Wow!! That video was somethin' else, you girls are amazing. Annie, thank you so much for e-mailing Christy with your experience and suggestions, it really meant a lot to her!!

Interesting article, however I think that the right has used the OP argument just as much as the left.

Don't support the President? You hate freedom

Don't support the war? You hate our troops

Everyone is guilty of this line of thought these days, the sooner we see it go the better

Oh my gosh. What a tragedy. There was an earthquake in Santa Cruz and all the men fell into the ocean. Great video.

Annie, it's awesome to see you back in the videos with the girls! Nice to catch a peek at your precious little one! Congrats, and thanks for the Crossfit/pregnancy info.

Rockin' video.

Holy Chr***! Nicole hardly broke stride the entire time! All three ladies were rockin it though! Its videos like these that make my wife scared to start CF though, so perhaps I wont share this one with her quite yet. Nice timing with the song and the shot of Annie ;)

That video was ridiculous. All three of them were amazing. I can't do squats nearly that FAST, let alone keep it up for 8 twenty second intervals. When I first saw the video I thought it had been sped up!

Wow! That video was inspiring, the ladies are beautiful as always. Compared to them, I feel like I am in a molasses swamp when I do my Tabata's.

Little story about how the schools are changing their priorities towards PE. N is signed up this semester for PE and she was informed today, that now instead of actually doing any exercises, she has to take PE as an online course. So, there she sits for 1 1/2 hours in front of a computer for her PE class! Thank goodness for CrossFit!

Kate

Now That's Squattin!
Awesome work Ladies.
20+++++ reps that deep and with extension, sick...

WOW!!! DREAM GIRLS!! Awesome stuff!!

Michele, Nicole & Annie,

Once again, you make me proud!!!! You guys are awesome.

Love, Sally

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/group_think_is_killing_us_in_i.html

This link from the same site covers a lot of what I was talking about last rest day re: our incompetence at human intelligence and our inability to understand our enemy, and the deleterious effects of these weaknesses on the ground in Iraq and on the war on terrorism in general.

that article does little more than point out how right wing the writer is. one could find a million essays written by left wing writers about how the right wing is tryin to squash freedoms using the same exact instances as evidence.

heres the reality of things. the right wing hates the left wing, and the left wing hates the right wing. the right wing thinks homosexuality is disgusting, the left wing thinks the right wing is disgusting for saying that. we will never get along...ever...period. each side thinks that they are doing the right thing, and neither will ever get their way without "taking away the freedoms" of the other side. if the left wing doesnt like what youre saying youre labeled as "offensive"...if the right wing doesnt like what youre saying youre labeled a "terrorist"...same crap different name.

unless we start thinking for ourselves and not subscribing to either parties agenda we are caught in a pointless, endless, hopeless circle of hatred and violence.

Kate, you're joking, right?

I still haven't been able to come to the nerve to post my scores online. call it a little online shyness. i'm still thinking about it.

video is awesome! dang, girls!

still waiting on my shirt to come in....why is it taking sooooo looooong??

still waiting on my shirt to come in....why is it taking sooooo looooong??

sick video...its awesome to see 3 beautiful ladies gettin' some.

Re: article, I kind of agree with comment # 2 by Jason. The Offensiveness Ploy, as the author calls it, is also deeply rooted in conservative language and thought, e.g. "liberal" had become a bad word and had been given a connotation of weakness when it had previously stood for generosity, helping others, "...(from dictionary) belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

What could be stronger than trying to help others?

Another example is the author's mentioning of an artwork, which is imo strategically loaded and pretty lame, with dismissive disdain.

Being newish to crossfit, I'm wondering-is it a very conservative minded group?

The offensive ploy does indeed exist and is at heart a tactic of distraction. It is just that everyone uses it. If someone falls for it in political discourse, that is his/her problem.

"Tyrants agree: the easiest way to win a debate is to prevent the other side from debating. "

I totally agree with this quote and with #2 Jason. Maybe if more people had actually realized this, the Bush administration would not have such unrestrained power in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. If anyone can remember back about 4 years ago, they'll remember that any criticism of Bush--even blatant over-manning by airport TSAs--was almost reflexively countered by a reply of "you just hate America" or "are against the troops" or "are empathizing with terrorists."

If Selwyn Duke wants to polarize the political debate into Liberal and Conservative, given their misleading connotations, the author should read transcripts of FOX News when Michael Moore's rather innocuous film came out right after the Iraq War. All I heard from the stereotypical, self-proclaimed "Right" was that he hates America and that his film was insulting and anti-American. Maybe they should have argued about the facts in his film, which I'm sure had some error. That is just one, but telling, instance of the uber-macho jingoism rampant at that time, which sought to squash debate by resorting to the Offensive Ploy.

I think that the “Offensiveness Ploy” (OP) is a real phenomenon, and that the author has done well to name it. Further, I think he’s right to associate it generally with the left, especially given that segment’s obsession with identity politics. In my own life, I’ve seen the OP pulled mostly by my leftist friends. Of course, that’s just anecdotal evidence, so the statement shouldn’t be taken for much.

Another statement based on anecdotal evidence: It seems to me that my rightist friends are overly eager to interpret any challenge coming from the left as an instance of the OP. For example, I have had this experience: I criticize a rightist statement as being ridiculous; its mouthpiece says something like, “You lefties, always trying to shut down debate by claiming offense;” I try to explain that I didn’t claim that what was said was offensive, merely that it was ridiculous and so I ridiculed it; my interlocutor continues to see me as pulling the OP, not as attacking the merits.

I think this zeal finds an explanation in this line from Selwyn Duke’s article (incidentally, “Selwyn Duke” is a cool name): “When told to shut-up, we feel transgressed against and know we occupy the moral high ground, a place from which taking the offense is justified.” So, the more often we see ourselves as up against someone pulling the OP, the more often we get to “feel transgressed against” and “occupy the moral high ground.” Gratifying feelings.

In sum, I think the article presents a useful idea, despite the absurd prose. I’d like my leftist friends to steer clear of the OP. And I’d like my rightist friends to be less keen to see the OP wherever they look.

Word.

Did the Deadlifts today. Written in y-days comments.

Took Army PT test this am
39 yo 205 lb
76 pushup 2 min
86 situp 2 min
14:02 2 mi
Best score in over 10 years (since company command).
Thanks xfit!

#14 Treelizard-
I wish I was joking, but it's true. N is pretty bummed.

Kate

#2, Jason,

"Interesting article, however I think that the right has used the OP argument just as much as the left. Don't support the President? You hate freedom. Don't support the war? You hate our troops"

I think your examples are of stupid responses, not the Offensiveness Ploy. On college campuses, there are actual speech codes designed to prevent groups from being offended. On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing that anyone could say about the president, the war, or the troops that would violate any campus rule.

Sorry Guys day behind on the WOD's

Did the deadlifting for the first time so was bit of a learning curve.

1.40kg 2.60kg 3.72kg 4.80kg. 5.90kg 6.102.6kg 7.102.6kg

Now am i right in thinking that when attempting this next time i should start @ 102.6??

thanks for your help.

Kate, Why don't you try to go to the next Board of Education meeting, armed with statistics about increasing child obesity rates? Would the Board agree that the way to combat lower reading scores is to close the Library and cancel English classes? Expect to hear some bureaucratic twaddle about budget cuts and higher insurance premiums. Ultimately, we all, as parents, are directly responsible for our children's physical, intellectual and moral development and can only rely on state sponsored programs like public schools for basic minimums. It seems to me that your kids are fortunate to have parents who can do a lot more than reheat leftovers for dinner get the laundry folded and put away. Live strong!

Great video.
Good job!

Interesting article, not all that well reasoned.

From the article:
"It becomes harder for traditionalists to argue against homosexual marriage if they're scorned and ostracized for saying homosexual behavior is sinful, destructive or disordered"

Then the author goes on to conclude with:
"If you can't sit at the table of reasoned debate . . ."

Personally, I don't see how arguing that homosexual marriage is sinful and destructive is 'reasoned' debate.

Like someone else already posted, the sooner people stop adopting this either/or mentality and start thinking for themselves, the better.

those girls rock! Very inspirational!

Video - Nicole is, once again, amazing. I truly think she is some kind of Terminator fitness model from the future, with a gorgeous "skin". You can totally tell that the lady on the left was starting to hate it. Tabatas can get in your head. They're as much psychological as physical ("you mean I have THREE more sets???") Most incredible fact: lady on the right is a mother to a newborn? In that kind of shape? Call Ripley's!

Article: Love the guy that's offended by the implication that only the Left gets offended as a PC tactic. That's rich. I'm all for debate about the war or the troops if it's honest debate with ideas. Funny how no one says "I support the firefighters, now bring them home!" These brave men and women are volunteering to put out a fire before spreads here. You don't support the troops and not the mission, as it's intellectually inconsistent. If you support a team, you support its mission and goal and aim, and want it to win, not just for Peyton or Rex to not break a nail.

Thanks for serving, all that read this.

ps: you could have done your *own* Tabata squats in the time you watched the video - what are you waiting for! Rest day, my *** !

