July 6, 2007

Friday 070706

Rest Day


Enlarge image

Nicole Carroll, Bodyweight overhead squats, 15 reps - video [wmv] [mov]

"Should You Trust the Government" by Arnold Kling, TCS Daily

Post thoughts to comments.

Posted by lauren at July 6, 2007 10:15 AM

What a star, inspirational as always.

Comment #1 - Posted by: Sam In Aus at July 5, 2007 7:35 PM

Good work Nicole

Comment #2 - Posted by: Pierre Auge at July 5, 2007 7:36 PM

Fantastic work, Nicole! Loved seeing the efforts leading up to the successful attempt.

Comment #3 - Posted by: Lynne Pitts at July 5, 2007 7:38 PM


Outstanding! I've done enough 15 rep sets to know it hurts in a special way. I found them harder than 20 rep back squats. Well done.

Comment #4 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at July 5, 2007 7:41 PM

Nicole, thanks so much for letting us see all the work it took to get to a successful 15 reps. And congratulations for holding on at the end when it seemed near impossible to complete. You rock!

Comment #5 - Posted by: AllisonNYC at July 5, 2007 7:45 PM

i am SO in love... haha. awesome job. i'd be happy if i could do 2 bodyweight OHS...

Comment #6 - Posted by: havok at July 5, 2007 7:46 PM

That was great. Strong work Nicole. Congratulations.

Comment #7 - Posted by: Kane at July 5, 2007 7:52 PM

I'd be happy if i could get my bodyweight off my shoulders! :P

Comment #8 - Posted by: Duncan at July 5, 2007 7:53 PM

Niiice rest day. I was counting on that, ive got a stupid 1:15 to 9:15 work shift lol

Comment #9 - Posted by: Stefan G at July 5, 2007 7:54 PM

Amazing! Inspirational! Great achievement.

Congratulations Nicole. My wife watched with and she was amazed! I will definitely be showing that to the folks at work tomorrow.



Comment #10 - Posted by: MajTJKingKong at July 5, 2007 7:58 PM

Nicole, you're my hero. Strong work as always

Comment #11 - Posted by: Allison_A2_NYC at July 5, 2007 8:05 PM

yeah Nicole, you rule!

Comment #12 - Posted by: tombrose at July 5, 2007 8:07 PM

Nicole that was awesome. Another NYer singing your praise. I wanna be you when I am all grown up!

#9--I agree totally. I dont think I could get it off my back either. Gotta try sometime soon though!

Comment #13 - Posted by: sarena at July 5, 2007 8:12 PM

Nice, you could see the speed of her squats in the last attempt helped her get to 15. I also liked how in each video she looked more serious and somehow more sporty, throwing that weight down in dusgust was classic.

So any reason the female big-wigs didn't compete in the games?

Comment #14 - Posted by: gaucoin at July 5, 2007 8:13 PM

Nicole, that was freakin awesome!

Comment #15 - Posted by: Matt Munson at July 5, 2007 8:15 PM

I need to get alot stronger, or lose ALOT of weight to even dream of attempting that...
Strong work!

Comment #16 - Posted by: TJ at July 5, 2007 8:19 PM

that video was cool...and I sure don't trust the govt.

Comment #17 - Posted by: allensjourney at July 5, 2007 8:21 PM

Nicole you are great. Great job and congrats

Comment #18 - Posted by: John Brown at July 5, 2007 8:27 PM

In Nicole we Trust.

Awesomely strong work! Without seeing the progression it would've been one tenth as inspiring. It's the failures that make success so sweet.

Comment #19 - Posted by: pinstripes and pedals at July 5, 2007 8:31 PM

You badass, Nicole.

Comment #20 - Posted by: Arana at July 5, 2007 8:35 PM

wow, sick work, nicole.

Comment #21 - Posted by: Will H at July 5, 2007 8:36 PM

Freakin' Goddess!
Super Hotness!

Comment #22 - Posted by: Kstar at July 5, 2007 8:37 PM

Strong work Nicole!!!

Comment #23 - Posted by: murph at July 5, 2007 9:01 PM

Nicole is my personal hero(ine).

Comment #24 - Posted by: Hale at July 5, 2007 9:01 PM

Our nation is built not on trust, but on distrust of government. That distrust is the origin of a limited federal government and of three ostensibly co-equal branches plus other features to operate as checks and balances on federal excesses, most importantly the Bill of Rights. The federal system is a laboratory for self-government, nonexistent at the federal level. The once masterful protections against government excesses arise from a trust of government - to do the wrong thing. Distrust and verify.

The powers of the federal government are supposedly enumerated in the Constitution, and the others are reserved to the States. This is Constitutional theory, more notable in the violation than in the honoring. Slowly, the Bill of Rights came to be applied to the States, adding another check against State government excesses.

The American culture, on the other hand, is built on trust - individual trust. We trust one another to honor others' rights, to repay debts, to obey laws, to pay our taxes, to learn English, to serve when needed, to behave civilly and to get an education with a modicum of science literacy.

As to scientists, distrust any group or clique of scientists, real or self-proclaimed. For individual scientist, decide for yourself. Caveat emptor. Look out for the lunatics! Develop a science literacy; learn the basics of science - models vs. the real world, prediction, validation. Know the warning signs of bad science, e.g., data misfits, unvalidated models, “scientists believe … ”, consensuses.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is an excellent example of the worst of science. It violates enough basic precepts of science to be seen as a fraud to a layman with the high school equivalent of science literacy.

Comment #25 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at July 5, 2007 9:13 PM

Awesome video. Great work Nicole. I wanna OHSQ, right now!!

Comment #26 - Posted by: Jay M at July 5, 2007 9:13 PM

Congrats, Nicole - awesome job! And it was really cool to see the attempts leading up to the successful set - thanks for sharing with us! :)

Comment #27 - Posted by: Becca at July 5, 2007 9:15 PM

That was terrific, I am going to send that video to all of the girl soccer players I am currently working with.

It will go great with the squat video link I just sent them with Nicole in it as well

Comment #28 - Posted by: vcraig M / 44 / 6ft / 185, at July 5, 2007 9:15 PM

Great video, Nicole!! It shows that perseverance is key in Crossfit.

Comment #29 - Posted by: Skeletor at July 5, 2007 9:26 PM

You are amazing Nicole. That effort is inspirational.

The passage was very interesting.

1. I totally agree that the scientists should make a "Climate Modeling for Dummies" that shows us layfolk the basics of how they do it. That would inspire a lot more trust. The downside is that we might lose a staple from our rest day diet.

2. "Trusting the virtues of government leaders is a bad thing. It leads one to cede rights and powers to government that are easily abused. The more that our ideology demands virtue from leaders, the more likely it is that our leaders will prove to be evil. Authoritarian Communism illustrates Lord Acton's maxim that "power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.""

The current administration was elected on a large part because the people trusted them. It turned out to be a good thing because they needed that trust to get the temporary rollback of civil rights necessary to protect the nation after the 9/11 attacks. Six years later, predictably, the debate is how many of those rights should be given back to the people and on what time schedule. Likewise congress gave some of its power to the Administration which, with the democratic victory, it seems intent to get back sooner rather than later. Meantime, the Administration has gotten used to acting with reduced checks and balances and now is finding all kinds of reasons why it should not be subject to oversight.

I need to go read the stuff in the links. I like this author.

Comment #30 - Posted by: JPW at July 5, 2007 9:34 PM

ps: if *she* can struggle to her BW 15 times, I just am not going to even try.

Comment #31 - Posted by: Hale at July 5, 2007 9:36 PM

If even she struggles to do her bw 15 times, then really, I'm not going to even try.

Comment #32 - Posted by: Hale at July 5, 2007 9:37 PM

Thanks Jeff, not much I feel like saying after the article and your summary.

Comment #33 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie at July 5, 2007 9:38 PM

#23 - splitting the arrow.

Comment #34 - Posted by: Angry G at July 5, 2007 9:42 PM

Hell no we shouldn't trust the US government.

The esablished govt. has us in a BS war, have numerous fascist covert operations and cater to super conglomerate corporations that are turning the average American into a indebted slave.

The govt. is only for protecting the top few percent and corporations. The view it's citizens, military and police as expendable.

That many military personnel and leo-s don't get this shows how blind and/or stupid they are.

oh, yeah, and Nicole, good job.

Comment #35 - Posted by: ftusm at July 5, 2007 10:33 PM

Haha! Nicole is a badass!

Comment #36 - Posted by: Reece at July 5, 2007 10:39 PM

Way to go Nicole! Congratulations!

Comment #37 - Posted by: Dawn at July 5, 2007 10:42 PM

She went from doing 10 reps to 15 reps in 9 days, a 50% gain .... just goes to show what some perseverance and practice (with a little sheer stubborn willpower thrown in) can accomplish.

I can't type in what I said outloud when I saw the video, but suffice it to say: FRIGGIN AWESOME!

Comment #38 - Posted by: jneedler at July 5, 2007 10:52 PM

fitusm (#32) - Nice way to insult everyone in your inaugural post. Excellent diatribe. The quality of your post is just exceptional - it really added a lot. Thanks.

Comment #39 - Posted by: Dale Saran at July 5, 2007 11:20 PM

Go Nicole!!!!!!

My PR is 5 reps at 50% of BW, I've got a ways to go...

Comment #40 - Posted by: treelizard at July 5, 2007 11:25 PM

One of the problems with "trusting" the government is that there really is no accountability when things go bad. Nobody goes to jail when an unconstitutional law is passed, or (generally) when a government employee infringes on the rights of others (depending on the level of said infringement).

What I would like to see is penalties added into laws passed that would penalize government employees for violating the law.

An example here in Arizona is that city, state and other public buildings are required to provide weapon storage lockers, immediately accessible, to the public if said building is posted as a "no weapons" zone.

Many cities complied, but several gave the middle finger to the law, telling the public to pound sand. So, another law was passed, telling the cities that, no really, this is the law.

And, again, it's being ignored.

Why isn't the person (government employee) who is violating this law in jail? Because there's no penalty for violating that law.

Of course, if I decide to break the law that allows them to prohibit weapons in said building, I'll go to jail. But the government employee, who doesn't think citizens should have guns, doesn't get into trouble for violating the law.

After the Ruby Ridge and Waco fiascos, the government employees who were in charge of the operations ended up being promoted, instead of ordering the rules of engagement that resulted in needless casualties (on both sides).

These are just a few notable examples. There are many instances, in many many areas of life, where government employees make up policy as they go along...because they can.

Any wonder why some folks don't trust the government? :D

Comment #41 - Posted by: TimW at July 5, 2007 11:26 PM

Nicole - Just a great job. Fun to watch. Plenty deep enough on the squats, too. ;-)

Comment #42 - Posted by: Dale Saran at July 5, 2007 11:26 PM

Oh yeah...Nicole


Comment #43 - Posted by: TimW at July 5, 2007 11:32 PM


Being that you disapprove of large governments and corporations, what other economic and political layout would you prefer? Are the amenities of the modern age possible without large corporations?

Should we just eschew large scale human organizations entirely and move back to the preindustrial age and commune with nature?

We saw the corruption and evil that giving large amounts of power to unaccountable governments caused in the 20th century. It is clear that we cannot trust politicians specifically and governments generally to be consistently efficient, honest, or moral. Corporations also have behaved dishonorably, though not nearly to the same degree. Nevertheless, is it possible to maintain our way of life without large corporations? Given the amount and importance of industries in which economies of scale precludes the viability of small, weak corporations, I would say no. If you disagree, I am all ears.

I find it funny that people can't stand the way markets run health care yet believe that governments would be able to do a better job. It is much easier to criticize a system, as all systems have their faults, than it is to provide a better, realistic alternative.

Comment #44 - Posted by: russ greene at July 5, 2007 11:36 PM

Unless a scientist hits the nail on the head with a theory, it's not to be trusted? Sounds strange. I mean science really reduces down to a probabilities game. You can't even be 100% sure that you're body won't quantum tunnel through your chair, leaving you sitting on the ground, but you can 99.99..% sure.

Comment #45 - Posted by: Ben M at July 5, 2007 11:41 PM

holy cow Nicole, incredible!

what was the training progression? CF?

Comment #46 - Posted by: Ben M at July 5, 2007 11:47 PM

Nicole you are my hero. that video was awesome, fantastic work!

I know I've said this before, but these videos of the CF women are very inspiring. In the past year of doing CF I went from 100# to 110# and sometimes when I look in the mirror or my clothes don't fit, I wonder what have I done to myself? I question everything and wonder if I should go back to just running. Then I see videos of Nicole and Annie and I am inspired all over again, not only are they amazing athletes but they look great too!

Comment #47 - Posted by: nadia shatila at July 6, 2007 12:00 AM

Comment #37 - "Why isn't the person (government employee) who is violating this law in jail? Because there's no penalty for violating that law."

They don't get sent to jail for violating the law because it doesnt' violate the penal code. You don't get sent to jail for violating civil law, only penal law. A municipal employee can refuse to follow a state or federal law without violating the penal code. The usual remedy is a civil suit filed by citizens against the city asking a judge to order the city to comply with state law. The city might simply not have the rsources to follow the state law requiring storage lockers.

