Gent's we goofed the que and you briefly got a peek at the next WOD. Sorry.

Now I am glad that I never commented on others deadlift starting positions.

That's a brutal workout Coach! I'm looking forward to it.

Whats the next WOD?

They won't tell you, Nivek!

well im going out of town and I need it haha

My deadlift looks a lot more like the older gentleman's form. I have long legs and a shorter than proportionate(least I think so) torso, so I end up looking a lot more like him. Glad to know now that that form isn't totally bad.

I can guess what the next WOD is. I have ESP. :-)

And here I thought Crossfit was trying to make the schedule as random as the WODs. That would just turn my whole world upside down.

Thanks Rip, Lauren, Coach for the photos and the explanations of them. Very, very helpful for me to see this difference in what appears to be incorrect, but is in fact very correct. The lines/angles really tell the story

Hitchens writes,among other points "The second point makes me queasy, but cannot be ducked. "We"--and our allies--simply have to become more ruthless and more experienced."

More ruthless and more experienced?I guess Mr Hitchens is not aware that from 1945 to the present the United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations.

Erica, how does that preclude us from becoming more ruthless and experienced?

Awww man, now that's gonna bug me for a whole day!! Hook a brother up!

Me and deads, a working relationship at best. I'm 6'4" and 195lbs so getting 340lbs off the floor is like a car crash, you want to look away but somehow you can't.

HUGE help to see those photos of the father and son deadlifts. now i can stop tell my long legged wife with her short torso that she isn't getting her butt down far enough or arching her back enough or keeping her chest and head vertical like she should.

Thanks Erica...I keep forgetting we are the bad guys.

All those communist, fascists, dictators, drug lords, gangsters and despots were good for the world.

Sometimes the battle is actually waged for hearts and minds. An example is the conversion of Christopher Hitchens -- from obnoxious leftist to erudite conservative. Welcome aboard, Chris, but I must take issue with your two main points.

Solidarity? Really? Can we or should we wait for some majority of the rest of the Western World and the UN to follow Chris’s example and convert? No. We are the only superpower, and we have a duty now to act alone and decisively against a threat as vile as any for which anyone held war crimes tribunals.

Next, I take issue with this statement:

>>"We"--and our allies--simply have to become more ruthless and more experienced.>>

This sounds like a recommendation to respond to terrorism in kind, fighting terrorism with even more brutal terrorism.

The answer lies elsewhere. History, from sixty years ago and not yet sixty days old, informs us how to defeat terrorism.

As I’ve posted recently to this cite, Japanese Kamikaze’s were exacting a terrible toll. This was suicide warfare in the form of human guided missiles. We did develop better tactics during the campaign to be sure, but not enough. Defeat came from the sudden, brutal, ruthless destruction of Japanese cities.

This would not work against the Islamic terrorists if the movement were actually a grassroots insurgency. But the second, recent lesson teaches us otherwise. The Iranian and Syrian surrogate, Hezbollah, switched on and switched off on demand. The kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers may have been a local digression, but the rocket attacks were orchestrated – a month of a steady rain of unguided, foreign rockets from foreign launchers from random locations. After a good beating for their surrogate, Hezbollah’s agents sued for peace, and the barrage ended on queue.

Now Hezbollah rearms. The next family of rockets is going to be far worse.

We now suspect that the terrorism around Baghdad is similarly sponsored.

So the time is to ripe to act alone, and to take out prized targets in Syria and Iran, one at a time, on a short, public time schedule, using as much weaponry as necessary. Diplomacy should begin when Iran and Syria stop the terrorist activity everywhere, turn over the likes of Nasrallah, al Sadr, and Khamenei, and sue for peace. If they don’t, we should call the number for Damascus and Teheran, and decapitate both countries.

Is that what you meant by ruthless, Chris?

I think we need to be more strategic or more strategically ruthless. Cutting our dependence on oil would be hugely successful for starters. As was pointed out in Comment #14, hit the financial backers of the terrorists. What are they using for financing? Petro dollars. Reduce oil consumption, reduce Iran's ability to fund terror groups, reduce terror groups capability. That would be an effective, albeit broad, step.

We have to fight the propaganda war more actively. Our enemy and other critics are increasing their propaganda attacks and the US admin. only responds with something like: "We won't dignify 'that' with a response". C'mon people, respond with something! We're allowing ourselves to be portrayed as the villians. Point out what intolerant, woman's rights fearing, close-minded, fanatical, murdering, Islam-defiling, hypocrits the terrorists are every time a verbal bash is sent our way. Paint them for what they are, put them on the defensive in the world media and make them have to explain/define themselves. Condi Rice and that White House press conference dude aren't getting this particular job done.

Is there a preferred grip for kipping pull ups? Chin up , or pull up? Thanks.

The US Senate vote for invasion of Afghanistan was 99-1. The invasion of Afghanistan involved NATO forces. Who are these people Hitchens claimed were these he debated that were "war-weary" while the ashes of the twin towers were still warm?

Here's my take: treat terrorism as a crime, countries that harbor and aid terrorist that commits acts of violence against your country thereby commit acts of war and are punished swiftly. You don't wage war against nuclear weapons, water mining, artillery barrage or suicide bombers. You neutralize the effectiveness of them and wage war against nations that utilize those actions against you. Once you get rid of countries that blantantly harbor terrorists, then you enlist the aid of countries to go after terrorists that hide amoung other nations and our own. Yep, that means "going at it alone" is a stupid maneuver.

Granted I think organized crime and gangs need harsher treatment. Any organized group that abuses freedoms protected by a nation to do harm to that nation and its people need to have those freedoms removed vith a vengence. But that's within our own borders. Would you like Mexico to send troops into California to take care of gang violence that might spread to Mexico's northern border? I'd prefer aid from Mexico on their side, but aid as reasonable. Treat terrorists in similar fashions (much harsher, but similar).

Hitchens is still a putz though.

I'm not sure that Hitchens has added anything meaningful to the debate. There was a certain, regrettable degree of schadenfreude on this side of the Atlantic - some people felt that America had been spared the awful opportunity to become intimate with terrorism on its home turf - but quite frankly, I wish it was possible for you to have remained 'innocent' - even if that could only be said of the general populace, not the administration. I saw pictures of that poor little girl laying down a rose who had lost her mother and I wanted to weep. I can only hope that the endeavours in the Middle East will be effective - however that is defined - and won't simply reap an even more bitter harvest.

Treelizard

My point was that I dont`t believe Mr. hitchens knows just how ruthless and experienced the U.S. has been.

CCTJOEY wrote `Thanks Erica...I keep forgetting we are the bad guys.

All those communist, fascists, dictators, drug lords, gangsters and despots were good for the world.`

CCTJOEy,let me clue you in on just a few of those interventions,you seem a little confused.

China, 1945-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.

Italy, 1947-48:

Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.

Greece, 1947-49:

Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.

Philippines, 1945-53:

U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

South Korea, 1945-53:

After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.

Albania, 1949-53:

The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.

Germany, 1950s:

The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

Iran, 1953:

Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.

Guatemala, 1953-1990s:

A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.

Middle East, 1956-58:

The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.

Indonesia, 1957-58:

Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.
British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.

Vietnam, 1950-73:

The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.

Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.

Cambodia, 1955-73:

Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.
Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.

The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:

In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.

Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.

Brazil, 1961-64:

President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.

Dominican Republic, 1963-66:

In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.

Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.

A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.

In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.

Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.

Cuba, 1959 to present:

Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.
The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.

Indonesia, 1965:

A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.

It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "

Chile, 1964-73:

Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.

After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.

They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.

Jeff, I think Hitchen's purpose and the service that he performs is not so much in the details of how to fight Islamic fanatics, which should constantly evolve, but in helping to wake up the great mass of folks here and around the western world who do not yet realize, as you do, to an understanding that Islamism is a vile, sick ideology that declared unrestricted war on civilization itself long before Sept 11, 2001.

nuke-marine, treating the Islamists, who declared open season on our women and children at least as early as bin Laden's 1993 fatwa, as mere criminals is exactly what we did for decades before 9-11, and is precisely why bin Laden was still alive to plot 9-11 after the Clinton administration passed on an opportunity to get him because of concerns about the finer points of criminal procedure. These guys are not mere criminals, they are the enemy in an active, shooting war. That's they way they view it, and that is the way we need to view it. We do not need to wait passively for their next attack, then advise them of their rights and give them free lawyers and jury trials before shooting them. In war you shoot the other guy before he shoots you, not arrest him afterward.

I knew that CrossFit would make a difference in my overall fitness. I just never thought that it would work this well. Last night, while playing rugby, I was faster than ever. Not only speed, but my recovery time was just incredible. Thanks to CrossFit, Coach, and the community for pushing me and making me push myself. Great job and great program.

Greg Mills

OK Erica, we get your point, which is moral equivalence or worse, a well worn Soviet meme, that we are morally as, or more, degraded than our enemies, therefore, we should prostrate ourselves before them and thank them for killing us.

Ok, first I wrote this long winded technical post on muscle-ups last night; took me over an hour. Coach, someone, please read it and if you think it's worth it maybe we can put it up on today's page since it was the last post and no one reads yesturday's news.
Secondly, from reading the WOD Forum, especially on rest days, I get the impression that crossfit isn't just about building physical kinesthetic skills. It seems that it's also about building precision, balance, form, and accuracy in ideas regarding philosophy, society, and politics, among other intellectual endeavors, through discussions, writing and conversations. Since I probably will end up participating in these discussions, first I will make a disclaimer.
1) I reserve the right to change my mind about anything I say and take your side of the argument if you convince me that I was wrong. I've been known to do that. It surprises people. It might also be surprising that you might believe differently after a conversation with me.
2) I don't "beleive" in anything. I "suspect" things to be true with varying degrees of uncertainty. Scientists are supposed to reason like this, with uncertaintly bars. Even if I say I believe, what I really mean is that I suspect, because I could be mistaken. If I feel certain about something I will have a very small uncertainty bar. For example I suspect that Coach Glassman is an extraordinary teacher and coach with an uncertainty bar of about 1.0 x 10*-32, that is .0000000000000000000000000000001% chance of me being wrong.
3) If my ideas might fly in the face of everything you beleive about yourself, your country, your god (God?), and the rest of the universe, you shouldn't get angry at me. I am just a person with limited faculties of thought and knowledge and the ideas I have are simply the result of my sincerest attempts with my limited knowledge to understand the world around me. In science, you're not supposed to take any arguments against your ideas personally as an assault on yourself. Theories and hypotheses stand on their own merit. If you get pissed at me I'm not going to think you're right, I'm just going to think you're an asshole. However,...
4) I might think you're right if you make a really sound argument with no invalid assumptions and no fallacies. You should be open to the possibility that I might be right too.
5) Despite all the emotional upheaval and heated feelings, it's beneficial to have these kind of discussions because that is how you develope precision, accuracy, form, elegance, and clarity in ideas, knowledge and reasoning. Furethermore, how else can I or you know that we were wrong if we never talk to others? We might never see our own mistaken convictions!
These are the ground rules for my participation in these sensitive subjects. If this is not ok, someone should let me know and I'll shut up and stick to the WOD. Now that I have expressed my disclaimer I will go to sleep and think about the article and exactly what I think about Solidarity. Hopefully I won't have a handful of Crossfit Elite Navy Seals lining up to kick my ass at the next crossfit seminar.

Erica,

Why do you hate America?

Erica:

The world owes the U.S. a huge debt of gratitude for defeating communism. In the history of human civilization, no creed has led to the murder of more people in a shorter period of time than communism. USSR - 70 milion; China - 90 million; Cambodia - 3 million. And that's just some of the places where they were in charge. It's clear you regard the US resistance to communism as an atrocity and war crime. Thanks for clearing that up.

There must be an other solution to this problem other than killing. What about free and honest education? Learning to look at events from an other perspective?

I tried out some alternative warming-up sequences
1:
- air squats
- OH squats with a sh.press in the bottom
- kipping pull-up
- handstand
- burpees
- bridge hold

and 2:
- false grip pull-ups (not a good idea after yesterday's wod)
- box step-ups
- L-sit/planche combo on paralettes
- 1 leg squat

It warmed up very well. Have fun, Johan

Bravo #20, that is an excellent summary of a really pathetic record of the worst kind of racist and murderous immorality the real US exhibited throughout the 20th century, beating down relatively defenseless peoples out of pure greed for natural resources and economic advantage. And talk about abuse and manipulation of the worst kind, it is no wonder much of the the third world hates us. Bin Laden and his little group of cave dwellers are absolutely nothing, never were anything, and cannot hope to achieve anywhere near the damage, destruction, death, and waste the US has caused. And it was the US assistance of the Jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan that gave these people the confidence and know-how to fight and defeat a major power on their own turf. Looks like all of this is coming back to bite us, and at a time when the US has the absolute worst political leadership that is simultaneously corrupt and incompetent. Someone asks where the terrorists are getting their funding? Well- we buy every drop of oil available to us from the Middle East and we borrow huge amounts of money from them, paying them huge amounts of interest. Then we do dumb things like waive trade sanctions mandated by US law against countries like China, another entity to whom we pay huge amounts of annual interest on all the money we have borrowed, despite China setting up cruise missile manufacturing plants in Iran. The US is between a rock and hard place, and it doesn't look like things will get better anytime soon, if at all.

Thanks for posting the DL pictures Coach and Mark... They confirm what I thought was the case with my manufactured lordotic arch, and illustrate graphically why it takes so long to develop a "Coaches eye".

Semper Flex

DJ-Hows the wrong coast?

Erica - Put hand in fridge - chill!

Mr Rippetoe - Loved the deadlift pics - I am firmly in the long leg/ short body camp so that was useful. Thanks

Erica, I think you are only seeing one side of each of these examples. You failed to mention that the Castro and his ilk in Cuba were ruthless both in their 'warfighting' and in victory. Don't try to evoke "moral equivalency" or say that in each of these cases, the U.S. was just some 'evil empire'.

Each country ultimately needs to act in its own interest. At any time, if two countries' goals interfere with each other, some sort of conflict (armed or not) will ensue. We Americans have elected and will continue to elect the administrations they think will protect our interests in the way we want. Other countries' leaders (elected or not) will try to protect their interests (their own personal interests and/or those of their countries). In the light of history (i.e. Monday morning quarterbacking), we might be able to see the obvious mistakes our or other nations' leaders have made. What we should do with these lessons is learn from the mistakes and try to apply policies and actions that solve the problems while protecting our interests (unless you think our nation should suffer or our government overthrown, of course).

Johan #26

Are you suggesting that we (Westerners) educate ourselves to understand the ideals that the terrorists are touting, or that we biuld schools that are wonderful targets or recruiting centers for those terrorists?

You are right that we have to fight ideologies with education, but the most potent lesson against ideology (as the Germans and Japanese can attest) is given by destruction, not books. It is a sad fact of life and psychology.

Excellent article and very useful DL photos, thank you.

It's always with a sigh that I read these arguments where each side assumes the other's position for them. Namely that to criticise American brutality is to forgive (or at best overlook) non-American brutality, that American actions cannot be compared to non-American because the US is serving a just purpose (that the end justifies the means, the 'case against moral equivalence') and so-on.