I'm going to sneak an issue under the umbrella of this topic:

Dr. Tyrone Powers weekly Morgan State radio show recently got canceled (or preempted if you want to be PC.) After inquiry, it seems the recently elected Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley put pressure on the school president, possibly by cutting state funding to get Powers off the air. Powers was critical of O'Malley during his time as Baltimore Mayor and during the Gov's race. The O'Malley administration claimed that the Govenor was too busy with his first month in office and besides didn't even know who Powers was. This turns out to be a blatant lie according to former Baltimore Police Commisioner Ed Norris who says O'Malley had Powers' career history memorized.

Alright so maybe this doesn't fit under the Offensive Ploy, but does anyone else find this scary?

Heres some other interesting tidbits. Powers doesn't get paid for the radio show. O'Malley would be neck and neck with Bill Clinton in a Lying contest. If you have ever seen the HBO show 'The Wire', this is the Baltimore that O'Malley created. 2007 city homicide rates have averaged one a day. I hope this story gets national attention. This vindictive, censoring, egomanic has his eyes on the White House ... so beware.

I didn't mean to go on a rampage, but I find this OFFENSIVE ... hehe

And its cold as %@^* here ...

Howdy,
Yesterday's Work
{Squat 110kgx5; DB Press (50#er's)x5; Body Extensions (from knees)x10}x10. 21:36...then Power snatch 60kgx2x10. 6:30...total workout time 30:06 (with transition between groups included).
Bdw. 84kgs...

Well said Hale, I agree.

Ryan

Hale #29... I was thinking the same thing as I watched the video. I should have been squating instead of watching the gorgeous Nicole become even more gorgeous.

The video was great! One thing I have learned since joining CF is just how strong pound for pound women really are. I have also personally found that in boxing women tend not to bring ego or preconcieved notions into the ring and learn faster than men. Also ...Nicole is awe inspiring.

Thanks coach I reached a personel best on the deadlift yesterday.

The artice was just plain bunk. Now the right is going to play victim..."help im being repressed...." sad just plan sad!

r

Hale (#28) said: "You don't support the troops and not the mission, as it's intellectually inconsistent. If you support a team, you support its mission and goal and aim, and want it to win, not just for Peyton or Rex to not break a nail"

What a depressingly UNamerican philosophy.... Our history as a nation has countless examples of statesmen and citizens disagreeing with "the mission."

Vietnam - Senators, Congressmen, Former Vice President/Presidential candiddate, citizens of various stripes disagreed with "the mission."

Somalia - A group of Repblican Senators (specificaly) disagreed with "the mission" and presented resolutions urging President Clinton to pull our troops out.

By your logic, once the President has decided to take us to war, all debate regarding whether or not we should be at war ends...

You do say "I'm all for debate about the war or the troops if it's honest debate with ideas." But, who determines what is a "honest debate with ideas?" You?

So far, the only qualification that you offered is that any debate questioning whether or not we should be at war equates to "not supporting the troops"... a fairly vague concept but one that implies a certain disdain for the men and women of our armed forces at best, and at worst a desire to leave them stranded and without resources.

Much like the article, these types of generalizations and assumptive projections of the motivations of your perceived political opponents serve two purposes:
1. To blind you to the very "honest debate" and "ideas" that you claim to be interested in.
2. To make you feel better about yourself by insulting others.

Zach

Political correctness is the scourge of our nation. The roots of the PC movement can be traced back to 1920's Germany, when a group of scholars began to raise questions as to why the spread of communism was not taking hold as they had anticipated.

The PC movement is that of excessive governmental and judicial control over the words and actions of the masses. They working class is put in a position in which they must subsidize those who are too lazy to work, yet cannot raise issue with this for fear of governmental retribution. Yes, the PC agenda is tantamount to cultural Marxism.

The PC movement gained strong footing during the German socialist movement of Nazism, in which the masses were told how to behave, while the government took control of industry and banned such basic rights as that of owning weapons. Many in our own liberal wing of the Democratic Party are clamoring to nationalize various industries while limiting rights, such as the right to bear arms and the right to free speech.

The PC movement in America came of age with the advent of the modern day Democratic Party, which was born in the early 1960's, with the Johnson administration and their Great Society ideals of robbing the rich to pay the poor. As liberals find it very difficult to wage a war based on logic, they have resorted to the courts to silence anyone who may criticize them. They have effectively taken over our schools to indoctrinate their principles of big government, high taxes and a limitation on your rights. The next time a liberal tells you that the Democrats are a party of choice, ask them for their position on the right to bear arms, the right to tuition tax vouchers, the right to opt out of social security and the right to be free from the oppression of political correctness.

The PC movement is about limiting rights and robbing us of individuality. The PC movement is about silencing any dissenters. You need not go to Tienemen Square to face the wrath of tyranny, you can get it right here in America. Whether it's the Kelo decision that allows for the stealing of private property to create more revenue, or the 9th Circus Court of Appeals in California telling parents to butt out of the upbringing of their children, your rights are in jeopardy and the more liberals we elect, the closer we will become to a nation of oppressive socialism. Liberals want the right to never be offended which goes against every principle upon which this Republic was founded.

As a nation we have to act, and we have to act fast. We have the power to elect representatives that do understand American values, that do respect our American culture and who do respect our rights as individuals. For this very reason, we are becoming a redder nation, but it will take the collective effort of all of us to get rid of each and every elected official that stands by political correctness. If an elected official disagrees that English is our language, our borders need to be locked down, illegals need to be immediately deported and terrorists need to be hunted down and killed then they need to be ousted from office. We need representatives that will give our children an education in a competitive environment, will state the truth about unions and their anti-American agenda and will let us opt out of social security. We need representatives to protect our right to free speech, our right to bear arms and our right to private property ownership. There are many in Washington who don't support this, and it is up to us to bring forth change.

The following senators voted AGAINST making English the official language of America:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN) *
Biden (D-DE) *
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY) *
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)*
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)
* indicates candidates seeking presidency.

Here’s a really stupid question, but how can you be the President and not support English as our official language?

Now, the following are the senators who voted TO GIVE illegal aliens Social Security benefits. They are grouped by home state. If a state is not listed, there was no voting representative.

Alaska : Stevens (R)
Arizona : McCain (R)
Arkansas : Lincoln (D) Pryor (D)
California : Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)
Colorado : Salazar (D)
Connecticut : Dodd (D) Lieberman (D)
Delaware : Biden (D) Carper (D)
Florida : Martinez (R)
Hawaii : Akaka (D) Inouye (D)
Illinois : Durbin (D) Obama (D)
Indiana : Bayh (D) Lugar (R)
Iowa : Harkin (D)
Kansas : Brownback (R)
Louisiana : Landrieu (D)
Maryland : Mikulski (D) Sarbanes (D)
Massachusetts :Kennedy (D) Kerry (D)
Montana : Baucus (D)
Nebraska : Hagel (R)
Nevada : Reid (D)
New Jersey : Lautenberg (D) Menendez (D)
New Mexico : Bingaman (D)
New York : Clinton (D) Schumer (D)
North Dakota : Dorgan (D)
Ohio : DeWine (R) Voinovich(R)
Oregon : Wyden (D)
Pennsylvania : Specter (R)
Rhode Island : Chafee (R) Reed (D)
S. Carolina : Graham (R)
South Dakota :Johnson (D)
Vermont : Jeffords (I) Leahy (D)
Washington : Cantwell (D) Murray (D)
West Virginia :Rockefeller (D) Byrd (D) NoVote
Wisconsin : Feingold (D) Kohl (D)

The above is from Christopher Van. Author of "Dodgeball..."

Hey you three...gettin' it! Annie, love to see that baby!

The default 'balanced' position that seems to be forming here is that the left and the right will both claim victomhood. But I think this position is an attempt to muddy the water.

There are institutional reasons why the left relies on 'OP' more that the right. This point has been made many times before (by sober authors in persuasive texts that focus on such things Identity Politics, Federalism, and Individualism. None of these books was called 'It takes a village').

Until recently the Right has out flanked the left in many of its endeavors, noble or otherwise. This may make the issue seem more debatable than it really is. However, I think honest common sense sides against the Left in this matter, and attacks against the Right should probably focus other, unguarded flanks.

Anyow, The Muslims are so far ahead of either side in this matter. A better article would demonstrate how the long tolerated pettiness of OP politics in America has created an immune deficiency that Violent Muslims are capitalizing on.

Um. I just did Mary, but I did 5 HSPU, 10 PU, 15 Pistols..... only got Six Rounds. ~195lbs, so discount my oppinion accordingly.

Annie,

My IrAsian sister! Glad to see you showing off your Squat skills and the Pickle. She is adorable! Can't wait till I can make it out again and see her.

Found the article refreshing and relevant. I work in academia and travel in liberal cirlces and see examples of this behavior almost daily, mostly from those that profess to be left-leaning. Conservatives tend to use different arguments/ploys.

Comment #2, Jason, I think you will find that the left (not used as a perjorative term) use the OP far more than the right. BTW, your examples are not that of the OP, but are straw man arguments--the two arguments/ploys are NOT equivalent.

Annie,
Only you can come back post-partum and perform as if it had no effect what so ever. It's great to have you back!