Comment #48 - Posted by: steve at July 6, 2007 12:15 AM

Way to go Nicole! That was amazing! When I grow up I want to be just like you... :)

Comment #49 - Posted by: freddy c. at July 6, 2007 1:34 AM

Man, that vid is amazing. I couldn't even pull off one BW OHS.

One interesting thing was that the time under tension, particularly with holding the weight overhead, was the killer. The second and third attempts seemed much longer timewise than the final attempt.

Shows something for just getting stuck in and getting things done!

Comment #50 - Posted by: Basil3 at July 6, 2007 2:13 AM

That was off tha hook.

Marry me?

Comment #51 - Posted by: Nick C. at July 6, 2007 2:44 AM

Way to build suspense, Nicole. I know you could have done it the first try, but that would have made for a boring video. ;)

Comment #52 - Posted by: Keith W. at July 6, 2007 2:51 AM

Hey all, first post!

Did anyone else notice Nicole's choice of footwear during her attempts? Looks like she started barefoot, then tried runners, and ultimately nailed it with squat shoes. I wonder if that was significant at all...

Totally inspiring, by the way!

Comment #53 - Posted by: hap at July 6, 2007 3:57 AM

wow... simply awesome

Comment #54 - Posted by: J9 at July 6, 2007 4:05 AM

Nicole! WOW! Your hard work is very inspirational, thank you. You are the best, the government is not!

Comment #55 - Posted by: Buford at July 6, 2007 4:17 AM

Awesome work, Nicole!!

Comment #56 - Posted by: Anthony Bainbridge & Jodi Arbeau at July 6, 2007 4:18 AM

Thats brilliant Nicole. Inspiring!

Comment #57 - Posted by: mrjling at July 6, 2007 4:24 AM

Today was the last day for a CrossFit Morris County original. Kevin Fitzgerald heads out Tuesday to begin service in the U.S. Army. Wish him well. Thanks Kevin and good luck.

Comment #58 - Posted by: rob izsa, CrossFit Morris County at July 6, 2007 4:26 AM

Nicole's a stud. Wow.

Comment #59 - Posted by: Cal Jones at July 6, 2007 4:27 AM

Way to go Nicole!!

Comment #60 - Posted by: Rahman at July 6, 2007 4:41 AM

Nicole, nice work! That is fantastic!

Comment #61 - Posted by: Andy W. at July 6, 2007 4:41 AM

wow - i was sitting at my desk cheering you on, nicole. that was great :) i'm wanna try it now.

i didn't even read the article, but there are very few individuals and/or organizations that i trust. i like rip's SB article... pretty much sums it up for me. i guess i'm too lazy to care, really. at least until something/someone gets in the way of my life as i want to live it.

Comment #62 - Posted by: joe 713 at July 6, 2007 4:47 AM

That video was AWESOME!!! I loved the determination that I could see in Nicole through that video. I'm going to show it to everybody that I know cause it is just that awesome of a feat. Keep up the spectacular work and keep the videos like that coming.

Comment #63 - Posted by: Steven at July 6, 2007 4:56 AM

That video was AWESOME! I loved the determination that I could see in Nicole through that video. I'm going to show it to everybody that I know cause it is just that awesome of a feat. Keep up the spectacular work and keep the videos like that coming.

Comment #64 - Posted by: Steven at July 6, 2007 4:57 AM


Congrats on accomplishing an amazing feat of strength and athleticism.

That you did it in pig-tails makes it the sexiest thing I've ever seen.

You're motivating as hell, keep it up.

Comment #65 - Posted by: Tim G at July 6, 2007 4:59 AM

Nicole you rock. You are truly inspirational and I have to mention quite beautiful.

As far as our government goes... Rich white men only care about other rich white men no matter if there is a D or a R after their name. We all need to realize that and push our trust-worthy friends to run for local elections. We need to find people to represent all of us, not just the 5% on the far right and the 5% on the far left.

Comment #66 - Posted by: Matt at July 6, 2007 4:59 AM

The weight that Nicole was using in the OHS was actually 135 lbs, wasn't it? Which means it was 12 lbs over her bodyweight, right?

Comment #67 - Posted by: Steven at July 6, 2007 5:05 AM

Nicole, good job on the OHS, great work effort to get your 15! Truly inspirational. Been slacking due to the holiday, so went in and did Linda today. 225lb DL (cant do the Rx'd 1.5 X bw for Linda, had to scale to 225lb), 185 bench, 135 cleans. 10,9,8,7,.... around 40 min to complete. Needed to punish myself for slacking, and Linda seemed a perfect fit. Hopefully there wont be egg on my face when I pull up tomorrows WOD, as I havent seen Linda in a while....hmm...

Comment #68 - Posted by: Chris Stowe at July 6, 2007 5:14 AM

Freakin' awesome! 15 reps is a mammoth acheivement, what makes it all the more amazing is HOW DEEP EACH DAMN SQUAT WAS!

Nicole - you are officially my new hero

Comment #69 - Posted by: Owen at July 6, 2007 5:19 AM

OMG Nicole, that was one of the most inspirational videos ever! The way you kept at it every few days until you nailed it!

I was watching this at work with some other guys and we cheered when you broke the 13 rep barrier on attempt 4!


Comment #70 - Posted by: Chrisinvt at July 6, 2007 5:53 AM

I'm gonna echo in everyone in saying congrats Nicole. Nicely done.

Comment #71 - Posted by: Brett_nyc at July 6, 2007 5:54 AM

morale girls....wear less, lift more!

Comment #72 - Posted by: charlie from aus at July 6, 2007 6:09 AM

re #40 TimW

I agree there should be punishment for the government when they do something wrong, but the problem with that is the government is the enforcing the law that they would be breaking. So even if there is a rule saying somebody has to go to jail, we the people have to trust them to enforce that law on themselves, and as we've seen in the last couple years (libby/wiretapping/gonazales); they don't always bother to punish themselves.

Haven't watched the vid yet, but 1 bw OHS would impress me, 15 is just crazy.

Comment #73 - Posted by: John at July 6, 2007 6:30 AM

More videos of Nicole please!

Comment #74 - Posted by: Jay I. at July 6, 2007 6:39 AM


Fantastic, motivation for all of us.

Glancing at the article's title, my first comment is NO. I'll read it then see if anything changes...

Comment #75 - Posted by: Darren at July 6, 2007 6:47 AM

Punishment of government criminals? Like Libby?

Comment #76 - Posted by: bret kleefuss at July 6, 2007 6:56 AM

ftsum - comments like that just show how blind and stupid you are. I'm with Dale, you added absolutely nothing intelligent to the discussion.

I suggest ftsum you read (WF/S)
http://www.truthtree.com/debates.shtml and learn how to properly debate.

I watched the Nicole video again, and it seems that 13 was the psychological number for her to push past. Once she got past 13 it was cake. Oh ya...next week is a Friday the 13th, so we definitely need that as an OHS day just for Nicole. =D

Comment #77 - Posted by: Angry G at July 6, 2007 7:07 AM


Awesome work -congratulations!!! I love the end -too much focus to get the joy right away. Enjoy it now 'cause we all did.

Comment #78 - Posted by: John Seiler at July 6, 2007 7:12 AM

John #70

Yes, an obvious problem with trying to enforce any accountability in the system is the "Fox watching the henhouse" issue. Perhaps Tar and Feathering should be brought back? :)

Another interesting tidbit on the "should we trust government" is: The government claims it cannot secure the border, so an enforcement-only or predominantly enforcement immigration bill won't work....but we're supposed to believe that the government can then successfully micromanage ALL other aspects of immigration reform?

Is there even one program that was started by the government that accomplished it's goals and, in so doing, was then eliminated? :)

Comment #79 - Posted by: TimW at July 6, 2007 7:16 AM

Great job, Nicole, great video. Thanks to all.

Comment #80 - Posted by: john wopat at July 6, 2007 7:16 AM

awesome nicole, awesome. congratulations!

Comment #81 - Posted by: eva claire (ec) at July 6, 2007 7:16 AM

That was amazing, Nicole. Thanks for being an inspiration to all of us!

Comment #82 - Posted by: theresa at July 6, 2007 7:24 AM

Awesome, Nicole. Did yesterday's WOD today and was wondering what the point was after round 3. Thinking about how you hung in there with that bar wobbling over your head was inspiration enough to keep on.

Gotta love CF. Other workout programs have you climb a few rungs on the fitness ladder and then stop to admire the view. CF keeps me staring straight up finding new goals all the way.

Comment #83 - Posted by: Patrick at July 6, 2007 7:37 AM

Nicole, you are awesome!
Your photo has been on the wall of our gym since we opened. Many ladies have looked at you and your accomplishments with great admiration.
Guys that really appreciate excellence do also (others just kind of squirm).

Comment #84 - Posted by: Frank DiMeo at July 6, 2007 7:38 AM

why was friday's workout not for time?? can anyone answer that or was it a mistake.

Comment #85 - Posted by: CRAZY LEB at July 6, 2007 7:38 AM

sorry disregard the posting before, I meant to ask why was thursday's workout not for time?? or was it a mistake.

Comment #86 - Posted by: CRAZY LEB at July 6, 2007 7:41 AM

This is from a good friend who's working as a JAG in Baghdad - reminded me of my time there last year, especially the banter with the Brits leading up to the big day.

No fireworks

The Fourth of July was pretty low-key in Baghdad overall - just another work day. And as you might imagine, there were no plans to shoot off any fireworks. The last thing any of us needed to hear/see was more explosions or flashes in the sky. But the day was not without celebration.

The DFAC was decked out with bunting, streamers, and all kinds of red, white, and blue accoutrement. There were steaks, BBQ chicken, corn on the cob, and Fourth of July cake, replete with blue-colored cake and red & white frosting. And even if the steaks weren't Ruth's Chris caliber (or Sizzler, or Dennys for that matter) it was still a steak in the middle of a desert war zone. So it's hard to complain.
I can't begin to imagine the logistics involved in feeding the force. But I don't think anyone has any real complaint about the caliber of the food here.

The highlight was the reenlistment / naturalization ceremony held in the palace grand entry room. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/04/ap/world/main3015751.shtml)
The event was more impressive than the stories let on.

First was the reenlistment. Officers in the military typically receive a commission and remain on active duty until they resign or retire (or are kicked out for reasons that keep JAGs busy). Enlisted servicemen and women, however, sign an employment contract for a finite term - typically four years. When that term is up, they are done and can leave active duty. If they want to stay on active duty, they then reenlist, often during some form of ceremony. So, on the Fourth of July, we had the mother of all reenlistment ceremonies. In what is believed to be the largest reenlistment ceremony ever, General Petraeus led 588 troops in the oath. That's a lot of people who would rather stay here with their brothers in arms than head home early. Pretty inspiring.

Following the reenlistment ceremony, 161 U.S. troops, originally from 54 different nations, took the oath of citizenship. It surprises some to learn that non-citizens can serve, but there is no prohibition. Legal immigrants serve in all branches of the service.
Plus serving - particularly in a hostile fire zone - is a fast-track to citizenship. The general specifically noted that two immigrants who were scheduled to take the oath had been killed in June. He then dedicated the ceremony to their memories.

Senator John McCain followed with congratulatory remarks, followed by Senator Lindsay Graham, who led the new citizens in the pledge of allegiance. That was pretty cool. Finally, a message of congratulations from the President was projected on a big screen.

The entry hall is enormous. Obviously large enough to hold over 700 people, it is open straight up the three floors of the palace, with openings along both floors where observers can look down. So hundreds more, including moi, packed the openings to watch the event.

That was my Fourth, and it was pretty great. I hope you and yours had a great holiday, too. Thanks everyone for the amazing support and keep thinking about our troops - they do amazing work in Herculean tasks every day.

Thanks, Andrew. Paul

Comment #87 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie at July 6, 2007 8:08 AM

First post got held up from the filter, but it basically amounts to, great job Nicole.

Now on to the day's political rant:


If I have to listen to another John Kerry rant about how stupid I am for my profession of work I'm going to vent my rage and frustration on my post gym's smith machine! (and probably make the world a better place doing so)

That said, let me start by saying no, I don’t trust the government as far as I can throw Rosie O’Donnell. I also don’t trust any legislator on Capitol Hill, a nice Google search on the word “earmark” can tell you exactly why. Let me also bring out a nice bit of von Clausewitz for you all by saying that “war is nothing more than the extension of politic by other means.” Then you all say, “huh…wait a minute!” and start throwing around the hypocrite word and turn your brains off.

However, back to the article, which I loved by the way, I DO trust the process of law, and the overall end effect of a diverse government. I also trust that, while you can debate the legality and justification of the war we are in until the end of time, that the overall end effect of military operations is good for our country. We turned over a rock looking for a snake and we instead found roaches. We weren’t ready for what we found, and we screwed up not knowing it would be there, but we’re stomping them out anyway.

Believe it or not, also, while no one should trust the people in the military, further expounding the author’s take on trust, the military process has time and time again demonstrated its ability to be impartial and trustworthy. Take Abu Ghraib, for example. The people were corrupted by absolute power, but the military process of justice stopped it and punished the wrong-doers. (If you don’t feel like doing much research, wikipedia has a nice little summary of the charges against the involved parties.)