America has been a powerful stabilising force in the world. Primarily for it's own gain I believe, which is not to say that no-one else has benefitted, only that I don't believe 'the world owes America a great debt'. America's reward has been the power it enjoys. What it needs to do (in my opinion) is live up to the responsibility of that power.

To be on top and claim the high road, that we are the 'good guys', that our ideals are worth fighting for, that we don't deserve to be attacked, and are worthy of respect and honour we must demonstrate that we actually are the good guys. That *will* mean putting ourselves at a tactical disadvantage by showing restraint, by apologising for mistakes, taking the high road. But you can't be the good guys without being the good guys.

The sooner we're seen more as wise, learned, considered, respectful, cultured and trained; less as shrewed, greedy, ruthless, crude, cowardly and brutal; the sooner we stem the tide of the cultural feeders to our claimed 'enemy'. We can't afford to be giving people reasons to hate us (see Erica's history lesson on why people don't trust us when we say we're taking the high road now).

How are we any different to the very people we're fighting by publicly claiming the high road while being tactically (strategically, politically) ruthless. They make the exact same claims to feed their own fires.

Ahh but we're dealing with ruthless barbarians right? Hoards who'll won't stop til their dead! Much in the same way that *they're* dealing with the 'great satan'? The world's all-consuming cultural and economic locust?

We actually have to *be* different. If there's anything I've found to be true in my fellow human beings, it's we all have a capacity for love, for compassion, forgiveness, consideration. Equally, I find that our worst traits are borne of fear. Let us not be so low in the world as to be feared. We might wonder instead how we earn the admiration and respect of those we would call 'the enemy' to do that thins the foe's ranks before they're even filled.

Erica, look up the cold war. Almost every intervention you listed had to do with fighting the cold war. We called it a cold war because we used intervention whether then sending in our troops. Communism failed and human rights prevailed. Hope that clears things up for you.

Everyone knows the US didn't defeat communism...it was Chevy Chase in Spies like us...shesshhhhhh.

Rob S: The ideologies of Japan and Nazi German were of master race and rightful place kind right?

How does an ideology which embraces destruction with martyrism fare against that tactic? And absent a discrete hierachical leadership, let alone nation or national economy to destroy, what do you propose to destory in order to bring extremism to its knees? There seems to be no head to cut off!

Keep in mind that many (I'd hazard to suggest a majority) outside the US see the atomic bombing of Japan as a ruthless unnecessity. It's remembered globally as very tragic event, there is regret, and sorrow; many many speeches about why it should never happen again etc.

Anyway, absent the central nervous system to destroy, the options for violence are so widely distributed and the roots so tightly entwined in civilian communities that each one carries a terrible potential to stimulate the desire for revenge.

The US has lost an enormous amount of good will from even its allies since 2001. I wonder whether this war on terror hasn't stimulated the flow of terrorist recruits.

jacko:

Communism failed, yes. But I'm yet to be convinced that 'human rights' is what prevailed (c'mon, human rights abuses brought down communism so that human rights could prevail?). At best I'd say some kind of semi-democratic, perverted form of tilted captialism won, but the truth is that communism did a fair job of assisting in its own defeat, flawed as it is.

I love the 10 cent words being used on rest day.

Erica,

Again, what type of society are you advocating? Better? How? How do we get there, from here?

I know you don't have a workable plan--just emotional reactions--but I would like to emphasize that to anyone reading for whom that isn't already obvious. I hate to burst your bubble, but the Cold War is over, and your side lost.

If I were you, I would start fighting the new war, and start by developing compelling arguments for why chadors are actually in the best interests of women everywhere, and how being labelled infidels is actually good for our moral health.

And while you're at it, give thanks you don't ACTUALLY live in a fascist state. I may just be a Caveman blogger, but I know one thing for sure: you would be arrested.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and hazard a guess that the only way you could be so dumb is that you are a graduate student in some form of Humanities. Possibly undergrad, but you seem too far gone.

My, what big stereotypes you have.
All the better to classify you with my dear.

;)

Pinstripes & Pedals:

The President has adopted and fully described his strategy in many speeches given and documents over the last several years, including several since Labor Day. The policy has basicaly been consistent since 8 PM on 9/11/01, and has been described by the President many, many times.

Most critics of the President's policies are not very familiar with them, in that they criticize him for not doing things which he has in fact been doing very loudly for 5 years. If you mean to suggest that the President's policies do not include the elements you say are necessary, a review of his speeches on the subject would be in order.

Best regards,

Question on angles in the DL pictures: If the father were to mimic the exact back position of his son, then his hips would end up being too low? Is it correct to say that in the desired starting position for a DL, your knees should be at an angle greater than 90 degrees?

Erica,
If the CCT in front of CCT Joey means what I think it does, send him an e-mail thanking him for his dedication to supporting your right to not agree with him. It's an imperfect world, I think we're fighting an enemy that needs to be fought, and history DOES show that we are about as ruthless as neccesary to accomplish our mission, when properly motivated. For example Hiroshima, brutal? yup. Ruthless? yup. But it saved I read somewhere, about 1 million Americans. As a combat leader I have an obligation to ensure that the enemy dies for his country and my guys don't, if possible. Truman made that decision and the rest of the world can flop about it all they want.

I remember walikng through France asking every Frenchman who scowled at us "Spretchen sie deutche?" When they said non. We would reply "you're welcome"

Great article & helpful pictures.Thank you coach

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated.

Thomas Paine, The Crisis

It occurred to me 2-3 Rest Days ago that it might be interesting to apply basic scientific heuristics to foreign policy.

Specifically, an interesting question is: "is it necessary or sufficient to be well liked by the populations or governments of foreign nations to maintain peace?"

Necessary: no. The governments of many nations hated us in the Cold War. They didn't attack us, because they feared our military and economic power. It is necessary that a nation either:

1) have no desire to attack us
2) Have no ability to attack us
3) Fear the consequences of an attack (be deterred).

Now, the interesting thing about the war on radicalized individuals committed to mass murder of civilians (Longer than War on Terror. Let's call it the RICMMC War, "Rick Mack") is that they

1) have a desire to attack us, because we are not like them.
2) Have the ability, due to the development of WMD's.
3) Cannot be deterred as a group, once they are radicalized.

Now, Benjamin Netanyahu wrote a book I read following 9/11, called "Fighting Terrorism", where he pointed out that we have this idea that terrorists are "out there", somewhere in space. Well, like anyone else, they have to have terra firma under them. They need secure places to plan and breathe. Afghanistan used to be that place. Iran and Syria still are. If you take the secure resting places away, then they wither. That doesn't make them fully powerless, but it's hard recruiting when you are in jail or dead.

Now, in the lead-up to 9/11, keep in mind Iranian nuclear intentions weren't as obvious as they are now, and that we WERE already technically at war with Iraq. A principle goal in invading Iraq, in my view, was to show Iran and Syria--with whom we were NOT already at war--that we were a tiger that had teeth.

As I recall, Syria especially really seemed to back off for a year or two, and the Iranians shut up. That lasted until they started to perceive that some Americans were starting to believe, that the war in Iraq--which both nations were fighting against us, through proxies, rearmament, and funding--was unwinnable. That, in my view, is the back story on Hezbollahs unprovoked rocket attacks on Israel. That border had been relatively calm for a long time. That whole thing was, in my view, a relative test of the American psyche, to see where we were. If we were still ready to take them on.

Thus, there are really two levels of deterrence: nation-state, and individual. The individual can exist without the state, but not well. How many of you would be able to commit yourselves to being full-time terrorists without full time jobs? You'd have to get a second, part-time job, just to afford the ammo. And Wal-Mart doesn't sell plastique, or whatever they're using nowadayas.

Does anybody remember Gaddafi? Remember the terror training camps from the movie Patriot Games? Well, guess what, he has shut his mouth, and kept it shut, and it wasn't out of loving kindness. He nearly got killed.

Thus, although we weren't able to prevent Timothy McVeigh, or the dudes in Washington D.C./Virginia, we could have prevented 9/11, although the political will to take out Afghanistan would not have been there.

Sufficient: I think good will on the part of foreign governments is not sufficient, if they allow within their borders activities which are inimical to our national interests. Pakistan is ostensibly an ally. It's better than being an enemy, but they aren't quite friends,either.

More broadly, though, no, we won't fight wars with allies, so good will is for most intents and purposes sufficient. However, being friendly is NOT sufficient to generate good will. That's a whole other can of worms I dont' have time for right now.

I got the wod late last night on my pda and did it this a.m. before I saw that today was a rest day - very tough - first wod with my new "Elite" rings

25.13

45 y.o. 140#

Got my first muscle-up today! Yee-Haaaa. Actually managed four singles before moving on to other stuff. Next time I'll get some multiple rep sets while working towards 10 in a row. I missed a few WOD's this week traveling so I'll start again tomorrow and look forward to the 30 M-U WOD next time.

Thanks to all who build and add to this site for their help.

Article - basically agree that we need to be more ruthless, but only in concert with our friends. Too much acting mostly alone has put us in the current problematic situation. Our credibility is low (WMD in Iraq?), but working together with most of the world will get us back to the high ground. Our greatest victories have occurred when we worked with our friends and most of our defeats have occurred when we act with much less support. Build coalitions, win hearts and minds, be the good guys.

It's a great Wednesday. Celebrate our freedom and thank those who defend it so bravely and well.

I'm in full blown rant mode, so I need to add a couple things:

We "demonize" the terrorists (that's a good grad school word, huh?) by assuming they are irrational. I've seen this distinction between "apocalyptic" terrorist--of which Bin Laden is a poster boy example--and I guess what we could call "conventional" terrorists.

Although I'm hardly an expert on this--so someone may present this better than me--it seems to me that ALL of these terrorists, in some part of their twisted beings--want SOMETHING. If I'm recalling correctly, Bin Laden wanted us out of Saudi Arabia, and to start a new revival of the Islamic spirit, by showing us to be vulnerable. We can debate tactics, but the objectives themselves were rational and specific. This is worth remembering.

Also, as I've been saying repeatedly, we have a strong interest in developing both political liberalization and wealth throughout the Middle East. That, more than any conceivable amount of propaganda, will do us good.

Yes, that means corporations, and world financial organizations, in all likelihood. It's always interesting to me how people living in relative opulence are so sure what "oppressed peoples" want.

great DL pics, thanks!

3 rounds for time of;

run 400m
x15 thruster with 95lbs
x5 pull ups

time - 14.48

I'm not resting today, so let's make up another workout for me!!!

Any Ideas????? Get Creative...

Question from yesterday: who is the heaviest person on record to join the MU club? I go 240 and am on the cusp of a MU, but am getting pretty frustrated at 9 months of CF and no MU.

Odd, Erika, that you forgot to mention the US "intervention" which kicked off on December 7, 1941. Or what morally hideous actions on the US's part drove Japan to attack and Hitler to embark on his European conquest? I would say on the moral equivalency ladder we're still doing pretty well. We won that fight, we'll win this one.

Erica and others - "Is America the good guy or bad guy" question... Very simple answer in my book: They want to kill us (for whatever reason), we want to kill them (for whatever reason) Since I am on the WE team (by merely living here if nothing else) then I hope WE win! I really can't understand how so many liberals can actually root for us to lose as if they are aloof from the struggle. They are on "our team" by living here, benefitting from the fruits of our society, and somehow think they will lose nothing if we fail! It's like someone chopping a hole in the bottom of their ship because they don't like the captain: They will drown as well!

Hey Bartow and True - have fun over there, guys!

#17 - either supinated or pronated grips work, but a pronated (pull-up/palms facing away from you) will allow the shoulder to open more fully and therefore a greater ROM, which, aside from its own benefits, will also allow greater power generation for the actual kip.

#41 - the hips wouldn't be too low--the knees would be too far forward. if you had the aged gent lower his hips to a height comparable to his son's (or had him match the initial back angle), the greater length of his legs would force his knees far enough over the bar to completely interrupt the bar path--in order to actually lift the bar, the knees would have to be pulled back, the hips raised, the shoulders would be well behind the bars COG, and before the bar went anywhere, he would have to transition into position pictured anyway.

That is NOT a correct starting position for deadlift. You have to drop your ass. The old guy is using all lower back on the pull and will NEVER progress with strength without injury.

Erica #20

Your lengthy post was thoughtless and wrong. First, it appears to be a cut and paste of an article by William Blum:
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/blum.htm
No one needs that kind of posting.

As jacko #33 pointed out, what is now revealed as Blum's not Erica's writing, is for the most part a list of Cold War actions by the US. Imagine how our “intervention” in WWII would look, strung out battle by battle!

Blum takes a page from the leftist strategy that worked so well in the Viet Nam War, a strategy active today to defeat the War on Terror just so the left can regain power. This is the process of “vietnamizing” a war.

Vietnamizing includes exploiting Corporation hatred (assumed by the left from their Marxist up-bringing): the US was in VN for Goodyear rubber, the Mideast for Exxon oil. (Whom did the left cast in the Haliburton role in VN?) Another angle is the US attacks on civilians, usually under the catch phrase of “carpet bombing”. How about war crimes: William Calley vs. Abu Ghraib? And then there's torture: e.g., 173rd Airborne detainee torture in VN vs Gitmo. An irrelevant germ of truth (we have POWs in Gitmo) gets elevated to inhumane US policy.

Blum's page is the civil war gimmick. The UN Charter prohibits a member nation of intervening in the internal affairs of any other nation. So, just characterize each conflict as a civil war and the US cannot participate, even under an alliance. Viet Nam was a civil war because Communism was not monolithic. Iraq is a civil war because the War on Terror is only against al Qaeda emplacements in Afghanistan. Don't worry that the arguments are false. The technique is proof by repetition. It is successful because the media is sympathetic to the left, whether it takes the form of pro socialism or anti Bush.

Everytime you come across the phrases “civil war” or “torture” in connection with the US in Iraq, think propaganda. The notions crumble if you just ask for a definition. By the dictionary, the feud between the Jukes and the Kallikaks was a civil war. Of course we're intervening in a civil war then. So what?

For Rob_M #16, we're certainly losing the propaganda war. We honor freedom of the press to a fault. The best example is allowing Aljazeera to operate as a propaganda medium, essential for terrorism to work at all. It's never too late to replace it's operation with the Voice of America. Domestically, the best hope for anti-leftist thought is the Internet and the blogs. Keep the 'Net free!

and you are wrong to say that the old guy lower his hips the length of his legs would interrupt the bar path. This is simply not true. He must lower his hips AND sit back. In that form in the picture he might as well do SLDL's. He has no hip flexor and leg movement in the position. I'm shocked that a "coach" advocates this terrible technique.

#57 Greg
Thanks for clarifing about the knees. That is something that I struggle with everytime I do the deadlift, "If I drop my hips then my knees are to far forward and inhibit the path of the bar."
As far as the pictures go, that is priceless for me to see the difference spelled out so well.
It was truely an "Aahhh, now I get it!" moment.
Kate

John,

What's the source of your "knowledge"? Rip is pretty well regarded around here, as the author of "Starting Strength", and a long term powerlifter and coach.

