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:

If the existence of them were publicized, it would create a call for military action on the part of those of us who actually believe nations should be held accountable for their action, and for an invasion of Syria.

However, two factors would play in immediately. One, the way our government works, it would be debated until the grass turns brown, the cows go home, and start mooing in the barn (I've been contemplating my metaphors, and realized I need to cut bait and ask that "hook, line and sinker" above to replaced with "tooth and nail"). By that time, EXACTLY the same subterfuge would be possible, with weapons relocated, say, in Lebanon. If they are there, they are likely scattered all over creation anyway.

So, if we invaded on that basis--versus the obvious basis that Syria is destabilizing the region, working against us in Iraq, and an active terror sponsor--we would be put in the awkward position of apologizing twice, much like our Ambassador at the end of "Hunt for Red October": "Oh dear, [Vassily, was it? Ivan?] you haven't lost another submarine, have you?"

Two, Syria would gain instant credibility throughout the Arab world, as the ARABS understand that people often lie to protect their interests, and they would likely believe our account, which of course Syria would deny, but still gain all the "street cred" that would buy.

Our basic problem is that we are unable to define who "we" are as a nation anymore. Our national story--and I would argue, our objective national interest--is taken seriously largely by the group ETL is attempting to claim intellectual and presumably moral superiority to. That is the group that, for now, enables him to be as dumb, historically illiterate, and yet still somehow opinionated vocally as he wants to be. He says our Sheepdogs have forsaken their "freedom of thought", yet offers no example of thought, other than this context-free "essentialization" of a very diverse group of folks, who in my view tend to be conservative because they actually have to make things work, instead of complain about how things SHOULD work. That's easy. Hell, you can do it in coffee shops, and you don't even have to go the trouble of learning any facts, just ideas. Look up your big words: hegemony, imperialism, etc, and you're good to go. Chomsky, leading the way. . uh. . .towards JUSTICE. Yes, that's it.

And many people do.

The deeper I study these issues, the conclusion I draw is that we have lost, in this nation especially, but to a great extent overseas as well, a formulation of adulthood. How do you become an adult when you were raised by "flower children"? People who think life is inherently supposed to be easy, and always happy, and full of passion and easily earned meaning. War is bad, peace is good, we hear.

Here is my functional definition both of adulthood, and the ongoing process of maturation, which used to yield very wise old people, who used to wield considerably more influence than they do now: the ability to suffer for an ideal. This places pain right in the middle of existence, as an inexorable component of social living, which is where it belongs.

This does not deny the importance of pleasure, but makes it secondary to the creation of a social form of adulthood characterized by responsibility, itself often unpleasant.

This is the only way to stop running around in circles, endlessly looking for your "self". It's never out there, and quitting is always easy.

The emphatic desire to avoid this unpleasant reality is, in my view, a principle driver on the part of those seeking to avoid adulthood by "problematizing", really, all global (in all sense, including all aspects of a personal life) narratives about who they should be, and how they should be.

You define what you believe in by what you are willing to sacrifice for, and that action, in itself, thereby becomes meaningful, for you, and the individual is the only possible locus of a sense of meaning.

That is the problem with authoritarian states, is they seek to place meaning on a social level. The individual is defined by his membership in that collective, not by his personal beliefs or attributes.

And if you look at leftists, they feel this need to congregate in tribes, which brook no dissension internally. That is the meaning of PC: it is the price of admission. This, again, is an effort to elevate meaning to a group level, and in the process deny the primacy of individual choice, responsibility, and suffering.

I want peace, too. I hate war, too. But I've studied history, and we are on a path to more and worse war, if we fail to persevere now.

Marianne..

That church is "Communal"...I mean they all live together or on the same street...I mean it in the truest since of the word. Religion alone does not make one on the "Right".

The Patriot Guard are the people who shelter the funerals from these Jacka$$e$.

Mike..I would argue that the general consensus is that the attack into Iraq. You are making the fallacy of many when you read the poles and see that a majority do not like what is happening in IRAQ. I would bet at least half of that 70% who disapprove of how things are going want MORE intervention. It is how the question is being asked. I believe we went in with the best intel at the time.

Affirmative action is liberal racism...period. It is the silent racism that says "you can't do it with out my help".

ETL wrote...

"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."

Wow, that is the saddest display of dillusionment I have ever read on this board. It reeks of undertones...that are probably a symptom of a bigger problem. Did a Marine steal your girlfriend?

Mike..I would argue that the general consinsous is that the attack into Iraq. You are making the falicy of many when you read the poles and see that a majority do not like what is happening in IRAQ. I would bet at least half of that 70% who dissapprove of how things are going want MORE intervention. It is how the question is being asked. I believe we went in with the best intel at the time.

Affirmative action is liberal racism...period. It is the silent racism that says "you can't do it with out my help".

ETL...

"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."

Wow, that is the saddest display of dellusionment I have ever read on this board. It reeks of undertones...that are probably a symptom of a bigger problem. Did a Marine steal your girlfriend?

I tried to tell you guys about those on the left...everything is conditional---HERE IT IS:

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security

The Troops Also Need to Support the American People
I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.

I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.

I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.

Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.

Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."

First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing."

"You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me," Johnson said.

Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He complained that "one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."

Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said.

These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Sure it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail, but even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We just don't see very man "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people.

But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.

I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.

"Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."

Uh, DUH!!!! It takes a lot of skooling to be that stupid, and consistent reinforcement from those who think EXACTLY the same as you to become that f-ing arrogant.

Note that the context of the war is ignored, both the lead-up, the role of Abu Ghraib story in deepening and worsening the conflict--without actually preventing further abuse, which had ceased and was being investigated already--and the consequences of failure.

Leftists hate actual facts and contexts because neither ever favor them. They START with hatred for America and what, well, SOME of us stand for, and work from there. If they had to make an actual start from the mud of befuddlement, moral weakness, and latent nihilism that actually lies at the root of their behavior and rhetoric, they could never make a start at all. They literally can't look at the roots of what they believe, because they don't believe any thing.