So yes, someone who doesn’t trust the government, or Washington politics, can in fact be in the military, and not be a blind idiot.

Comment #88 - Posted by: darren at July 6, 2007 8:35 AM

Man, no posts for me today, two held up by the spam filter.

Here's one last vain effort: Good job Nicole.

Comment #89 - Posted by: darren at July 6, 2007 8:37 AM

Nicole, You are a great athlete and inspiration. Outstanding perseverance and success! Maggie

Comment #90 - Posted by: Maggie Larson at July 6, 2007 8:38 AM

Anyone who trust government in my opinion does not know what it is to be American. Government time and again through the history of organized civilization has been more of a detriment to the citizenry in an effort to consolidate power and subdue the populus.
This country is no different. There have been numberous wars fought in the 20th century, only two of which were justified- WWI & WWII. The rest were fought for the agenda of very few at the expense of the entire American population.
Trust scientist even less than government. In many instances science can be sold to the highest bidder. The government wants fluoride in our water and toothpaste, they pay scientist to say it is good, but there is tons of research to suggest otherwise. They say add thimerisol to vaccines is safe, yet autism rates have increased over a 1000%. They say Iraq is cruicial for oil and as an ally in the mid east, yet oil may well get to be $100 a barrel and we are far less safer from terroism today. They say Iran is big threat as well, but they have neither poisoned America on a grand scale through a botched medical and pharmaceutical industry who corrupts government, nor did they turn off NORAD on the day of 9/11. Even if they are arming insurgents against Americans, as an American I can't blame them. If the Chinese invaded Mexico, hell- I'd learn Spanish and ship weapons, personell, whatever I could to help them out.
Fact of the matter is, is that you should not trust government. You don't even really know who runs the government. Oliver North should have gotten that through everyone's skull. How can you trust something that doesn't even have a face.

Comment #91 - Posted by: BJ at July 6, 2007 8:39 AM

Name of this song? Very good.

Comment #92 - Posted by: jeff gauthier at July 6, 2007 8:48 AM

History proves repeatedly that one should not trust the government. Once out of the hands of the people it becomes a tool to control and consolidate power. This gives rise to unnecessary wars as we have had our full of these in America, out of control inflation, and heavy taxation, until you find that the majority of the time spent working by the average citizen is spent to fund the government entity.
The main reason one should not trust the government is the fact that no one really knows who runs our government. The Oliver North scandal proved that there is a hidden adgenda and collection of individuals behind the scene who really handle the crucial policy making decisions of this country. I can't say I trust these guys.
Our government has been involved in propaganda, mind control, medical experimentation, and mass drugging (flouridation) on it's own citizenry. And this stuff is documented.
There is no way you can trust an entity that doesn't have the core singular individual in mind, instead valuing how much power, control, and domination it can endure.
The sad thing is that history is coughing up the lies now, the gulf of tonkin, pearl harbor, the lusitania are all proving to be false flag ops as the survivors come forward. Even the military PR officer on his death bed admitted that Roswell incident was indeed a downed alien craft. A CIA agent on his death bed admitted the CIA killed Kennedy. I bet nobody here has even heard this because it isn't reported.
Anyway, to sum it up, be an American don't trust government.

Comment #93 - Posted by: Berk at July 6, 2007 8:51 AM

Is there a Nicole fan-club? I'm a definite fan of her dedication. She's like rock-star cool, and no, I am not making fun.

For a spoof, CrossFit should sell CrossFit t-shirts with Nicole on them, maybe donate the proceeds to sponsor kids CrossFit classes or something.

And regarding the article, our government is run by idiots lately. Heck, the pattern has been continual since Kennedy with goofball spending, erroneous government contracting, and moral legislation from secular humanism to funding churches through school vouchers. Whatever happened to a smaller federal government? Now we've got this bloated animal that feeds everything from laughable Homeland Security to a desperate in need of reform Social Welfare system. Uck, enough with the schpeal, but hey, Democracy isn't a perfect form of government, but there is none better. Who said that one, BTW? : )

Comment #94 - Posted by: James Humphrey, Jr. at July 6, 2007 9:04 AM

Played 1 hour of hockey this morning. I played hard so it was a good active rest day for me.

See you on the ice next week Harry.

Jay( The Wall )

Comment #95 - Posted by: Jay Penney at July 6, 2007 9:13 AM

I think that spam filter is meant to keep dissenting points of view off the message board.

Comment #96 - Posted by: Berk at July 6, 2007 9:15 AM

Any Lake Havasu CrossFit people????

Comment #97 - Posted by: Mencius at July 6, 2007 9:19 AM

Nicole, you are wonderful and how I would love to work out with you.

Comment #98 - Posted by: James N at July 6, 2007 9:21 AM

Great work, Nicole. You are an inspiration indeed.

Paul #84: That story in also an inspriation. My deepest thanks to all that serve.

Comment #99 - Posted by: Brendan Smith at July 6, 2007 9:44 AM

I trust neither the process or the people as I believe the latter have perverted the former.

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." -Ronald Reagan.

Comment #100 - Posted by: John Seiler at July 6, 2007 9:58 AM

A little bit of confusion that I'd like to clear up here. Checks and balances are set up because you can't trust people, not because you can't trust government. Government is the system of checks and balances. Can you trust the system of checks and balances? Yes, that's why our government has existed for 231 years and counting. So you can trust the US government. You can't trust people in general though.

Comment #101 - Posted by: Joey at July 6, 2007 10:02 AM

Great video! Nicole totally rocks.

Notice how her pants kept getting shorter? The last three attempts she wore progressively shorter pants. I can't help thinking what would have happened if she had missed her last attempt, and projecting the trend... thong overhead squats?

I'm bad...

Crossfit: muscularly heterosexual!

Comment #102 - Posted by: creep at July 6, 2007 10:06 AM

painstorm XXVII 19:58 as rx'd

Comment #103 - Posted by: brent colson at July 6, 2007 10:17 AM

This CrossFit thing ROCKS!! I just bench pressed 175lbs! Around June 17th, I was only able to do 155. I increased 25lbs in less than a month!! CrossFit is where it's at. It's no wonder dedicated CrossFitters like Nicole are able to do what they do. If only I were half as fit.

Comment #104 - Posted by: TFDCrazyEyes at July 6, 2007 10:34 AM

I checks and balances show that the founders of this nation never expected the people to fully trust the government. Heck one branch of the government can't trust the other. The government IN THEORY can be trusted to an extent, but it is implemented by people who are corruptible.

Humans on average are susceptible to many weaknesses. So I guess I don't trust the govt because it is run by people with power over other people.

I know many great and admirable people but I have an uncomfortable suspicion based on my assessment of many individuals I interact with, that the average person is lazy, selfish, does not do well with delaying gratification and does not understand the cause and effect of their actions very well.

I hear claims that the corporations are turning the US people into indentured servants, well if you spend more than you make for a period of time the consequence is excessive debt.

I see people obese and sick, well no need to go into that.

I actually know people who are older than 40 with relatively new cars who are not saving for retirement and don't even know if they have a pension (not worried yet I guess).

I think every citizen should have to pass a test showing they understand this nation's constitution before they can vote, run for public office, or hold any job where the funding comes from taxes.

Comment #105 - Posted by: vcraig at July 6, 2007 10:36 AM

Great work Nicole!! you are probably stronger than anyone I know man or woman.

Comment #106 - Posted by: chukaai at July 6, 2007 10:37 AM

Nice Brent - you did me by over three minutes. Absolutely storming!!

Painstorm XXVII as Rx-ed with 135lb in 23:12

Cheers, kempie

Comment #107 - Posted by: kempie at July 6, 2007 10:44 AM

Nicole - Thank you for sharing. You're an inspiration and a hottie.

#25 - Jeff,
I was totally with you on your post, the less trust we place in government, the more likely we are to participate and protect our rights... democracy!

... up until you starting talking about scientists. As a chemist, I know that there are no groups or cliques in the scientific community. Scientists are constantly checking themselves and each other for "bad science" and looking for a chance to disprove/counter each other's ideas.

If you want a layman's explanation of humanity's effect on the climate, check:


#34 - ftusm,
Your view is obviously not a popular view in a community dominated by public servants. But, it's definitely representative of the disenchantment with the current leadership many citizens currently feel.
How can the leaders of our country send men and women to war, cut their pay, undersupply them, and fail to follow through enough to make their work succeed (protecting the Iraqis who side with us)?

#44 - Ben M,
Because my butt's not on the floor!
Scientists are making predictions based on empirical evidence. If the apple falls to the earth when I drop it over and over, then chances are that if I drop the apple again...
It's the same method used by people on this site! We repeat a workout, set a new PR and figure that the training we have been doing via CrossFit has helped us achieve that new PR (since when we weren't doing CrossFit, we couldn't get that PR).
So far, when CO2 levels rise, so does the temp of our planet. Should we keep increasing CO2 levels? (and, no, it's not just a correlation if direct cause and effect has been proven)

Comment #108 - Posted by: Buretto at July 6, 2007 10:47 AM

Comment #99

Indeed. I've been training with Tony Young at CrossFit Dayton for 5 weeks now and I not only feel great, but each day I not only feel stronger, but I AM stronger. A recent accomplishment was my first Murph (glad to just finish that one), but the other day I did 21, 15, 9 of deadlifts at 225. I only made it through the first set and part of the second before I had to drop weight (and the workout still kicked my butt), but I tell you what; 5 weeks ago there was never a thought about even making an attempt at that many deadlifts, let alone the weight.

I'm a lifer now for sure, plus the other people Tony trains are just cool too. It's a nice community Mr. Glassman has started (Tony definitely continues the tradition), and I hope one day to meet him.

Comment #109 - Posted by: James Humphrey, Jr. at July 6, 2007 10:48 AM

People, you can’t have it both ways.

Maybe you can’t trust government – that government can only be trusted to be untrustworthy … to mess things up. Maybe Reagan was right that the most terrifying words are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

If so, why send troops to the other side of the world to promote that very thing?

We live in democracies, however flawed. That means that the government is … us. It’s as trustworthy as we’re willing to make it, and willing to keep it.


Comment #110 - Posted by: TomF at July 6, 2007 10:50 AM

#80 Patrick I think you summed it up well for me at least:

Gotta love CF. Other workout programs have you climb a few rungs on the fitness ladder and then stop to admire the view. CF keeps me staring straight up finding new goals all the way.

Comment #111 - Posted by: sarena at July 6, 2007 11:00 AM

Can the government ever gain the trust of the people? Or is it always "bad?" Just curious as to what you guys/girls think.

Comment #112 - Posted by: Ben Moskowitz at July 6, 2007 11:12 AM

Greetings all,

Awesome video. Obviously, I've got work to do!

On to the political stuff: It's not true that we were unaware of the possibility of not only an insurgency, but also of potential suicide attacks against our military. The Army War College released a strategic review in February 2003 titled "Reconstructing Iraq:Insights, Challenges and Missions For Military Forces In a Post-COnflict Scenario". (I can't seem to link to it but am happy to email the pdf file to anyone who so requests).

Also, does anyone not remember the war games that were conducted during 2002 where retired Marine Lt. Gen Paul Van Riper "played" a dictator of a middle east country responding to a preemptive strike from US forces? He soundly thumped the US forces in the first round and eventually quit because the Pentagon kept restarting the game, in part stating that the terrorist tactics successfully deployed by Van Riper's force weren't likely to be that successful or realistic in actual combat. So fine, right-wingers don't want to trust the government, then we sure as hell better not believe a word that the present administration is putting forth about our efforts in Iraq. I'm teaching a law of war class this summer(just for background, I'm a former Marine, currently a prosecutor, and an adjunct faculty member at a local college) and spoke to active duty and former Marines (some at the local Marine Corps League HQ - free beer, the greatest company, c'mon down!)

Anyway, my main point was to ask about issues surrounding rules of engagement, unit training for ROE, violations, etc. So of course we get around to discussing other aspects of the war, like troop levels. I have yet to speak with one Marine who doesn't think we should at the very least double the numbers of combat troops. There are simply not enough troops for a police/security action. But hey, Rumsfeld had that vision thing going-a lighter, more techo military that could tear apart any enemy standing in front of it. Problem is, that doesn't work if you've got a lot of bobbing and weaving going on and an enemy that will adapt from an asymmetrical standpoint. On the small unit level, sure, we'll win all day, especially if our goal is body-count based. However, you want to stabilize a country as big and as volative as Iraq, you need numbers. Keep in mind, when I was in Desert Storm, there were roughly 700,000 troops in theater (from many countries, yes, I know). And yes, Shinseki may have been a paper pusher, but he was right, a troop level on the scale of several hundred thousand would have been more appropriate for the nation building with which we now task our amazing brothers and sisters in uniform.

So no, we absolutely should not trust the government, maybe even especially on issues of climate, and definitely not when it comes to the lies and obfuscations regarding this war. I would say that if you ever get a chance to view NASA's channel on cable, they occassionally have video files with comments regarding climate issues. Kinda interesting.

Peace and love all, I need to work on my OHS.

Comment #113 - Posted by: phillip at July 6, 2007 11:16 AM

Whenever a Nicole video goes up the marriage proposals start rolling in! LOL

Awesome job!

signed, your #1 fan!