#53 TRAVIS SMITH

I love your enthusiasm. I'm not sure what kind of shape you are in but this is a workout that I do that really tests your wind and muscular endurance.

20 pull-ups
Run 1 mile
20 pull-ups
Run 1 mile
20 pull-ups
Run 1 mile
20 pull-ups

The idea is to do 20 get on the track/treadmill... when you are done the 1 mile you go right into your 20 pull-ups. Try to complete in the area of 30 to 35 minutes.

The advantage is this workout builds your wind big time. Trying to complete 20 straight pull-ups right after running a mile makes you suck wind and as soon as you are done with the 20 you start to run and you instantly start sucking wind again.

I've miliion more if this doesn't fit.

Ryan

It's funny, as an individual, when I find myself doing things that piss off everyone around me I'm expected by civilized society to change my behavior or suffer consequences. Regardless of how right I am, it is not acceptable for me to force my beliefs on a non-compliant associate. I could resort to violence, but at best that results in faux compliance, at worst, incarceration. Trust me; I have a great deal of experience in trying to force people to do things my way against their will (in my defense I was always right).

However, when the same logic is aggregated up to global level somehow it becomes OK for us (and our proxies, but only us and our proxies) to expect other nations to behave as we see fit or suffer the consequences. Granted, in many of these cases we were and are right from a moral perspective. But even then, does that make it acceptable to force our way of thinking and doing on a society that has a different set of values, regardless of how repugnant we find those values? And when we do so are we not naïve to expect that there will not be repercussions?

Don’t fret, these are rhetorical questions, and given my experience in this regard the last thing I want to do is to try to change anyone’s mind. We as individual Americans are so fixed in our thinking that it’s a pointless venture to try. And it’s that same fixedness that makes us think that the best way to influence people around the world is by whooping their ass. Ask yourself; have you ever whooped anyone ass into believing what you wanted them to believe? At best you’ve gotten them to act the way you want them to act, but I bet it was a temporary fix.

That’s the real lesson of the detailed treatise of Blum's that Erica was kind enough to post. We’ve whooped a lot of ass around the world in the last 60 years or so. We’ve gotten a lot of countries to act the way we want them to act. But what good has it done? Who are our friends? Great Briton? Austrailia? Canada? A bunch of America Juniors at best, and meanwhile there are 5.5 billion unwashed with access to the same list of ass whoopins (commonly referred to as acts of global aggression by the rest of the world), and all it takes is a charismatic leader with a little cash to turn them into martyrs.

So, what’s my solution? Turn inward, protect yourself, practice global libertarianism the same way you’d practice it as an individual. Anyone who thinks we were attacked on Sep-11 because of our freedom is a deluded sheep. We were attacked for supporting repressive and corrupt regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc. We were attacked for our unconditional and one sided support for the apartheid in Israel (a democracy, yes, but one built on land stolen from relatively peaceful inhabitants in which 10% of the CITIZENS are only allocated 75% of the constitutional rights because of their religion). Support democracy in all its ugliest forms. Hamas won the Palestinian elections because they oppose Israel, not in spite of it. A foreign policy that finds the rest of the world incapable of determining their own path without the guidance of the great white USA is arrogantly flawed at best and racist at worst.

It is profoundly unfortunate that women in many countries are oppressed, but no more unfortunate than the killing in Darfur or Chechnya or Congo. None of these things are a threat to my obscenely comfortable way of life; therefore none of them are worth the sacrifice of my life, that of my son, or yours for that matter. But there I go again telling you what your life is worth when that’s all up to you.

Thanks for your time, and to those of you in uniform, thanks for your service.

Pinstripes, I enjoy your posts, but agree with how barry cooper said it in #48. If we hit them where they are, wherever they are, we can deal a great blow. Terror camps and meeting places can be hit with violence AND precision and funding sources can be isolated and crushed.

If you want, you can think of it as gang warfare. It's time to go to the mattresses.

#63 - Ryan "RTC"

Thanks for the response man, I like the sound of that workout. The great part about that too is today I really wanted to incorporate some running, so I figure that would be great. Although I may substitute the pullups for something else (don't have a treadmill and the high school track I workout on doesn't have a bar to do pullups on believe it or not).

So I'm thinking...

50 Pushups
1 Mile Run
50 Pushups
1 Mile Run
50 Pushups
1 Mile Run

How about that?

Bravo Mr. Glassmass for bringing to light the real source of Erica's comments.

Michael,

What good has it done? We exist as a liberal democracy. We could have lost the Cold War. In victory, we forget at our peril the now gone possibility of defeat.

I found this link noodling around. Not sure it's the best review of the book, but I think the fundamentals are there: http://www.academia.org/reviews/why.html

Ahh forget the WSJ. Here's a better perspective:

http://www.thekidfrombrooklyn.com/video_disp.asp?videoid=1146

Caution, language may offend.

oh, and by the way Erica, maybe if we had defeated communism in China before the 1950s we could have saved 30 million lives, hopefully you are aware that is about the number of people who died there, in either "camps" or from starvation as a result of Chairman Moa's "Great Leap Forward" campaign. So, if this country still had institutionalized slavery would it be wrong for another country to intervene on the behalf of the slaves? I bet most liberals would say no.

The article really irritated me. The reason why it did was the last comment about how we need to be "ruthless and more expierienced." Coming from a reporter that was rich. I don't know anything about the author's reporting style, but I know that reporters are the ones making things diffecult for our troops to be ruthless. How easy do you think it is for our guys to act ruthless and do what is necessary to get the job done when you know that you have someone standing right there watching your every move? I'm not saying that the troops should have exemptions to the law but I am saying that war isn't pretty and it can't have to many rules if the other (bad guys) troops aren't following the same rules that you are. Here's a perfect example- How did we win the Revolutionary War? By unconventional means not by following the rules. Politics have no place on the battlefield and unfortunately they are becoming more and more prevalent there.
No, I've never actually been in a battle but my husband has been in the military for 17 years and I've been with him the whole way. I have seen how things have gotten softer and the Clinton Admin really screwed the military up with all the draw downs. Not only did it affect the civilian sector with job loss because of base closings but now we are paying for it by having the long deployments back to back and the lower amount of troops being stretched thin. Tell me how do they think that families can handle that when their soldier is gone for 12 to 14 months (don't forget the extensions, because the other unit isn't ready yet), home for 6 months and then gone for the 12 to 14 months again? It wears a person down. Not even to mention Battle Fatigue. But we don't have enough man power to have the ideal set up. Bush is stuck trying to make everyone happy and in the end no one is happy. People in this country love to point fingers and do the armchair quarterback thing. If everyone that says that they support the troops but is against the war and that we need everyone to pull out, were to actually be active and support the troops by sending care packages, visiting the wounded, going to the airport when some soldiers are coming home and not applauding but actually going up, looking the soldier in the eye, shaking their hand and saying "Thank you for your sacrifice." I have been there with my husband when the opposite has happened. He has been called a baby killer many times, in the grocerey store, walking down the street, etc. and it hurts to know that we are giving up so much for those s*^!heads. I know that this site has a lot of people that support the military and that is one of the biggest reasons why I like it here so much. It's called acceptance.
So for the comment that we need to be more ruthless, I want to know how can our soldiers be more ruthless when they are being watched for their every action. More expierience will come with being there with good leaders and less restictions. It is time for people to stop screaming about what we need to do and start doing something to help. If you don't know where to start just ask. That falls in line with personal responsibility, if everyone would be personally repronsible for their own actions and do one thing to change the world, right there the world would be a better place. Idealistic, I know.
That is my rant.
Kate

Speaking of deadlifts, I just got back to the gym after 6 weeks, what with a move to Europe and all... the plates felt really heavy (those darn kilos), but I managed to top out around 160 kg (352lbs). Cleans, C/J, benchpress, squats, without mishap.
Crossfit has given me at 41 an excellent foundation and confidence I never had doing all kinds of sports before. Thanks Coach!

Ok so if the posts are not being censored but going through some "filter" how long does that take? 20mins so far.

COACH,

IT’S WORKING!

I did my boot camp class yesterday and my performance (endurance, speed, strength, recovery) was the best ever. The class is a good litmus test because it is 1.5 hours of strength, speed, and endurance training (much of it anaerobic). My coaches, friends and classmates all what to know the secret is and I am sending them to you.

The most rewarding thing is having my wife embrace the program (to her ability) and watch her as she evolves. She hated it at first but can't argue with results. I thank you for this! FIT FOR THE PEOPLE!

THANKS AGAIN COACH,

Ricky

I guess it is time to enter the foray, the shock and awe campaign by the big guns of the Crossfit Intelligencia have been out in full measure the last few rest days combating the evil leftists who seek to destroy America. God help us, if only more people subscribed to the ‘right’ journals, newspapers and blogs we could all be of one righteous mind. You can hear the passion, conviction, the frustration that we all just don’t get it, that to not get it is to be ‘dumb’, poisoned, impractical. The questioning of policies by these evil leftists is seen as an attack by those with aims of destroying what is good and wholesome.

You know, I tend to think things aren’t so clear when we sit back and stop taking ourselves so seriously. And let me preface my upcoming anecdote with an observation that whenever I witness someone making bold assertions, etched in granite of certainty, like – ‘leftists will never understand this, or the media is lying, my version is the absolute truth’ you get the gist, it tends to undermines their intellectual position.

May I submit that no one has the answer and I recommend that if you come across someone selling you the answer they have ceased the search for knowledge. Who amongst us can claim a complete understanding of the complex global conflicts underway in the name of various ideologies such that they can claim ownership of the truth, it is ridiculous, we can search for it, have an educated opinion, but as soon as opposing opinions are systematically dismissed the intellectual character of the debate is lost. Sadly, there is a lot of that going around from any side that self-proclaims its unmitigated righteousness.

So, over the weekend we had a knock at the door. It was the Jehovah’s Witness, ‘on a pilgrimage from the south to spread the word. I told my wife I would take care of this. She said, ‘be nice.’

I invited them into my living room under the condition that I would listen to their pitch for 15 minutes uninterrupted if they would listen to mine likewise. They were a bit taken aback however, like all converters they cannot give up an opportunity to sell the word.

So out came the Watchtowers and the story about my saviour. I asked them if they could perhaps show me a little proof of their claims, perhaps a shred of evidence not written by someone already subscribing to the faith. The question perturbed them, what need have we of proof other than the material that we bring. Here the Watchtower is all the proof they need, the bible in their hands was the proof to justify their convictions.

Well as I began my pitch, that as humans we create narratives that suit our needs. Human civilisations thousands of years ago had little understanding of the world, fearing the unknown they created stories that gave meaning to a brutal world, that gave them a place, that made them feel righteous, the Darwinism of competing religious movements resulted in a domination of the Abrahamic faiths, the same story repeated over a few millennium takes root in society and if it is fed to you since birth it appears to be truth, to doubt that is to attack the very fabric of society, you may or may not get my gist.

My point is that when you are converted, meaning you have stopped seeking additional information from sources outside the faith, that you have in fact restricted yourself to information sources that only subscribe to your ideology it becomes second nature to dismiss any claim that ventures from your path. The two kind people in my living room felt only pity for me, that I didn’t get it.

When I suggested that perhaps the story of the Eden is in fact a narrative resulting from one of the first human settlements (Mesopotamia), not understanding soil management and therefore over farming a paradise such that the soil eroded into a desert and they were forced to migrate to the Tigris Euphrates valley, (an area prone to bad flooding) and the resulting top soil depletion along the valley walls from poor farming created conditions for a catastrophic flood which coincidentally may have been retold along the lines of Noah. Well, they weren’t that interested, they didn’t even hear what I was saying because they were waiting for me to stop talking so that they could quote the scripture that grounded their reality.

So when someone raises evidence that perhaps the political story they subscribe to may be thin, it is not surprising that such a claim is looked at with disdain. They have their sources which are immutable, to question them is ridiculous. I am not saying that all claims about the Iraq invasion are true, I am saying we owe it to ourselves sometimes to spend less time insisting that our current opinion is the righteous one and a bit of time seeing if somewhere in the moray of self serving ideologies there is something worth considering. In the past few rest days I get the impression that the political wagons have been circled to keep out the bad lefties. There have been some outrageous assertions lately. We will defeat the terrorist threat in three generations was one of them, of all the conferences I have attend on the topic (more than a few) I have not heard one expert make such a bold statement, I am struck at these conferences by the complexity of the challenges underlying the simplistic political solutions endlessly repeated, “be nice to bad guys and they will love us’ or ‘kill bad guys because they hate us’.

A compelling argument came from a professor of poli sci at Yale I think (yes boo for people who study these things, they are so misguided and corrupted by evil influences) but his position straddled the spectrum.

He said that we are winning the fight against terrorist organizations, but not in a way covered in the media, that the police agencies of the western are currently very effective emasculating terrorist networks, their cooperation not seen pre-911 is resulting in untold number of arrests, that if such cooperation had occurred before 911 it is very likely it would have been stopped. But the ‘war’ on terrorism is a disaster; the Afghan mission was undermined by the re-focusing of resources into Iraq. He fully supported the mission in Afghanistan because it prevented AQ from using it as a consolidation point.

His argument made me pause and reconsider some of my points, I was able to change my position after careful reconsideration, I realized I hadn’t seen the whole picture, I still realize there is likely much more to discover, so forgive me if I don’t get on here and “tell it like it is” Whenever someone says ‘the reality is’ you know they are full of crap, I would like to see your quals to claim the corner market on reality.

Shock and awe is more of a political weapon these days, we are told to get onside, get enthusiastic and get righteous, we have a fight against the bad guys, no time to question, otherwise we will all die. If you don’t agree you are a pacifist liberal with no backbone, incapable of understanding strategic analysis. The classification is immediate, a dissenter becomes an unbeliever.

Any body who raises Vietnam as a comparison tool is an idiot, but if I use WWII as a comparison model then I am simply a good student of history, I am the only one who sees the irony in such passionate insistence of righteousness, I am the only one who sees the religious parallels.

Interesting how after 9/11 war-mongers have become galvanized into believing that war and strategies of war are the answer to all the world's ills and that somehow the U.S. not only has the right but the obligation to make that warring in the world. Where do these people get off?

To support their weak minded brutal and not very creative "theories", war mongers often site the benefits of war and say that collateral damage of civilians in foreign countries "saves American lives".

I'd like pull a to these cretins with a roundhouse kick to the face.

There is nothing new or particularly clever to war, even if it involves some neat gadgets and maybe a few "smart" bombs.

God bless those souls throughout history who were decent humans who made the awesome and difficult decision to go to war as an individual and more tragically as a nation. For the ones who made that decision without thought of the consequence to their own countrymen, those of a foreign land or humanity as a whole, I fear their's is a different fate.

In today's world, war is business. Soldiers are professional and selling weapons equals profit, big profit, Lockheed Martin 35 billion, Halliburton 20 billion and the 120,000 private contractors in Iraq now all making top dollar to the tune of 314 Billion U.S. and counting.