The difference between the left's PC and the right's rhetoric is this: The right does not physically prevent opposing viewpoints as does the left on campus. The left's speech is still protected, whereas the politically incorrect speech is banned via campus and other organizational regulation.

BJ! Greetings from the People's Republic of Maryland. I agree, O'malley is an egomanical politician with the mental capacity of a goldfish. My co-worker dealt with him as mayor... At his recommendation, O'malley was actually fined for screwing up the environment... as a result of his "environmentally friendly" policies in Baltimore.

Here's an OP from the liberal stronghold of Montgomery Co., MD:
"Montgomery County Public Schools Superintendent Jerry Weast has decided to use $125,000 of county taxpayer funds to pay for renting the University of Maryland’s Comcast Center for graduation of three of the largest Montgomery County high schools. Last week, the school board approved using a 10,000-seat church in Landover as the venue, the cost of which would’ve been ZERO. Weast says it’s worth spending the money to keep from offending anybody who may be bothered by holding a graduation in a church."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012400952.html
http://www.sherwoodptsa.org/
http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=6598&TM=6796

Video was awesome. Idea - crossfit girls calenders maybe doing WODS.

as for the article, it's happening world wide and it is in my opinion nonsense. Take offense don't take offense no problem!

I was offended by that article....wait no, I found it ironic that the author was so worked up about the topic as to write an article about it.

Unbelievable Tabatas--keeping full range and chest up position with that kind of work output is incredibly impressive. Nice video, Tony--it's very cool to see all three side by side.

(Is there anyone over 5'4" with those kind of legit Tabata squat scores?)

As always, a thought-provoking rest day piece. I think, however, the article was short on any specifics of the so-called Offensiveness Ploy. Everyone, on both sides of a question, needs to speak with restraint and respect so as not to injure. Here's an example: one can certainly be against homosexual marriage (as I am) without castigating gay men and women as sinful and disordered, which is a rather harsh judgement and will quickly turn the debate into a bar fight. Similarly, accusing those against gay marriage of homophobic prejudice ends rational discourse. The real issue is whether liberal, unelected judges can force gay marriage on the public or whether the decision is best left to the elected representitives of the people, i.e., state legislatures. Don't get me wrong, whackos who call 9/11 victims Nazis are beneath contempt, but they're more akin to deranged mumblers you see on the subway. The best remedy is to ignore them, hit the remote and change the channel...and do more pullups, kipped of course.

had that article addressed the simple failure of humans in general on this issue, i'd have agreed with it more, but the fact that it's written from the right doesn't keep a person from realizing that the OP is an argument for those who don't like something but can't think of a legitimate reason for their dislike.

i'm on the left side and, although the author can't get beyond his need to denounce the left, looking beyond that is easy enough for the reader. the greater issue is why the world cares so much about who or what is offended. it's a waste of time and what little benefit it brings is vastly overshadowed by the free speech it inhibits.

the only people you should ever worry about offending are: your wife, your mom, your grandma, your daughter. for them, you should bite your tongue. anyone else should follow the advice on ann arbor's new shirts:

suck it up, buttercup.

#36 I totally agree with everything you say about the PC movement. It will be the ruin of our country if its not stopped.

What I don't agree with is the fixation with English as a national language. The founding fathers debated the national language issue and couldn't decide between English and German and decided not to legislate it at all. 230 years have gone by without a national language. When did the need for a national language start? There have always been immigrants coming to America who speak a different language and we have always tolerated it. To succeed here you have to assimilate, which these days means speaking English. But why legislate that?

Also, where did the "right" to tuition vouchers come from? I can't find it in the constitution. In fact the constitution doesn't even mention education at all. Of course all powers not specifically granted to the federal government are specifically given to the states (or the people) so the states do have a "right" to make their educational systems the way they want. That "right" has been eroded for years of course with the creation of the Department of Education. The No Child Left Behind Act further erodes that "right" and makes it more difficult for a voucher system to work without destroying the public educational system. We can't use all the money for the slower kids (helped by NCLB) and still have the fair share available for the quicker kids (can be accepted by private school). My point is that the erosion of freedoms comes from the right as well as the left. We need to carefully consider the consequences when we implement social policy. Two good ideas may be mutually exclusive and a good idea on the surface may have side effects greater than the good we intend.

Just watching that video make me tired.(and I thought I was getting a rest day today!)

Congradulations Annie on your baby girl!

Kate, sadly I know right were you are coming from. Decided I would go back to school and get cert as a gym teacher. Unfortunately I discovered for NC, fitness is not a priority at all for the schools. The public schools will often hire a part time person to “fill in” for the gym classes. Kids take gym for one semester of the year, for once a week. In Montessori schools it is not even mandated. I called different counties and received the same answer. Meanwhile, the obesity rates rise along with the usage of Ritalin, Prozac, etc.
When we were kids, it was 3 days a week, every week all year. We did trail running, cross country skiing, etc. And now have them sit in front of a computer…great *sigh*
I still think it would be cool to see the kids Cross fit in the schools...
Your kids are fortunate to have a cool Mom to keep them fit and healthy. I’m always impressed when I see their posts :)
Erin

I am new to crossfit and 2 days behind. But, I have a question about the WOD for today.

3 CFWU x15 reps (~15 minutes)
squat tabata (4 minutes)

Is that all? I am not saying it is easy. How do the ladies in the video look so good if this is all they do some days?

In the FAQ page it says the WOD is enough for one day. Do most people follow that or do most people do extra?

Also, should I get to where I can do 10 - 15 pull ups before starting kipping or start now?

Sorry for all the questions.

Thanks in advance.

CCTJoey, how long have you been a combat controller? i have a friend who actually introduced me to crossfit who is either going through the process, or is already done. i especially like the last statement of Obama Doesn't Crossfit. If there weren't political views about that statement that would be associated with Crossfit, I'd say t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc etc.

Felt guilty about today being a rest day so I did
21-15-9 of Squat Thrusters and pull ups for the first time. Don't remember if she has a name or not, but she definitely killed my @ss like a starving man with a donkey.
As Rx'd:8:12

only thing about the pull ups is i'm having issues with kipping. for nearly 5 years I've done nothing but strict pull ups, and this whole kipping idea is very foreign to me. I had to take lessons from a buddy which ate into my time a bit, but does anyone here have any helpful hints? i guess it's video time!

Annie's baby is adorable! I want one...but I'm 20......so I'll give it a few years.

Mark,

The Video was just a demonstration, not WOD.

That would have been a relatively easy WOD. Often times people will do 4 minutes of tabata as part of their warm-up, A more tradition WOD would have 4 rounds of 4 minutes, each round doing a different exercise.

If Coach ever posted that a 4 minute tabata WOD, I would do it, and then get as much sleep as possible that night, for fear of what was coming in the morning.

Oh, and Start Kipping Today.

Actually, I have done a 4 minute Tabata squat as a WOD. So it has happened withing the past 4 months or so.

My remarks are off the thread, but my wife Belinda and I visited Front Range Crossfit in Denver this morning, and we were very impressed with the hospitality shown to us by Skip and the quality of the coaching that he gave us. We had been struggling with the oly lifts, and he helped immensely. We feel much more confident in our practice of the lifts now.

We highly reccommend Front Range Crossfit to any of you Crossfitters out there who find yourself in Denver.

Thanks again Skip.

Dave

The article is an example of an endless battle for the position of "right". When everything is realtive how can you argue an absoulute position on a realtive topic?

I have seen the term "straw man" being used quite often on this site and did not know its meaning so I looked it up. Low and behold the wikipedia gives the following definition.

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[1] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy[2] or a scarecrow argument.

The wikipedia also gives the following example:

An example of a straw man fallacy:

Person A: I don't think children should run into the busy streets.
Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock up children all day with no fresh air.

It appears that Jason #2 has given two examples of strawman responses.

Person A: Don't support the President?
Person B (straw man): You hate freedom

Person A: Don't support the war?
Person B (straw man): You hate our troops

Just an observation....

Asking the obvious, but anyone ever asked Obama if he Crossfits? Seems rather presumptuous...

Hey-

Question on the video:

How can they do that without sweating?

-K

Was that really posted on the mothership?

Not that a 4 minute workout is extra-ordinary. Grace, Fran, and 1000m Rows all clock in under 4 minutes.

Eva is always posting crazy WODS on her blog, that are often short, or bizarre in other ways (Close your eyes, spin around, chug a beer, etc.)

Considering that there are Body Building Philosophies centered around extremely low volumes, it's fair to say that the question "How do they look so good doing so little" is unduly leading. I could argue that many people would look better by doing less.

Come to think of it, "How do they look so good doing so little" sounds like a perfect name for a Journal Article.

How to look good doing so little...

CROSSFIT!!!

my new slogan ;-)

Day behind. DL posted there.
peaked at 275#, new PR. PR 1/06 was 155.
Note to self, when doing heavy DL, remove wedding band! Yeeouch...

Not to descend into another crossfit slogan sessions but I have been kicking around

"Getting better looking every day"

and

"Get Busy Living"

So very shawshank, I know.

#47

I do agree that the PC police have taken over campuses, placing crazy limits on speech. Some of the schools even put their positions up on the web. Here is part of one school's honorcode:

"Advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle (whether implied or explicit) or any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code."