(my wife's gonna kill me - LOL)

Comment #114 - Posted by: InfidelSix at July 6, 2007 11:28 AM

5K trail run with lots of hills - 29:51

This was an active rest run since I will not be able to complete the WOD for the next two days.

Comment #115 - Posted by: LOO3 at July 6, 2007 11:48 AM

Question for anyone who cares - I notice that out of the 4 attempts only the first was done barefoot while the others were done in sneakers (two different pairs of sneakers although I'm not sure if that is important or not). I'm curious as to the benefits of barefoot verse non-barefoot OHS's and the relevance to Nicole's success.

Anyone have thoughts on this? Nicole?



Comment #116 - Posted by: Chrisinvt at July 6, 2007 11:52 AM

Nicole, so amazing !!!

every time I watch the 'home mode' video's about a PR or something like that, I'm realy impressed.

I hope I can evoluate like that in such a short time.


Comment #117 - Posted by: Thijs Moonen at July 6, 2007 12:05 PM

For a view of just how far unhinged the left has become, look at this 4th of July Anti-America celebration in San Francisco.


Comment #118 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at July 6, 2007 12:09 PM

Strong Work Nicole! as always.

As far as trusting the government.... never

The government should always be kept in debt and in gridlock

Have Fun, Train Hard,


Comment #119 - Posted by: Billy at July 6, 2007 12:21 PM

because debt and gridlock is in every nation's interest? I hope that's sarcasm, because I don't understand.

#103 Buretto
I am with you on the democracy and the science.

#108 Phillip
thanks for the Marine perspective, and for broadening the scope of government distrust. It seems strange to trust the state in one respect while staunchly opposing it in others. Like buretto said, you can't have it both ways.

Comment #120 - Posted by: Ben M at July 6, 2007 1:07 PM

Awesome work Nicole! This is an inspiration to us all! In fact, it got me fired up to do OHS. I hadn't practiced in a while cos of my shoulder, but I felt good today. Mind you I am still a novice in this lift, but I am making progress.

6sets of OHS:
10 x 65lbs (3sets)
10 x 70lbs
10 x 75lbs
12 x 75lbs

Then I topped it off with 20 min of:

10x Box Jumps (30")
10 Push ups
10 Snap ups

Total: 14 rds, 10 Box Jumps, 6 PU.

My shoulders are trashed now. Can't wait to find out what the WOD is tomorrow. I am going to hit the beach after if it's nice out.

Comment #121 - Posted by: Harry at July 6, 2007 1:10 PM

CCTJOEY - and that is exactly why I went to that city for 1 thing:

Alcatraz. Other then that SF is completely overrated, and I haven't made the 2-hour drive since.

Comment #122 - Posted by: Angry G at July 6, 2007 1:11 PM

Trust is based on a shared set of values. If you can meet a stranger, and have a pretty good idea how he or she was brought up, and how they were taught to behave, that inspires trust, which really is just another word for faith in a specific, predictable outcome.

Nowadays, I look at people on the street, and I wonder what they were looking at on the internet the night before, what personality they let out behind an anonymous name. What movies they watched, what secrets they are hiding.

We have snuff films on the internet, and every conceivable psychosocial malfunction imaginable short of that, in full video, and often real time. Public schools aren't allowed to foster overt patriotism, or clear cut moral values, by and large. Parents, by and large, don't seem to be filling that gap.

A principal reason for this has been the sustained assault--that we can see in all its' glorious and flamboyant idiocy on this very thread--on the very notion of shared, common values. A common "narrative", to use the word preferred by the imbeciles launching these attacks.

We are told we should hold the values of other nations in just as much regard as our own. The obvious correllate is that we are not right in any meaningful sense, merely different. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong. Definitionally, we can't be "right,right", if someone else could be right, and we've just asserted that they could.

This notion in turn derives from the concept of universal tolerance, and the rights to liberty and freedom of belief which we believe should be offered to all mankind. The notions arising from the Enlightenment, and its' appeal to Reason as a corrective to the pathetic conditions of chronic war and human suffering. Reason as a transnational tool for the elimination of conflict, and the betterment of humankind.

Our nation was founded on this concept, which was expressed in part in the notion of inalienable rights, not just for Americans, but for all mankind, although self-evidently we are only able to control our own nation. We made the claim that the whole world should and could be made "safe for democracy", and acted on it for a long time.

Then what might be termed Failurism was introduced by Communist proxies on the Left, like Tom Hayden and Hanoi Jane.

Their argument essentially went that the rights of sovereign nations-regardless of their ideology-trumped any American effort to support increased rule of law and democracy. By this basic process of thought, North Vietnam became the victim and the United States and South Vietnam the aggressors. Because they said they wanted peace, then any attacks we made could only have been aggressive.

This is when the global mindf#$% started. Authoritarian regimes started claiming they were free, and we were enslaved, despite the patent, blatant, inescapable untruth of this. They began claiming that our attempts to defend ourselves and our allies from their attacks were the actions of a "hegemon", and their continued attacks the only response possible.

People started spouting nonsense like "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." This is stupid. In any conflict, one side is more right than the other, and pretending otherwise is recipe for failure, which of course is what we saw in Vietnam.

Thus, we see American ideals of actual freedom being perverted into recruiting tools for the creation of their polar opposite.

We saw the development of moral equivalence, which is what enabled the almost instantaneous reflex on the part of many Leftists to equate hijacking four jets and killing without warning and in cold blood thousands of people to something unspecified that we "must have done" to "deserve" it. It was instant. It was like hitting someone's knee with a rubber mallet, and utilized frankly less thought.

Yet the doctrine of moral equivalence is intellectually bankrupt, because it relies on the very values it despises in order to attack those values. We weren't supposed to be in Vietnam because it was contrary to our values, but those very values were immediately equated to the North Vietnamese. If this equivalence can be made: US=No. Vietnam, then surely the equivalence goes both ways: No. Vietnam=US. This would mean, of course, that we really should have invaded North Vietnam, destroyed in toto every village ever linked to ANY VC attack, used the same sorts of torture the NVA used, and used CIA agents for conservative Agitprop stateside, including Demonstrations in support of the war.

If nothing is right, then everything is right. If everything is right, then we can't be condemned. We can only be condemned if our values are considered to be correct, and then the question is the congruence between them and what we are doing.

In Vietnam, there was a lot of incompetent senior leadership. Still, the war was worth winning, and likely would have been won had American Leftists--often on the payroll of the No. Vietnamese--not been so successful in preventing any rational discussion of the issue, on a basis of actual American values.

This is where we went wrong. In the process of destroying the domestic support for our war effort, the very notion of right and wrong was attacked, because clarity on this issue would have led to the inevitable conclusion, in my view, that we had a moral and strategic responsibility to win. It wasn't good enough to point to incongruencies, because our soldiers performed well, and fought, by and large, in accordance with our value system. You had some Calley's, but a lot more honest soldiers fighting hard and doing good work.

A long term consequence of this has been an erosion of the very fabric of our shared national life. This is the basic soil out of which the Family Values concern comes from. We don't want to stop believing in basic, fundamental, non-negotiable concepts of right and wrong.

And is not this--even more that his specific policies--what most infuriates critics of George Bush? That he has the temerity to act as if good and evil actually meant something, and that he can define them? What arrogance, we hear. What cheek. What unmitigated gall.

And based on his notions of right and wrong, he has had little difficulty reaching decisions on a range of issues. He has a basic moral compass and he listens to it.

He has fought Congress. Why? They have repeatedly in effect assaulted the sanctity of the Oval Office. The Valerie Plame investigation. The Gonzalez case. Executive Privilege is a long standing American tradition, and has always been intended to enable the President to seek counsel from whom he will. What has been happening are repeated efforts to find dirty laundry, which have been entirely unsuccessful, except in the press, which of course eats this stuff up.

Valerie Plames identity wasn't secret. Joe Wilson didn't find anything. Political appointees can be fired for political reasons. The list goes on.

I view our current political and social situation as nothing short of a conflict between the voices of social and cultural collapse, and social and cultural continuance and integrity.

If nothing is right or wrong, then why should I trust my neighbor? How do I know when the cops will show up, confiscate his computer, and arrest him?

How can we teach our children who they should be, when we can't agree on what that should be?

Comment #123 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at July 6, 2007 1:58 PM

One other thing: with respect to Iraq, the focus needs to be the consequences of failure, which I view as likely massive bloodshed, and the eventual emergence of a large terrorist training ground, staffed by experienced fighters, much like what existed in Afghanistan 7 years ago.

We can't double the number of troops. Bush is having to fight like the dickens to get the staffing he has now.

We are now attempting to use the non-Al Queda Sunnis as a force multiplier. I think they have come to realize we are less of a problem than the foreign Taliban-wannabees are. It's a marriage of convenience, and may not last forever, but it does give us access to much better intel, and motivated--if not always skilled--boots on the ground.

Comment #124 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at July 6, 2007 2:07 PM

Maybe the question shouldn't really be about whether we trust our government but whether we can trust ourselves.


Comment #125 - Posted by: Carmen at July 6, 2007 2:18 PM

Today, for time:

20 OHS, 115#
20 situps
30 front squats, 115#
30 KTE
40 back squats, 115#
40 crunches
50 bw squats
50 atomic situps


Comment #126 - Posted by: rcurriejr at July 6, 2007 2:21 PM


We did win the Vietnam War. We stopped the tide of Communism in Asia, and the world. So what if we did not eliminate the North Vietnamese...you really think a long, drawn out blood bath with the Chinese at that point would have been worth it? Its not like Communism is a threat today.

There are other ways to build trust aside from shared beliefs. How about actions? The way people behave and interact. That means way more to me than someone spouting off about how they believe in right and/or wrong, or believe that George Bush is a good president, or believe that Jesus was the son of god and rose from the dead. None of those beliefs tell me squat about you. How you act does.

I am continually amazed at how easily people on this website draw "direct links" between Leftism and *insert world or local or personal problem here.* Wish I had a scapegoat for all of the problems I perceive, but it seems to me that things are perhaps a little more complex and nuanced than that.

Anyway, hope all had a good 4th...

Comment #127 - Posted by: bret kleefuss at July 6, 2007 2:21 PM

Great Job Nicole!!!!!!
You did it... what inspiration and what a tough chick! Congratulations

Comment #128 - Posted by: Sue Ady at July 6, 2007 2:23 PM


Iraq has already become a training ground for terrorists, but that is probably Jane Fonda's fault...

Comment #129 - Posted by: bret kleefuss at July 6, 2007 2:23 PM

Here's a link to the unclassified CIA report filed by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald. Unless I'm missing something, Plame was clearly a covert asset.


Comment #130 - Posted by: Phillip at July 6, 2007 2:24 PM

Unreal video. I aspire to that kind of intensity and focus.

Comment #131 - Posted by: Chris M at July 6, 2007 2:46 PM

You're missing something: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/03/was_valerie_pla.html

That was pulled at random, but the net is that upon careful cross-examination members of the CIA were not able to definitively rule as to Ms. Plame's status relative to their own guidelines.

Moreover, it should be self evident to any rational individual that the purpose of that type of status is to protect both their physical safety, as well as to enable them to do their job, sneaking around and taking pictures with hidden cameras. She wasn't doing that, and it's not clear if she ever did it at all. The only claims that she was placed in danger have been made by Democrats, among them Plame and Wilson.

Wilson, of course, famously wrote an editorial claiming he possessed inside knowledge he did not possess, and which became a cause celebre among Bush-haters, because it appeared to show malfeasance on the part of the Bush Administration. It didn't and hasn't. The whole thing is a massive tempest in a tea kettle, and a distraction generated by our beloved media because it sells well on the Left Coast.


What people do derives from what they believe. Leftists can easily be shown to believe something close to nothing.

What do you believe is the proper role for the United States in the world today? Be specific, and add nuance once you've said something clear.

Comment #132 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at July 6, 2007 2:57 PM

With respet to the terrorists, are you proposing that because the situation has in some respects worsened that we should abandon the battlefield and run for the hills? That pretending they won't follow us is the course of wisdom and nuance?

I never see critics of the war wanting to discuss anything other than errors. They never want to talk about the real cost of failure.

Comment #133 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at July 6, 2007 3:00 PM

Enough with the Scooter Libby nonsense. The Plame's are media hounds. Scooter gets some Jail Commuted...neat.

Clinton PARDONED a member of his own cabnet for much worse.


Comment #134 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at July 6, 2007 3:02 PM

Bret, so has the US and UK. What is your point? Iraq has also become an excellent training ground for us as well.

Comment #135 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at July 6, 2007 3:11 PM

Radical left and militant islamic convergance.

Not too uncommon these days


Comment #136 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at July 6, 2007 3:14 PM

Radical left and militant islamic convergance.

Not too uncommon these days


Comment #137 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at July 6, 2007 3:16 PM

#118 - Barry,

Really enjoyed your post. It was very well written. I, despite being a democrat, also feel a gap is developing in the formation of a moral base in youth today. That's why my wife and I work to instill solid family values in our son. For example, honesty, respect, altruism, forgiveness, hard work, persistence, sharingand politeness are characteristics we often talk to him about and read books about. The fact that my wife is Japanese does not change how we see right vs wrong. She isn't wrong because she's not American. We can work with each others' values and compromise when needed (like our founding fathers did). We both work to set an example for what he should become.