If they want to create peace, they need to study how peace happens. If they want to end poverty, they need to study what works and what doesn't. They don't do that. They start with an emotion, plug in what looks like thought to a casual and superficial observer, then move back to emotion.

Barry,

Sorry, but you are waaaaaayyyy off base.

Leftists do not "start with a hatred for America."

Conversations which begin with some version of "You can't possibly be right, because you are inherently evil," are not honest debates, and they will get us nowhere.

The fact of the matter is that 99% of the people I know who are politically aware and/or active on either side of the aisle share a common trate: a deep sense of patriotism.

Couching your arguments in such insults serves only to eliminate any possibility for honest debate.

As I mentioned earlier to Coach Glassman, if you truly believe that all or most leftists in America are such evil traitors, then debate or even one-sided proclomation of ideals are not logical courses of action.

Zach

Zach,

What is your idea of a good plan for Iraq, at this moment?

You avoided my question about Jane Fonda: was she or was she not a traitor, providing, as she did, moral support to our enemy in a time of war?

I always try to stay dispassionate in the rest day discussions, tempted at times to argue the other side, in the spirit of debate. But then I read articles like this, posted this morning, and realize that some times one side is as bad as the other side is making them out to be, and the stakes are too high for academic posing.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_troops_also_need_to_suppor.html

Thanks to the indespinsable James Lileks for pointing it out.

As far as Clarifing statements go, that WAPO article is disqustingly effective. But those interviews with Jane Fonda and Susan Sarrandon at a recent protest rally, wen't chump change either.

Good plan in Iraq at this moment?...

1. Oversight - too much money disapearing into black holes, cost-plus contracts, and simply undelivered projects or products.

2. De-privatization of the military effort - We have hired guns running around in a near lawless state doing who knows what... And, they are not very good at what they do, as evidenced by the new (at least in terms of American public awareness) phenomenon of insurgents driving American-made SUVs, Wearing American uniforms, and shooting at our soldiers with American military issue weaponry.

3. Change of leadership on our side - Animosity for the Bush family is a HUGE motivating factor around the middle east these days.

4. Inclusion of regional allies in the rebuilding and economic development effort... even involvment in the security effort - We are seen as an alien, invading force throughout the region. It is high time we began to work WITH the more stable Arab states in the region, rather than FOR them.

5. Increased military presence - I go back to points 1 & 2, though. In its' current incarnation, our military effort in Iraq is a massive failure, because it is largely serving the needs of private contractors, not the American or Iraqi public.

6. Regulate war profiteering - this should be a goal of our society, regardless of where or when we are engaged in foreign conflicts. The current free-for-all profiteering encourages misuse of funds and drains our military of budget for such essentials as up-armoring, etc...

7. Possibly the most important point: Increased economic development - This is my mantra for spreading Democracy: Spread capitalism first.

Do I think Jane Fonda is a traitor? No, I think she was once young and stupid, and she has admitted as much on more than one occassion. Our laws include rigorous requirments for proving that a citizen is traitorous.... fortunately. If treason were as easy to prove as many current-day pundits believe/present it to be. Otherwise, I probably would have been thrown in jail by now for some of my actions in my youth.

Zach

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1039

This is a different take...altogether than any of us have looked at...very interesting. Looks at this from a Sunni and Shia POV and basically their mistrust of each other...plus how it is actually helping our cause.

WhiskeySean...That link is to the same post I "CUT N' PASTED" above.

I am telling you... it is only a matter of time. Now that these guys think the American people support their perspective,well, look for more of that dribble.

I first saw in with Richard Belzar on Bill Mahr's show over a year ago...within the last 2 weeks it has surfaced again with a vengence.

They can't help themselves...we even had a poster spout the same kind of thing ( ETL ) and it went unresponded to.

Basically troops (Military or LEO) are too stupid, because they are the kind of people who would be in the military or law enforcement anyway, to realize that what they are seeing with their own eyes is not really happening.

ZACH wrote..."2. De-privatization of the military effort - We have hired guns running around in a near lawless state doing who knows what... And, they are not very good at what they do, as evidenced by the new (at least in terms of American public awareness) phenomenon of insurgents driving American-made SUVs, Wearing American uniforms, and shooting at our soldiers with American military issue weaponry."

You know jack squat about this...what you are reffering to Iraqi Police uniforms and their equipment.

As far as FONDA is concerned...she went to N. Vietnem and made propaganda radio broadcasts. She posed on a AAA peice and she said our POWs were lying about their treatment as POWs.

Most of the rest of your points are misguided as well...I suppose out of ignorance. You don't understand the Contractor role...please educate yourself. Start with a cost analysis.

Nice,

Thank you for the civil response... it reminds me of why I should ignore the rest-day posts.

Zach

Zach,

Just so we are clear, you support not only continued American involvement in Iraq, but a dramatic escalation of spending and troop deployment that continues not only through the 2008 election year, and 2009 inauguration of a new President--but as far past that as necessary to ensure a stable Iraq?

With respect to Jane Fonda, if someone else were young and stupid and handed over detailed military plans to the enemy, which resulted in American death and suffering, would that same logic apply?

Barry...you are off based...I agree with ZACH.

Leftists do not "start with a hatred for America."

Leftists start with a presumption that America is wrong.

Particulary if it relates to military affairs, police actions, Big (insert noun; tobacco, OIL, Hamburger, etc.), or anyone who has a plan and happens to be Conservative or a Republican.

On the Nat'l Archives it is written, "What is Past is Prologue". In that spirit, here are some excerpts from "The Crisis" by Thomas Paine.