And the same school's position on academic freedom for faculty:

"It follows that the exercise of individual and institutional academic freedom must be a matter of reasonable limitations. In general, at BYU a limitation is reasonable when the faculty behavior or expression seriously and adversely affects the university mission or the Church. Examples would include expression with students or in public that:
- contradicts or opposes, rather than analyzes or discusses, fundamental Church doctrine or policy
- deliberately attacks or derides the Church or its general leaders"

Crazy liberals...

I understand that not supporting the President doesn’t necessitate hating freedom. I’ve only seen that strawman in liberals' politicking, never in conservatives’ arguments.

For the record, there are people who don’t support the President because he has not committed more resources of every kind to the Islamists' defeat. Similarly there are people who support the troops but don’t support the war because we’ve not brought the war to Iran and Syria.

But, more to Jason’s point, I wonder if he would recognize that there are people who hate freedom and that they’d be inclined to hate the president and our troops, and wouldn’t support this or any other war waged by Americans? If willing to admit the possibility of such a person existing, would he also be willing to admit the high probability that they’d be liberals and call themselves Democrats?

I think I know a bunch of them.

Freedom has become so comfortable, we have become so powerful a nation I think many have forgotten the Cost of Freedom. When fredom is threatened, we must fight for it.

I often see these protesters as the same people that feel everyone can be rehabbed. That there really can't be evil people out there. Obviously these people suffer memory loss. unfortunately the war is on and many need to make major sacrifices for our benefit. There really is no other way and everyone should applaud all those who volunteer to protect the rights and freedom we enjoy.

Thank you to everyone who serves this country and defends our freedoms.

Coach, right on!

#68 RIGHT ON COACH !
SEMPER FI
DAN

Checkmate

You know, the fact of the matter is that most Vietnam vets weren't baby-killers or potheads, and very few of them wound up on the street. Although I haven't read it personally, this book has been recommended to me: http://www.amazon.com/Stolen-Valor-Vietnam-Generation-History/dp/096670360X/sr=8-1/qid=1170275815/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-0573061-4353518?ie=UTF8&s=books

Yet, those are the images that were presented back then, and in large measure the ones which exist in many people's minds today. Why? Because crypto-
Communists on the Left in this and other nations are ABSOLUTELY SHAMELESS when it comes to ad hominem attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda. They are relentless, and make Karl Rove look Andy Griffith.

I get angry on here sometimes. I try and vent through reasoned argument, that I've found tends to get tighter and sharper the angrier I get, normally. But what I would consider grossly inappropriate and patent evidence of the temporary expression of a character flaw, is on the Left WHERE THEY START, in all too many cases.

I challenge anyone to read through pretty much any thread in the last year and not find someone telling us how evil America is, in angry tones, and without content that makes sense.

You can't combat feelings with rational argument. If they want to walk around in circles holding their breath and stomping their feet--or spraypainting vans--that is not amenable to the sorts of rational discussions which characterize healthy Republics. They are, however, perfectly consistent with the Mob-ocracy those people seem to want, presumably complete with guilliotines and shoemakers as legislators, whose qualifications consist in that they are unsullied by learning. Of course, an adult had to take charge eventually. His name was Napoleon, and he was the precursor of both Hitler and Stalin.

The issue is and always has been: have you made a rational case based upon ALL available facts? The benefit of a democracy is that theoretically, all facts are amenable to discussion. However, if we can't point to the role of motivation and effort in life success, then we can't put all the facts on the table.

Leftists: is there ANYTHING you feel like you can't say? That America is racist/homophobic/Fasc ist/imperialist/plutocratic/hypocritical/classist, etc.? All of those claims have been made on here, and continue to be, unbacked by evidence or rational, supportable argument.

Here's an article that deserve wider press: http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_01_15/cover.html

Here's one I am a bit skeptical of, but which serves as a good example of the sorts of discussions that are not PC: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531

Coach,

I would like for you to identify for me groups of people that:

1. Hate freedom
2. Hate the President
3. Hate the troops
4. Wouldn't support ANY war waged by Americans
5. Are Liberals
6. Are Democrats
7. Have ANY political influence in this country

Having heard this argument from you in the past... the last time I responded to a rest-day thread, many moons ago... my guess is that you'll respond with something along the lines of; "they may not say it or even realize it, but that's their position."

Being somewhere in the middle of the American political spectrum, it is highly amusing... yet, more so depressing... to see this type of divisive rhetoric.

It simply is not the case that EITHER side of the debate as presented in the public forum; Liberal or Conservative, has anywhere approaching such malicious of motivations.

cctjoey' holding up a few "bad apples" just doesn't hold water... I can give you reams of examples of political activism from the right side of the aisle equally despicable. A particularly poignant example would be the group of religious-right activists who protest at the funerals of soldiers... I have yet to hear from any conservative outside of their group who condones their actions. I'm sure there are a few out there, but their quantity is minute on a national scale... So, should I perceive their behavior to be representative of that of all conservatives?

Your opinion of "leftists" seems to come from the same place that many men and women in the service fear that leftists' opinions of them stem from.

Having been working in NYC on that crappy day, I have a particularly acute sense of the threat we face. I also have an extremely powerful desire to see that threat eliminated. Here's how I believe it should be gone about eliminating:

1. Pacify and stabilize Afghanistan, particularly along its' borders... using our military.
2. Find and freaking kill Osama Bin Ladan
3. Introduce ACTIVELY managed, capitalistic, economic development throughout the Middle East, particularly in Israel where we are, in some instances rightfully so, perceived as being an extremely partial broker of military power rather than economic power.

Economic reform is almost universally the first step towards Democracy in political climates which are authoritarian, especially in cultures that have been conditioned for centuries to accept authoritarian rule.

As far as I know, Saddam posed almost zero threat to the US or our regional allies. In fact the elimination of Saddam left us with a highly unstable state on top of some of the largest oil reserves in the area, now in what is inarguably a civil war.... seems to suit the agenda of Iran's leadership and Osama Bin Laden more than it does ours.

CCTJOEY: That's a great list! May I add a few?

18. No whining and seething in Crossfit.
19. "Emissions" are not regulated.
20. "Smokers" are encouraged, and actually insisted on.
21. You can't blame Bush or neocons if you miss a deadlift pr.

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5156&var_recherche=budziszewski

link above the "the illusion of moral neutrality", written by Budziszewski over a decade ago...speaks to a similar point.

Fitting article for today! This morning I heard about Blair HS (the People's Republic of Maryland, Montgomery County) and their being denied the use of a Mega-Church facility because of the "separation of Church and State". Basically the county is paying $125,000 to the University of Maryland to use the Comcast Center, when a local church had offered the use of it's facilities FREE OF CHARGE... Despite a county school board ruling in favor of using the church facilities, the superintendant denied it's use because someone ("no matter how small the minority") might be offended.
http://www.gazette.net/stories/013107/silvnew203314_32321.shtml

I don't know Coach. Each party has is unsavory characters.

I would hate to have explain away Racist Republicans before engaging in a debate over Affirmative Action.

Russ Green, #12

Your cite opens with the following:

>>"Know your enemy." Sun Tzu, 6th century BC

Brilliant! A prerequisite to the first rule of warfare: deprive your enemy of the things he values most. For terrorists, operating as they do with impunity from foreign cities or mosques, or behind robes, their ante is minimal. As jihadists and fundamentalists (ostensibly), they shun all material things; they are ready to sacrifice every Muslim to their cause. All that is left to risk is their lives, and we need to put that on the table – at long last.

Next your article quotes the following”

>>"We are having a huge time, still, identifying the enemy." Lee Hamilton, Co-Chairman, Iraq Study Group, December 7, 2006

That’s true, but not in the way Lee Hamilton might think. In the Iraq campaign, Bush identified Saddam as the enemy, plus 51 cohorts. But once they were routed, we got stuck! No more enemy, just a war of attrition against ghosts, waiting for the democratically–elected embryonic Iraqi government to do what our troops were not even tasked to do.

Now Bush has a new tactic, documented by Petraeus, who gets to lead it. It, too, will fail -- until they identify and kill the enemy. The US mission still falls short.

To help, here’s a candidate list of current enemies: Muqtada al Sadr, Harith al-Dhari, Hassan Hasrallah, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, and whoever currently heads up al Qaeda, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Fatah, and the Wahhabis. They are mass murderers and provocateurs, and they have been killing and maiming our forces. Next we should dust off the list of the heads of state for the next round, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being at the top.

You claim your cite supports your post of 1/26/07 on the previous rest day. You can be commended for some hawkish comments there, but mixed in with a lot of silliness, they seem to be gratuitous.

You are also on-target characterizing the propaganda of war as narratives designed for recruiting purposes! Then you say, “The Iraq war has been a superb recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and other similar evil organizations.” Do you mean to suggest that al Qaeda’s resources and power have increased as a result of the GWOT?

In what you perceive as a pattern of terrorism, you include, “People in West interpret [Islamic attacks] to mean that Islam as a whole is at war with the west, confirming their narrative.” Do you mean just some people, or are you implying that Bush, Blair, et al., have confirmed that we are engaged in a war against Islam?

