admit alot of evil has been done in the name of Christianity in the past. Also I am one of those that is servicing as you say "prevent people with that kind of sincere religous faith from gaining power". I service to preserve your right along with penty or anyone else for that matter to disagree with me.

I do thank you for your comments.

rb: I thank you for risking your life for me . . . and I recognize that your service is in support of the idea that we can disagree.

Putting your life on the line gives you (and not me) a legitimacy that those of us who benefit from your service can not claim.

And . . . I still fear power in the hands of those who believe they have a sole hold on "truth" . . . even when it approximates my own very fallible and very limited understanding of God. My problem isn't with your faith . . . only with those whose faith denies all other possibilities.

Major Payne, your last paragraph I don't disagree with . . . learning to discern truth is, in my mind, what we're here for. As long as you'll grant me the freedom to draw my own conclusions (using the brain that God gave me), we'll get along fine.

My reading list is pretty long right now . . . but I'll put those on it. Check with me in 3 or 4 months.

davidjwood

The beauty of Christ is that He is a gentleman, much more so than I. He invites only, He "stands at the door and knocks." I, on the other hand, am fallible and impatient. Please forgive me.

I am glad that you are open to possibilities and that you have (as do we all) the freedom and power to use those decision making powers granted by God to decide how you wish to view the world. As for the reading, I will hold you to your word. See you in 4 months.

John #213

Liberal? Why do you assume this? Do you label in order to understand or be able to attack?

Does where it was aired change the substance of what was said? Do you have an actual rebuttal?

David,
I just wanted to tell you that I agree with you. I really love G-d with my whole being, and all that, but I don't agree with the whole my-religion-or-you-go-to-hell thing, and I think FEAR is a bad reason to believe in anything. And I am pretty sure it's a fairly new concept. I'm a big fan of the Nag Hammadi, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. And I don't think G-d is anti-gay, either. (So shoot me, people.)

Erica--do you have any actual rebuttals to anything other than posting new biased links?

This has got to be a record for a rest day discusion.

#203 rb, (#222 Major Payne you'd probably find this interesting as well) you wanted another instance of God being pro-abortion? Despite the fact you provide nothing saying he is “pro life”. Fine you want me to raise the score to 2-0 in my favor, fine.

Numbers Chapter 5:11-22 , this one is very explicit/literal. It’s actually instructions for how to get the priests of GOD on how to perform an abortion, what to pay, and so forth.

There you have it. Exodus and now in Numbers state extremely clearly God’s stance on abortion. You on the other hand have presented NONE that speak against it in ANY sense.

Penty,

First according to Phil comment # 214. One or both of us are crazy for having this discussion. But since we are there is not a score. I defer to comment #210 blink.

“Mischief to the fruit, pay in accordance with the mischief done to the fruit. Substitution of the term "miscarriage" in some versions misses the point. There cannot be "no mischief" to the fruit with a miscarriage, thus making verse 23 superfluous when "miscarriage" is used. But there can be mischief short of death if the birth is premature”

Meaning if the baby is killed then the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, is kicked in. meaning the Old Testament law held the unborn in high regard.

I think that settles the Exodus issue.

Second, I have checked several translations to include: http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=4&c=5. It is a good commentary. I have been unable to find anything about abortion, death to a child etc., in those verses. It simply state that if a man suspects his wife of cheating then she would be brought to the temple, drink water mixed with dirt from the temple floor, and I she lies she gets sick. It does not even mention that she is pregnant. So you must keep searching beacuse that one does work either. Does this verse sound strange to me? Yes, but so do a lot of the Old Testament laws. That is the whole reason God sent his Son. Because he new we could not bridge the gap caused by Adam. I also want to ask if you are familiar with the whole concept of new covenant vs. the old covenant. I prefer the new convenient. It was all part of His plan from before time began. Read John Chapter 8 and see how Jesus handles the same situation.

P.S. if you respond it may take me a few days to get back because my DSL will surely go out because of the Hurricane coming here.

rb,

I had already brought up the "fruit" metphor, well before blink, when MP mentioned that he takes the bible literally.

I've already covered the "mischief" issue w/ Major Payne. I'm not going to repeat myself other than to say "msichief" doesn't imply in any wat that it includes the fetus) as yet ANOTHER example of how it doesn't apply: a fetus doesn't have teeth therefore, to assume "mischeif" to the fetus you have to take a NON LITERAL approach to a work that is supposedly perfect. OF couse if you take "mischief" as being only the mother then the verses are in alignment and literally they make sense together, just like you want them to.

I do like people who turn to the Bible feel like they have to repeat the same thing 1000 other peopel said before them without regard to "cover ground". It's like "if you repeat it enough you'll win them over" instead of realizing your audicence just gets tired and stops.

from KJV "..that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people."

"thigh to rot" is obviously a metaphor for abortion. Preist/God themselves cause a miscarraige, read divine abortion.

penty,

My friend,
Please e-mail me at srp6731@hotmail.com so that we may continue this discussion. Thank you in advance for this.
Steve

I'd already thrown out the invite there before MP. For my email just click on my name.