One of the things I teach my son is that there are no monsters, only scared people.

In other words, people cannot be described as good/evil because those are words to describe a battle with the devil or some fictional monster. People are not fictional monsters and have some emotional or logical basis (sometimes a horribly disturbing one) for their actions. People make conscious choices based on their reasoning and should therefore be held accountable for those actions. While fictional heroes may need to destroy fictional monsters, real heroes need to find the basis for the decisions of their antagonists and change their logic.

Bush's idea that he can destroy all of the evil in the world is one of fantasy. He's taking the incredibly advanced US military and using them, like the well-trained weapon, let's say a hammer, they are, to try to defeat his demons. Unfortunately, he's swinging (what he thinks is) his hammer at mosquitoes.

So, yes. I find Bush's use of good or evil as adjectives to describe others as childish and arrogant. He is in no way or form divine and he is in no shape battling evil monsters.

The military may need to objectify their opponents in order to destroy them. Is that a value we should teach our children?

They're all different, just like us!

Comment #138 - Posted by: Buretto at July 6, 2007 3:21 PM

Yesterday's Work
{Ride (Airdyne) .5 of a mile; walk upstairs; PUx15; Press 50kg.x5; walk downstairs}x5.
duration 20:00.
That was a stress...

Comment #139 - Posted by: Jonathan Jensen at July 6, 2007 3:28 PM

If someone does something wrong does it make it ok if someone else did something worse? Can't we expect public officals from both parties not to purjure themselves? Scooter Libby and Henry Cisneros should be in jail if you ask me. You can throw Bill Clinton and Oliver North in there too. Lying under oath is NEVER ok. Scooter Libby just happens to be the latest example.

What do you think the Administration was trying to do when they released Plame's name? Is there another explanation besides punishing her for her husbands dissent (and in the process letting everyone else know the consequences of dissent)? If so I'd like to hear it. If Wilson didn't have the claimed knowledge it should be easy to refute without bringing up his wife. Fitzgerald was a Republican appointee so if he thinks there was inpropriety, there probably was, even if he couldn't prove it.

Comment #140 - Posted by: JPW at July 6, 2007 3:36 PM

After a long hiatus...i did 1000 meter row and 5 rounds of 25 pull ups and 135# push jerk. time was 23:54. pull ups suffered alot. have a good night.

Comment #141 - Posted by: Angel at July 6, 2007 3:43 PM

Wow guys. Thank you for all your support.

Comment #142 - Posted by: nicole at July 6, 2007 3:55 PM

Today- The terrorist surveylence program or what the left calls the 'Domestic Spying Program' has been reinstated as LEGAL through an overturning of the bogus ruling of a lower court that determined it was unconstitional.

Good to be an American today


Comment #143 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at July 6, 2007 3:56 PM

The girl is bad, the girl is bad ass!

Comment #144 - Posted by: jacob at July 6, 2007 4:03 PM

I almost threw up yesterday - tomorrow I will.
thanks for the inspiration.

Comment #145 - Posted by: britton at July 6, 2007 5:00 PM

Great work.

To squat with your torso so close to vertical, what area(s) needs to be more flexible? I am impressed that the bar is over head and not behind the head.

Comment #146 - Posted by: Bruce at July 6, 2007 5:05 PM

":I am continually amazed at how easily people on this website draw "direct links" between Leftism and *insert world or local or personal problem here.* Wish I had a scapegoat for all of the problems I perceive, but it seems to me that things are perhaps a little more complex and nuanced than that."

I got to thinking about this comment, and can't let it go. You are implicitly saying "rightists like you" draw such links. You are lumping me into a category the same way you claim I am doing.

Yet, I am posting content, not just random, generic, non-contextualized claims. What one sees, quite often, and this is an excellent, contextualized example, is these quick one liners. If you read my posts, I put work into them, and whatever argument I want to make, I do my best to back it up with commonly shared facts, and logic. Your comment amounted to a wave of a hand: one can't expect more from people like him. Yet you failed entirely to even touch a shred of the meat of my argument, other than to make the claim that we won the Vietnam War, in contrast to, well, every other human being I've ever met.

This fundamental link between leftism and moral equivalence is undeniable, deep, and fundamental.

Jane Fonda was photographed wearing an NVA Helmet, smiling, standing at an AA cannon, which may well have been responsible for the deaths of Americans.

What is the moral context we put this in? How, by any stretch of any imagination, do we take the active support of an enemy nation's military through propaganda to be anything but demonstrable treason? Could she have got away with that in WW2?

The reason she was able to go on without drawing the contempt of the entire nation on her--much less get executed for treason, which is what she deserved--is people said to themselves: well, she really must believe in this cause. Everyone has their opinion, and I guess she's entitled to hers.

This is moral equivalence, and it starts when we start rationalizing things that cannot be rationalized.

You are rationalizing our withdrawal in shame from our committment to South Vietnam, to all the regulars and tribal militias that believed in us. From the battlefield, because we lacked the will to fight. Your claim that it was considered by anyone anywhere to be a victory is patently absurd, and it is my belief that that failure made the Cold War--which you hopefully recall used real bullets in many places--last 10 years longer than it needed to, and it sapped the spirit and will of a nation to an extent that continues today.

Those flag burners in San Francisco are direct descendants of those here who orchestrated our failure there. They are trying to do the same thing again, not because it makes sense, or is in our national interest, but because they are nihilists whose only source of meaning in life derives from fighting people different than them, by blaming them for being obsessed with difference. This is an interesting irony. Life is full of them.

This is why they are not and cannot be actually, meaningfully tolerant where genuinely different viewpoints are concerned, and why I do not and never will trust them with anything more important than a dog biscuit.

BTW: Yes, there is a "them". Degree of membership will vary person to person, but the fundamental malady demonstrably exists.

Comment #147 - Posted by: barry cooperb at July 6, 2007 5:16 PM

Hello All,

I know this is posting late in the day, but it has been a full one for sure.

Let me start by saying that we were going to go out this morning, but then Jim, my husband, said to me, “No, we have to stay home, you have a delivery coming.” I was caught completely unaware as my new C2 rower arrived; a gift from the CrossFit Community.

I cannot explain to you all how deeply touched I am. I have been searching for the words all day to explain how much you all have emotionally moved me.

Other than the support and friendship I receive from Jim I have never received any other support or friendship like what the CrossFit Community has given me. I am honored to belong. I am very, very appreciative for all that you have given me; the support, the friendship, the caring, the guidance, the knowledge, and the kinsmanship. This is the best community that I have ever belonged to.

I am still at a complete loss for words.

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, Thank you.


Comment #148 - Posted by: jknl at July 6, 2007 5:50 PM

did CFSC class with Hollis (thanks again)

sdhp 115#
wall ball 28#


Comment #149 - Posted by: dan colson at July 6, 2007 5:51 PM

You are always an inspiration and a wonderful role model. Great work!


Comment #150 - Posted by: jknl at July 6, 2007 5:51 PM

Talk about an amazing and inspirational video. Wow!

* * * * *

28/f/154#, getting off my butt after 2 days of sloth

CFWU x 2 including kipping practice

Jump rope practice - 3 x 30 second intervals of single unders (mostly continuous)

For time - 15-12-9 reps of 30# DB swing, push-ups

Time - 5:30, and I definitely felt the metcon effect. I'll go for more DB weight and/or reps next time.

I have to make up my CFT in the next couple of days.

Comment #151 - Posted by: Rydain at July 6, 2007 6:08 PM

F*<king awesome work Nicole.

It had to be the color matched shoes and shirt.


Comment #152 - Posted by: J Jones at July 6, 2007 6:23 PM

Nicole you're my hero!!! one of the most impressive athletes by far!! congrats on the lift. I'd love to train with you one day.

Paul B

Comment #153 - Posted by: Paul B at July 6, 2007 6:32 PM

#90--Winston Churchill

Comment #154 - Posted by: kls at July 6, 2007 6:40 PM

Awesome job, Nicole!

Comment #155 - Posted by: Mike Giardina at July 6, 2007 6:46 PM

Awesome work, Nicole... a great inspiration for some OHS work today.

Comment #156 - Posted by: Aaron U at July 6, 2007 6:58 PM


I think I can speak for everyone in saying that it makes us happy that you are happy. You're obviously fighting the good fight, and we're solidly on your side. Please consider that a very sincere compliment and thanks for all you do, here and elsewhere.

Have fun!

Comment #157 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at July 6, 2007 7:12 PM

We love you too, Kate!!

Comment #158 - Posted by: treelizard at July 6, 2007 8:24 PM

Barry Cooper-- Fine work manning your post today. I couldn't have argued the facts better. Well done. Let us know if you need to tag out for a while. I’m sure there are a few ready to take a few well aimed shots at the nonsense of moral equivalence.

CCTJOEY-- As always, your links are a fuel for my fire. I'm so disgusted by the one highlighting July 4th in San Francisco. How do we contain this poison? We need laws to stem the tide of such patently traitorous filth. Yes folks, laws are good, laws that recognize and protect those things that are good and right for our country that is. Do not be afraid. As Americans we write and pass these laws. We are the government. If you don't like it fix it. Raise up young men and women of unquestionable character and vote them into office.

Kate--We’ve all been waiting for the news of your special delivery. It is a well deserved “Thank You” for your efforts and wonderful patriotic spirit from many here that can see it from hundreds and thousands of miles away. Keep up the good work.

Comment #159 - Posted by: wilson at July 6, 2007 8:26 PM

Kate - echoing Barry's wishes for you. I am confident you will look back on this time some years hence and view it as another trial, a test to be passed.

It is a great community - because it gives so much more than it asks. Which is why it was such a privilege to meet Greg Glassman at the Games and shake his hand and say "thank you, sir."

Now go log some meters on that sucker!

Comment #160 - Posted by: Dale Saran at July 6, 2007 8:27 PM

Nicole=sublime, like ice cream. Wow.

Comment #161 - Posted by: FireSmac at July 6, 2007 8:40 PM

Yeah, it's bedtime and I need my WOD fix? Someone help me out?

Comment #162 - Posted by: gaucoin at July 6, 2007 9:01 PM

Wow, I'm still laughing at the dog biscuit comment 15 minutes later. Thanks Barry (#142). =D

Comment #163 - Posted by: Angry G at July 6, 2007 9:17 PM

Since we slacked last week, did hang power cleans:
Derek - 7x1 - 95, 115, 135(fail), 125, 130, 135, 135 (fail)
Tyra - 7x3 - 20, 40, 45, 45, 45, 45, 45

Comment #164 - Posted by: Derek at July 6, 2007 10:12 PM


What Wilson, Barry and Dale said - yes.

We're glad you are part of Crossfit.


Comment #165 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie at July 6, 2007 10:51 PM

Nicole - you are my new Crossfit hero! Keep it up, you make all of us girls so proud!

Comment #166 - Posted by: Shelly at July 6, 2007 11:07 PM

Nicole - you are my new Crossfit hero! Keep it up, you make all of us girls so proud!

Comment #167 - Posted by: Shelly at July 6, 2007 11:08 PM

Wilson, I don't know what laws we could do. I know for me, this is about exposer. These nut bags are the earlybelievers of the "truther" movement and the anti-Bush/war sentiment in the press. Sadly they have sympathizers and fellow travelers who have influence in our daily life. I find the blatent anti-semitism the most desturbing.

These people have Brethren in the media (Ohberman, Mathews etc.). They also have brethren in politics (Obama, Clinton, Kasenich, Kennedy). They have brethren in HollyWood (O'Donnell, Sheen). They might not be as outwardly un-American, but they are sympathetic and protective of this bunch and use them to push the debate farther left, so their veiws don't look as radical.

The must be shown to the common man, for what they are. For far to long they have been given sanctuary.

Comment #168 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at July 7, 2007 3:22 AM

#152 Barry-
Thank you and it is fun!

#154 Wilson-
Thanks and stay safe.

#155 Dale-
I did in fact log on some meters yesterday. It was sooo much easier than Sumo Deadlift High Pulls!

#160 Paul-
Somehow I don't think this would have been possible without your push.

You deserve a special Thank you for building such a great community.


Comment #169 - Posted by: jknl at July 7, 2007 5:54 AM


I think your intuition there may be very accurate. That's all I'm going to say.


Thanks for the offer. Truth is, I have trouble tagging off. I understand there are issues in some communities with hall hogs. Well, I guess I'm a blog hog. Hope you all will forgive my wordiness.

I did want to add one more thing (until I repeat this process tomorrow): social orders are defined by what they hold sacred, and what they hold sacred can be inferred by what they punish.

I'll float the open thought, and not even complete it: what did we punish, and what did we ignore in Vietnam? What are we punishing, and what are we ignoring today?

To me, it is one thing to criticize specific American politicians and policies. That is American. That's the whole point.

It is quite another to criticize America as a whole, without context, and without qualification. I literally believe that people like that have passed the bounds of what should be acceptable in a civilized society. They have shown they are only interested in creating problems, not solving them. I literally think there are certain types of protest which should lead to deportation and/or arrest.