You say because the West responded harshly, that “there are more terrorist attacks.” Is it your complaint that more terrorist attacks occur in total, or that the attacks have been accelerated? What is your threshold of pain? For 30 years, terrorists conducted a long series of escalating, successful attacks against us with no penalty. Apparently you are still in the diplomacy mode even after 9/11. By contrast, Bush and the Congress found those attacks unacceptable -- literally. Unlike the Bidens and Hillarys, Bush stayed angry.

The democrats would have called off World War II when our casualties matched the losses at Pearl Harbor. They would have retreated at the Battle of the Bulge. The complaint from the left is now that the Iraq campaign has lasted longer than World War II. We’ve had 3,000 killed in almost four years. In WWII we reportedly lost 8,000 a month. The objective of terrorists is to create fear, and they have found a soft target in the lefties.

Are you concerned with the number of attacks without regard to their lethality and effectiveness? Do the attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Golden Mosque count the same? Does our loss of 3,000 innocent civilians count the same as 3,000 combatants lost in remedial retaliation? In your calculus, how do you balance a thousand Iraqi murders under Saddam against the wanton, random deaths of a thousand Iraqis by terrorists?

You say, “First ideological warfare, then actual warfare.” What is ideological warfare? A Goëbbels ministry? Is it just anti–Islam, or is it to be pro-Christian?

“Prior to the invasion of Iraq we had no human intelligence in Iraq. That is unacceptable”, you said. Yet with zero HUMINT we managed the complete rout of the Saddam forces in short order, and the capture or execution of his clique, all with minimal friendly losses. Far from unacceptable, didn’t our success show that HUMINT is of no value?

You say we didn’t have enough translators. You advertise that you have read the Quran in Arabic and memorized sections of it. How did translations of Hitler’s speeches help us in WWII? How did reading or understanding Mein Kampf help? Hitler put people in camps and ovens, he experimented on people and put them to work as slaves, he invaded neighbors. Ditto Stalin and Saddam. What could any of them have possibly written or said that would have changed our strategy or tactics?

The only possible affirmative thing that could come from such intelligence would have been a preemptive strike, which we regularly give the dove treatment. For example, the rational thing to do with Ahmadinejad is take him out now. Like you, we need to lower our threshold of pain, and pike the heads of each of the terrorist leaders. The HUMINT we need is limited: point out their location.

You spoke of “Europe’s alarming inability to assimilate [Muslims]”! An ethical and morale chasm separates a people assimilating, and a government assimilating them! You said that with proper assimilation, the “Muslims in America … still retain their religious identity.” Why do you care about the retention of religious identity? How did religious identity prevent Islamic terrorism here, and cause it over there?

You say preventing another 9/11 would have been sufficient. First, this is not the ideological warfare you ranked first. Second, it is a defensive response, a Fortress America. That’s not the path of western culture. We value an open and free society; we bend over backwards to create entitlements and rights where none existed.

You recommend walls, sentries, dogs, checkpoints & border barricades; forced assimilation; and a bureau of propaganda! The Bush plan sounds better and better.

ZACH...
those idiots you speak of from Topeka, KS are far from the political right...they are as independent as they come politically...plus they are communal...which in some way makes them closer to the left. Outside of the issues with gays they act like Leftists in action.

The guys that park in front of them so they can't interfere with our brothers funerals are almost exclusively on the Political Right. It is the political right and only the political right that is trying to prevent these idiots through peaceful means to quit influencing funerals. The Liberals are more conserned about thier words about Gays than their actions against our Fighters.

If you do not understand the Saddam issue, you should do more research before you post assumptions based on "As far as I know..."

MR. Jeff Glassman gave the reasons on the last rest day.

The fact that this does suit Iran's leadership and UBL should be reason enough not to de-edify the President for political purposes. Though to think the political left would do any less would be foolish.

#57 whiskeySean-
We have recently done Tabata squats for the WOD only and yes it was posted by the "Mothership".

#55 Mark-
Welcome and Happy CrossFitting! Tabata squats are no joke, for that matter Tabata anything is no joke!

#52 davidp-
The world cares about who is offended because victims get attention and they get notice. The worse off a victim is, the more attention and possible talk show bookings they get. Even if they have to make something up, they will, to get attention. It appears as though getting attention is what everyone wants right now. Therefore, everyone gets easily offended.

#44 Joey-
The problem with Wikipedia and the Hanoi Jane entry is that people can go in and change the entry to make it sound as though she wasn't all that bad. Notice how the entry starts off with her being deceitful and traitorious and ends up with her actions just being misunderstood.

Kate

I did not support the Iraq war when it was brewing. Lo and behold, time has proven my feeling correct. It has played to the advantage of our enemies, divided the populace (well, not really anymore, since 70%+ agree in disapproving of the war), and cost a staggering amount in terms of money and human life, and shredded our credibility in the eyes of, oh say, EVERYONE in the world. Oh yeah, and the administration lied and manipulated to achieve their consensus for the war. And all we can say is that Saddam is dead. Not worth it, IMO. There are, and were, bigger and more dangerous fish to fry.

So, I never supported this war and still don't. But that isn't to say I would never support an American war. I was in favor of going to Afghanistan. I just refuse to support obvious blunders, of which this administration is apparently quite capable of commiting.

Another video that kicks ass.

Now I know what I should be doing....!

Thank you ladies for setting the standard

Sometimes it is best if I just take a deeeep breath and shut my mouth and repeat to myself that everyone is entitled to their own opinion as I am entitled to mine, because what I would say is so unsavory that it is best just not said; I would offend someone.

I will say this though, Bret you didn't offend me, you pissed me off!

Kate

Executed the DL WoD from yesterday today: (lbs)
254, 254, 265, 265, 275, 275, 285-fail, 275 to finish.
-5 sets of L-sits @ 00:30 each
-3 sets of wall-assisted HSPUs

JDrushal #23 congrats!!

your opinion is equally valid, and probably equally as angering to me.

time will tell. but if you think history will look favorably on this war in iraq, or this administration, i will have to respectfully disagree.

you would not offend me kate. not even close. i gather that you or your loved ones are in some way involved in this war. i too have loved ones involved. we just have different views, beliefs, opinions. honestly, i'd like to hear yours. i won't be angered if you insult me personally, although it would weaken any argument you make.

i support our troops, but this war was a mistake based on lies from the very beginning. now we are stuck. that is poor leadership, IMO.

Zach and Bret,

Why do most Americans consider Vietnam a war we lost, and have a negative impression of the many 100,000's of troops who served bravely and honorably over there?

What is your opinion on Jane Fonda? Can we agree that she was a traitor?

#53 John Wopat-
Some how I missed your post before. It's funny that you should mention about cutting English classes because our county just got their scores for No Child Left Behind, and you guessed it we failed. The focus now is bringing the teachers up to speed. It is the typical demographic breakdown of the poor areas having the more troubles, over crowding, not enough certified teachers, etc. There are many problems to deal with in our school district. Fortunately for our family, our kids go to two public schools that are the 4th highest in the state, but that still means that certain things are focused on more than others and apparently PE isn't one of them.
Education is a high priority with my husband and me so we don't let the learning stop at the school doors.

Kate

Reply to #81,
Mr Glassman, Your remark that the Democrats would have called off WWII is a gross historical error. FDR and Truman, the presidents who lead your country during that war when you finally got involved (I'm of joint Australian and Canadian heritage so I consider the start of WWII to be Sept 1939, not Dec 1941) were both Democrats. I think you are too focused on your perception of ideology as a motivating factor in global politics. It is generally accepted that nations don't have friends, they have interests which influence how they will act. As those interests change they can make past decisions appear good or terrible. Supporting Iraq in the 1980s seemed reasonable at the time as Hussein appeared to be limiting Iran's freedom of action. In 1990 that no longer appeared to be such a good idea as Iraq cut off Western access to vital oil reserves (or threatened too, I'm a bit fuzzy on the details.)
Further in reference to your comments about HUMINT, speaking as a military officer I hope you are never in any position to influence an military operation ever. Without HUMINT one cannot know what the populace feel which is essential for stabalising a country. True it is not required to defeat a military force in the field, but as the US military has shown in Iraq and Vietnam, winning the battles does not win the war. In Afghanistan we (NATO) are trying to win the war by working with the people and in 20 years we expect mission success, we are not looking for a quick fix that will look good for a photo op.
I could continue to critique your post but I don't feel it would serve any good, and it would require me to do the research to properly prove all the counterpoints I would have to make. Suffice it to say that speaking loudly is not a substitute for speaking correctly and one should take a deep breath before posting on such a hotbutton topic.

Oh yeah, there it is, Dec 25th, and followed by a rest-day to boot. Boy was I wrong.
I guess I could plead Christmas?

Bret- I would never insult you personally, it was just your opinion that really struck a nerve. I guess I'm still feeling upset from seeing the protests this weekend.

Yup, my husband is deployed right now and has been for 6 months. We are getting close to the end of the deployment, but the stress catches up and wears me down at times.