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God…
'Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them. Britain has trembled like an ague at the report of a French fleet of flat-bottomed boats; and in the fourteenth [fifteenth] century the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc. Would that heaven might inspire some Jersey maid to spirit up her countrymen, and save her fair fellow sufferers from ravage and ravishment! Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before. But their peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors, which an imaginary apparition would have upon a private murderer. They sift out the hidden thoughts of man, and hold them up in public to the world. Many a disguised Tory has lately shown his head, that shall penitentially solemnize with curses the day on which Howe arrived upon the Delaware…
Were a man to be totally deprived of memory, he would be incapable of forming any just opinion; every thing about him would seem a chaos: he would have even his own history to ask from every one; and by not knowing how the world went in his absence, he would be at a loss to know how it ought to go on when he recovered, or rather, returned to it again. In like manner, though in a less degree, a too great inattention to past occurrences retards and bewilders our judgment in everything; while, on the contrary, by comparing what is past with what is present, we frequently hit on the true character of both, and become wise with very little trouble…
But there are a certain species of Tories with whom conscience or principle has nothing to do, and who are so from avarice only. Some of the first fortunes on the continent, on the part of the Whigs, are staked on the issue of our present measures. And shall disaffection only be rewarded with security? Can any thing be a greater inducement to a miserly man, than the hope of making his Mammon safe? And though the scheme be fraught with every character of folly, yet, so long as he supposes, that by doing nothing materially criminal against America on one part, and by expressing his private disapprobation against independence, as palliative with the enemy, on the other part, he stands in a safe line between both; while, I say, this ground be suffered to remain, craft, and the spirit of avarice, will point it out, and men will not be wanting to fill up this most contemptible of all characters.
These men, ashamed to own the sordid cause from whence their disaffection springs, add thereby meanness to meanness, by endeavoring to shelter themselves under the mask of hypocrisy; that is, they had rather be thought to be Tories from some kind of principle, than Tories by having no principle at all. But till such time as they can show some real reason, natural, political, or conscientious, on which their objections to independence are founded, we are not obliged to give them credit for being Tories of the first stamp, but must set them down as Tories of the last. In the second number of the Crisis, I endeavored to show the impossibility of the enemy's making any conquest of America, that nothing was wanting on our part but patience and perseverance, and that, with these virtues, our success, as far as human speculation could discern, seemed as certain as fate. But as there are many among us, who, influenced by others, have regularly gone back from the principles they once held, in proportion as we have gone forward; and as it is the unfortunate lot of many a good man to live within the neighborhood of disaffected ones; I shall, therefore, for the sake of confirming the one and recovering the other, endeavor, in the space of a page or two, to go over some of the leading principles in support of independence. It is a much pleasanter task to prevent vice than to punish it, and, however our tempers may be gratified by resentment, or our national expenses eased by forfeited estates, harmony and friendship is, nevertheless, the happiest condition a country can be blessed with…"
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/crisis/singlehtml.htm

#131 CCTJoey: You said to Zach, "You know jack squat about this...what you are reffering to Iraqi Police uniforms and their equipment."

The news reports of the ambush Zach is refering to:
"Three of the soldiers were shot to death, military sources said, while one was killed by a gunshot to the head. ....
Officials said that a group of between nine to 12 militants posing as American security agents came upon the soldiers in black GMC Suburbans, the same type of vehicle used by U.S. government convoys.
The militants reportedly possessed American weapons, spoke English and were outfitted with new U.S. military combat fatigues."

This is a significant development in how insurgents are ambushing soldiers. No longer dressed like, sounding like, behaving like Iraqi police forces. Who do the insurgents mimic now?

And in terms of cost analysis, anyone who is interested should listen to Stuart Bowen, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on NPR's Fresh Air show Wednesday, 01/31/2007. Mr. Bowen has just issued his quarterly report investigating waste, fraud and security problems in the reconstruction efforts. EXTREMELY enlightening...if you're wondering about cost analysis.

BTW Zach, Jane Fonda was 35 years old when she went to Hanoi.

Zach,

I want to address your comment, but I also wanted to touch on other areas that have been discussed here.

"Do I think Jane Fonda is a traitor? No, I think she was once young and stupid"

Jane Fonda was once a young, stupid traitor and now she is an old, stupid traitor. The fact that this is even being debated is ridiculous. What she did was traitorous. Anyone who can't see this has no sense of right and wrong. The fact that some Americans spin such bewildering webs of irrational "reasoning" to explain away words and actions that are just plain wrong and detrimental to our way of life is at the very root of our country's problems. I understand you don't excuse her "stupid" decisions, but you apparently fail to see the danger in some "free speech". Do you agree that pornograpic material should not be on Saturday morning cartoons? Of coarse you do. That's because it is wrong and very dangerous to America. You can be sure, some of the recent traitorous demonstrations are wrong. We must decide as Americans, Muslim or Christian, what is the threat to our wonderful country and do everything we can within the limits of our Constitution to remove these tumors. I know this limiting of "free speech" is very offensive to the left. But I believe that there is precedence in our great laws to properly regulate poisonous, dangerous speech while maintaining the spirit of the amendment that is so central to our freedom. Unfortunately, it appears that the "left" wants to quench such things as the pledge of allegiance and prayer in school, while the "right" wants to eliminate the vandalism of our precious national monuments. Who is protecting America?

Marianne...

Point taken.

However, please understand US Military Uniforms are widely available throughout the world from hundreds of civilian outlets. This same type of thing happens in every war throught the world as well. The phrase "American Weapons" is also misleading...as those models of light weapons are easy to aquire. Suburbans aren't to hard to aquire either.

Regardless, it does not reflect, as ZACH infers, that the "HIRED GUNS" are not good at their jobs.

Anyone remember the Battle of the Bulge? Oi.

Point of Order.

Several replies today reference the wrong comment number, i.e, one number too small.

On this CrossFit site, the comment and its comment number are together between two full page rulings (except the first comment has only the bottom ruling). This appears on the first page that opens, where the caption is "Comments: [date]".

To verify this, look at the first and last comment. On the page titled Previewing Your Comment, just below where you input your text, the section called Previous Comments omits the comment numbers!