Freedom of speech was intended to free people from the fear of arrest for speaking out in favor of unpopular positions. The reasoning was that the process of thought is always more complete when all views are heard, as well as a belief in the inherent dignity man assumes when left to utilize his rights responsibly.

But there is a difference between a reasoned--or even unreasoned--opposition to the War in Iraq, and fundamental opposition to our form of government, and the people running it in toto. Most of these people do not quite go that far, in public, but frankly some of them do.

Can you imagine the horror and disgust--on the part of Leftists, and their fellow travellers--that would occasion the arrest of people demonstrably trying to destabilize our social and political order? Sometimes I think they actually wish their fantasies of State Terror were true, so that they could actually protest something real.

If we fail as a nation, then we quite obviously will fail to protect the rights of the nation. This means we need to protect our identity as a tolerant, but not stupid, nation.

Stupid is when you let people openly talk of destroying you, without fear of reprisal.

What was that nation again where they just stopped a series of attacks engineered by foreign nationals sharing a common religion, the leaders of which often claim in public they want to destroy Western civilization, just like the protestors in San Fran? I believe it was just across the Atlantic.

Comment #170 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at July 7, 2007 11:43 AM


You say: "While fictional heroes may need to destroy fictional monsters, real heroes need to find the basis for the decisions of their antagonists and change their logic." This is tantamount to saying we should enable the terrorists to accomplish their objective by ceding to their demands.

This is patent moral equivalence. You know what? The only reason I would care why they did what they did would be do develop a better strategy for defeating them, and their future capacity to do anything like that again. Nobody in the World Trade Center deserved to die that day. Period. Once you start getting into motivations, you have crossed the line into la-la land.

You say: "One of the things I teach my son is that there are no monsters, only scared people."

What do you say of men who decide they want to rule a village, so they take the son of the village head and run him over with a jeep in front of his family? Or that rape and murder daughters in front of their parents? Fathers in front of their children? Wives in front of their husbands?

Mosquitoes flew into our World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, following numerous other mosquitoes that killed hundreds of Americans.

When you classify people, you are doing nothing more or less than utilizing a heuristic. Some heuristics are more useful than others, but in this case, I literally think that of good and evil is justified. It would be good to win the war in Iraq, and evil to quit and leave that region to its' fate.

I am going to infer from your comment that you favor an immediate or rapid withdrawal of troops, because we are only chasing mosquitoes, and our enemies are really just scared, not evil? Is that the correct inference?

Comment #171 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at July 7, 2007 11:57 AM

Nicole is the truth.

Comment #172 - Posted by: shawn at July 7, 2007 12:52 PM

is evil born or made, or both?

how can you draw the line of appropriateness when it comes to dissent? If the system is flawed, then how would you question it? Who decides what is "acceptable in a civilized society?" I am pretty sure both socialists and anarchists are protected under the constitution.

Comment #173 - Posted by: Ben M at July 7, 2007 1:53 PM


If we are truly at war, and we don't have enough troops, then what is the logical thing we should do to remedy that situation? And what can you possibly base your assertion that Bush has had to fight to get the personnel when the record is clear that because of Rumsfeld, we are stuck on no more than 150,000 troops for the "global" war on terror?

Yes, it is time to talk about a draft and not because Rangel has this plan to rile the middle class. We need a draft because we don't have enough troops. We need a draft so that recruiting standards don't get lowered. We need a draft because we have a bunch of chicken hawks below the age of 42 who don't want to enlist or pursue a commission. It is the utmost in the way of BS to act as if there is no rational way to address the troop shortage. It is also the utmost in BS to disregard the facts and information this administration ignored in going into Iraq.

So go ahead, lump me with extremists on the left. I guess you'd had have to include people like retired Marine Generals Zinni and Van Riper, as well as a host of retired Army Generals, all with combat experience, who think the Bush administration is full of BS when it comes to this war. And disagreeing with the way this war is prosecuted does not equate to anti-Republican or pro-left. As I mentioned before, I personally know Marines, both officer and enlisted, who think troop levels have to be increased. I also know for a fact that they would find it hard to vote for a Democrat for president. Wow, talk about a weird schizo thing that scenario creates-patriotic, Republican-leaning combat veterans who feel that more troops are needed. Guess we better sign them up for the Hanoi Jane fan club.

Lastly, the left side of the political spectrum, like the right side, has variations, nuances even. For instance, I bet a thousand bucks when Senator Lott said that Strom Thurmond should have been president at a time when Strom advocated racial segregation, not too many people felt that the entire right side of the political spectrum felt that way. In the same manner, Noam Chomsky doesn't voice everything for the left. I know it's hard to believe, but there are actually people who don't vote republican that serve in the armed forces, don't believe that 15 year olds should have the right to smoke marijuana, and also don't sympathize with terrorists. In fact, I know many of them. I work with some, am related to some and had the honor of serving with some. Suffice to say, I think your being pigeon-holed will stop when you stop pigeon-holing people who are less than impressed with the Bush administration.

Comment #174 - Posted by: phillip at July 7, 2007 2:36 PM

It is beyond ironic to see paeans to mistrust of government on a site where people regularly sing the praises of the military and police.

Comment #175 - Posted by: Joshua Holmes at July 7, 2007 3:01 PM

Wilson: "I'm so disgusted by the one highlighting July 4th in San Francisco. How do we contain this poison? We need laws to stem the tide of such patently traitorous filth."

Ben: "how can you draw the line of appropriateness when it comes to dissent? If the system is flawed, then how would you question it? Who decides what is 'acceptable in a civilized society?' I am pretty sure both socialists and anarchists are protected under the constitution."

Here, I must disagree with Wilson and agree with Ben. As repugnant as I find the SF demonstration, I want nothing to do with banning this sort of protest.

(Nor do I want to ban flag burning. Those of us who are revolted by the sight of a burning American flag can offer no greater counter protest than to gather the charred remains of a desecrated flag and provide them with a respectful burial.)

One of the great things about the First Amendment is that it makes it easy to spot the idiots.

Comment #176 - Posted by: Hari at July 7, 2007 3:19 PM

CCTJOEY, Ben, Hari—

I’m thinking along the lines of the Smith Act of 1940 which made it a criminal offense for anyone to "knowingly or willfully advocate…the overthrowing of the Government of the United States by force or violence (paraphrased from Wikipedia).

Maybe banning is too much. But perhaps an Executive Order to create an investigative office that could identify and stamp the open display or promotion of anti-American propaganda as “un-American”, such as:

“The United States Ruined My Life”
“Frag a General”
“Capitalism is Suicide”
or Flag burnings

I understand that the supporters are in the minority now. However, as CCTJOEY said, they do have support from some very influential people. I’m just afraid that if it remains completely unchecked it will only continue to grow. I’m not advocating measures as extreme as the Red Scare with Senator McCarthy. But exposing it and taking a stand against it is necessary. I don’t want to put a stranglehold on the Bill of Rights, but pretending that all opinions are equal and acceptable is wrong. You may be free to say what you believe in this country, and sometimes that means that some people have the right to be unpatriotic. But as a democratic society can we not decide as a nation to outlaw that which we believe to be detrimental to our way of life. I guess it’s just my personal opinion that these displays are tantamount to treason and are as dangerous, if not more, than open threats of rebellion. I know regulations tend to fuel their fire, just as apolitically correct statements fuel the PC supporters. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be said or done.

But maybe we are better off allowing these idiots to make fools of themselves and thereby invalidate their notions. I’m afraid I’ve lost some faith in much of our society’s ability to recognize this folly and teach their children right from wrong. It’s a tough spot we’re in.

Hari- I do see your point. I just wonder if there is a line that can be crossed. What if the Taliban started a political party here and marched through the streets with banners of the end of our republic and the rise of a new radical Muslim state. I agree that it would make them very easy to spot, but no less dangerous as they recruit from the uneducated and dregs of society that have no moral compass, dissatisfied and "disenfranchised". But perhaps we must wait for these anarchists to actually break the law. They're bound to sooner or later.

Comment #177 - Posted by: wilson at July 7, 2007 3:45 PM

Anecdotally, Wyatt Earp and gang outlawed firearms and public intoxication in Tombstone. This wasn't very Constitutional and I'm sure many felt violated, but it did serve to protect the people from those that sought to do them harm.

Only after 911 could the NSA TSP be instituted. Do we have to wait until it is obvious to everyone that some temporary forfeiture of freedom is necessary. Freedom is not all we stand for, but also for the good and the right. We must decide what is right and stand for it.

Sorry, not many facts in this post. Just my sentiments.

Comment #178 - Posted by: wilson at July 7, 2007 4:08 PM


"What if the Taliban started a political party here and marched through the streets with banners of the end of our republic and the rise of a new radical Muslim state."

We've allowed the Nazis to march through the streets and suffered no adverse consequences. This country is strong enough to tolerate any peaceful protest. It is shaky totalitarian regimes that need to fear both rational and irrational dissent.

Comment #179 - Posted by: Hari at July 7, 2007 4:15 PM

Phillip, no it is not time to talk about the draft.

If there is a shortage of troops, it is temporary at this point because the situation in Iraq is going to change within months one way or the other.

If we need more troops because, in general, we need more troops then that is another question. If we are short troops due to economic reasons that is one reason. If we are short troops because society in general is shunning serving that is another.

Are we short of troops? I say no. We have lots of troops in places they would not be needed if host countries would step up to the plate.

Since recruiting goals are routinely met, I don't see what you are ranting about.

As for your assertion about people that do not vote Republican that meet a host of characteristics you state, neat. They are not who we are talking about. If they are Democrats though, they should watch who they keep company with.

There is a BIG difference between mistakes in the heat of a difficult situation under the weight of the world and behavior of rebellious dissonance for the sake of political power. The left is guilty period. They forsake their country, countrymen, our ancestors sacred honor, and our Liberty so as to spread propaganda and bring about a failed social agenda. The soldiers in this war mean nothing to them. They are pawns and they keep attempting to turn the soldiers into victims.

Ben, seriously it is becoming quite apparent you are a college student. For two cycles now I have read some of the worst reasonings for justification of 'feel good' policies if have ever read on this board in 1.5 years. You offer no facts, only "what ifs", "imagine ifs", and "wouldn't it be greats".

This is what Paul was trying to tell you, but true to form of know it all college student, you missed it. I am not sure if you don't have bills, a family, a job, or to meet a payroll. I would wager none of the above.

I am not saying this because you don't agree with my perspective. It really is some logic I would expect from a self absorbed 9th grader. Step it up.

Comment #180 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at July 7, 2007 4:24 PM


Good point. I guess I've changed my tune a bit after 9-11. I've found myself much more observant of these "fringe" elements that I used to just scoff at. I'm not paranoid, but I am willing to take periodic hits to my civil liberties if it helps to quash these irrational dissents from gaining dangerous momentum. I wonder which ones are organized and motivated enough to take action on their misinformation.

I agree with your principles. I've just started to reconsider my previous opinion that these peaceful protests were harmless. I believe we are strong enough now. I only hope we remain so. The talk coming out of many "news sources" and Hollywood is what makes me question if our current generation is smart enough to see through the B.S. It sure seems to be growing.

Thanks for the grounding comments. Truthfully, I would actually like to see more of these matters handled on an individual basis by the states as opposed to the federal government.

The link that CCTJOEY posted with the anti-American propaganda just sent me through the roof.

Comment #181 - Posted by: wilson at July 7, 2007 8:22 PM

Clinton/Cisneros, Bush/Libby, Sandy Berger - who cares which party, folks are getting away with it. They are not to be trusted. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There solution - greater limits on govt power, return to the pre-FDR version of the Fed. Demand that your state complete the constitution as was planned and articulated in the Constitution.

Comment #182 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie at July 7, 2007 9:56 PM

Ben M #44 asks, “Unless a scientist hits the nail on the head with a theory, it's not to be trusted?”
No. A scientist is unethical and not to be trusted when he:
>urges public policy based on an unvalidated model; or
>seeks validity for his model based on a consensus or a vote, or
>persists with a model he knows doesn't fit all the data in its domain, or
>uses peer review for conformity or other purposes other than scientific quality, or
>relies on such peer review to validate his models, or
>defends criticism of his model by an ad hominem attack.

Comment #183 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at July 7, 2007 10:50 PM

Tim W #76 asks, “Is there even one program that was started by the government that accomplished it's goals and, in so doing, was then eliminated?”

Wouldn't the occupation of the Philippines qualify? Or of Japan?

Comment #184 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at July 7, 2007 10:51 PM

Burretto #103 says, “As a chemist, I know that there are no groups or cliques in the scientific community.”

If that is so, then the Consensus on Climate must not be science. This clique is foisting a rank fraud on the public.

Buretto then asks, “So far, when CO2 levels rise, so does the temp of our planet. Should we keep increasing CO2 levels?”

The assumption is sort of right. Actually, the rising temperature causes the increase in CO2, not the reverse. See The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide, www.rocketscientistsjournal.com. To stop increasing CO2 levels, we need to stop global warming.