I am just very tired of hearing how people are against the war and that Bush lied. I don't think that we, the public is privy to all the intelligence and information that the president is privy to. I don't think that some facts or information should ever be made public, so therefore, I believe that Bush has made the best decisions. I believe that we were not lead astray. I see every day how the military has their hands tied more and more in their ability to do their job and if they could just go in and do what they have been trained to do, we would have everything cleaned up in a matter months.

Honesty is a very important character trait. How do you know that Bush lied to us? What is your proof? Can you trust this source that is your proof?

Kate

Zach,

So if I read you correctly you don't want me to name a group that exhibits characteristics 1-7 but they must also openly profess values 1-7, especially 1-4.

That is a tough assignment. The problem is that every enemy of freedom (and human rights) that I can identify, past or present, claims to be a zealous defender of human rights and freedom.

For example: Whiskey Sean brought up Affirmative Action. Here's a bit of institutionalized racism defended in Orwellian fashion to correct for racism, while opponents of affirmative action have to defend themselves against charges of racism.

#92, I think where he was going with that, is Democrats TODAY. I think Harry Truman was a decent President, and it's not even remotely my impression that the Democratic Party was infected then by the insidious anti-Americanism it is today. FDR I'm not as hot as some about, but he did commit troops, and do what he could for England between 1939 and 1941.

I think what's frustrating for many of us is that, as things stand at this exact moment, the collapse of Iraq would be a major disaster, and that appears to be treated as a secondary consideration , by prominent Democrats, to the public embarassment of the President, and presumably the use of the war as a wedge issue in the upcoming Presidential election. The question can reasonably be asked, if the price of governing the country is betraying the countries actual interest, then what right do they have to govern?

I don't see any Democrats saying anything other than some version of "this war is difficult, and we're tired of it. Let's go do something else". They don't have a plan to ENSURE the stabilization of the nation, and are fighting the President hook, line, and sinker on HIS plan.

When one contemplates these things from a bit of distance, there is something surreal about having 100,000's of troops actively risking their lives for our nation, and protestors vandalizing government property, I guess to show their patriotism, and the whole thing is being televised to the Arab world. From what I understand, there Satellite hookups in some cases in what amount to souped up teepees. Everyone watches us on TV. They see the protests, they see Pelosi and others saying they want to cut and run as fast as they can. If you're John Q. Iraqi, or John Q. Cia-recruit, say in Iran, and you see how much value we place on committment and loyalty, what rational conclusion will you draw?

Obviously, that gets into Humint too. That has long been a problem, but a key issue there was the immasculation of the CIA's covert ops and, basically, "people on the ground" division following the 70's. I don't know if we've ever done it well, but definitely not since then, or at least until Bush got in. Electronics are much safer, politically. Saddam's Iraq was in any event a very, very tough target, and I think the sheer lack of HUMINT is what forced us to assume that he WAS hiding something, because he APPEARED to be hiding something.

I think judging the Vietnam War as a success or failure depends on how you view the objectives. I was not alive at the time, nor am I as well versed in the history of that war as I am other historical subject.

It was a victory if the goal was stemming the tide of the spread of communism.

It was also a victory if the goal was deaths in the millions.

Honestly, did we win? Good question.

As for Jane Fonda, I know nothing about that situation. Honestly.

As for Bush, the more and more information that is revealed, the more and more my gut feelings are being proven correct. This whole leak thing, for instance. They knew that Iraq was not trying to obtain uranium, but used it as a justification for war. Similarly, where are all those WMDs? Just curious...but that no longer matters because the justification for the war has been transmuted (over and over and over). Those are the kind of things that bother me. You, Kate, are comfortable with a lack of candor and disclosure from the government and feel it is necessary (I think, from what I can tell from your post, correct me if wrong, not a personal insult). I am not. As Homer Simpson once said to Marge, "you know, in some ways you and I are very different people."

Well, Bret, it is not a lack of candor and disclosure from the government that makes me comfortable. What makes me comfortable is knowing that someone is in position to make the difficult decisions (going to war and all it's implications is a very difficult decision) and he has the balls to do it, stand by his decision, and not to wait around for the majority vote. Maybe that sounds a bit like a dictator to some, but to others it looks like a good leader.

Don't worry, no personal insults taken.

Kate

Bret,

It is not true that "they knew Iraq was not trying to obtain uranium." Wilson was an imbecilic liar, and anyone who has studied that issue with any level of care knows it.

As far as the WMD's, you are ignoring both the possibility that he could have, and likely would have, developed them in the future--after giving the UN the finger for over 10 years--and that the weapons and plans for their development were moved. A high level former officer of his has alleged that they were moved to Syria, months in advance, under cover of humanitarian aid.

I would argue that Bush is the imbecilic liar. Did you get your research from Bill O'Reilly? Well, Dick Cheney is moreso the liar/manipulator, but still...in bed with foxnews, pimp a glorious war, fabricate truths, suggest the U.S. mainland could be in danger, leak some "terrorist plots," freak everyone out. Just not my style for leadership I guess.

So, are you saying that Iraq WAS trying to obtain uranium? Or just that we reasonably believed that to be the case? In case 1, you are mistaken and perhaps five other people actually believe that. In case 2, we were wrong and are paying for it.

As for the argument that Iraq would have probably perhaps someday possibly maybe developed WMDs...yikes. If that justifies THIS, I am frightened for our future.

And the Syria stuff sounds like a lot of conjecture speculation falsification to me.

Balls or brains I suppose...yes going to war is a HUGE decision which I would argue requires more consideration, care, and concrete intelligence than was invested initially.

Coach,

You prove my point exactly... especially in the case of affirmative action.

Intentions, actions, results... 3 entirely different things. If you believe that all, or even the majority of those who support affirmative action do so out of a conscious or even subconscious racism, because of your perception of the results of their actions... then, you are assuming a god-like prescience when it comes to judging others. You simply do not have enough evidence to make such a broad judgment.

In the case of the war in Iraq, the tactic of starting out every debate with some version of; "You are a traitor, because you don't agree with me," will get you no better than a small collection of correspondents who already agreed with you before you ever opened your mouth.. or keyboard as the case may be. Most who disagree will simply listen to your initial insult and either decide to ignore you... or, they will argue for a bit, get tired of being insulted, and eventually go away.

I'm making the assumption that the goal of these posts is to change minds, or at the very least stir debate. Either way, starting out with baseless insults doesn't work

Of course, if you REALLY think that most who disagree with your stance are traitors who cannot be reasoned with, then why bother?

Zach

Zach,

Affirmative action is racist in intention, action, and result.

Rhetorical and polemical arts are required to explain how this distinct variant of racism is actually a) not racism and b) a good thing, in exactly the manner that all evil couches its intentions, actions, and results in language that denies the evil. That some (most?) are fooled by this artistry is undeniable. Does that make them less racist? No, it makes them stupid and racist.

Are you making the claim that malicious intent is a requirement for an action to be immoral or evil?

Others are better suited than I at changing minds. I'm more given to pointing out wholesale adoption of patently false or dangerous notions. These are related but different job descriptions.

NICE NICE, that video rocks!

Nope.. wouldn't try to make the claim that malicious intent is required for an action to be immoral or evil.

However, an immoral or evil action does not necessarily indicate a malicious intent.

This is my point.

Anyway, since your goal is not to change minds but rather to just state your opinion, you've succeeded at that.

Zach

Nope.. wouldn't try to make the claim that malicious intent is required for an action to be immoral or evil.

However, an immoral or evil action does not necessarily indicate a malicious intent.

This is my point.

Anyway, since your goal is not to change minds but rather to just state your opinion, you've succeeded at that.

Zach

The one chic looks like Steffi Graf.

Dear CrossFit Community:

The person who posted comment #71 did something that should not be tolerated on this website. Political debate is one thing, but demeaning a certain religion, and a school owned by that religion, to debate politics is disgraceful.

I emailed the person who posted #71 and would like to share it with everyone.

Hi,

You are totally wrong about BYU's honor code. It does not limit speech, it is limiting homosexual behavior. Since BYU is a private school, they can make their rules as they wish. Students agree to the honor code before starting their education. If someone does not agree with the rules, that is fine, but you will not be accepted to study at BYU.

BYU is owned by a Christian church, which has never been described as liberal. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is known to be extremely conservative. Before you make wild accusations, consider doing some research. Oh, and by the way, bashing a religion on CrossFit is totally not cool. I will be posting this to the comments page and letting the CrossFit community and those who run the website know of your comments.

I hope that everyone who reads my post will agree that CrossFit comments is above demeaning religion and/or a specific church.