In posting that last, my first thought is it would jog memories, then it occurred to me that was likely wishful thinking, at least with respect to the non-military members of the forum.

In this context, the relevant point was that the Germans, in really their last major offensive of the war, used English speaking Germans, dressed in American military uniforms, to penetrate the lines and cause a lot of trouble. The whole thing happened in the middle of winter, and was brutal, brutal, brutal, although not likely as bad as the battles in Korea, or the German troops up in Stalingrad (the German movie "Stalingrad", btw, is well worth watching; same director, I believe, as Das Boot).

They understood then that the enemy, in trying to secure victory, will sometimes do the unexpected violently, and disable our precise timelines, and sometimes even make things hard on us. They didn't know that meant they had to quit back then.

Nuts, indeed.

#135 Blake-
The first paragraph of the Thomas Paine speech is what the Chaplains often quote at memorial services. Thomas Paine is timeless.

Barry- You wrote "How do you become an adult when you were raised by "flower children"?"

When you're a kid and you see that someone has to be responsible in the house to make sure that bills get paid and that you can eat. There are different types of flower children, some more negletful than others. Some flower children turn out to be socially and environmentally responsible, others turn out to be a drain on society and never grow up.

Kate

KCN #93,

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, although Barry Cooper was able to get it right at #97. Of course I know that FDR and HST were Democrats! However the far left today, the most vociferous faction of the democrat party, turned against Democrat presidents in the Vietnam War, and they would certainly do it again. I stand by my characterization of their mindset.

You appear to have been trained in the modern, PC, feel–good military -- all polish, no spit. So for your career’s sake, keep what I am going to say separate from what you do or say.

We have a military force in Iraq that is not charged with engaging the enemy leaders. Under the new Bush/Petraeus doctrine, as reflected in the Counterinsurgency manual, our limited mission is becoming formalized. We are there to “clear, hold, and build”. No kill. So our modern military is trying to stabilize a country while the most uncivilized individuals imaginable use every means at their disposal to destabilize.

So our troops are going to be shot and bombed under orders of people intent on causing destabilization, and those people will operate with impunity. They will be protected by our rules not to take out political leaders, clerics, or people under foreign protection. These leaders will call their mindless troops to action by media whose unbridled freedom we guarantee.

There is no way to win this war, a war of wills, under these strategic rules of engagement. We attrit and quit.

Stabilizing has been defined as removing fear. Terrorism is the creation of fear – nothing more, nothing less. To stabilize, eradicate the terrorists. As you admit, we don’t need much HUMINT to do that.

I didn’t advocate no HUMINT. I simply showed that Russ Greene’s belief that HUMINT is of primary importance is contradicted by his assumptions and the fact of our quick success against Saddam.

All conceivable human intelligence could not help you stabilize Iraq against terrorism.

I support you, and thank you. I support the war. We’re in the right place, and not a moment too soon. Bush is committed to a win, i.e., leaving a democratic Iraqi government able to provide its own stability. He has two years left to find the way. Once the terrorists are silenced, you’ll have generations to close the 15 Century civilization gap.

Reading the news, it seems to me we are taking things more seriously. We've arrested most of Al Sadr's top guys, I'm reading accounts of hundreds of insurgents killed.

This article is typical, and also interesting. Note where the bad stuff is, and where the good stuff is:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

I'm disappointed Zach got his rationale for discontinuing the discussion. It seemed to me he had placed himself in a curiously difficult position, either admitting open support for victory in Iraq, with the remaining questions logical and tactical, and the timeline open; or else admitting that he was just articulating the usual leftists red herrings with greater skill.

As I see it, people either want us to win, or they don't. If they want us to win, they focus on tactics. If they don't want us to win, they focus on casualties, the monetary cost, and every possible snafu that happens.

For something this large-scale, it is an amazing testament to the professionalism of our troops that our professional fault-finding journalists have really only found Haditha and Abu Ghraib to get shocked about. Of course, they made plenty of hay with both of those, and leftist propagandists act like those situations were both adequately described in the press--which I doubt--and that they typify the larger mission, which they categorically don't.

I think one's opinion on Jane Fonda is really nothing other than a useful litmus test on whether that individual believes notions of right and wrong are more important than tolerance. Tolerance is a principle. Patriotism is a principle. They can be ranked. I rank tolerance below about 10 other principles.

Societies can only exist in conditions where there are expectations, and consequences when those expectations are not met. The virtue of democracy is we can debate those expectations, their content, but I don't see any possible counter-argument to the necessity of some sort of generally agreed upon system of moral order.

Kate,

For all intents and purposes, I raised myself, so I can relate to what you are saying. It pretty much stinks, and I do see a lot of kids in similar boats. Those kids don't concern me. They take life seriously.

I was perhaps imprecise. The larger issue is that most of our children, by and large, are growing up getting what they want, are used to the instant gratification of the internet and sundry other accessories, are being subjected--in most cases--to a relentless tide of political correctness, from grade school through post-graduate education, and nowhere in the system do we have a process to teach kids that life just stinks sometimes, and that's the way it is. We are setting the expectation that suffering is unusual, and not part and parcel of life, even well lived.

Instead we teach them to be offended when something doesn't happen exactly right, and that is where we see this HUGE outrage on the part of these leftists kids when some predictable problem happens in war. When some predictable problem happens in life. They have zero frame of reference, which is why they can't grasp the sheer inappropriateness of vandalizing the buildings that give them freedom. Those kids should have been locked up for six months.

As far as another source of leftist annoyance, anyone who knows anything about contracting is going to have a great deal of trouble getting too worked up about Halliburton. I deal with contractors for a living, and for every killing they make on some specific scope of work, they take a bath somewhere else. It's a miracle most of them stay in business.

It's a truism for jobs that get bid that the low bidder forgot something. This is why smarter clients will find a contractor they trust, and negotiate something that is fair to both parties.

Halliburton is trying to build things in a war zone. I can say from bitter personal experience that there is no project too small or too simple that it can't be messed up badly and for no good reason. I have never had any contractor ever never let me down. It's the nature of the beast, and anyone who does it will tell you that. You muddle through. It's not a bad metaphor for war itself. You know somethings going to get screwed up, but since you did your plan as well as you could, you just have to wait and see what it is.

Some companies are better than others, and Halliburton is one of the best.

You know, I'm not quite satisfied with that "kids nowadays" bit. It needs some work. Yes, I know the Socrates quote, before anyone trots it out.

Questions: what role does media saturation play in a child's development? Does it make the child more critical in their thinking, less critical, or have no effect?

How does the sheer ubiquity of information on the internet supporting any and all positions on any issue affect public dialogue? Would there be a benefit to having a national canon of 10 books everyone reads, so we can at least start from a common frame of reference? What would those books be?

What effect does historical and geographic illiteracy have on dialogues about foreign affairs?

What effect does our almost morbid obsession with self expression have on the overall content of discussions? Should debating be taught to all students, as Rhetoric once was?

Just a few random thoughts. Getting on track starts with the realization you're off track. And all of us are partially off track all the time. Which way, though?

Barry-
I essentially raised myself too.

Media saturation does take away a childs critcal thinking process. It already has the answers and solutions figured out for them.

I think that less and less emphasis is being placed on books and too much on the internet for research and thoughts. We see it here every discussion day, people trot out the Wikipedia links, thinking that it has the complete answers. It is a biased resource and should be taken as a start point not an end point. It is also frustrating that when my kids have research papers, they have to use the internet mostly for their research. The internet is a valuable tool but that is all that it is, is a tool.

You do have to have struggle in life to succeed. You have to be dirty to know what clean is. You need sorrow to know joy. I could go on but it isn't necessary. You need that balance in life to live life fully and appriciate all that it has to offer. Also, the earlier that people can realize that you won't be happy every moment of your life and there are times when you might go days without very many emotions at all, the better. Not everything has to be about instant gratification. Simple pleasures and knowing what you like and staying with it.

Kate

Barry, you said:
"I'm disappointed Zach got his rationale for discontinuing the discussion. It seemed to me he had placed himself in a curiously difficult position, either admitting open support for victory in Iraq, with the remaining questions logical and tactical, and the timeline open; or else admitting that he was just articulating the usual leftists red herrings with greater skill."

Not a thing difficult about my position.

Your suspicions about my motivations, though, just reaffirm the point I've been trying to make all along.

Many people, on both sides of the aisle, seem incapable of grasping a world that has more depth to it than right/left, conservative/liberal. good/evil.

It is endlessly amusing to me, the tactic being applied by the right-wing punditry and the Republican party these days:

"Your an idiot, and you just hate America... and until you realize what an America-hating idiot you are, you can't be reasoned with"

It is truly ridiculous... and, the evidence is all around us that most of America is getting tired of it.

Some call me Liberal; others call me Conservative.. big deal. I vote my conscience, and my conscience is directed by thoughtful research and analysis... Not nearly as easy as gulping down tag-lines and talking points from any variety of punditry, but as I understand it, it's my duty as a citizen.

You may not agree with me, but that doesn't make me evil or traitorous.

Zach

Zach,

You avoided my questions, again, by sticking to well worn platitudes. Surely it should be clear enough that supports my case, not yours? There is no doubt we can agree in the abstract. Unfortunately, there is a real world out there too.

1. Do you want us to escalate our troop involvement beyond even where it is today, and continue that involvement through at least, say June, of 2009?

2. If an 21 year old kid were to knowingly give top secret military documents to our enemy, that resulted in American deaths, would at least THAT count as treason in your calculus, or does he still get the "dumb kid" excuse?

One has to look back long before Vietnam to understand the proper, ethical, American, patriotic duty of citizens. It applies most strongly to Congress and administrators where you used to hear the phrase, Loyal Opposition. It applies to government employees and corporate life, too.

Under the tenet of the Loyal Opposition, if one is sufficiently opposed to what your leader or country or company is doing, you quietly and as constructively as possible inform the leader. In public, or around the water cooler, you either support the policy you oppose or you keep your mouth shut. If you don’t like these rules, that’s OK. Get off the payroll, and exercise your free speech rights to your heart’s content.

Patriotism is a virtue, but it doesn’t come into play until you support your country in public for what you oppose in your heart. Courage is a virtue that doesn’t come into play until you overcome fear.

Whatever Loyal Opposition we have today, by its very nature is invisible. What is painfully visible is a party lead by a Disloyal Opposition. You can fill in what it does. The effect it has is to weaken our essential defense and support for the mission, and it strengthens the unnamed enemy. The Disloyal Opposition threatens to withhold material support, and would but for some Constitutional technicalities and the uncomfortable political need to appear to “Support the Troops”. In what we know to be a war of wills, the Disloyal Opposition operates on two fronts: both for the enemy and against the US. It is unpatriotic, un-American, and unethical.

The Disloyal Opposition operated in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, in the ‘30s, in the Korean War, and achieved a victory in the Vietnam War. It is in the process of resurrecting its VN victory doing whatever it can to revive the students’ spirit of revolt and revolution. It is in the process of Vietnamizing the War on Terror, adoopting identical tactics that last time out were finally decisive. “Americans are committing atrocities. The War and the administration are driven by corporate interests. The War is a Civil War. The War is illegal. The War can’t be won militarily. No one supports the War. The War is for the hearts and minds of the people. Every wound is a national tragedy. Spit on the troops. The enemy fights for his human rights. The War has no justification. The President lied. The War is against non-Whites. The War is a crusade. War is wasteful. The War has no larger context. The War destabilizes the region. Americans are waging war against civilians.” John Kerry, et al., Jane Fonda, Walter Cronkite, the New York Times. The record is stuck.

Of course, the Disloyal Opposition will claim righteousness for its side. But if that were so, it would be able to prove at least one of its bumper stickers. It’s all blather, but succeeds because it is unopposed by argument or standards. We give it sanctuary as free speech, and reinforce it by conducting yet another No Win War.

Some think these issues we discuss are philosophically left v. right, Democrat v. Republican, dove v. hawk. This dichotomy doesn’t fit ethics very well. One doesn’t think about these issues in terms of unethical v. ethical, right v. wrong, but that is often the case. The surfacing of the Disloyal Opposition, mostly but not entirely on the left, puts that into focus. But for the left being driven by the Disloyal Opposition, winning a war would not be a position of a right/Republican/hawk side. Being anti-disloyal is no way an affirmative policy. Winning is the correct, ethical, and humane thing to do.

The Disloyal Opposition is the triumph of politics over values.

Put in the realm of Coach’s philosophy, the split is between the unfit and the fit.

In mine, it’s rocket science.

Barry,

I already pretty thoroughly answered question #1.... unless of course you wish to keep pushing out the date a litttle further in order to slighlty re-define the question.

As for Jane Fonda, which you are pretty clearly trying to get me to address... as dumb as some of her actions may have been, there is ZERO conclusive evidence that she passed secret information to the North Vietnamese. If there was, she would be in prison... period.

Here are a few actual quotes from the soldiers attributed by various anti-Fonda folks as having corrobarated her treasonous acts:

Colonel Larry Carrigan: “It’s a figment of somebody’s imagination,” says Ret. Col. Larry Carrigan, one of the servicemen mentioned in the ’slips of paper’ incident. Carrigan was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and did spend time in a POW camp. He has no idea why the story was attributed to him, saying, “I never met Jane Fonda.” In 2005, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that Carrigan “is so tired of having to repeat that he wasn’t beaten after Fonda’s visit and that there were no beating deaths at that time that he won’t talk to the media anymore"

Mike McGrath, President of NAM-POWs:
"Please excuse the generic response, but I have been swamped with so many e-mails on the subject of the Jane Fonda article (Carrigan, Driscoll, strips of paper, torture and deaths of POWs, etc.) that I have to resort to this pre-scripted rebuttal. The truth is that most of this never happened. This is a hoax story placed on the internet by unknown Fonda haters. No one knows who initiated the story. Please assist by not propagating the story. Fonda did enough bad things to assure her a correct place in the garbage dumps of history. We don’t want to be party to false stories, which could be used as an excuse that her real actions didn’t really happen either. I have spoken with all the parties named: Carrigan, Driscoll, et al. They all state that this particular internet story is a hoax and they wish to disassociate their names from the false story."

Still need more precise answers?? Or, do you just enjoy brow-beating?

Zach

Barry,

Sorry, but I think what you are describing is an act of espionage (which is also punishable by death)... not Treason, at least as defined within Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

The question, I believe, is "does Jane Fonda's behavior meet this definition?". For that matter, does John Kerry's testimony to Congress fulfill the 'open Court' or 'Aid and Comfort' definition or is it merely perjury? Treason is a very difficult thing to prove.

Having said that... The Democratic party does indeed have a long history of supporting those guilty of espionage and treason. The Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, etc., etc. were all CONFIRMED Soviet agents. Confirmed via witnesses, FBI investigations/files, decripted Soviet cables (the Venona Project), and even the KGB files themselves. They have all garnered support from the American Left. Witnesses to their treachery were decreed "liars" by the same people - Whitaker Chambers for example.

I like reading books like "On War" by Clausewitz and "The Crisis" by Paine. They describe events from the past that often describe the events of today. The "Tories" described by Paine share a close resemblance to today's Democrats and anti-war activists, don't they? Every generation has them... and the naive may follow.

Please excuse me. To clarify my previous statement, I mean that the act of espionage would not necessarily fit the definition (be convictable) of Treason without at least two witnesses. Espionage is a little easier to prove and is a treasonous act.

Zach... you are referring to ,I guess, the POWs who tried to slip notes to Hanoi Jane which supposedly led to her giving those notes over the NVA captors.

I wrote...
"As far as FONDA is concerned...she went to N. Vietnam and made propaganda radio broadcasts. She posed on a AAA peice and she said our POWs were lying about their treatment as POWs."

The two are not related.

I don't expect you to get it.

CCTJOEY... exactly. Which is why my comments were not directed at you but specifically to Barry.. hence the opening of "Barry,..."

To you, I will say more directly; Why is it so diffucult for you to make a post without being insulting?

"I don't expect you to get it"

Seriously, is it necessary? The tone of the article first posted and a good portion of the responses are just ridiculously adversarial.

Speaking of principles, here's a really good one that I try to stick to; Political debate should be an attempt to reach consensus, compromise, or some degree of either, not an attempt to dominate through force of will.

Zach

Zach,

As I recall, you are a graduate student in Philosophy. If that's the case, you've been dealihg with abstractions unanchored by any external reality for so long that I'm willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt, that you are actually speaking as clearly as you are capable of.

Help me out. Assuming you are being sincere, please help me derive from the following propositions anything other than what I derived:

1. We need a new President, which can't happen before Jan. 2009

2. We need more troops on the ground--substantially, from what I inferred--and need to invest more in the economic sphere, both of which cost money.

With respect to Jane Fonda, I was just trying to determine if ANYTHING would rise to the level of treason, in your opinion. In your very oblique, slippery way, I will take your response as a yes, that espionage is in fact a "crime" and should be treated as such.

What you opinion be of Jane if you knew for a FACT that the AAA cannon she was photographed next to was LITERALLY used to kill an American, with the unfortunate result of an Air Force Chaplain knocking on some little old ladies door, who was never the same for the rest of her life? That is not a far-fetched scenario. The note may or may not have happened, but is irrelevant to the larger issue.

Barry,

You have moe confused with someone else, and with all due respect, no amount of claiming that my written thoughts are unclear will make them uncleat.

Among other things, I'm a published author.

My 7 points from many posts ago:

1. Oversight - too much money disapearing into black holes, cost-plus contracts, and simply undelivered projects or products.

2. De-privatization of the military effort - We have hired guns running around in a near lawless state doing who knows what... And, they are not very good at what they do, as evidenced by the new (at least in terms of American public awareness) phenomenon of insurgents driving American-made SUVs, Wearing American uniforms, and shooting at our soldiers with American military issue weaponry.

3. Change of leadership on our side - Animosity for the Bush family is a HUGE motivating factor around the middle east these days.

4. Inclusion of regional allies in the rebuilding and economic development effort... even involvment in the security effort - We are seen as an alien, invading force throughout the region. It is high time we began to work WITH the more stable Arab states in the region, rather than FOR them.

5. Increased military presence - I go back to points 1 & 2, though. In its' current incarnation, our military effort in Iraq is a massive failure, because it is largely serving the needs of private contractors, not the American or Iraqi public.

6. Regulate war profiteering - this should be a goal of our society, regardless of where or when we are engaged in foreign conflicts. The current free-for-all profiteering encourages misuse of funds and drains our military of budget for such essentials as up-armoring, etc...

7. Possibly the most important point: Increased economic development - This is my mantra for spreading Democracy: Spread capitalism first.

Forgive me, but i needs to be said.

Hey Barry, i will take a stab at your questions,

Zach has been trying to engage in a subjective discussion with fellow crossfitters. Lets get something clear, you are not the professor of the rest day discussions, you do mot set up the questions and demand answers and when you don’t get the ones you like pronounce judgement. If you need a audience so much go sit on a couch and pay by the hour, cause it looks like you need the rests days for something more than discussion. Now I have my suspicions about your academic history from past posts, I can sense the resentment. But this is not the place to make up for it.

Barry, you have a good set up here. Being a site with a military flavour, you can come in and post with some big words along party lines and then stand back and wait for the applause from the converted. I may seem left on this site, but really am part of a growing body of people who don’t find sincere intellectual debate form the left/right paradigm. But I love Crossfit and stay because I like the type of people who train/fight hard. Ol’ CTC Joey your 'why the left can’t crossfit' example was mildly amusing but very inaccurate, some of the best, toughest fighters I have known would be considered left by your standards. In fact i would bet good money on them on the Darby Queen should we ever be in vicintity. You are passionate, a tad extreme but at least open to acknowledging other poster’s points. You don’t need to be rude. I enjoy the genuine nature of your comments, and over a beer a real discussion would be enlightening

Although I may disagree with Coach, I have benefited from time to time from interesting angles on strategic approaches to world affairs. I still challenge him to raise the bar on the articles, sometimes they are plain embarrassing.

The medium is part of the problem, we talk at each other, in posts, it is difficult to engage, there is little listening, the other downside is it allows some to dominate the environment with self absorbed diatribes, filled with generalizations, vitriol towards those who do not see the way and sometimes just plain crazytalk.

Barry, your approach reminds of a recent event that took place at a local university, it was advertised by posters as ‘Come to a Discussion on the Probabilities of the Existence of God’ It was a sham, the presenters cast themselves as scientists and wanted a captive audience to preach to, they were Baptists Ministers, the audience came to share ideas and instead were treated to ideology, I went to this thing, it was sad. Sometimes I feel as if you do the same thing to this venue, we come for discussion and are treated to a barrage of pedantic ideology prefaced by disingenuous qualifiers.

I sense your frustration at the world for not seeing it your way. There are two reasons for this none congruence, first it could be you are a Galileo of the political times, misunderstood by academics and too advanced for the common man, or second, ‘you are right out of er,’ and need to figure out why the available venues for your sermons are shrinking.

You question-asking of posters to demonstrate your supremacy of thought is at best ineffective and at worst dysfunctional. Not because, as someone might smugly suggest it shows the left cannot answer questions, but because it kindergardens thoughtful discussion. Do you love America, do you want us to win? these are by far the dumbest questions I have come across in my life, it would take too long to explain, suffice to say there are many versions of what America could be, there is not only one, and sure some may not love the current version and may have another one in mind and that is for the system to work out, it sounds more like you hate the system that allows dissent, difference of opinion and questioning of authority, everyone who doesn’t love your version is misguided, ill informed or a poor student of history (don’t even get me started on your history themes), see that’s fascism and it is usually fascists who use fear to remove democratic freedoms so that everyone can see the world the ‘right’ way.

Your brilliant questions

1. You miss Zach’s point thinking you have caught him in a contradiction, it makes the questions doubly annoying. The assumption is unless you have an answer don’t question the policy, that is the way to railroad the policy. BTW if you think we are attacking Iran, with the economic deals (LNG and Oil) they have signed with China and Russia you are grossly over-estimating the dwindling military power of the U.S. If your answer is to nuke them than we need to watch Dr. Strangelove again.

2. The Jane question (yawn) anyone who knowingly gives away Top (ooh strong word I am sure Jane had access to top secret info, but don't let me take away from your drama, not just secret, but top secret) secret info to the enemy is guilty of treason. Just like someone who outs a CIA operative is guilty of an offence. The rub is as always in the details, and as we know we can massage them according to our ideologies, funny how the other side is always misguided and our friends are misunderstood.

Thanks for the lesson on what philosophy is, I figured since you felt the need to lecture so much you were due for one yourself.

Barry & Zach,

I think you [Barry] have confused my last post with Zach's. Please don't confuse our positions, they are not the same. My own was simply stating the consitutional circumstances required to convict someone for Treason. Do not interperet that to mean that Jane Fonda is not guilty (IMO) of treasonous behavior by assisting the declared enemy of the United States. She, like Tokyo Rose assisted the enemy through propoganda. The legal question I ask is simply, does this meet the conditions set forth by Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution?

Zach,

I think it is a fair question to ask you what you would consider to fall under the "Aid and Comfort to the Enemy" clause. In your opinion, how would you categorize Jane Fonda's actions with respect to her photo-ops and radio broadcasts? Likewise, would you consider an 18 year old "kid" providing material assistance to the enemy (a.k.a. espionage)... or for that matter taking up arms with the Taliban (which resuilted in the death of a CIA agent) a treasonous action?

Zach,

Surely as a published author you grasp the fact that a great deal of BS finds its' way into publication, and that neither clarity of thought nor clarity of prose are necessary preconditions to achieve either commercial success, nor popular acclimation. Most intellectuals are morons. I've read their books, and talked with many of them.

I drew a very simple inference, in a basic syllogistic fashion, from the presuppositions you offered as your "solution". In merely repeating them, and failing to affirm that you actually agree with what you wrote, you appear to be tacitly assenting to my assumption that your sole goal is to introduce fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD, in the Sales vernacular) to the discussion.

We currently have 100,000's of troops and support personnel--acting in direct military, diplomatic, economic, and structual capacities--seeking feverishly to solve our problems. Anyone who is actually trying to improve the outcome is more than welcome to offer their opinions. But I have to say that I don't think you are trying to do anything but support the propaganda effort to get us to cut and run, and towards that end you are apparently willing to pretend that you actually care about our troops, and whether we win or not. It pisses me off. You're bearing a false flag.

All you need to do to convince me otherwise is state unambiguously that you want us to win in Iraq, and are willing to support a sustained committment into the foreseeable future.

Just to make this point more clear, in case I'm not making it clearly enough, Zach is recommending that we need a new President, knowing full well that Bush's term runs through 2008. He isn't really trying to make a recommendation; he is simply saying "I hate George Bush", but trying to pretend like he is actually sincere. The same can be said of everything else he's saying, like bringing Syria and Iran into the discussion (I note he fails to mentions specifics, but assume he's referencing the imbecilic and self-defeating Baker/Hamilton plan). He doesn't mean it; he's just trying to plant seeds of doubt and defeat.

Zach, you're welcome. I am and will continue to be happy to tell you what you think, since--your writing career notwithstanding--you lack the ability--or, more likely, the testicular fortitude--to do it for yourself.

Blake,

Got it. That was a useful quote.

Barry -- that is totally uncalled for. You should be ashamed.

Barry,

Seriously... you want me to "affirm that I agree with what I actually wrote"???? This is getting silly.

Yes, I agree with what I wrote. Why else would I write it? To confuse and scare people?

There is no reason for me to couch my argument in specific words that you are comfortable with such as "I want us to win in Iraq" or "I hate George Bush." I've said my piece, and as far as I can tell it's pretty easy to read and comprehend.

Make whatever additional inferences you wish from what I wrote; it will remain exactly what it is.

Zach

I'm not playing games. I believe it is your literal goal to confuse people. If you lack the intellectual ability to understand the notions of self-consistency and internal logic, then you need to go back to school, and hold your tongue in the meantime.

There are people dying out there, and you are doing your level best to make sure their deaths did not contribute to an American victory. If you think this will be forgotten come the next election, I think you are sadly mistaken. Opinion polls notwithstanding, you are failing to understand that for the bulk of Americans honor matters. This is an easy mistake to make, since in this cat and mouse game you are playing, you are showing with abundant clarity that honor is not high on your list of virtues.

What, on earth, are you talking about?

"Cat & Mouse game"... "Honor & virtue".... "doing your level best to make sure their deaths did not contribute to an American victory"... "literal goal to confuse people"????

Barry, we are two people, among others, having a political discussion on the internet. Seriously, try to have a little perspective about it. I'm just some dude typing on a computer.

Zach

And the distractions continue. . . I don't think you're that stupid, you're just playing for others. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm sick of this sort of BS. I'm sick of it.

You see, in my world, abstractions are actually useful because I regularly compare them to reality. I know the two will never match precisely, but that doesn't mean they are useless.

Leftists can regularly be seen saying things along the lines of "you conservatives seem to think there is such a thing as 'Patriotism'", when WE know that all that's really necessary to be patriotic is to have American citizenship. Everything's in quotation marks. Everything is contingent, and presumably subordinate to expediency. The problem there, is that there is no actual goal.

There actually is such a thing as patriotism, and a lack of patriotism would be the attitudes that don't fall within patriotism. Pretending that treason--even if it doesn't rise to the level of a prosecutable offense--falls within that domain is either stupid or disingenuous. I see no third alternative.

There is NO betrayal, NO lie, NO obscenity so bad that it can't be forgiven within the tribe. Jane Fonda caused American mothers to have to mourn their children. F#$% that B!@#%. She's trying to do it again. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of the lies.

A quick word on seduction. As most people who went to Sunday School, or read "The Screwtape Letters" know, no one goes from being a good person to a bad person overnight. The process is gradual, and in an ideal "fall", each step happens so gradually, it's invisible. Ideas, likewise, evolve.

What we are seeing here is an attempt to undermine basic ideas with what appear to be decent ideas. The way this is done by people with skill, is they don't just say "I hate George Bush, vote Communist". What they do is cast out little ideas that work to erode, in an imperceptible fashion, well-earned bedrock certainties in basic principles.

You start with moving someone from 100% certainty in success, to 99% certainty in success. You emphasize every possible negative, and if something major happens--like Abu Ghraib--you quickly call it a disaster and move the probability down as far as you can, to say 60%.

Every time you get a chance, move it down 1%, or a 1/2%, or even .000001%. The key is that there is movement. Movement arises from doubt.

This was the explicit intention of the "Blame America First" habit implanted in American leftists by Stalinist agents.

Little ideas matter. Intentions matter. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

So, what you're saying is no matter how good of an idea I present, it's actually a ruse intended to undermine America and our freedoms... because, YOU think I am a communist being influenced by Stalinist agents????

Baby steps...first, you have to present good idea.

BW = 164 lbs

January 30, 2007
Tuesday 070130

Deadlift 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 reps

135 -> 315

This was one of the "strange looks from the other gym members" day.

sousadvocate