Comment #185 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at July 7, 2007 10:52 PM

phillip #108 puts his finger on the button with his qualifications, “for a police/security action” and “especially if our goal is body-count based.” Korea was an object lesson about police actions. Vietnam was an object lesson about McNamara's ops-analysis numerics, body counts and sorties.

We lost these wars for failure to identify the enemy and then failure to take from him the things he valued. The wars dragged on too long. The drip drip drip of casualties mixed with a perpetually anti-American press, the wars were lost at home. Reagan and Rumsfeld seemed to appreciate the lessons, as in the petty Granada adventure.

We took Afghanistan from the Taliban, and killed what we could of the leaders. We took Iraq from the Ba'athists, set about taking out almost every leader, and scattered the troops to the desert winds. Then we lost sight of the war, and turned it into a police/security action.

Now we're back to body-counts in effect, taking out expendable and inexhaustible troops, while the leaders, the Saddam wannabes, sit safe in their sanctuaries - mosques, caves, or offshore hotels.

I submit the war is right and necessary, but we have fielded too many troops, not too few. We have too many crunchies and not enough special forces. Petraeus' counterinsurgency plan claims to have an offensive element, but it does not. It completely omits the number one element; it has no role for special forces. His police action is a fortress Baghdad expanding into a fortress Iraq.

Petraeus is expanding the perimeter, increasing the losses, with no hope of victory. The Saddam wannabes are also working inside the Iraqi government, rendering it impotent. The problem is not Petraeus's, it's Bush's. The first rule of warfare is define the enemy and deny him what he cherishes - life, control, land, showcase facilities, respect. The exchange is backwards. We beat our chests over every loss defending against suicides, while the enemy safely waits for us to surrender.

Comment #186 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at July 7, 2007 10:56 PM

Barry Cooper #118 said we should have invaded North Vietnam. Precisely. At some point, the Marines should have been unloading cargo at Haiphong. We should have destroyed dams, roads, power stations throughout the North. We should have closed the roads into China. What we failed to do in Korea and Vietnam was to reunify the countries into a pro-Western state. We failed even to set the GOAL. We would have lost WWII if we had never left North Africa or Great Britain.

You said, “You had some Calley's, but a lot more honest soldiers fighting hard and doing good work.” Six million actually. Over 58,000 killed. Over 304,000 wounded. But we hear about the Calleys and the Cindy Sheehans and the Abu Ghraib hazing.

Comment #187 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at July 7, 2007 10:57 PM

Phillip #125 says, “Unless I'm missing something, Plame was clearly a covert asset.”

Yes, you're missing something. On February 12, 2002, Valerie Plame Wilson wrote an unclassified memorandum to her superiors in the CIA nominating her husband for the Niger trip. This memorandum is reported by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report On The Us. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq, 7/7/04, and it is quoted without declassification. This unclassified memorandum identifies her as a CIA employee. Neither the CIA nor Valerie Plame Wilson was protecting her identity as a CIA employee, nor was either much concerned about it.

Comment #188 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at July 7, 2007 10:58 PM

Buretto #133 claims, “Bush's idea that he can destroy all of the evil in the world is one of fantasy.” You have magical insight into Bush.

You then say, “I find Bush's use of good or evil as adjectives to describe others as childish and arrogant. … Is that a value we should teach our children?” Apparently you find neither good nor evil in the world. I deduce that is because you believe in moral equivalence. What we must not teach our children includes multiculturism and moral equivalence.

Comment #189 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at July 7, 2007 11:00 PM

JPW asks, “What do you think the Administration was trying to do when they released Plame's name?”

Ambassador Joseph Wilson was out to discredit the President and his State of the Union message. He wrangled a trip to Niger to get evidence. He actually proved the opposite, but then lied about it, and made it public. Among his lies was that the Vice President recommended him for the trip, so to give his trip all the more credit. In fact, his wife, a CIA employee, recommended him for the trip, and the CIA, not averse to discrediting Bush, went along with it. Pointing out the truth of the matter was a proper rebuttal for the Administration. After all, she was not a protected employee.

Comment #190 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at July 7, 2007 11:01 PM

CCTJOEY #138 said, “Today- The terrorist surveillance program or what the left calls the 'Domestic Spying Program' has been reinstated as LEGAL through an overturning of the bogus ruling of a lower court that determined it was unconstitional.”

Not exactly. The decision of the Sixth Circuit was not on the merits, but on the standing of the plaintiffs to have ever brought the suit.

Actually, warrantless wire tapping is legal under FISA, 50 USC §1802. Check it out. Gonzales didn't. The media didn't. It's not only legal under not too tough circumstances, but the FISA courts are denied jurisdiction to even hear the matter.

Comment #191 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at July 7, 2007 11:03 PM

Why then does the Republican appointed Fitzgerald publically state that he believes there was inpropriety? What does he get from stirring up the pot within his own party?

Comment #192 - Posted by: JPW at July 8, 2007 7:30 AM

Jeff, JPW, all, wasn't the "leak" to Novak, Miller et al proved to be from a non-Bush team State Dept employee? The name escapes me but among the total pile of BS surrounding this case, Fitz was told early on that the 'leaker' was this State Dept guy, not anyone close to Bush, and he continued to poke around implying that he had a Bush inner circle name that 'leaked' Plame's name.

Comment #193 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie at July 8, 2007 8:37 AM

Libby like Clinton was put in a position where he had a choice between telling the truth about an embarrassing (but not criminal) act or committing perjury. Libby like Clinton chose perjury. I have no sympathy for either one of them.

Comment #194 - Posted by: Hari at July 8, 2007 10:01 AM

JPW, Apolloswabble

The confessed culprit was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Interesting that JPW would refer to "Republican appointed Fitzgerald" as if he evidenced a different political bent. I had the same reaction. He bought the Sixteen Words/Plame/Wilson/CIA/Democrat story, hook, line & sinker. See the Libby indictment. Its an ethical breakdown for a prosecutor to appear so political. He should have stayed away from all microphones.

To be sure, someone at CIA did give him some justification for buying the undercover story. But he should have investigated it more thoroughly. It had been partially investigated by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence three years earlier, and key evidence on the subject was in their files. Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, 7/7/04. That included Plame's apparently unclassified memorandum nominating her husband to go to Niger, and which identified herself as a CIA employee.

Regardless, after Federal Judge Walton ruled and informed the jury that there would be no testimony as to Plame's CIA status, he never should have mentioned anything about an outing. Instead he told the jury that such an outing was a heinous crime that could get somebody killed. Was he pointing a gnarled finger at the defendant at the time?

Fitzgerald failed to research Plame's status. Then when he learned that Armitage was the "leaker", he should have reassessed his entire appointment. Next when Fitzgerald learned that Walton eliminated Plame's status from the case, his ham sandwich of an indictment became a charred lace, like the Coyote's flaming net to catch the Roadrunner. It, too, should have crumbled of its own weight.

But the trial having been launched proceeded asea on its own inertia. And the jury wondered why they were trying Libby at all. Was he a fall guy, they asked? Why weren't they trying the real culprits? Google the post trial performances of Denis Collins. Fall guy and culprit for what? For Libby's false statements under oath, which amounted to obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements?

And why did the Judge ever allow Collins on the panel at all? He knew several people on the prosecution's witness list, reporters whose credibility and memory were at issue. That included Bob Woodward with whom he had worked as a reporter! He was a personal friend and neighbor of Tim Russert, named in the Libby indictment and key to it! He might have been excused just for being a reporter.

Collins had recently published a novel on spying that included a female CIA undercover agent in Africa! Check it out at Amazon. Where in the world was Ted Wells, Libby's high profile attorney. Asleep? Saving himself?

What Fitzgerald did was rank prosecutorial misconduct, putting him in the bag with Mike Nifong. If justice prevails, it alone will earn Libby a reversal.

After Fitzgerald's misconduct, why didn't Walton immediately lift the restriction against evidence on Plame's status? That would have allowed Libby's defense an opportunity to challenge it, which Fitzgerald had failed to do.

In many jurisdictions, and perhaps all, the mission of a prosecutor is bring justice for all parties. The system instead counts convictions, and produces unethical conduct like Fitzgerald's and Nifong's.

Bush did just the right thing in the commutation, but as usual he can't explain it. It's way over Gonzales' head. It's right because it keeps Libby out of jail and gives the courts of appeal an opportunity to rectify a conviction for someone else's alleged crimes. If the courts don't fix it, then he should pardon Libby.

Comment #195 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at July 8, 2007 10:25 AM


"What Fitzgerald did was rank prosecutorial misconduct, putting him in the bag with Mike Nifong. If justice prevails, it alone will earn Libby a reversal."

Assuming you are correct in your analysis (I believe you basicaly are), do you believe Libby is factually innocent of perjury?

Comment #196 - Posted by: Hari at July 8, 2007 10:39 AM

Hari #189,

What exactly was the truth that Libby should have told the FBI and the Grand Jury? Clinton was caught doing things highly embarrassing, to himself, his family, and the Presidency with which he was entrusted. Motivation counts in lying and perjury, or at least it should.

Whether Libby knew Plame worked for the CIA, when he knew it, and who told him are utterly immaterial to anything, even Fitzgerald's investigation. She worked for the CIA, and that was unclassified. She, not the VP, nominated her husband to go to Niger, and that was their little failed conspiracy to get evidence against the President's 16 words in his State of the Union message.

Let's assume Libby's testimony as described in the indictment, which was the content of his conversations with reporters as told to the FBI and the Grand Jury, was knowingly false. How was that an “endeavor[] to influence, intimidate, or impede” Fitzgerald's investigation? That's what the statute on obstruction of justice requires, and that was count 1. The alleged leak didn't come from the VP's office, and Libby's testimony could have no effect to keep Fitzgerald from discovering that fact.

Continuing with counts 2 and 3, making false statements to the FBI, the statute is 18 USC §1001(a)(2) and it requires that Libby made a “materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation”. In what way were Libby's assumed misrepresentation of conversations with reporters material? Material to what? Presumably, the underlying Fitzgerald investigation. It can't be material to Libby's perjury; that would be a bootstrap.

And lastly on counts 4 and 5, making false statements to the Grand Jury, 18 USC §1623 requires making a “false material declartion”. The same analysis as §1001(a)(2) applies.

Nothing was leaked, and the source of the alleged leak was not in the VP's office. It was in the State Department. Libby's assumed false statements surely ticked off Fitzgerald. It was a distraction to him because he needed some kind of conviction. But the law does not require a showing of an endeavor to distract. It did lead Fitzgerald down an extra path on his investigation, the persecution of Libby, but it did not impede him from learning eventually that Armitage was the so-called leaker.

Libby had no motivation to falsify his conversations with reporters to the FBI and the Grand Jury. He was protecting no one, least of all himself. His testimony was not material to anything except his own trial, which didn't exist at the time of the alleged falsehoods. He “endeavored” to do nothing, and what he was charged with saying was immaterial.

Comment #197 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at July 8, 2007 11:27 AM

Perjury is lying under oath. Can someone remind me what he supposedly lied about, exactly?

JPW, where did you hear that Fitzgerald was a Republican?

Comment #198 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at July 8, 2007 11:32 AM


"Let's assume Libby's testimony as described in the indictment, which was the content of his conversations with reporters as told to the FBI and the Grand Jury, was knowingly false. How was that an “endeavor[] to influence, intimidate, or impede” Fitzgerald's investigation? That's what the statute on obstruction of justice requires, and that was count 1. The alleged leak didn't come from the VP's office, and Libby's testimony could have no effect to keep Fitzgerald from discovering that fact."

You seem to be arguing that Libby may have perjured himself, but that perjury was "harmless," to Fitzgerald's investigation; and therefore, count 1 of the indictment was invalid. I think you may be correct. But one of the counts involved simple perjury, and if Libby's testimony was "knowingly false," I see no way that his conviction for perjury can (or should be) overturned.

Put another way: If you were in Libby's place, would you have made "knowingly false" statements, regardless of their relevance?


Libby was convicted of (among other things) making false statements to the FBI and the Grand Jury regarding his conversations with reporters. I think there is general agreement that there was nothing criminal about his conversations with reporters (and thus they were never worth lying about), but he was convicted of lying nonetheless. It seems to me that if Libby had done nothing but tell the truth, he would have never been indicted.

Comment #199 - Posted by: Hari at July 8, 2007 11:56 AM

Hari, that is my question. What was "THE LIE"?

That is why I doubt this whole business. Since none of the reporters remembered the conditions of the discussions, I find it rather special that Scoter needed to.

I remember the Jury specifically stopping deliberations and asking the Judge why they were there. This was about punishing somebody, anybody, not finding the truth. The jury said as much when they rendered their ruling.

Comment #200 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at July 8, 2007 12:41 PM


"Hari, that is my question. What was "THE LIE"?"

The jury was convinced that Libby lied in relating details about what he said to reporters regarding Plame. (This does not mean that the jury reached the right decision; it only means that his conviction makes him "legally" guilty, even if he is factually innocent.)

Specifically, the jury believed he lied when told both the FBI and the Grand Jury that he first heard about Plame's identity from a reporter. Also the jury believed he lied when he said that he did not mention her role at the CIA to reporters.

Even assuming that the reporters' versions of the conversations were correct, Libby broke no laws in anything he was found to have said to the reporters. Rather he was found guilty of lying about what he said. (Had he simply said he did not remember, he would never have been indicted.)

I agree with Jeff and your position that this was a witch hunt that should have been dropped when it became obvious that no initial crime had been committed.

Comment #201 - Posted by: Hari at July 8, 2007 1:47 PM

So much for the peace movement.

Anti-war 'Peacenik' shoots Airman


Comment #202 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at July 8, 2007 2:12 PM

What was the song on the video? I want to add it to my work out playlist

Comment #203 - Posted by: Screaming-Eagle at July 8, 2007 2:46 PM

You know, the transition from "angry at the military"--according to someone with apparent first hand knowledge--to "angry at the government" in the news reports was conspicuous.

No doubt he too supported the troops, really. Like many of his cohorts, he was just misunderstood in his means of expressing it.

What a sad, sad state of affairs. Makes me want to wring a neck or too, but in a peaceful way.

Comment #204 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at July 8, 2007 5:37 PM

Hari #194,

The Libby indictment was not for perjury, but for Obstruction of Justice and four counts of False Statement, two to the FBI under one statute, and two to the Grand Jury under another statute. None of these statutes require the government to prove that harm was done.

For Obstruction of Justice, the government must prove the defendant tried (endeavored) to impede (etc.) an investigation. For False Statement, the government must prove that the false statement was about a material fact, undoubtedly material to an investigation, and that it was made knowingly and willfully. Try to concoct a scenario that makes the alleged statements fit those statutory requirements!

Moreover Judge Walton had ruled that Plame's status was not material to Libby's trial. So how could when, where, or how Libby came to know she was a CIA employee (that's all that's left) be material to Fitzgerald's underlying investigation under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?

On the other hand, if her status had been material to the Libby trial, then his withholding of who knew she was a protected employee could well have been material to Fitzgerald's investigation and withholding that information could have impeded his investigation. That is not what was tried.

Judge Walton made the Intelligence Identity Protection Act immaterial to Libby's trial.

Comment #205 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at July 8, 2007 5:43 PM

Nicole you are amazing!!

Comment #206 - Posted by: Jenika at July 8, 2007 6:01 PM


"The Libby indictment was not for perjury, but for Obstruction of Justice and four counts of False Statement, two to the FBI under one statute, and two to the Grand Jury under another statute. None of these statutes require the government to prove that harm was done."

If the four of the charges were for false statements, and if none of these charges require the government to prove harm was done, then it seems that the validity of the underlying investigation is irrelevant. I agree that this is unfair, but no one forced Libby to make false statements. Had he told the truth or taken the Fifth, he would not have been indicted.

Comment #207 - Posted by: Hari at July 8, 2007 7:25 PM

Personally, I don't care if Libby broke the letter of the law or not. His crime was committed in the course of a political witchhunt which in my view had no purpose other than embarassing the Administration. At the end of the day no evidence of malfeasance, much less law breaking, was ever found.

How many Democrats are screaming about the fact that Clinton never faced jail time? It was essentially the same offense, and the same context. Why Libby have to face jail? In my view, he was just doing his job as well as he knew how to. We have no idea at all how much he has sacrificed, how many nights he was working at midnight, for the sake of this country.

We need to freaking grow up and stop this oneupsmanship crap, and start focussing on actual solutions to actual problems. The problem is not the other party; it is stupidity. In my view, that malady is more often found in one party than the other, but neither is exempt, and neither side seems to be making the other side smarter by reasoned debate.

Comment #208 - Posted by: barry cooper at July 9, 2007 6:12 AM

Why do some distrust "the government" at any level but unquestionably trust the motives and actions of a particular administration?

Comment #209 - Posted by: Ben M at July 9, 2007 8:12 AM

Why do you keep posting questions without further comments or clarification in an effort to appear like you are some sort of Socrates?

Step it up Ben

Comment #210 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at July 9, 2007 9:58 AM

Comment #179 - Posted by Jeff Glassman
"Tim W #76 asks, “Is there even one program that was started by the government that accomplished it's goals and, in so doing, was then eliminated?”"

Wouldn't the occupation of the Philippines qualify? Or of Japan?

- - -

OK. There's two. However, this wasn't what I meant in my original question, but my fault for not clarifying.

More specifically, a domestic government program of a social nature, a la "war on poverty", "war on drugs", etc.

Comment #211 - Posted by: TimW at July 9, 2007 10:28 AM

I'm not trying to come off as some sort of punk or snob, but rather be quick and thought-provoking. It just seems uneven that there is intense rationalization for the innocence/justification of Libby, but the opposite for other government officials or policies.

I don't think some of Libby's proponents would be as quick to characterize a DMV or IRS worker as "hard-working." Given all of our limited knowledge and lack of personal insight, I think those kind of generalizations are unwarranted.

Comment #212 - Posted by: Ben M at July 9, 2007 10:41 AM


A number of the programs FDR rolled out to combat the depression, the make-work projects, were discontinued.

And didn't Nixon or Carter roll out wage and price controls, during our inflationary period?

The issue with government is philosophical. It is a basic belief that the less we are told how to live our lives, the more free we will be. If you think about it, it makes sense.

Governments are instituted to secure the rights of life, liberty and the ownership of property, and their proper extent is neither more nor less than what is needed to do that. When I personally assess a specific Administration, I use that basic heuristic.

Democrats consistently go far beyond what is necessary, and they have created a situation in which Republicans too have to provide yet more crack to the crack babies, in the form of entitlements. Bush's rollout is a bit different, but the practical effect and cost is nearly identical.

The issue is not government or no government. It is prudent government or stupid overreaching government. People that have no issues with wide-scale wealth redistribution that results in the moral degradation of an entire section of our populace, scream bloody murder when Bush implements common sense policies designed to proactively prevent the emergence of weapons that are nearly undetectable if properly transported. They scream when he chooses to seed fields likely to generate economic growth rather than barren saltfields.

He doesn't defend himself well because he is inarticulate. But his basic ideas make sense, and are congruent with smaller government influence, even if not solidly oriented around shrinking government. He can't do that, politically, because everything is backwards, in what some choose to call our current "debate".

Comment #213 - Posted by: barry cooper at July 9, 2007 10:44 AM

Japan maybe (I don't know much about it), but I'm pretty sure we didn't just step out of the Philippines. After the installment of elite democracy, The U.S. had a heavy hand in Filipino politics and economics to protect its military and economic interests, i.e. the bases and big multinationals. The U.S. overlooked human rights violations and stood behind a ruthless dictator. The "national security aid" supplied the Filipino army and unchecked paramilitary groups with weapons to put down strikes and protests through killing and terror.
Yeah there was a militant Communist party that "threatened" Marcos, but it's not hard to see why they took that road.

Comment #214 - Posted by: Ben M at July 9, 2007 10:51 AM

Way to go Nicole. You rock!

Refreshing to see an athletic next door girl going at wihtout the drama!

Notice the absense of the protruding Adams apple, lack of Acne and overal 'heavy' thickness on her frame.

Clean cut.

Comment #215 - Posted by: Robbie at July 9, 2007 10:53 AM

I am saying that a political preference shouldn't partial our trust in particular government officials, whether they subscribe to ideologies that result in the "moral degradation of... our populace" or "sound common sense policies." Especially as far as the law is concerned.

Giving power to the "correct" people is a pretty elitist, undemocratic idea.

Comment #216 - Posted by: Ben Moskowitz at July 9, 2007 11:37 AM


Please translate that into a complete thought. I don't understand what you are saying. Self evidently, there can be superior IRS employees--and no doubt are--but systemically the government is not normally as efficient as private industry, and the concern is that it do as little as possible.

As even someone unfortunate enough to be in a position of paying a lot of money to have an "elite" education inflicted upon them should be able to realize, the Democrats favor more government, more regulation, more wealth redistribution that Republicans do. The Libby thing is nothing more nor less than a propaganda event staged in collaboration with the media to continue reinforcing a message about the current Administration that is patently untrue.

I'm going to bet you get straight A's, wherever you go to school. Grist for the mill. Grist for the mill.

Comment #217 - Posted by: barry cooperb at July 9, 2007 11:58 AM

You know, one of the principle difficulties we see here is historical illiteracy. Here is a link I've sent around a bit that is just plain interesting, to me, about John Hancock, and what he did and did not do: http://www.snopes.com/history/american/hancock.htm

This has descended to the silly stage. Ben, you seem sincere, but it ruins my fun when you don't get basic points.

Comment #218 - Posted by: barry cooper at July 9, 2007 12:19 PM

That video just rocked my world. Nicole is one of the top ten hottest women on the planet.

Comment #219 - Posted by: UNI Chris at July 9, 2007 12:22 PM

basic points like the liberal vs. conservative view on the role of government? I get it.

To simplify the Philippines thing (maybe with some bias):
The U.S. did not gracefully give democracy to the Philippines and then promptly "exit." Instead, the U.S. continued to exert a heavy influence on the Philippines to maintain big military bases for the "Communist threat" and secure scandalous deals for big American companies. This resulted in the impoverishment, degradation, and deaths of millions of Filipinos.

A patently untrue message about the Administration? How do we determine that? Why are certain ideologues more trustworthy than others?

I am saying "trust" is being applied unevenly. The leaders with the right policies are justified in their actions. Of course, the "right policy" is subjective. The processes and actions of government should be put to the objective test of oversight, transparency, and the law.

It sounds like Libby must be the center of some conspiracy by the liberal media, wackjob politicians, and gov't agents. Meanwhile, there's great disdain for conspiracy theories directed in the other direction. Seems contradictory. I am not saying any of these theories are correct/incorrect, but that our appraisal of them is obviously biased. I would say the solution is hard evidence and qualified, or "trustworthy" hehe, information.

I think there should be just as much skepticism in the media, the gatekeeper of all our info. The media provides an important check against the government for getting away with stuff. A complacent media does a disservice to the people. Where does this info come from?

Is the Hancock thing just something interesting, or does it illustrate my historical illiteracy? I mean, it looks like he was a pretty brave and humble guy. cool.

The government's waste is about 7% of its budget, on par with the best of the private sector (my HS teacher said so). As for "hard-working" and "efficiency" I have no clue, but I would like to see empirical evidence or detailed economic analysis. Something more than what amounts to an educated guess. I don't mean to make demands. but if you run across a sweet paper...

Comment #220 - Posted by: Ben M at July 9, 2007 1:23 PM

You're absolutely right. 7% just feels right to me, and you are right: nobody knows anything and it's much better to be smart than dumb, and even though people are sometimes right they are also sometimes wrong: what do we make of this?

If I feel that the media is being dishonest, even though I know that it may be accurate surely I can ask for more information, since not all politicians are honest, right?

And this whole government thing: some people are so like, I like the government, and some people disagree. Can't we all just get along?

BTW: have you checked out my myspace page? There's some rad stuff on there.

c u l8r.

Comment #221 - Posted by: barry cooper at July 9, 2007 2:06 PM

That is awesome.

Comment #222 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at July 9, 2007 4:10 PM

what is?

Comment #223 - Posted by: Ben M at July 9, 2007 9:59 PM


Comment #224 - Posted by: wilson at July 9, 2007 10:28 PM

I grok Ben's significance.


(Happy 100th, RH)

Comment #225 - Posted by: TimW at July 10, 2007 6:52 AM

Nicole, you are inspiring. Great job.

On the government...
What's amazing to me is how many people do trust the government - even people who say that they don't trust the government. By their actions, they seem to be trusting very much in the government. That is, they fear the government and they depend on the government. We tend to trust what we fear and depend on.

The big problem with all governments is that they are run by people. The big problem with people is that people are sinners.

It is ironic to me that so many people argue to keep faith completely separate from the public square. If the church isn't going to check the government, then who is? And on what basis or authority?

Of course, the problem is that - all too often - the church doesn't check the government. The church is often just as corrupt.

We need Jesus.

Comment #226 - Posted by: dan at July 10, 2007 3:12 PM

"Giving power to the 'correct' people is a pretty elitist, undemocratic idea."

Of course, some of us are highly suspicious of this thing called democracy. What is to keep democracy from becoming a system in which two wolves and a lamb vote on who to eat for dinner? Unfortunately, democracy is all too often mob rule. And I don't trust the mob. Certainly a democracy is only as wise and as good as the majority of people are wise and good.

It might also be pointed out that we live in a Constitutional Republic - not a democracy.

Democracy does not equal justice. If 60% of the people of any given "democratic" nation decided to kill all their Jews or Greeks or blacks or whites or (fill in the blank), then we really ought to oppose the majority. Our loyalty should be to justice - not necessarily democracy.

Jesus died on the cross to save sinners. Thank God.

Comment #227 - Posted by: dan at July 10, 2007 3:23 PM

One more thought about trusting government:

Proverbs 21:22 - "A wise man attacks the city of the mighty and pulls down the stronghold in which they trust."

In what or in whom are we trusting that is not worthy of such trust? We need to put our trust in God - not the government. The government is not worthy of trust. God is.

Comment #228 - Posted by: dan at July 11, 2007 10:51 AM

Jeff - a much belated thanks for the clarity with which you presented the Libby info. Paul

Comment #229 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie at July 12, 2007 1:02 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?