KCN- finally another military guy on here who's not too far to the right. Jeff and CTT Joey I agree with you guys on some things, but you guys are rolling way too far to the right. You have to look at the facts. This goes for jknl(kate) also.
Four years later we see that some of the intel for the Iraq war was tweaked. Hell, alot of military people are starting to say this. I have a question, do some of you not believe this? Do you believe that the intel that the higher ups received was that bad? No it was not, as I've said before in a previous post, the Quadrennial Defense Review in 2002 stated that the Iraqi Army's ability level was 10% of the level that it was during the Pre-Gulf War 1 era. We all know what we did to their Army during that war. Kate I'm sorry, the general consensus is that initiating the War in Iraq was unjustified. If you look at the facts, their simply was a lack of justification. However, the actions involving that initial period ended in May of 03, when Bush declared mission accomplished. The insurgency is a whole other issue, and I am to the right with regard to that, we must stay and figure this thing out. Kate be happy when you see the protestor's- be happy that your husband provides a "blanket of security" so secure that people can protest against their government during a time of war. This is not a bad thing, the ability to dissent and not follow is American. Sometimes its good and sometimes its bad, but the ability to do so is a sign of the greatness of this democracy.
Barry, I actually like you man because you express your opinion in a very intelligent way. However, intelligence does not equal correctness. Barry, there were many people out there attempting to obtain WMD's in 2002. That is a horrible argument, regime change in order to create a beacon of freedom in the Middle East is a way better argument (Although, honestly I don't think it was good enough). Unfortunately, I think we played our hand too early and picked the wrong country, Iran would have been a much better regime to topple. Furthermore, they have a somewhat educated and modernized populace, with some democratic undepinnings.(Definitely more so than Iraq)
Coach I also have to disagree with you about Affirmative Action. The military, its highest ranking officers, and many respected retired senior officers disagree with you. Affirmative Action is absolutely necessary, we need Officer's who look like the troops. The reasons why are obvious and too numerous to list. A few years ago several retired military officers sent a letter to the Supreme Court advocating the continuance Affirmative Action. I respect these men who between them have hundreds of years of military experience, and anyone who has ever served knows that for various reasons you need Officer's who look like the troops.
With all that being said, I think stragegically we have a very bright future with regard to Al-Quaeda. UBL's goal is to create an Islmaic Caliphate over all Arabic countries. However, the civil war in Iraq between the Shia's and Sunni's is undermining his goal. Remember we must view this war and all wars without emotion. If they concentrate on killing each other, they will lose some but not all concentration on killing us. Furthermore, if they hate each other, they will never be able to join together and become a serious threat to us. We cannot allow the violence to continue too long though, it's got to go on just enough to create a rift between them so that they will never unite- I love Machiavelli.

Addressed to Jeff Glassman:

“>>"We are having a huge time, still, identifying the enemy." Lee Hamilton, Co-Chairman, Iraq Study Group, December 7, 2006
That’s true, but not in the way Lee Hamilton might think. In the Iraq campaign, Bush identified Saddam as the enemy, plus 51 cohorts. But once they were routed, we got stuck! No more enemy, just a war of attrition against ghosts, waiting for the democratically–elected embryonic Iraqi government to do what our troops were not even tasked to do."

This paragraph is an excellent example of why human intelligence is important. We are stuck in a war of attrition against ghosts, that we did not anticipate because we did not understand the conditions on the ground when we invaded, because we had no human intelligence.

"Now Bush has a new tactic, documented by Petraeus, who gets to lead it. It, too, will fail -- until they identify and kill the enemy. The US mission still falls short.
To help, here’s a candidate list of current enemies: Muqtada al Sadr, Harith al-Dhari, Hassan Hasrallah, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, and whoever currently heads up al Qaeda, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Fatah, and the Wahhabis. They are mass murderers and provocateurs, and they have been killing and maiming our forces. Next we should dust off the list of the heads of state for the next round, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being at the top.
What happens in Iran, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon when their political leadership is killed by Americans?
You claim your cite supports your post of 1/26/07 on the previous rest day. You can be commended for some hawkish comments there, but mixed in with a lot of silliness, they seem to be gratuitous.
You are also on-target characterizing the propaganda of war as narratives designed for recruiting purposes! Then you say, “The Iraq war has been a superb recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and other similar evil organizations.” Do you mean to suggest that al Qaeda’s resources and power have increased as a result of the GWOT?
Actually, I mean to suggest exactly what I said, that the Iraq war has been a superb recruiting tool. After Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was in shambles. With the invasion of Iraq, they had a new anarchic state to start a base in and a new instance of Western intervention into the Arab world to use as an excuse to claim that the West is at war with Islam.
In what you perceive as a pattern of terrorism, you include, “People in West interpret [Islamic attacks] to mean that Islam as a whole is at war with the west, confirming their narrative.” Do you mean just some people, or are you implying that Bush, Blair, et al., have confirmed that we are engaged in a war against Islam?"

I did not say that Bush and Blair are at war with Islam or that they have said so, I said that people in the West think that Islam is at war with them. Similarly, people in the Muslim world think that the West is at war with them.

"You say because the West responded harshly, that “there are more terrorist attacks.” Is it your complaint that more terrorist attacks occur in total, or that the attacks have been accelerated? What is your threshold of pain? For 30 years, terrorists conducted a long series of escalating, successful attacks against us with no penalty. Apparently you are still in the diplomacy mode even after 9/11. By contrast, Bush and the Congress found those attacks unacceptable -- literally. Unlike the Bidens and Hillarys, Bush stayed angry.
The democrats would have called off World War II when our casualties matched the losses at Pearl Harbor. They would have retreated at the Battle of the Bulge. The complaint from the left is now that the Iraq campaign has lasted longer than World War II. We’ve had 3,000 killed in almost four years. In WWII we reportedly lost 8,000 a month. The objective of terrorists is to create fear, and they have found a soft target in the lefties."

As the narrative that the West is at war with Islam is seemingly confirmed by actions such as the invasion of Iraq, more Muslims consider terrorism justified and become vulnerable to terrorist recruiting. Look at approval ratings of Osama Bin Laden in the Muslim world after 9/11 compared to now to see what effect our policy has had since then in their minds. Zainab, one of my Egyptian friends knows many girls back home who only started wearing the veil as a rebellion against Western culture following 9/11. On Al Jazeera the most pro-American voices only go as far as to say that the U.S. may not be intending to actually be doing what it is doing in the Middle East. Regarding the rest of this statement, I do not have to defend myself against your liberal strawman. Mr. Liberal Strawman and I are two different people, and I am in no way responsible for what he says or does, nor do I necessarily agree with what he says or does.

"Are you concerned with the number of attacks without regard to their lethality and effectiveness? Do the attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Golden Mosque count the same? Does our loss of 3,000 innocent civilians count the same as 3,000 combatants lost in remedial retaliation? In your calculus, how do you balance a thousand Iraqi murders under Saddam against the wanton, random deaths of a thousand Iraqis by terrorists?
You say, “First ideological warfare, then actual warfare.” What is ideological warfare? A Goëbbels ministry? Is it just anti–Islam, or is it to be pro-Christian?"

Ideological warfare means doing our best to not confirm through our military actions the Muslim world’s dominant narrative that the West is at war with Islam, and to actively aim to present the United states as an agent of freedom, rather than of colonialism, as it is seen by most Muslims. This involves both military decision making and PR. A few days ago on Al Jazeera a Russian representative appeared, speaking fluent and eloquent Arabic, and assailed American foreign policy in the Middle East as imperial colonialism. I have never seen a single American on Al Jazeera defend American policy in Arabic. This is a problem.

“Prior to the invasion of Iraq we had no human intelligence in Iraq. That is unacceptable”, you said. Yet with zero HUMINT we managed the complete rout of the Saddam forces in short order, and the capture or execution of his clique, all with minimal friendly losses. Far from unacceptable, didn’t our success show that HUMINT is of no value?"

It is hardly surprising that we routed Saddam Hussein, given the strength of our military versus his. It is deplorable that we are there stuck “in a war of attrition against ghosts” as you described it. Why are we in such a war? Perhaps because we did not have adequate intel about what would happen when we invaded.

"You say we didn’t have enough translators. You advertise that you have read the Quran in Arabic and memorized sections of it. How did translations of Hitler’s speeches help us in WWII? How did reading or understanding Mein Kampf help? Hitler put people in camps and ovens, he experimented on people and put them to work as slaves, he invaded neighbors. Ditto Stalin and Saddam. What could any of them have possibly written or said that would have changed our strategy or tactics?"

Mein Kampf is actually an excellent example of the point I was trying to make about the importance of understanding the ideology of one’s enemy. It was published in the mid 1920’s. The West didn’t take it seriously until much later when Hitler’s actions started to confirm that he actually meant what he said. Had Britain, France, the U.S., etc. understood the nature of their enemy better, sooner, think of what they could have prevented from happening.

"The only possible affirmative thing that could come from such intelligence would have been a preemptive strike, which we regularly give the dove treatment. For example, the rational thing to do with Ahmadinejad is take him out now. Like you, we need to lower our threshold of pain, and pike the heads of each of the terrorist leaders. The HUMINT we need is limited: point out their location.
You spoke of “Europe’s alarming inability to assimilate [Muslims]”! An ethical and morale chasm separates a people assimilating, and a government assimilating them! You said that with proper assimilation, the “Muslims in America … still retain their religious identity.” Why do you care about the retention of religious identity? How did religious identity prevent Islamic terrorism here, and cause it over there?"

You don’t seem to understand what I wrote. I care about the alienation of identity, because it means that many Muslim citizens in Britain do not consider themselves British citizens, but rather Muslims first, and often fundamentalist Muslims. It also means that an alarming number of them consider terrorist attacks against Westerners justified. This means they are more likely to join a terrorist cell, less likely to report suspicious behavior, and less likely to cooperate with MI5 in the fight against terrorism. Both sides lose here, because there is increasing suspicion against all Muslims, more violence, and a greater separation between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

"You say preventing another 9/11 would have been sufficient. First, this is not the ideological warfare you ranked first. Second, it is a defensive response, a Fortress America. That’s not the path of western culture. We value an open and free society; we bend over backwards to create entitlements and rights where none existed."