This idea that a war in Iraq, bum freak, arm pit of the world, nothin' -there-but-oil-and-a-few-goats-Iraq is going to somehow save our children is moronic. Imagine the world benefit of putting that 314 Billion U.S. into education and health-care both in the U.S. and even maybe sharing a bit with the world around us. Maybe then Americans could learn to understand other languages, customs, cultures and perhaps advance science and industry as well. Maybe then some Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian or tortured child from the Darfur , (another region where people are suffering from war but not discussed in the U.S because Iraqi freedom is soooo much more important, as if these people had a clue where on a map these places are until the administration decides to eviscerate the locals on CNN) could use that education to advance the cause of freedom IN THEIR OWN NATION.

Let's apply some heuristics to peace and see what happens. Start with “Bapu” Ghandi, maybe Steven Biko, sure...Thomas Paine, a true American patriot (and son of a Quaker, and we all know Quakers are conscientious objectors to war in general), how about Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama and the priests of the Jokhang temple.

How about we get some real sac and stand against a waste of American lives for Dick Chaney's stock options.

Naw that would take too much effort, think I'll get back to my gym for some more pullups.

Oh and lest one were to err on the side of stupid, I come to this site for the fantastic information about fitness and also to get in shape so that I can pull a Popeye, buck up and slap that roundhouse on any of those ignorant simpletons who think violence is the answer to what ails them.

Have a nice day.

Well apologies to all for a second post claiming censorship at crossfit and also in advance if my post under 2 names appears 3 times suddenly. However it does seem strange that a short post by me from a second (new) name is posted quickly (previous question of censorship), while the lengthier post is delayed or perhaps blocked now one hour later. Brother with arms, opposing thumbs and opinions.

Barry, not sure I understand the question (what good?). If your point is that the ends justify the means then OK, you're certainly entitled to that view, I just don't share it.

Communism didn't fail because we sacrificed our ideals by supporting dictatorships (Pinochet was a genocidal bastard, but he was our bastard). It failed because it was an inherently flawed system (much longer discussion).

Unfortunately I don't have time to pursue this much further. I was able to put that previous discourse together while a lengthy QC program ran on a very large database. My data is now ready and I have to get back to helping corporate America sell more of it wretched things.

Feel free to contact me via private message though. There are few things I enjoy discussing more, especially with a rational antagonist.

PS. are you the same Barry from Louisville? If so we have a mutual friend in Scott Kustes. When things slow down a little here maybe my son and I will be down your way for some o-lifting and a chipper.

Phil-

I admire your depth and writing sytle.

Tell me, do you have an opinion as to how this current military and social situation will impact the US position as the lone world SuperPower? Do you believe, for example, that it will hasten the end of one (US) and the rise of another(China) world leader?

It has been my observation that most writers assume that the current US position as SuperPower is a constant, undeniable fact. I worry that that the transition of power and leadership to the next world leader will be messy. Should we plan for it? Are we planning for it? Are we in denial that it is inevitable? Is it inevitable?

-K

Shoot, all this time I thought Bin Laden was on the Bush Administration's pay roll.

john - i'm more than happy to round up an assortment of folks from the range of the anthropometric spectrum and i'll video you demonstrating with them proper deadlift technique. i'll even publish the video on my site to help elighten everyone.

#66 Travis Smith

That sounds good. I think the key is no rest between running and pushing up.

Let me know how it works out.

Ryan

Erica #20,
I know what your point was. My point is that being ruthless and experienced in the past certainly does not prevent someone from further improving these skills.

It's interesting that someone like myself can agree with every thing Christopher Hitchens writes in this particular Wall Street Journal editorial ... and yet still feel that the war in Iraq was a massive mistake (I'm hardly alone in this opinion: even William F. Buckley and George Will agree), that we're in danger of losing the effort in Afghanistan (which most liberals supported), that torturing prisoners is an unethical and counter-productive policy put in place by people at the highest levels of the Bush Administration, that the FISA court gave the President sufficient authority for wiretapping terrorist phone calls without the need to break the law. And there are other aspects of the prosecution of this war that I disagree with, without disagreeing with the need to fight it.

That is the saddest thing to me. People like Jeff Glassman always turn every conversation into an 'us versus them' liberals versus conservative thing. Yet we are all Americans and this is a democracy. The whole point is to find a common goal and then fight to achieve it in the smartest way possible. Bush could easily have had the support of the Democrats in this larger war against Islamism, as he did in the days after 9/11/01, when it seemed that partisan politics would be left behind.

Then he attacked Iraq. He blew it.

Christopher Hitchens' larger point is laudable: the true war on terrorism is not the property of the American far right. The attacks of 9/11 were an attack on modern western civilization, which includes all kinds of different people in many countries.

The debate is about how best to fight it.

If you are serious about fighting this war, you should be busy finding allies and points of agreement that all Americans get get behind. Then find allies in other countries. Until we find ways to get the world behind the US again, decapitating Iran and Syria will solve little. It may slow Hezbollah and al Sadr ... or maybe not. It may also leave power vaccuums that we may not be able to fill. And even if Hezbollah and al Sadr lose their funding, and if Iran and Syria lose their heads, what difference will that make in the broader war?

Phil, I think you're projecting.

"If you are serious about fighting this war, you should be busy finding allies and points of agreement that all Americans get get behind"

1/3 of Americans didn't even support the Revolution. The Civil war was also rather controversial.

Wow, it amazes me that people still believe the war on terror can be won thru education. These people think different than you and I do. They do not value human life like you and I do. Thus we must fight and yes die for our freedom. We must be more ruthless and vigilate than the enemy. Wake up America.

Hey-

Does the deadlift illustration mean that the hip-knee-ankle angle is more important than the knee-hip-shoulder angle?

-K

Comment #48 puts out a great point, you can't invade terrorism. You prevent it from having the Big 3: Cash, Transportation, Housing. You prevent that by making sure governments risk a high price by providing comfort to terrorists that attack interests of US or its allies.

I'm very careful in that statement. Harboring terrorists is all well and good. The US "harbors" gang members, mafias and other organized crime types that thrive on terroristic acts. I use the term harbor as we apply rights to these thugs as they are US citizens with all the protections that implies. Now, if those thugs commit terroristic crimes in the Britain, Canada, Mexico or Italy should we allow the armies of those countries in our borders to take care of the thugs that have protection of our legal system? Perhaps extradition sounds like a more plausible situation.

Dan MacD, yes treat those that commit terrorism as "mere criminals". They're not elected, hold no office, nor have support of the populace in any but symbolic gesture. You track their movements, their communication and their finances (you know, police work). Find out a country is blatantly aiding them, then it becomes a military and diplomatic matter.

Hell, I'm all for a world police force with free border movements (not sure how Interpol falls into this category). I'm for a world army with members from 140+ countries. Hard to moan about a military force your country helped fund and/or man with members to cross into your borders due to some issue with terrorism or aggressive state actions. Problem is the US has a do as I say not as I do mentality. If such forces tried to enforce its will within the borders of the US, problems ensue no matter how justified. With that, I doubt the US will ever be serious about stopping terrorism as a viable tool of war.

Todd #25

You are kidding, right, right? When you post over and over "why do you hate America" to long complex posts. Please tell me it's a joke.

#88, Incredibly well stated!

Phil 75: I can definitely relate to your story in dealing with missionaries... or other people who are so busy trying to convert you that they can't hear you. I tried to tell the Mormons that I *did* pray about it and G-d told me I didn't have to be a Mormon, but they never listen.

On the other hand, I'm certain I have some opinions that seem pretty cut and dried... and there are certain situations where saying, "Well, we can't be entirely sure of anything" isn't really dictated. There are endless possibilities and potentials and questions and uncertainties. But there's also right and wrong.

I think the idea that we can't be certain of anything is just as dangerous as believing one is absolutely right about everything. So my question for you: do you believe there is absolute truth? Do you believe there is good and evil, right and wrong?

lawman698 #86

The question is not whether or not to fight, but who do you fight and how? I promise you that I value life as much as you do -- and it is highly offensive and egocentric of you to assume otherwise. But there is fighting stupid and there is fighting smart. There is fighting with an idea to saving lives and there is just plain fighting. How to distinguish between the two should be the real issue here.

This is a complex topic. No one does anyone any favors by assuming that any one approach or one set of tactics (military or law enforcement or education or diplomacy) will solve it. All our intellectual, physical, artistic and political skills should be put to work. My point is that we'll need to work together to fight Islamist terror, just as we need to face all of our common enemies together. The military and cops cannot win this war alone. So start winning the hearts and minds of the American people and stop insulting us, our values and our intelligence.

Erica # 20. I concur!

Erica’s statement is not unpatriotic, it is a statement of facts (not just an opinion). Erica did her homework and READ A LITTLE HISTORY which clearly the author did not. We are a hardened country, we always have been. America kills and we do it well. The most dangerous thing in the world is a scared American boy armed with an M-16.

Did we lose our innocence: (I have to admit I concur with the author on this point) no we never had it. We woke up to what the rest of the world faces on a regular basis.

As for the usual liberal bashing etc. I return to the definition.

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (Often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. Of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. Favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. Of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. Open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values

Are these ideals exactly what fundamentalism and these islama-facists trying to destroy!

Yes I am PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL. American ideals are liberal ideals.

Cheers,
Ricky

1st WOD since accute appendicitis ~2 weeks ago. Appendix drained and set to be removed in 5 weeks. Light progression back into WODs until surgery:

Warm up:
2x
20 30# dumbbell "suitcase" lunges (10 steps per hand)
10 45# barbell overhead squats

WOD
500m C2 row (1:48.6)
2x 10 pull-ups/20 push-ups/30 squats
500m C2 row (1:53.6)
TOTAL TIME=10:45

Warm down:
2x
15 leg lifts
2 HSPU

Ricky 93, Erica didn't "do her homework and read a little history", she plagiarized an article. This isn't the first time.

From m-w.com
Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
Etymology: plagiary
transitive verb : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
- pla·gia·riz·er noun

Because I have nothing intelligent to add:
Three guys a Canadian farmer, Osama bin Laden, and an American engineer are working together one day. They come across a lantern and a Genie
pops out of it.

"I will give each of you one wish, which is three wishes total" says the Genie.

The Canadian says, "I am a farmer, my dad was a farmer, and my son will also farm. I want the land to be forever fertile in Canada."

Pooooof! With the blink of the Genie's eye, the land in Canada was forever made fertile for farming.

Osama bin Ladin was amazed, so he said, "I want a wall around Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran so that no infidels, Jews or Americans can come into our precious state."

Pooooof! Again, with the blink of the Genie's eye, there was a huge wall around those countries..

The American engineer ask's, "I am very curious. Plea! se tell me more about this wall".

The Genie explains, "Well, it's about 5000 feet high, 500 feet thick and completely surrounds the countries. Nothing can get in or out -- it's
virtually impenetrable."

The American engineer says, "Good enough, Fill it with water."

Ooh, joke time! Here's one someone e-mailed me:

The Future

The Iranian Ambassador to the UN had just finished giving a speech, and walked out into the lobby where he met President Bush.

They shook hands, and as they walked the Iranian said, "You know, I have just one question about what I have seen in America.

President Bush said, "Well, anything I can do to help you, I will."

The Iranian whispered "My son watches this show 'Star Trek' and in it there is Chekhov who is Russian, Scotty who is Scottish, and Sulu who is Chinese, but no Arabs. My son is very upset and doesn't understand why there aren't any Iranians on Star Trek."

President Bush laughed, leaned toward the Iranian ambassador, and whispered back, "It's because it takes place in the future."

Coach Ripp,
Correct starting position for both, but is the father disadvantaged by his body type? I'm assuming he will have to exert more energy to get to the same hip/back angle at which the son begins the lift.
Thanks

Todd, #25
Erica will not answer the question of why she hates America, but I think I can answer for you. She is a communist or at the very least on the far left, and she buys into their world view. Willi Munzenberg, an early associate of Lenin, was placed in charge of Comintern propaganda efforts in the west in the early days of the Soviet Union. He continued in that role under Stalin. In the 1920s the Bolsheviks recognized that the greatest threat to the success of the world wide communist movement was “the idea of America.” So Munzenberg orchestrated a decades long propaganda effort to undermine and destroy the notion that America was a better, more moral, more just country than the Soviet Union. Through the passage of the years that theme of moral equivalence between the USA and the most evil regimes in the history of mankind has been a constant with the radical left. An excellent article on this is at http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/12/nov93/koch.htm. To carry this a little further into an understanding of the connection between the radical left and radical Islam, Ion Pacepa, former agent in the Romanian secret service, has revealed that much of the Arab and Islamic hatred that has been fomenting in the Middle East was deliberately nurtured by the Soviet Union.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NjUzMGU4NTMyOTdkOTdmNTA1MWJlYjYyZDliODZkOGM=

Barry, #51, google up bin Laden’s fatwas and read them. Yes our presence in Saudi Arabia was on his list of grievances, right up there with the existence of Israel and “tragedy of Al-Andalus”. Everyone remembers that one don’t they? How could anyone forget 1492, when the Spanish finally defeated the Moorish invaders and drove them out. Which could bring us to a discussion of means and ends. His 1996 fatwa declares that it is the duty of every muslim to kill Americans wherever they are found—men, women, and children. This is quite in line with Koranic doctrine which declares that all means are justified in pursuit of the holy duty to spread Islam. So, on his terms, he is rational. But to borrow a phrase from Churchill, I think we have now got far enough ahead of barbarism to understand that he and his ilk are evil.

Nuke, I’m speaking from a background in criminal justice, both prosecution and defense, and the way things work in that system is that you go arrest and prosecute AFTER the crime has been committed. Then the criminal is punished on various philosophical bases, including deterence, retribution, and rehabilitation. All this is a great comfort to murder victims, but not nearly as effective as prevention. The Islamists declared war on us a long time ago, why shouldn’t we take them seriously and treat it as a war, and take them out before they take us out?

#81 RTC

Did the following workout...

Complete the following for time:

50 Pushups
1 mile run
50 Pushups
1 mile run
50 Pushups
1 mile run

26:20

It went pretty well, it was definitely tough. I think if I did it again, I'd throw something else in with the pushups.

My knowledge base comes from 30 years of training. I deadlift alot. I've never been hurt. The fact is you can not pull heavy weight with the force on your lower back instead of your legs and hips. Just because people write books and are coaches doesnt mean they know everything. I see people pulling with thier back all the time and too heavy to boot. This is a prescription for disaster.

Maximus, the number of words used is in no way proportional to the quality of the argument. I want to know why Erica (and you for that matter) hate America.

Don't change the subject, answer the question.

Well said,Todd!

Travis Smith, here is a similar workout you can try. (This is from Lt. Stew Smith, by the way.)

"Spartan Run"
run 1 mi
100 pushups, 100 abs
run 1 mi
75 pushups, 75 abs
run 1 mi
50 pushups, 50 abs

America=Good
If there aren't for us, then they are against us. Since we are good, and they are against us, then they are evil.
America is good and will destroy the evil doers.
Since America is good, we have never had immoral foreign policy, ever.
We even destroyed those evildoers in Grenada in the 80s.
I love America, therefore I am good. I think Erica must not love America, therefore she must be evil, not American and an Evil doer.
I like complex thoughts.

Justin(103)
I understand that good and evil are viewed on a scale based on where you're starting from, but it seems that you can have this difference of opinion here whereas in Taliban era Afghanistan, for example Erica wouldn't be allowed near a computer and you would be executed for expressing your opinion. I'm not sure if Grenada is the best example to use to defend your position, either In a Cold War sense, Grenada was a conflict to keep Cuban communist expansion at bay. We were fighting Cubans there, you knew that, right? Historically, Nicaragua/El Salvador, Vietnam or Desert Storm were more in keeping with your arguments. I personally like the Kosovo campaign, where the US intervened to prevent a soverign government from interacting with it's own people(Kosovar Muslim's ironically enough) during a Civil strife. Passive aggressiveness is usually a sign of one's feelings of powerlessness, we love you and support your right to be here, now go talk to your therapist while the grown ups talk.

Mr. Everett in comment #58 answered John in #59 for me. (Mr. Everett is very cool. His Performance Menu e-mag is a good thing to read.) The knees, being firmly attached to the femur in most people, will be shoved forward if the butt is shoved down. Now, in most people, when the knees are in the way of the bar coming up vertically, the bar will either not come up vertically or the knees will get out of the way, as Greg pointed out. The bar can be pulled out around the knees, but only with light weights because heavy weights like to move in straight lines.

I am assuming John has never deadlifted 500, but if he has, a video of that deadlift will show that the bar path was essentially vertical after the first 4" off the floor. That first 4" would not have been vertical because his too-forward knees would have pushed the bar too far away from his legs, and the first part of the pull would have been spent pulling the bar back in close enough to actually pull on. If John has deadlifted 500 wrong, then he is he is pretty strong.

By the way, I am not a coach. I am merely a gym owner. People refer to me as a coach, and I am flattered, but I have never called myself that anywhere, in print or in conversation.

"War on terror" - what a joke. Is that like "war on drugs"? Ok, so this is the Bush administration's logical stream of thought for Iraq:
-We were savagely attacked on 9/11.
-We need to hunt down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan b/c the Taliban, which runs Afghanistan, is harboring Al Qaeda.
-We lost Bin Laden in the mountains so let's go to Iraq.
-Iraq is run by Saddam.
-Saddam ='s bad guy, bad guy with WMD, WMD that we thought was cool when he was using it against Iran AND against the Kurds and Marsh Arabs.
-We think Iraq is developing a nuclear arsenal. We won't invade North Korea, however, because although they do have nuclear weapons, it's "regional problem." Plus, there's nobody in North Korea named Saddam.
-We will now go to Iraq and liberate it from Saddam and have flowers thrown in the path of our conquering troops. Oops, a few former generals (some who even commanded Central Command) and the Army War college warn that Iraq will devolve into chaos due to sectarian violence. Oh, there is some talk about maybe the need for a few hundred thousand troops, but henny penny, that's sky-is-falling talk. Only 140,000 or so will do, yep.
-General Shinseki states that 300,000 or more troops will most likely be needed in Iraq. General Shinseki is politely invited to leave the Pentagon, oops.
-Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the war, says publicly that Iraqi Shiites are very secular. He also says that there are no holy sites in Iraq to get anybody's underwear in a bunch over(that last was a paraphrase).
-Karbala and Najaf, two of the holiest cities in Shia Islam, are in Iraq. Millions of Shia from all over the world go on pilgrimages to these cities every year, oops.
-The war will be paid for from oil revenues and shouldn't cost more than 60 billion. Oops, Pentagon staffer provides statement that war will cost around 160 billion or more. Pentagon staffer gets fired, oops.
-Rumsfeld says "who know's how long this war will last, 6 days, six weeks, ehh, maybe six months..."
-Major combat operation end in March 2003. "Mission Accomplished"???
-US troops have now been in Iraq for longer period than US troops were in combat during WWII.
-"We are fighting in Iraq to draw terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here."
-President Bush "I say bring em on."

I'll stop there, but you get the point. First, I'm a former Marine, will hopefully be going back in soon so any statement about my love of terrorists blah blah is simply stupid. However, just because I'm a Marine doesn't mean I cede common sense nor abdicate my right to criticize my government. We have a failed military policy. That statement does not mean we should not kill terrorists. It does mean that we need to find a better way to prosecute this "war".

I don't understand why some of you are so hostile to the idea of questioning a failed policy. Let me ask those of you who are so apt to throw around accusations that people are supporting terrorists this question: Would it be fair to say that our troops deserve to operate under a policy that makes sense? I think anyone would say, without reservation, yes. Ok, then I think it's fair to ask why this administration ignored the advice of experienced generals and civilian strategists to 1) Provide more troops, 2) Prepare to be an occupying force and 3) Don't assume that US forces will always be seen as liberators.

I was in Desert Storm and just think about this, there were combined 700,000 troops in the theater and that was just to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Why would it take only 1/6 of that to occupy a country the size of Iraq? People, we are simply shuffling troops around to put out fires of insurgency that rise again from the place we just left! Don't believe me, read some recent issues of the Marine Corps times, read comments from any news source from commanders on the ground.

And one more question, if this administration really believes in freedom and self-determination, why has our official stance been to stifle the establishment of a free Kurdistan? The cynic in me says it's because our oh so progressive and human rights loving ally, Turkey, doesn't really like the idea of a Kurdistan on its border, especially because Turkey treats its Kurdish population like crap (as in official government policy is that only one Kurdish song can be played on the radio per hour).

Ok, enough of my rant. I just hope people realize that we don't have to create false dichotomies re this war. Patriots come in all flavors of the political spectrum.

Erica and other like minded folk,
I do not post here very often, probably because I have so little in the way of intelligent observation to relay. However, I do know this.

The beauty of our American Constitution is that it grants us the freedom to express ourselves openly. Men and women have died in order to allow us freedom of speech. I would argue that we have a duty and responsibility to honor those who have sacrificed on our behalf by speaking out, loudly and often, on what we feel about passionately. In the words of someone much more worthy than I, "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

On the other hand, you do seem a bit to be an America hater. I've read many of your posts before. I have two suggestions for you to try as experiments. If you do them and make it, you can report back to us with your conclusions:

1) Go to Iran, China, Korea or Saudi Arabia, set up shop and begin to write for the local paper about the negative ways in which women in those countries are treated or maybe criticize the government and make suggestions as to just how they could better serve the people.
2) Sunbathe in a public area in a very revealing two piece bikini for an hour.

In scenario #1, should any negative repercussions appear to take place, reminf them of your constitutional rights. Oh, wait, that's only in America. Scenario #2, I hope you can dodge stones. I hear stoning women for such offenses is a big Pay-Per-View event there.

Remember, we want to hear all about it.

Erica and other like minded folk,
I do not post here very often, probably because I have so little in the way of intelligent observation to relay. However, I do know this.

The beauty of our American Constitution is that it grants us the freedom to express ourselves openly. Men and women have died in order to allow us freedom of speech. I would argue that we have a duty and responsibility to honor those who have sacrificed on our behalf by speaking out, loudly and often, on what we feel about passionately. In the words of someone much more worthy than I, "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

On the other hand, you do seem a bit to be an America hater. I've read many of your posts before. I have two suggestions for you to try as experiments. If you do them and make it, you can report back to us with your conclusions:

1) Go to Iran, China, Korea or Saudi Arabia, set up shop and begin to write for the local paper about the negative ways in which women in those countries are treated or maybe criticize the government and make suggestions as to just how they could better serve the people.
2) Sunbathe in a public area in a very revealing two piece bikini for an hour.

In scenario #1, should any negative repercussions appear to take place, reminf them of your constitutional rights. Oh, wait, that's only in America. Scenario #2, I hope you can dodge stones. I hear stoning women for such offenses is a big Pay-Per-View event there.

Remember, we want to hear all about it.

Ricky #93 - Your definitions are not all the same thing. America is by definition a liberal democracy, but that by no means makes all americans liberal democrats (as in the political party). Calling today's democrats liberal twists the old meaning of the word so far that the "liberal" ideals of representative democracy, etc. are today far more in step with the "conservative" party of today. Can you honestly say that your #5 definition "Favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers." is true of todays liberals in light of the attack on anything Christian, or really even American, in our country today? My friend, I am a conservative, and therefore much more "liberal" in its true sense than anyone who calls himself a modern liberal.

Why are people responding to the crap Erica plagarized as if it were factual? The spin and demagoguery are so blatant and shallow that it deserves only a skim and a yawn.
Demagogue: to appeal to emotion and prejudice.
K-

Mike OD,

Do you ever have anything intelligent to add to anything, ever?

Retrospection is a funny thing. We invariably study history to "learn from it". Unfortunately, human beings are completely incapable of ever doing so. If they were:

1. Men wouldn't get drunk and shag fat girls anymore.
2. Women wouldn't date men they thought they could "change".
3. Kids would only need ONE spanking (yes, I have spanked my kids - for shame!)

Yet everyone spends time spinning intelligent arguments on this board aiming to either:

1. Convince an equally narrow-minded person on the opposite side of the political spectrum they are wrong

or

2. Get slapped on the back by "good post!" from people who agreee with them.

I just laugh.

Phil,

Believe me when I say I've spent more time than anyone I know studying the process of thinking, and of self-delusion. It is almost an obsession of mine.

It is fully possible to remain aware of individual differences in persons of a leftist persuasion (that is probably a better word: in the classical use of the term, I myself am a political liberal), and still perceive certain common "memes". One of the most common is the presumption of guilt on the part of America, regardless of the issue, and an almost intentional disregard of context. I see that constantly on these forums. I didn't make it up.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I myself at one time fell for many liberal dogmas. It's difficult not to, when you are a young mind, eager to learn, and the people teaching facts are feeding this other stuff in with it, so that you don't notice the disconnect between teaching and what would otherwise be self-evident reality. Plato noted that all teaching is a form of brain-washing.

Now, one of the fundamental movements we have made in the modern age is towards some form of feedback loop between our beliefs, and the world. "If in fact it is true that all objects fall at a fixed rate", for example, "then I can drop things, and watch what happens."

With respect to religious belief, this type of process is between difficult and impossible. Hence the need for faith. But your comparison between the Jehovah's Witnesses, and conservatives on this board is off the mark for the simple reason that there are in fact something close to feedback loops we can reference.

Specifically, we can read history. We can see what happens when nations are weak militarily. When they are strong, but fail to act. When they are weak, but act decisively. When they are strong and act decisively. Etc.

Now, you can't predict history with the precision of physics, but it seems clear enough that nations which allow themselves to either become weak, or be perceived as weak, get attacked. This is the simple lesson that conservatives draw from history, or at least me.

Another lesson is that unchecked bad situations have a tendency to get worse. Iran has certainly gone from being an annoyance to a potential, actual, military threat. Why didn't Carter act in 1979 to free the hostages? Because he wanted to "give peace a chance". You know what? It didn't work. 27 years later we have the same problem.

When we talk about being ruthless, the goal is not to be bloodthirsty. No sane person likes war, or wants anyone hurt. At the same time, if we're going to do this thing--and I think we need to--then let's do it right. We should have won the Vietnam War. We didn't, because nobody ever made the decision to get serious. Invading the north would have been a qualitative elevation, but it likely would have led to a cessation of hostilities fairly quickly. Instead, we let it drag out for a long time, left with our tail between our legs, and lost both moral and military credibility.

One prototypical American belief is that if you win, you're the hero, and if you lose, you're a goat. In my view, whether that should hold in sports is debatable, but it definitely does in international affairs. There is no higher court we can appeal to. It's us. If you want ineffectual talk, the Europeans are the ones you go to. If you want it done, call us. Even Clinton got the Balkan Wars over. Everybody knows this. It just pisses them off.

Michael,

Yeah, that's me. Let's just not talk politics. I like this format, because I can string thoughts together without interupption. I strongly dislike person to person discussions of anything political or religious, because all that happens is emotions run high, and little that's useful gets said. I am a ponderously slow thinker. I'm like a cow chewing it's cud. I chew it, swallow it, regurgitate it, swallow it, then push it through 8 stomachs (or whatever). Hell, then you get flatulence. Altogether not pretty.

As far as my comment, it was directed at your comment: "We’ve whooped a lot of ass around the world in the last 60 years or so. We’ve gotten a lot of countries to act the way we want them to act. But what good has it done?"

Justin, brevity does not imply a lack of complexity in thought.

Phillip--St. Louis,

First of all, thanks for what you've done, and are about to do. I think I'm safe in assuming your committment to America in general supercedes your misgivings about our current specific policies. This is in the nature of an effective democracy. Not everybody can believe in everything all the time. That's the whole point of referencing every two years or so the views of the people.

I had a discussion about force levels a week or so ago at a bar with an active duty Army Scout. He said that the General at his military school had had a role in planning the Iraq War, and recommended substantially higher troop levels. I told him, that sounds good. Did we have the troops? He said no, that would have required a draft.

We have to make do with what we have. Part of the point of debate, is opening up possibilities. Politics is, after all, the "art of the possible". Right?

One of my favorite movies is "Thin Red Line", so I'm well familiar with Nick Nolte's character. At the same time, it's worth reading this bit about U.S. Grant:

http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=133&subjectID=2

"Unlike other generals, the President told Stoddard, Grant did not look for excuses to avoid an advance. "When Grant took hold I was waiting to see what his pet impossibility would be, and I reckoned it would be cavalry as a matter of course, for we hadn't horses enough to mount even what men we had. There were fifteen thousand or thereabouts up near Harper's Ferry, and no horses to put them on. Well, the other day, just as I expected, Grant sent to me about those very men; but what he wanted to know was whether he should disband them or turn 'em into infantry."12

bench press
185x5 225x5 2245x5 265x5
285x3 305x3
325x1 340x1 (new pr)
225x15
bwt 240 age 31

John, (#58, #100) a lower hip position does not prevent one from using the lower back to pull the bar up or prevent back injury. Two things do:
1. keeping the back "set" in a normal curve (which forces the legs and hips to do the work, the lower back does not contribute directly to raising the load off the floor)and
2. keeping the bar close to the body (keeps the load in the most mechanically efficient position where less effort is required to keep the low back in the proper position).

In both lifters, the back is held in isometric contraction while the knee (quad/ham esp) and then hips (glutes/hams esp) are straightened out.

s.

flog #83 and ricky #93,

To my mind, the “us versus them” is not so much labels, e.g., left/right, liberal/conservative, as it is about ideas and civility.

The commentary on this cite and several others that I have read with regularity is starkly different between the two sides. I don’t know where this started, but it was evident in the communist movement around the world. It is vitriol. It lubricates the left.

In effect, the Nazi party was little different in civility than the Communisty party. However, the popular tenet of the political scientists was that the Nazis were on the right and the Communists on the left. This concept led me to conclude that the political spectrum must be a ring to meet itself at the extremes. In practice there was little to differentiate the two movements.

This left wing rage boiled over in the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War. Domestically it took the form of street and campus riots, and later attacks on the returning servicemen.

It now takes the form of rabid Bush hatred. Like an ink blot, it has transferred into Cheney and Rumsfeld hatred.

The left now sports “We Support Our Troops” slogans in their speechs and on their bumpers. It is code. It means, we distance ourselves from our gross mistake during Vietnam, but we still don’t support the United States. What’s wrong with a red, white, and blue ribbon, “We Support Our Country”?

But look at the quality of the arguments between left and right as posted here and elsewhere, and see if you don’t agree. Name calling and ad hominim attacks seem far more prevalent on the left, questioning, concern, data and logic more on the right. In the realm of the vitriolic vs. the civil, us is the latter and I’ll argue us vs. them all day.

Ricky’s definition of liberal doesn’t wash with me. It might encompass best what is known as Jeffersonian liberalism, but it doesn’t fit today’s liberals. Webster’s New Internation Dictionary, Second Edition (unabridged), the last great proscriptive English dictionary, has a much better definition, but it doesn’t fit today’s liberals at all.

Since the middle of the Vietnam war, I have observed an interesting benchmark with which to judge liberal bias in the media. The liberal position is for less involvement in foreign action, and greater involvement in domestic affairs, and by default, vice versa for the conservative position. Liberals were opposed to anything that might inhibit the expansion of communism, and for them sufficient spending on social programs was an impossibility. They had a slogan: Communism was going to become more and more democratic, and America was going to become more and more socialistic, until at last the two systems would converge and we’d have World Peace. This was the grand Convergence Theorem.

But the anti-Communist movement is pretty much as dead as Red. The left is set adrift, looking for something on which to pin its stirred-up hatred. Now it’s all about Bush hating. Anything he does must be wrong. The purpose is to regain power, even if at the expense of the war effort. The result is a movement to defeat the War on Terrorism.

None of these characteristics of the modern liberal seems to be supported by Ricky’s definition.

I haven’t found the same acrimony on the right, but I’m open to its existence. I do find ignorance pretty well represented on both extremes. I don’t find a moral equivalence between other cultures and ours, nor between the Islamic states and the West. Distemper denies the left the standing to be called the moral equivalent of the right.

The left morphs itself into a plainly unpatriotic stance. Patriotism only exists when you support your country even though you believe it to be wrong. It is not support for your country as you would have it be.

Here is an interesting view of a liberal as written by Dennis Prager.

Are You a Liberal?

It is my belief that about half of the Americans who call themselves liberal do not hold the great majority of positions held by mainstream liberal institutions such as the New York Times editorial page, People for the American Way, and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. So here is a test of this thesis to be given to anyone who believes he or she is a liberal. If you feel I have omitted a liberal position or have unfairly characterized any of them here, please email me. This is still a work in progress.

Thank you,
Dennis Prager

You say you are a liberal.

Do you believe the following?

Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color.

Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America.

Murderers should never be put to death.

During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze.

Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.

It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.

Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools.

It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.

Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.

A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women.

The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings.

The present high tax rates are good.

Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values are bad.

The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.

The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court.

It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.

No abortions can be labeled immoral.

Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.

High schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them.

Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.

Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.

It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation.

No culture is morally superior to any other.

Those are all liberal positions. How many of them do you hold?

Barry, I knew I'd see you in here. My point was related to the fact that one can go to the feedback loops that only support the convictions they hold, therefore they become self justifying processes.

Like somehow because you were a liberal now you can talk with authority of what constitutes a righteous war. What if I was a conservative before? Are we switching religions or throwing off the cloak of certainty, moving form one camp to the other is just changing jersies, not methodologies.

As my post suggests you cannot convice the converted of any other reality, is there any doubt that the war in Iraq cuold have been a big mistake, any doubt, or is it a continuous process of just processing more information that confirms your original convictions, how easy is it to even be honest with oneself about such things.

i ask because the cost of admitting that one could be wrong carries a heavy toll, that's why i think so many refuse to consider such a possibility. I don't mean they have to agree, I mean they can't or won't even consider the possibility, that is the mindset of the converted.

Do you acknowledge that there is a possibility that some people would or could never acknowledge it, because to do so would be to come to terms that maybe our troops died for the wrong cause, by the way, have our troops ever died for the wrong cause, or are we forever righteous, our history books would tell us we are forever righteous, what does that tell you about the process of writing history. Yes you are right it is far from a science.

I am not certain Iraq was misguided, but I lean that way, coach's post a few days ago about a beachead in the middle east makes some sense strategically, it may work out, but i am not yet convinced, I think we need to focus elsewhere and consder the multiple occasions in history where larger powers are sucked in to protracted conflicts because of a refusal to question the aim, they become more efficent at waging the war, but forget why there are there in the first place.
When the treasuries are empty and the citizens can no longer afford to be constantly entertained by bread and circuses they are inevitably forced to declare victory and send the troops back to quell the uprisings.

On vacation for the next two weeks and can't find a suitable place to work out. I'm going crazy. I've been doing push ups and squats in my hotel room. AAARRRRGGGHHHH!

I know it is a rest day but I am out of town and had a few rest days in a row. Getting married in 3 days so don't want to get too far out of it.

30 box jumps
30 good mornings
15 burpees
10 pushups
3 running laps of the front yard (stairs, rock face etc. approx 120m)

4 rounds for time.

stacey 27.10
donovan 30.28

On the deadlift photo:

The father's shoulders are MUCH further in front of the bar than the son's. If the father dropped his hips, the shoulders wouldn't be as far out in front.

The knee angle is about the same but the hip angle is not. By reducing the hip angle AND the knee angle - instead of just the hip angle - the father can compensate for his 6" extra height AND still have a fairly upright back.

I'm not buying this "long/short" levers argument. He's got kyphosis in the thoracic region and he's too far over the bar, that's why the his back is not as vertical. Yes, the father is taller, so he's going to have to have a bit more acute of a knee angle at the start than a shorter person. Not just a more acute hip angle - both.

Group Moffett

5K Run

Total time 30:18:31

The time was slow for the run; however, we focused on EVERYONE staying together to complete run as a team.

"American soldiers in battle don't fight for what some president says on T.V., they don't fight for mom, apple pie, the American flag...they fight for one another."
- Lt. Col. Hal Moore

Comment #122: The pictures are taken from slightly different angles, as evidenced by the amount of visible offside arm. I can tell you that there is not more than an inch difference in the plumbline shoulder-to-floor in the two positions.

I can't fix a skeletal kyphosis, and it's not severe enough to be a problem or to affect his position off the floor in a a significant way. But you have to understand that an acute knee angle shoves the bar too far forward and moves the COG of the system from the middle of the foot to the toe, keeping the posterior chain from engaging well. If the back gets more vertical, it does so at the expense of knees going forward, for any anthropometry. Knees forward pushes the bar away from the heels.

But I just don't understand why the back is supposed to be more verticle. I deadlifted 633 with a rather non-vertical back, and nobody with normal proportions can pull a heavy weight with a steep back angle. It is not physically possible. The deadlift is a back exercise after all, and the erectors function to maintain spinal alignment. They are quite capable of doing that at the correct angle to pull the bar up, especially if they are trained that way. I think the conception is that the more vertical the back, the less shear force on the lumbar discs, but the more vertical the back the further the knees are forward and the further the bar is away from the body and the longer the lever arm against the lumbar.

And regarding the effects of the long/short levers, how is it possible that there is no relationship between the lengths of these segments and the resulting angles they will occupy when the bar is against the shins, the spine is locked in extension, and the shoulders are slightly in front of the bar?

#101 Travis Smith

Nice job. You're probably right about adding some more, but never the less good job. Maybe 50 push-ups and 10 jumping squats. I might try that. If you ever get a chance try it with pull-ups.

Ryan

Uh, Barry? You suggest that "Invading the north would have been a qualitative elevation, but it likely would have led to a cessation of hostilities fairly quickly"

Is it just remotely possible that it would have provoked an all-out counter-invasion by Communist China, with an army many times larger than ours, and strategic nuclear weapons, to boot?

To look back now and declare that you know "what would have happened if" is almost certainly self-delusion.

Van- Hot & Humid bro, But not too bad. How's things up there?

Rip- A 633 DL? I guess the first round of pints are on me. I'll give you a call soon. Hopefully that DL can help you out on a surfboard.

I appreciate the comments.

Do you not think that a taller lifter should have both a more acute hip angle AND a more acute knee angle than a shorter lifter? Looks like this lifter only changed his hip angle, and by quite a bit.

The shins go forward with a more acute knee angle only if the lifter does not also sit back more. That also keeps the COG back.

http://crossfitsedona.typepad.com/sedona_wod/2006/09/more_variations.html

I've seen a few tall weightlifters who didn't have a problem getting the back more vertical [than the picture]. I don't doubt for a minute that the posture in the picture can work well for the deadlift, but it won't work well for the clean which is a similar lift.

I tried to get a picture of 6'7" Cholakov from Bulgaria, but couldn't find one. I'm pretty sure he doesn't get that far bent over.

I think the ratio of lever length (e.g. "oh, I have a long torso") gets a bit overplayed. Total height of the lifter is much more important, IMHO.

Good discussion.

"Do you not think that a taller lifter should have both a more acute hip angle AND a more acute knee angle than a shorter lifter? Looks like this lifter only changed his hip angle, and by quite a bit."

Yes, given normal proportions. But this guy has non-normal proportions, to the point that if his legs were of normal proportions he would be 5" 10" instead of 6' 5".

And the analysis of this position off the floor is good for any pull with that grip width - clean, CHP, haltings, or deadlifts - because the mechanics are the same.

One thing I forgot to mention is the effect of arm length. Very long arms tend to mitigate the effects of a short torso, in that long arms allow for a more vertical back in a lifter who would otherwise be more horizontal, but this is true for all back lengths. Conversely, short arms and a short torso would make for a nearly perfectly horizontal back, and all the sitting back in the world would not fix it. Arm length does not usually vary enough to cancel out the additive effects of all the other segments, since there are three segments that can be weird all together.

The bottom line is that the bar should come straight up off the floor, and the position that best facilitates this is the one that contributes most to efficient pulling mechanics.

Oh, heck! I love pop quizzes!!

Do I "believe" the following?

Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color.

--No.

Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America.

-- Actually, what's good is that they be taught to read, period. My mom taught 1st grade in the LA barrio for 20 years. It didn't matter ultimately whether she taught in English or Spanish (she did both). About the same fraction of kids did well later, either way. She could usually predict pretty accurately even then who was going to make it, and who wasn't. The ones that "made it" all learned to read in English eventually, even when they she taught in Spanish.

Murderers should never be put to death.
-- Uh, no. I mean, yes. Think of the death penalty as a "retroactive abortion", which I'm all in favor of, especially if I get to do the selection of candidates.

During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze.

-- NO

Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.

-- NO (i.e, yes, they should have ROTC programs. I wish these weren't all phrased as negative beliefs, it's hard to figure out how to answer them.)

It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.

-- NO

Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools.
-- Well, actually, I'm in favor of vouchers, but only if the schools accepting them have to take any and all kids, exactly as the public schools do. If too many kids show up, tough cookies . . . find a place. If a kid in a wheelchair shows up, build an elevator, no matter what it costs. If the kid who shows up is a crack-addicted illiterate ADHD with a mean temper, you gotta take him. No sending them back to the public school system.

Introduce me to a voucher proponent willing to accept kids on those terms, and we'll talk.

It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.

-- Not sure how this one is relevant to the question.

Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.
--YES (you got me there . . . guess I'm a liberal)

A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women.
-- Uh, put it in reverse . . . should a loving family of two men or two women have less right to adopt kids?

The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings.
-- "Public" places, yes. Churches & synagogues, no, those are private places. (Not sure where you get the idea that any liberals are saying the Boy Scouts can't meet in churches . . . that's a new on on me).

The present high tax rates are good.
-- Well, there certainly good for *someone*. This question has no context . . . how high? which rates? good for what purpose? They're evidently not high enough to support our current spending habits.

Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values are bad.
-- Geez, stick to one topic, will you? "Speech codes" as they are generally used to suppress dissent anywhere are a very bad thing. (Most vigorous application of them I have ever encountered were all in military or religous schools, but that's another point). I have no idea what "American values" you're talking about. If free speech is one of them, they're good.

The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.
-- NO. Don't be stupid.

The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court.
-- Actually, it has potential, and we are subservient to a wide variety of international obiligation (they're called "treaties"). I'm not ready to sign up for a "world court" yet, though.

It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.
-- Well, actually, since I have a daughter, I'm delighted that she will now have a MUCH wider choice of sports activities (as a result of Title IX) than would have been possible without it. The fact that colleges are responding to it by dropping "everything but football" is stupid. If they dropped football, it would be easy.

No abortions can be labeled immoral.
-- Man, this is a tough one. Ultimately, I would say that some are . . . late-term abortions of a viable infant for convenience sake, sure. But don't expect me to then accept that ALL abortions are immoral.

Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.
-- Actually, smoking should be banned, and smokers shot.

High schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them.
-- For God's sake, yes. You want to have to do more abortions?

Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.
-- NO. Again, don't be stupid. That's not a "liberal" position . . . that's stupid.

Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.
-- Well, actually, poverty and lack of fathers seem to be pretty highly correlated . . . one leads to the other pretty quickly. I don't know what you mean by a "crisis of values", however . . . please be a bit more specific.

It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation.
-- Not really. Kind of pointless, though, and trying to lead them in prayer to your specific God is dead wrong.

No culture is morally superior to any other.
-- NO. Again, don't be stupid. Cultures that support life, individual freedom for *all* their citizens, and prosperity are good. Cultures that support oppression, nihilism, and a stifling conformity to "correct" thought are bad. Such cultures exist in both leftist and rightist form.

I just love a quiz . . .

Phillip--ST. Louis..

I am not hostile towards the idea of questioning a failed policy. I question if the policy has failed...a bunch of purple fingers has me convinced "Failed" is not the right discriptor.

Gen. Shinseki...he was a Chief of Staff...not a Combatant commander. His job was to prepare the Army to go to a fight...not plan the fight, lead the fight, or comment on the fight. He failed on his first task in a number of ways. He had no business in GEN Franks or Myers lanes.

I feel hostile to leftists who want to screw our progress in their efforts to reclaim government dominance. I hear how we failed, yet they offer nothing other than we need to be "tough and smart". They say we need to build coalitions...we have...just not with the French of Germans (Suprise), since they lost billions when Saddam went on the run.

I hear "we need more troops" from them...but that we should bring them home. "We need more troops" but no recruiting on campus. "We need more troops" but no more money for the millitary. "We need more troops" but to many troops are dying.

They are just naysayers...plain and simple...freedom is not worth fighting for, for the brown people to them. That is what GWOT is to me...freedom. Freedom needs security and stability to ignite and connectivity to flurish. All I see is them wanting to abandon that spark when the wind picks up...I find it cowardly and "Unpatriotic". Not unpatriotic in the treason sense, but in the elitist sense. The ...'they aren't ready for freedom" sense. It is veiled biggotry in my eyes. Just "police" up the terrorists and reason with the states that harbor them. I find it Ironic that the leftist anti-war types think "they (the brown peoples)" aren't ready for freedom becuase "they" did not fight for it like our ancestors did, yet these say judges of who is to live in freedom would not fight for their own.

Also there was a comment somewhere inm the thread about gangs and criminals in this country that we "harbor". We don't harbor them we punish those that commit crimes against foreign countries or we turn them over. Terrorist havens do not...they enable the terrorists and give them quarter. There is a difference.

Re: the DL photo- Quite honestly I didn't/don't like the looks of the father's start. However, the more I look at it, he doesn't have anywhere to put his legs. Without straightening his back (I'm assuming kyphosis means this is not an option), if he did drop his rear end and bring his shoulders/arms verticle, either his knees will come forward or he'll be using the bar to keep from falling backward. Should a person with kyphosis not DL? Even with a more straight back it wouldn't make THAT much difference. Bottom line, as long as his "condition" is of no consequence, the bar travels vertically and his spinal plane remains constant at the max angle possible until he clears his knee - I'm cool with it (FWIW).

Re: all the foriegn stuff- Everytime I read one of these war/politics strings, you people scare the living out of me. I want to go on record as saying I appreciate the great sacrifices made by everyone that has served our country past, present and future. THANK YOU! This place is great and I feel very fortunate to be part of it. The older I get, the more I realize this and the more I regret not taking the time to serve myself... (am I too old at 34?) That said, I really wish everyone could just come home and we could just cut everyone else off... even if it meant some hardship (economic) or sacrifice. I've had it real easy and a little work isn't gonna kill me. What's fair is fair and we need to look out for #1 the most fair way possible. Unfortunately, I'm not informed enough to recommend a solution. However, I will say if people are out to hurt us for the sake of hurting us or revenge for the past - kill them. If we are being unfair, we need to stop and apologise. Physical power should not be a bargaining tool... the world needs to come together on that.

The problem with pulling everyone home and leaving Iraq and Afghanistan is that the the bad guys will just follow us and nothing will be resolved. Haven't you ever been chased by a loose dog down the street even when you try and scare it off and run after it waving your arms, as soon as you turn around the dog is back following you? It would be the same. Then when our schools are being blown up and our kids have to dodge bullets to get an education everyone will complain that something needs to be done about it. It's a maddening circle.
CCTJOEY makes many very good points in 132.

I meant that CCTJOEY made many good points in #134.

I'm going to avoid the socio-political hatefest and say that I ran 4 miles today. 24:12

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060913/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/afghan_taliban_photo

This is what I mean.

If we were to bomb the funeral or attack it...to liberals/anti-war types it would be something else to throw at President Bush.

Since we didn't some democrats in congress will throw that at him as a missed opportunity.

Regardless he will be painted as Hitler or stupid.

Sad since it was not his call to begin with.

This is my point about GWOT and leftists...they are not in the fight...they are out to discredit the President...wait and see...if that means taking the country's eye off the ball to do it so be it.

Ah, Sam. Character flaws are my nature. As my daughter once explained to me: "No, Dad, *I* have endearing personality quirks. *You* are just weird."

Actually, I gave that quiz more serious consideration than it deserved (much as I am doing here, in this response to you).

Most of those supposed "beliefs" that "liberals" are supposed to hold are straw men . . . they represent fairly extreme positions that very few people hold (and those that do are stupid, not "liberal". I'm sure if you hunted for a while, you could find some set of people who subscribe to all of them (probably in Berkeley, actually), and those fools would probably describe themselves as "liberal". Doesn't make them accurate, however.

Most of those proposed beliefs were (deliberately?) vague and deliberately conflate different things in order to create the appearance that they go together in the "liberal mind" (whatever that is). For example: "Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values are bad" . . . what the hell are these doing together, and exactly what kind of "speech codes" are we talking about? (Last I looked, threatening to kill the President could get you arrested just about everywhere . . . is that a "speech code"?). Similarly, what are these "American values" that "liberals" are supposed to believe are wrong? (And, by the way, who gets to decide that they are "American"? I have my own list of values that I see as pretty fundamental to the American character.)

Other questions deliberately set up to pre-specify a specific kind of response: "The present *high* tax rates are good." (emphasis added). Not exactly a neutral form of the question, is it?

(BTW, I actually think that a progressive income tax is a good thing, and I say that as someone who works about 70 - 80 hours/week at my own business, and pays a lot of taxes as result. Progressive income taxation is a way of asking those who benefit most from the incredible economic benefits our capitalist system provides to pay the largest share of maintaining it. Seems fair to me . . .)

I also note that no matter how high the tax rate seems now, it doesn't look like the current "conservative" Congress ever met a barrel of pork they didn't like . . . and hence, we run a deficit.

Forgive me for not buying into this survey as a serious test of anything, other than the author's desire to "score points" with others who think that somewhere, liberals believe these things.

Give me a week or so (I'm kinda busy right now), and I could come up with an equally stupid list of "beliefs" that I could claim claim all "conservatives" hold: e.g.,

"All pregnancies, once begun, must be carried through to completion. This includes all cases of rape, incest, and medically documented deformity. God wills that these children be born. It's government's job to impose this will."

or

"Seeing as how they lead to licentiousness, all forms of birth control are immoral. Again, the government has a responsibility to intervene in the citizenry's lives on this matter."

or

"Parents should be free to use my tax dollars to send their kids to any kind of school they want, even if that school actively teaches hatred of America, hatred of specific religions, and/or hatred of anyone sufficiently "different" (e.g., fags)"

(Note: this *is* what proponents of vouchers are actually asking for, by the way).

Give me time, I'll come up with more.

And, Sam . . . I *revel* in my character flaws.

Too much rehash of the normal "sides" - it seems the articles are almost irrelevant. A few people discuss the content intelligently, but it quickly devolves into the usual camps arguing about whether or not the Iraq War was justified.

Then throw in the usual "we're as bad as them" undergraduate-Jane-Fonda's-first-husband crap (That's Tom Hayden for you people who don't "savvy"). Mix with ample amounts of vitriol, hyperbole, and non-sequiturs, et voila!

An intellectual bouillabase that is most decidedly NOT Zone-friendly.

Barry C. and Mr. Glassman, no matter the content or my agreement or disagreement, I always find your posts clear, sharp, and worthy of consideration. Thank you for that. Moreover, I believe your writing teachers (whether in Elementary, Secondary, UnderGrad, or Grad) did you a great service.

Oh, great discussion about the DL, Linc and Rip. I'm a short guy mostly due to 29" inseam (maybe), but I have longer arms. I believe I read somewhere that this makes me an ideal candidate for DL'ing. I think my PR is around 400 and that was after just a few months of CF and watching vidclips. I know this is anecdotal, but having watched taller, bigger, and otherwise differently propportioned people DL, it seems obvious that these geometries would have to effect the start positions AND make it more or less difficult to DL based upon certain proportions. But I would imagine it's like any other physical endeavor, "nothing is impossible to a willing mind" and while certain geometries would be ideal, we can find people all acrss the spectrum who, by hook or by crook, can go "large", notwithstanding the ideals -- much like boxing, basketball, sprinting, or anything else.

I'd applaud the restraint in not bombing mourners but I shouldn't have to. The right decision was made, which is what we expect of the decision-making hierachy right?

People who say it was a missed opportunity, regardless of their political affiliation are compassionless, dare I say ruthless?

Seeing as I've started writing now, I will thank Phil - Ontario, Phillip - St. Louis and Barry Cooper for their thoughtful contributions thus far.

did yesterdays WOD today
120 pull-ups and dips 40lb. assist. 19 min.
my grip gives out and my forarms hurt.

#122 Z Barrow
This smacks of goldbricking and insolence! See you when you get back, hope you are having fun.

Maximus- perhaps #25, Todd, was justified in his question to Erica? After reading most of the post this morning I ask the same question to her.

Ryan

Stef- I totally disagree with you. At that angle the father has no choice but to lift from the floor with his back. At some point he will have to straighten his back. At heavier weights he will have trouble at this position. This is a power move and must be performed with as much legs and hips as possible. If I wanted to work my lower back like the father is I would do good mornings.

Rip- Actually I deadlift 585 for triples without straps. I can pull 405 for 12 reps. I am 6'1" and 225 lbs. I too had a hard time keeping ass low and back upright. Then I became extremely limber and it was made easier. By getting "deeper in the hole" don't you by rule drop yer ass? You pull straight up from over the feet. I simply drop down as if doing ATG squats, keep the ass down, and stand up. My arms are just hooks..my back doesnt come into play until extremely heavy weights...and I drive with the hips. It seems to me that the Father is gonna have a real tough time getting stronger with this form.

Phil,

You're discussing the discussion. Rather than offering specific, reasoned argument, you're conceding defeat in advance in your own goal of loosening what you perceive as the dogmatic opinions of the conservatives on this board. In this defeatism, you are resonating with a profound chord that runs throughout the Leftist tribe.

I recall the 80's, when the hot topic was a bi-or unilateral nuclear freeze. That made sense to me. The thought of nuclear war scared the poop out of me. Still does. But I think a prima facie case can be made that our rearmament and recommittment to a strong military--of which an extensive increase in our nuclear capability was a part-- actually made us much safer, not less safe.

This is the core difference between leftist and conservative ideas, in that leftist have been raised to view aggression as an unnatural thing, which must have a cause. Logically, since violence is so awful, why would anyone undertake it without a strong reason?

From this basic mindset, it flows like water downhill that if the Arabs--or anyone else--hates us, there must be just cause. If there is just cause, we need to do some soul-searching, and identify that cause. Having identified that cause, WE CHANGE OURSELVES, so that they will now like us. Doesn't this sound a lot like codependence: http://smith.soehd.csufresno.edu/codependence.html ?

In the real world, unfortunately, you have to take risks. If we had invaded or bombed No. Vietnam or escalated in another fashion (David, my main point was strategic, not tactical), the Vietnam conflict, there would have been attendant risk.

At the same time, the actual cost of losing that war was the waste of the lives of all the soldiers who served there, the loss of So. Vietnam to Communism, the empowerment of Communist agents throughout the world, the likely prolongation of the Cold War, the development of a covertly Stalinist Left in America with wide public acceptance, the disgrace of our military, and a profound national malaise that lasted until Reagan.

I would go so far as to say that an essential piece of the Stalin era propaganda that was swallowed whole was the rejection of the ability to differentiate good from evil, with the concommitant attack on fundamental, previously unquestioned American virtues, such as thrift, hard work, patriotism, and honesty.

These things matter, and the main argument I've seen against Iraq is that it's hard, and it's expensive. Read the article either Dan M. or Jeff G. posted above on Soviet penetration of the Arab sphere with intentionally destructive propaganda. This is what we are up against, and the last thing anybody in power anywhere throughout the totalitarian Islamic world wants is for any Arabs anywhere to say, "hey, these Americans are alright".

Who is doing the bombing in Iraq? I'll tell you: people who want to use Islam--either honestly, or more likely opportunistically--to reimplement authoritarian rule in Iraq. What they likely want for themselves is power for their groups, and to regain the vanity with which they were once able to regard themselves.

The people that are supporting them, want to make sure the "America" meme never takes hold. The Idea of America--as we who live here forget--has been a powerful, powerful idea for good for a long time. I'll always remember talking to a young Italian in Rome, on the Piazza Navona, about America. He was selling paintings, struggling to make a living, and all he dreamed about was going to America. He had that in common with much of the world.

We don't guarantee success, but we guarantee opportunity. If you can't make it here, you really do need to live in a socialist state, and be babysat for the duration of your natural life.

It occurs to me that a short formulation of conservative economic philosophy is that there is an inverse relationship between guarantees of success, and guarantees of opportunity. I like that (comment to self, I'm allowed).

Bottom line: aggression and violence have been constants in human history, and vulnerabilities on the part of desirable targets are always, sooner or later, exploited by those who can. We can't fight these battles on our shores. We are too open.

Contemplate in the spirit of unintended outcomes:

Could the demands on the part of Leftists that prisoners in Guantanomo Bay be tried be creating a stronger incentive for extra-judicial executions we never hear about?

Could the strenuous arguments of civil libertarians against domestic surveillance techniques be increasing the need to take care of matters overseas?

Erica,

July 31st you posted quickly following our exposure of Shar’s cut and paste plagiarism. You must have learned then of our intolerance of plagiarism. (I had you confused with Shar last night, and apologize now for accusing you of being another liberal plagiarist too liberal with other liberals' exhaustive rants.)

And yet on August 23rd your post number #43 was plagiarized. Treelizard made the discovery. Thanks Treelizard.

Then here, September 13th, you commit the same offense. This time Jeff Glassman made the discovery. Thanks Jeff.

If we allow you to stay, we open ourselves up to the criticism that we are deliberately making liberals look bad, making both those aligned with the left and the right look bad.

You’ve become a living, breathing, straw-women whose very presence potentially insults everyone.

Rest day workout
21-15-9 psp 40" elev.
21-15-9 good mornings 55#
bar & ring pullups, varied grips 20

All,

Erica has two posts posted by friends and deleted by the moderators where she’s plagiarized Dennis Bernstein and Laura Sydell of Eclipse Enterprises, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

She unfairly, sadly, and dishonestly misrepresents our friends unaligned with the CrossFit management's political philosophy.

(Don't let her use your computer, you risk being collateral damage in banning of IP's.)

http://www.elitefts.com/documents/biomechanical_analysis_of_dl.htm

Pay special attention to the part that talks about l4/l5 load with the deadlift performed with the backk at only a 10 degree angle.

Coach,

Was my response to Jeff Glassman intentionally blocked?

Wish I could take credit, but it was actually Randy who made the discovery.

"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?
Comment #45 - Posted by Randy at August 23, 2006 11:55 PM" (Aug 24 rest day)

John,

As I read it, he meant 10% from horizontal. To me, that looks like about where the father is. He also says "quarter squat" position, which would be the opposite of lowering your butt. It seems to me the relevant question is: is the father positioned to pull the bar straight up? Personally, I've started with my knees way forward. When I actually engage the weight, though, my butt goes up, in search of the proper angle. If you pay attention, and your goal is not hurting yourself, it happens naturally. I've done 510, so I'm not weak.

I wanted to address Erica's link, though, which everyone will note WAS posted.

An unspoken--because untenable--conclusion is implied in lists of dictators around the world with whom the US is not actively at war. Namely, that absent the presence of American corporations, or support for their governments, life would be much better. Where in the world have living conditions improved under Communist rulership? Simply because things are bad, does not mean they can't get much worse.

We had a policy--a principle--of supporting virtually any type of government against Communist agitators. In some cases, it may not have mattered. In many cases, it did. In pretty much all cases, the people of those nations would have been poor and trampelled under pretty much no matter what. This obvious fact is overlooked, and blame implicitly placed on the West for conditions that would have been there anyway.

The way out of poverty is through democracy and capitalism. It works. It's what we used. Now, capitalism means corporations. The following quote is interesting:

"Shell Oil provides most of the country's wealth by extracting oil from the Ogoniland region, while in the process causing severe environmental destruction and devastating the local economy."

On the one hand, Shell provides wealth, and on the other hand devastates the local economy. You know who Shell likely uses (used) to do the labor? Local people who otherwise would have been farming yams or starving.

With respect to environmental destruction, it seems to go with progress. If you look at the Third World today, there would be a lot less starving people out there if there were a lot more smokestacks. Certainly, it is a reliable sign that a nation is on the upswing. Yes, air pollution is bad for you. So is not eating for weeks, or being shot.

We can't save every nation in the world. We did what we had to to win the Cold War. Now, all we can do is keep the financial spigots open for investment in areas that warrant it, and hope for the best.

When these types of criticisms are levelled--and they often are on college campuses where leftism is the norm, not the exception--no alternative is offered. Should we have supported Communist candidates? Anyone with a shred of historical sense knows that if you tolerate anti-democratic governments, you are not supporting democracy, which, after all, relies on periodic, vote-based, changes in government.

In many cases, the choice was between one anti-democratic force and another. Why is it so shocking we often chose the anti-Communist one as the lesser of two evils? You can work with individuals.

Bottom line: there is a lot of bad crap out there. We can't fix it all at once, and it's not our job to do it anyway. The principal, most important thing we offer, as stated above, is the Idea of America. We're not perfect. We screw up. We do the wrong things with good intentions. Occasionally some individuals do the wrong things with bad intentions. When we catch them, we prosecute them.

But at the end of the day, we are wealthy, secure, able to voice our grievances, and able to live the lives we choose, without undue harassment. The extent of our collective blessing is unique in history. Because we stuck to our guns when the stuff hit the fan. Not once, but many times.

John,(151) pay extra special attention to the qualifier "round back" in this section. And see previous comments.

s.

Lewis, what is wrong with a political philosophy?

Ryan

Kelly's Hawaiian Vacation WOD #4
30 Muscleups: 5:56
On shaky rings, hanging in a tree, little kip, rings turned out at the top.

For the record, I don't post as much as I do for ego gratification, or compliments, or whatever. I just feel, often, like a horse stuck in a stable, and I like to go for a nice gallop once in a while.

I found the following link, which, to me, is a nuanced way of criticizing US policy in Iraq. I'm not going to comment now, but thought I would pass it along as the sort of link that, to my mind, is both slightly contrary to pure "rah-rah-ism", and also not out in left field somewhere.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so06allison

"Lewis, what is wrong with a political philosophy?"

Nothing that I know of, and my comment was not at all to criticize anyone for having a strong political philosophy (I certainly do). Just having some fun with the many CF'ers who have maintained that Coach's choices of Rest Day articles do not indicate such a philosophy.

Barry, #68
Thanks for the link to the book review of “Why The Left Hates America” by Daniel Flynn. Money quote, ““So why does the Left hate America?” Flynn posits, “the answer is because America stands as a massive refutation of every pet theory the Left has ever held.”

David Horowitz, a former communist radical who knows the radical American left as well as anyone, has written a book about why the left has joined forces with radical Islam, “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left”, which I’ve not read, reviews floating around the internet indicate it goes back to the same premise, the idea of America stands as a powerful beacon of hope to that part of the human soul which longs to be free, and thus is the chief obstacle to implementation of leftist utopian schemes.

None of this is to be taken to say that America is perfect. We have lots of warts. But the aspirations for individual freedom and dignity so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence, restated in the Gettysburg address, and restated again for our generation in King’s “I Have A Dream” speech are universal and are diametrically opposed to the left’s notions that the individual is subservient to the state.

Lewis, I understand now.

Starting the beginners routine from CFJ#9.

Deadlifts: 15-12-9, 90 lbs.

Dan MacD #161,

Most liberals – of all ilks -- would be enraged at the suggestion that they were in any alliance with the terrorists. Pinned down, we might expect a denial of the cliché, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” But the reality of that common enemy is a part, and a small part, of what gives the left the appearance of being anti-American and pro-terrorist.

Few liberals deserve the label of terrorist sympathizer. Two other factors might explain that appearance. First, the new left practices an unparalleled, irrational hatred of Bush’43. That Bush hatred easily bridges to the jihadist commitment to destroy what it can of America.

Second, for most of a Century, a classical tenet of the left was opposition to US “foreign entanglements”, borrowed from George Washington’s farewell address. For them, that canon had its roots in communism, the sister of the American Left, both having been sired by Karl Marx. Communism was in its ascendancy around the globe, and it was not to be denied.

The left seems unable to integrate the attacks on the US and on civilization by the jihadists into an effective revulsion. The series of escalating attacks over 30 years in their minds does not outweigh the necessity to defeat Bush. They rationalize further. We might want to maintain this list:

• The Iraq campaign is not part of the War on Terror.

• Iraq is a separate War, waged in part to avenge the attempted attack on Bush’41 and to rectify his failure to complete the first war on Iraq.

• Bush misrepresented intelligence to justify invading Iraq.

• The War in Iraq is over oil, and to serve the corporate interests of Exxon and Halliburton.

• The War in Iraq is not winnable.

• The War in Iraq is not going well.

• The War in Iraq was ill-advised and poorly executed, in particular, undermanned.

• The War in Iraq is an illegal intervention in a Civil War, violating the UN Charter.

• The enemy in Iraq comprise insurgents, not terrorists.

• The War in Iraq is counter-productive, producing more terrorists.

• The Iraqis are not capable of democratic self-government.

• The War in Iraq has made the United States less safe.

• The War in Iraq is a distraction and a drain from the duty of the President to defeat Al Qaeda and kill or capture Usama bin Laden.

• The War in Iraq is unaffordable.

• The threat of terrorism is exaggerated.

• The United States is guilty of war crimes for wantonly targeting civilians and for torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanimo.

• Bush’43 is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors for outing a secret agent to punish her husband, for lying about prewar intelligence, and for spying on Americans in violation of 50 USC §1802(!) et seq.

Each of these exhausting accusations is vacuous, but worthy of Göbbels. Much of them is a rehashing of the left’s successful campaign in Viet Nam. With this flood of propaganda, they hope to win the political war by sacrificing victory in a war they have reduced to the opposition’s crime.

Logic, facts, and morality are not with the left. We’ll see how effective this kind of base strategy can be this November. I predict the slogans will prove tiresome, and transparent as the public slowly awakes. It should succeed only in making war the issue, and the War on Terror key will prevail over the two war theory. I predict another in the pattern of small gains for the GOP in both the House and Senate.

I was thinking about the Battle of Gettysburg last night. 160,000 men met in battle, 50,000 lying in the fields dead or wounded three days later, in the name of the principle, essentially, of America. How would we muster the will to fight that battle today?

I was thinking, too, of the Korean conflict. The two sides are still technically at war. There are 15,000 (or something) fortified artillery pieces pointed at Seoul. The North is a slave state which has said publicly it will sell nukes to people with enough money. Why is this the case? Because we lost--or failed to win--the Korean War.

Now, I don't know enough about the war to know in detail what we could have done differently, but I do know that a reluctance to engage the Chinese directly was a principle reason we settled for only partial victory. Now, invading and occupying China would have been an almost insurmountable challenge, but keeping them from occupying North Korea, in my view, would not have been.

I think it would be possible to support with evidence--although perhaps not incontravertible evidence--that partial victories, in the long run, are more expensive in lives and money than full victories. We've had a continuous presence in Korea for 50 years.

It is in the nature of democracies to be self-correcting. If a path is manifestly hurting the bulk of a population, they can change who's in charge. Therefore, if something dumb is going on, eventually it will change. You can wait people out.

In autocratic states, however, you actually have a self-reinforcing loop which favors the continuation of whatever policies are begun, forever. Only persons supportive of the ideas of the Head Honcho can remain in positions in government. Disagree, you find out what prison life is like. If North Korea were democratic, the starving people would demand reforms.

You cannot depend on peace without having players on all sides who have an interest in peace. Peace, manifestly, enriches everyone, so democracies will, over time, always favor peace.

However, wanting peace and achieving peace are two different things. To achieve peace, you need to have people who either don't want to hurt you, or can't.

We tolerate Iran and North Korea. I say tolerate, because we could obliterate both nations within 30 minutes of getting the order. The reason we are able to tolerate them, is we are much stronger than them. Absent strength, tolerance is expediency. If you think about it, North Korea and Iran "tolerate" us. Both nations, if they could, would destroy us, utterly and completely.

I will say, though, that it seems to me that our nation has substituted the values of tolerance and the desire for peace, for the principle of justice. Iran should have been made an international pariah for invading our embassy. According to most authorities, that was a de jure act of war. They support terrorists, openly. They have stated they want Israel destroyed. This is an abuse of international order, and the breaking of law. Justice, not tolerance, calls for this to stop.

In the last 50 years, we have substituted expediency for justice, and called expediency tolerance and a desire for negotiated peace. Absent a credible threat of destruction, or complete internal collapse, authoritarian states have very, very little track record of responding favorably to olive branches.

Few random thoughts.

It's disappointing to see that certain people, who appear to have a more right-centered view, are slaves to the over-used vitriolic left bashing that supposedly passes as analysis. My colleagues, somebody please tell me why it made sense to enter into a war crafted heavily by someone who lacked a fundamental understanding of the Iraqi political landscape (Wolfowitz)? Also, please explain why, if we're in a war, it makes sense not to institute a draft when we don't have enough troops (i.e., why are we shuffling troops to hotspots and then having to go back to the previous region to deal with the insurgents again)? Lastly, Shinseki, regardless of his combat experience, was responsible for assessing combat needs. For that, he relied on information from generals with combat experience. Additionally, Shinseki wasn't the only who said there was a need for more troops than what we currently have on the ground. General Anthony Zinni, former commander of Central Command and life-long Republican, strongly urged President Bush to have several hundred thousand boots on the ground. For those of you who don't know, General Zinni was a decorated Marine general who began his combat career in the fields of Vietnam. So forget Shinseki, how is anybody going to question the commander who was responsible for US forces in southwest Asia?

With that said, I propose that those of you who are under the age of 42 either join the active or reserve military and put your money where your mouth is currently. Yes, you may have a family or a business or any other host of concerns that act as an excuse. But hey, we're in a war and we all have to sacrifice, right? Anyone who without question agrees with the Bush administration's stance on the GWOT needs to sign up now, barring any physical disability that would preclude enlistment or commissioning. There is absolutely no excuse not to join up post-haste.

And as I mentioned before, I'm going back in, not because of Iraq, but because I see that we are in a world of . Yes, I do think certain aspects of US foreign policy helped to create some of the -storm but that doesn't mean I feel that Americans should now be targets. Our policy in Iraq is a cluster but the greater GWOT must be fought and indeed has been raging since the 1970s. Now, if I can only get past this medical waiver b.s. (I got medically discharged due to a knee injury) I'll get my chevrons back on and hopefully make a difference. Also, I'm relying on crossfit to help get me into a condition where the fascists at MEPS won't question my ability to hump with a pack again, i.e., this crossfit better work, haha!

Ok, I'm done. Prayers for our brothers and sisters in uniform that they come home soon and for world peace. Barring that, prayers that our brothers and sisters in uniform destroy our enemies and keep safe.

Your summary of the Bush Admin's "stream of logical thought" for the war in Iraq is a very substantial mischaracterization. If it was that stupid, I would agree with you, but it wasn't that stupid. The President was not opaque on the subject. His speeches to the UN in October 02 and the State of the Union in Jan 03 were crystal clear, made excellent sense, and were approved by huge majorities in both houses, including majorities of democrats.

I am all in favor of criticizing failed policies. I do not accept your premise that the President's policies are failed. There are very, very substantial successes directly attributable to the policies, and they have not fully played out at this point.

It is also important to ask "a failure compared to what?" 9/11 was the most spectacular policy failure since the Civil War. The President changed those policies, starting at 8 PM that evening.

Most of the rest of what you say is a cartoonish rehash of myths and misrepresentations, and there is no time to take you up on all of it.

But I will say this, and this is critically important for those of you who consiider yourselves heroes for trashing the President and his policies in this war:

We cannot win by quitting. We can only lose by quitting.

What is the effect on our ability to win this war of constantly attacking the President and his policies?

Can we win the war without popular support here at home?

To what purpose does the enemy direct his operations - to influence events militarily in Iraq, or to undermine domestic political support for the President's policies?

How does the enemy expect to win by influencing domestic political support for the president's policies?

When you attack the president and thereby undermine domestic support for his policies, are you helping the enemy achieve his victory in the only way it is possible for him to win?

If so, how does that constitute a patriotic act?

What would the consequences be in the war against Islamofascism of electing a majority of democrats in Congress?

John Murtha, the democrats' Clausewitz, wants to redeploy our forces from Iraq to Guam, from whence they will be a "quick reaction" force. Guam is a 13,000 mile round trip from Iraq. That is the policy alternative that is on the table in this election.

My own personal opinion, based on observation of the democrat party and its leading lights, is that putting democrats in charge of national security would be like putting Michael Jackson in charge of a day care center.

Best regards,

Mr. Glassman speaks the truth very eloquently and adroitly. The lies of Liberalism fester and putrefy deeper and wider as time passes. The apt reference to the Nazi propaganda-meister sums it up quiet well, and reveals an even sadder truth. Too many prefer simply to believe exactly what they are told to believe, lest they (perish the thought!) be required to think for themselves, and be distracted from their insatiable lust for entertainment.

Pity about the very interesting, and relevant, deadlift conversation getting lost in all the political pontification. Sigh.

These DL photos trouble me. I buy the argument that different body types will produce different setup positions. However, this is not a good set of photos to show that. You gotta have two folks with very different bodies but the ability to get in a recognizably decent position (i.e., no kyphosis), photographed from the same angle, in order to isolate the differences caused by different lever lengths and not get distracted by the other issues. I want two pretty DLs, executed by folks with very different torso:leg length ratios. Or, hell, make it three, with the average joe in the middle.

As for the position of the father in this set, the main problem, to my eye (albeit far less well-trained than Rip's) is that his weight appears to be quite far forward on his feet. It seems to me that there's no way he can really be driving through the heels and sufficiently engaging the glutes and hams.

Relatedly, as much as the upper-back curve, I'm concerned about the position of the pelvis, which is a bit tucked under (posterior tilt) rather than arched back (anterior tilt). I've been seeing this in a lot of newbies (and inflexibles), and I'm thinking it has three causes: 1) mind-body disconnect (i.e.. the brain doesn't know what the pelvis is doing--folks just don't know how to move those parts they way we tell them to), 2) tight hamstrings, pulling the bottom of the pelvis forward and causing posterior pelvic tilt, and 3) weak spinal erectors. You just can't engage the glutes and hams fully with posterior pelvic tilt, and the father in this picture has got that going on.

At least, them's my thoughts.

Carrie - I concur with your evaluation. When I saw the father's setup, my first thought was "Ow, that's gonna hurt!" My hams are very tight, and I really struggle to get into the 'correct' position for DL as well. I probably look something like that, althought I do try to keep my back arched and head up. I never really thought about just how my pelvis was aligned, but thanks to your post, I will certainly be thinking about it during future lifts!

Wow. I thought the comment board was supposed to be about the WOD or something with some relevance to it. Any way Here is what we did....

5 wieghted Pullups (25lb)
15 Push ups
8 Squats (160lb)
25 4 count ab excersise

Did 8 sets of this and it was amazing. Good WOD guys!