Preventing another 9/11 means more ideological warfare, in the sense of advocating and explaining American foreign policy, both militarily and rhetorically attacking Iran and Al Qaeda and whoever else's extremism, while at the same time being aware of the effect that America's foreign policy has on the perception of the U.S. in the Muslim world, and planning our strategy with that in mind, though not necessarily as the deciding factor. It does not require a police state a la Fortress America. It does require understand the enemy’s ideology and combating it with words as well as bullets.

"You recommend walls, sentries, dogs, checkpoints & border barricades; forced assimilation; and a bureau of propaganda! The Bush plan sounds better and better."

Thank you for telling me what I recommend. Unfortunately for your argument’s sake, I don’t recommend it.
You advocate attacks against Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia (as it is run by Wahhabis.) What happens after the attacks? Your dismissal of human intelligence and simultaneous advocation of preventive military strikes is a recipe for quick military victories and long term, unprepared for, and expensive occupations to restore peace and stability and install effective leadership. If we don't know what will happen after the old regime falls, how can we possibly prepare for that situation? Should we just hit and run instead?

First, The article was spot on but did not go into enough examples how the Muslim extremist are using this exact loophole in our Western culture against us. The example of the "crazy" Clerics in MN that boarded the Northwest airlines and then started acting out in the same manner as the 9/11 terrorists. The only thing that really surprised me about that incident was that some CrossFitters didn't just pummel them into a pulp and have them all dragged off the plane. I would have demanded to be let off the plane and if one of them had sat next to me, asked for a seat belt extension and then started bad mouthing the U.S., I might not have responded in a very charitable way. What were they thinking? I see this as a direct attack on our legal system to see if they can further push the "PC" culture and put more of the U.S. public into a coma of complacency. I'm sorry about this folks. Christains are not blowing themselves and others up. It just aint so! That really seems to tick off some of our writers here on the page, but the straight facts are that Muslims are MUCH safer in a crowd of Christains than vice versa. Anyone that disputes this is just niave. Being offended or acting offended has become a way to get our court system to come to your rescue, even if you are guilty of someting. Our fear of offending Muslims is keeping us from doing anything sensible like profiling the real bad people at airports. Again, I'm sorry about this inconvient fact. So far, Anglo-Christian grandparents have not hijacked or blown up a singe jet liner EVER! Stop hassling people that any idiot could see would be a threat to anyone and start focusing our limited resources on the BAD Guys. Ask our law enforcement folks who these people are if you are confused. Otherwise, look to pickout people of dubious characther traveling from other countries, especially the Middle East. My apologies again, but until people in the Middle East start telling me that they are vehemently apposed to blowing me and other Americans up, I will continue my personal profiling in order to keep my chances of survival higher. And please don't be offended!

Comment #64, Andy: Nice Work!

Who's Jeff Glassman?

#109 Cattle...Who's Jeff Glassman?

Bret,

Help me out. Gosh, maybe I'm the confused one.

What was Joe Wilson's background?

What did he do in Nigeria, who sent him there, and to do what?

Was Valerie Plame "covert" in any sense whatsoever?

You must know better answers than me, because the ones I know make him look like an opportunist and leftist hitman.

I will add, it's quite distressing that--considering that you feel considerable confidence in commenting on the Iraqi War--that you lack basic knowledge of a war that ended less than 40 years ago. I guess an extensive, or even basic, knowledge, of, oh, the war everyone is comparing this one to--hell, it too includes Jane Fonda now--is unnecessary. Is that how it works?

Mike,

I'm with the "Nuke Iran" crowd, but the fact of the matter is we had no legal case to hit Iran. Saddam had been targetting our planes and denying access to our inspectors for over ten years, and was technically in violation of his ceasefire agreement. In my understanding, a good legal case could be made that he declared war on us, by violating his end of the contract.

People forget how much drama and trouble he caused, and what a fool he made of the UN, which I didn't think could look any worse than it already did. It's a farcical body of no-nothing opportunists who in a distressingly large number of cases got pay cuts when the "Oil for Food" program went away.

As far as his WMD program, he had a long history of both the desire to develop them, the will to use them, and the money to finance them. Remember Osirak? The point, to me, is you have to say NO somewhere. You have to pretend international law at least sort of matters, and the only ones who can and will do that are Americans. Our "allies" who refused to help us all had skin in the game of pretending he wasn't an aggressive fascist who, sooner or later, was going to build something that was going to cause major trouble for someone. That was his personality. Nobody thought this much drama would happen, and I personally largely blame the anal sphincter who broke the Abu Ghraib story.

With respect to that, I was listening today to an educational CD by Danial Robinson (http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=17 Get anything of his you can; he's a Paul Johnson-esque conservative intellectual), where he mentioned a study I had forgotten about, done at Stanford back in 1971. The net is that Stanford students--among the intellectual, and--one would hope--the ethical elite of American society, devolved in a period of less than a week into what amounted to sadists. Here's a link on that study:

http://www.prisonexp.org/

Small wonder that happened in Iraq. We also have to remember, the military had already removed the offenders, and that the bulk of the prisoners were likely not just guilty, but guilty of much graver sadistic crimes.

Make that "Know, nothing's going on here." Something like that.

Rest day was my make up day for the past couple of days I was out of commission:
I worked out in an indoor garage
I ran up ramp to fifth floor & downstairs 2times
50 push ups incline & military alternating
50 crunches
50 dips
50 air squats
ran one more time up to fifth floor via ramp & down stairwell then around the perimeter of 1st floor...whew my fifties were done in 8.19

28/F/105#

worked out today, as I am taking friday off:

warm-up: 1 mile run

7 rounds for time of:

7 dumbell swings, 25lbs
7 burpees

time: 4:39

Mike-
Thanks for telling me part of what my husbands job is. I must have forgotten that part.

Really, you don't know what I read, who I talk to, where I come from, or what facts I do know to say that I am not facing facts.

Kate

Unfortunately there is the guise of being offended on both the left and the right.

Unfortunately, it is common in the conservative viewpoint that that which "offends" their viewpoint is wrong or immoral. The conservative or "right-wing", let's not confuse it with right=correct, view point is often deeply rooted in their institutions. The right's institutions are often the Church, military, LEO and other forms of dominant white culture. I don't use "dominant white culture loosely, rather, I'm speaking of those who are clearly comfortable in thier "situation" in the US and can adjust media and opinion to their liking.

It is no coincidence that the military or law enforcement are filled with those who have foresaken their own freedom of thought for the groupthink of military or police actions. Breed people to not think for themselves and you will get robots believing in your agenda. How else could we back a war that was based on no proof or, even, good intelligence of WMD's?

The military or LEO trains people to act, too bad it doesn't teach them to think a little more BEFORE their actions, if they did, maybe we wouldn't be in IRAQ with people dying for no good reason. The blood is on the hands of those who were for the war to begin with. In clear conscience I can say I wasn't for the war and protested against it before it started.

It's too bad there's too much blaming and pigeon-holing that one side is left and one side is right, and that there's an agenda and a pre-set offensiveness ploy built into each side. Too bad that each side focuses on the extreme of either side rather than what we can agree upon.

#83 -- "those idiots you speak of from Topeka, KS are far from the political right...they are as independent as they come politically...plus they are communal...which in some way makes them closer to the left. Outside of the issues with gays they act like Leftists in action."

CCTJoey: I'm not sure how describe myself, other than thoughtful in regards to political action. Like you, I love our country and would die to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

While the Baptists from Topeka protest military funerals because they believe that the war is God's punishment on America for homosexuality, I would never consider them leftist. Extremists, yes. Isolated, no; they have protested military funerals throughout our nation. If you consider them communal, then every church who passes the plate on Sundays must be communal.

Bottom line: I watch those mf'ers website. Every day I pray, "please God, let this be the day that "rain on their parade." I will travel up to 150 miles from my home just to defend the right of a family to honor their fallen hero with dignity. They are appropriating another's loss and grief to advance their own agenda. Some day, I will probably spend the night in jail for bashing their heads with their own dispicable picket signs, but it will be worth it.

Again, I have no clue what I am politically. But what I know that I am is an American who loves her country, who honors all military personnel -- past, present and future -- regardless of where they are serving, and who will fight to defend the Constitution in word, thought and deed.

"a war that was based on no proof or, even, good intelligence of WMD's?"

This is an assertion. What was unambiguous is that Hussein was openly belligerent relative to Coalition forces, had a history of both WMD development and use, and created every appearance of hiding something. I'm sure we WERE lacking HUMINT, as those even suspected of disloyalty had the unpleasant habit of getting chopped into pieces, and delivered in bloody bags to their families.

If you would like to watch incisive political commentary on this, please watch Team America.

With respect to the possibility of the WMD's in Syria, here is a link: http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

Now, the question can reasonably be asked, if this is known, why wouldn't it be publicized? I've contemplated this, and came up with a, to me, plausible explanation: