Rest day in Galveston...

Muscle and fitness mag. article was a great read!

M/22/5'8"/190

I GUESS IM DOIN CHEST TOMORROW!

M/36/5'11"/175

I just finished the Mesa Certification today. It was awesome. The best instruction at any kind of seminar or certification I have ever been to. Listening to Coach Glassman speak was truly enlightening.

I just want to thank all of the instructors and Mesa Fire for making it possible. There was a great group of people there.

I will definitely continue with more certifications. Next up level II.

Charlton Heston, what a legend. I'm going on a Heston spree this week.

Good job Dave!

Great block over the last three days, including my first CFT. Thanks coach and Lauren! I'm looking forward to the Kaysville Cert in two weeks! Hope I'll be ready.

Mesa Cert was great. I thought I was sold on CrossFit before I went, but now I am a true convert. I would recomend the Cert's to anyone.

Ken C.

Here is the video of Donny Shankle doing Grace in 1:47

http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/CrossFitRogue_DonnyShankleGrace.mov

Brute grace.

Loved Mesa Cert!! I plan on attending more Certs when I get the chance. If you haven't gone, I would make it a priority.

Thanks to all of the instructors, Mesa Fire, and Coach Glassman for a Great Atmosphere, and a Great Program.

Jolleyfire

GREAT ARTICLE!!!

Patty your looking pretty rough are you trying to copy my beard??

Right on Chuck.

Heston was amazing. What to say about such a legend? Treasure Island was such an awesome movie.

Excellent address from Charlton Heston and that was almost nine years ago! A gentleman who risked his name for a cause worth fighting for - this country.

This is gonna suck! Cant wait, it will be awesome!! Oh crap, wrong day

No matter which side of the aisle your political leanings tend to fall, or your views of Mr. Heston, no one should argue with a call to know your values and defend them... whatever those values may be.

On a personal note, or maybe a California perspective, I would propose that the root of the issue Heston was trying to address goes deeper. How many of us were brought up w/ the values our grandparents would find acceptable? How many of us know exactly what our values are?

The world is very rapidly becoming smaller, more connected (CF is a prime example). Adapting to all the social stimuli that this world can bring is challenging. It was not too far in the past where a person in any town in the world had a very high probability of knowing the person he passed by name. Today you can walk through the town you grew up in and not know the name of anyone that doesn't wear a name tag.

Anonymity is the issue that distorts ones sense of values most. Historically it was the community that set the barometer for values. Today its the media and personal experiences that set the barometer. The days of a local community are past or fleeting, there remains only a larger more global community and the smaller interest based micro-community. The actions that would make one a pariah in the communities of old, are washed out and muted in today's digital tumult.

A section that I liked: "It scares me to death, and should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason".

The Freedom of speech is absolute in the constitution, yet it is often restricted by our federal government.

"Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

There is no cnostitutional right for individuals to bear arms. We can, however, be part of a well regulated militia and bear arms. That militia is the National Guard.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If Heston is going to argue for freedoms, he probably shouldn't be using Antioch as an example. It's a private college where students choose to attend voluntarily. They have a constitutional right to enter into any contract with that school they wish.

His address was confusing. He argues that thoughts and speech is being mandated, but uses examples of people are voluntarily entering into i.e. Antioch college, San Fransisco, U Penn, and William and Mary examples of expanded freedom of speech and thought - not restrictions.

The other examples supported his case.

I was never much of a Charlton Heston fan, but I am now. I feel nothing but admiration for a man with such a willingness to stand up for what is right and such a strong conviction to protect the moral fabric of his country, irregardless of his own personal detriment. I have bookmarked the article for future reference. Now the part about the transexuals getting their own bathrooms and the transvestites having the right to cross dress at work,... well, that was just funny.

M/48/5'11'/185

First CFT
BS 295#
SP 115#
DL 315#

Been doing CF now for about 6 weeks. I like many of the results I've seen as far as running speed, endurance and my pull up strength improving, but, I've noticed my strength has gone down considerably in squats, deadlift and bench.

Has anyone else experienced the same after switching to CF? Perhaps it will take a while for my body to adapt to the CF style of strength training.

My shoulder press and flexibility has always been pathetic, but, I am looking forward to a marked improvement in those areas in the next 6 months.

Any advice on improving flexibility, especially in the shoulders?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Mr. Chuck Heston was right on the money with this speech. If anyone thinks he is over stating the issue in our colleges today I have a story for you. I was flunked out of a class my freshman year because I spoke my mind in a class. My papers were sound and points concise and very much on point, they just were not what I was supposed to be "learning" and therefore expressing in my papers. The Prof. and I argued openly in class after I questioned his sources when I had found opposing facts. The result was a failing grade forcing me to drop the class so I wouldn't be knocked off the deans list.
I was told filing a complaint would not do any good. I just wanted to learn the truth or as close to the truth as we can get with our collective resources and discourse. Granted this was an extreme case but the subtle bias is much more dangerous and more prevalent.
side note my father said this once and I'm not sure if it was his own thought or not, "If you're not a Democrat when you're young you have not heart. If you're not a Republican when you're old you have no brain."

Did the Decatur Cert and learned a ton. Nicole was awesome with her nutrition lecture; all the instructors were extremely knowledgeable. Andrew from Quantico helped me out immensely. Thanks for a great cert and hope to see some of the other students/instructors at other certs.

RIP C. HESTON

Great man and supporter of our individual freedoms.

#19

You are off base.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"

This is a justification for why we are allowed to be armed. Not a definition of who is allowed.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This is the part where we are told who can keep arms. Not the militia but the 'people'. And it is the people who form the militia. And not only do we get to 'keep' arms we are allowed to 'bear' arms in an un-infringed manner.

It is a constitutional right.

In Britain, apathy rules in a land dulled by TV, cheap food, an appalling press and the twin celebratory cults of mediocrity and freakishness. If we don't become more politically active, we will have an increasingly cynical, disdainful and manipulative regime making our choices for us based on their vested interests. The British are treated like frightened sheep - and quite frankly this may be what they deserve. Is it any better on the otherside of the Atlantic?

I just wanted to say thanks to all the trainers at the Crossfit Certification Seminar in Decatur, GA this weekend. The cert. was absolutely awesome.
I thought I had good form and intensity, and then I went to the cert.

M/33/5'9"/185
I'm hungry.

OH YEAH!! this means ICE CREAM TOMORROW! every second rest day is a cheat day.. i just might go into a sugar coma tomorrow... I cant wait!!

Yeah Jakers is right.
Did anyone know that a majority of violent crimes in Japan are committed with friggin swords!
Guns and people like Charleton Heston are what help keep us free. I wonder what Michael Moore would think if he knew Charleton marched with M.L.K.?
I am going to go buy some more guns now and exercise my butt off so I am even more capable of protecting my family.

Great speech by Heston!

Angie

16:12

New PR

Well said Mr. Heston.

Great cert in Decatur. Learned a few things about myself and about CrossFit. Thanks to all the instructors, Sonz Decatur, and to Andrew for letting me get a few things off my chest. Ultimately, well worth the time, money, energy and sweat!

Sorry to repost from yesterday - but this seemed more relevant based on the Cert image above.

---

Open Letter and class review for Crossfit Certification Seminar in Atlanta on April 5-6:

Thank you for teaching me real intensity.

We can read about intensity, talk about intensity, and hell, even watch various flavors of intensity on video - but - nothing can match the actual experience of ass-in-the-fire intensity.

I got exactly what I wanted out of this class.

I'm no trainer, nor do I want to be a trainer; instead, I came to certification class to find the holes in my training.

I found them.

and, in fact, discovered that perhaps, I haven't ever been *really* training.

More than ever I believe Crossfit is the real deal. It struck me during some of the lectures, that Crossfit is nothing new --- it's really just a packaging of all the training types that are proven to work because they are required "in real work", be that the real work of fire fighters, law enforcement, military, or as instructor Pat liked to say, "carrying your kids and groceries from the car"

This no ass-kiss post. There were periods where I got bored, but that's mostly during the discussions more geared towards training and training business - which I just don't care about - so there, I am being a little selfish.

Also, while I can subscribe to some of Nicole's Zone preaching concepts, much of the trainers seem to be single, without kids, which makes writing down everything you eat, measuring everything and being super intense about diet just a little more difficult. If you don't want to alienate the rest of your family and friends, it's a real challenege to find that fine line between doing what's 100% best for yourself, and participating in real life with your family.

The technique training was incredibly helpful --- knowing how to deadlift, clean, squat and snatch correctly are strong reasons for my attendance and most of the training attention focused on these, and relative, movements.

nice...

Shout outs to Pat, Nicole, Tony the Media Guy, Mike G, the Marine from Florida, Jelli, and all the other trainers who spent the necessary time with this sweaty, stinky dude who thought he knew something, but came away finding out he has a lot more to learn and work on to improve.

...a lot more Crossfit training to do.

But isn't that why we're here?

Thanks and Cheers!

Christian
http://run50miles.org

No rest for the wicked. "nasty girls" as rx'd this morning (12:10). Followed by 2 mile pt run. I'll rest when I die:)

if you need some humbling...

We learned that while at Atlanta Cert class, Nicole, one of Crossfit's exceptional trainers and particpant in many of the training videos, demonstrated a new max life for the overhead, front-squat at185lbs.

think about that for a second... if that sounds easy to you ...go to cert class.

Thanks Coach and Laura for another article that leaves me inspired to educate myself more in many areas~

Get your stinkin’ paws off me, you d@mned dirty ape!

MR. Heston rocks...

Decatur this weekend was great. Thanks to Nicole, Tony, Pat, and Andrew for putting together an awesome cert. All the Level 1's were fast learners and put out a lot of intensity. Thank you to Eric W. and the Sonz staff. I really had a great time.

I walked through the doors at Sonz,Decatur to see the friendly faces of Jill and Jenny. Then like rock stars Nicole and Tony come walking up. I thought this is going to be amazing! No words can describe...
Andrew and Pat were aslo instructing. They all kick ass. I loved it!! Pat is hysterical, thanks for all the laughs. This was an awesome group of instructors. Thanks for exceeding my expectations. I know it's cliche but truly my life is changed.
Want to thank all the girls who rocked Sat. work out w/me. The Crossfit community is a beautiful thing. Thanks to Eric at Sonz, Decatur for the use of his facility.

RIP Mr. Heston. Thanks for posting his speech.

An interesting segue for me is General Douglas McArthur's 1962 Farewell address to the Corps of Cadets. An exerpt:

"Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should be.

These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a tenfold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country."

Peace out & Hooah !

Had a great time at the Decatur cert! Everyone will talk about the great instruction from Nicole (inspiring-thanks for the zone number), Tony (informative), Pat (hilarious), Andrew (motivating- Semper Fi) and the other trainers. All true and deserved.

I'd also give a round of virtual applause to Jenni who probably in a two day span did somewhere in the gazillionish number of bottom position movements of squat, deadlift, clean, and about an hour straight of the snatch. She had a nametag that said Jelli the first day that had to be foreshadowing of her current leg condition. You are a great example Jelli of great form.

I'm pretty religious to the site and thought I was putting together a decent foundation of fitness with reading, but there is really something to dedicating two days with the best instructors that can explain how to do it and then hold you to that example until it is beaten into your head....and legs...and shoulders...you get the picture.

Good luck to all moving forward! 321, Go!
Taylor

#19

I think it would help for you to familiarize yourself with history. Fortunately the interpretation of the amendments is not up to you. You can read the notes and arguments surrounding their adoption at the Library of Congress. Wouldn't hurt to visit the Archives either.

Thank God for the Bill of Rights. Though they fall under attack daily by intolerant people. Does anybody else find it interesting that the those who argue that we must be inclusive and tolerant are the most intolerant and exclusive if you do not agree with their view? Mr. Heston was on the mark.

#43

Hooah!

Just started CF on 4/01. Missed Sunday's workout so tried it today. I got to 7. 7! I was aiming for 10 :(. I guess I should be ok with 7 since it's been years since I've even done pullups, but man, I got get my butt in gear! My arms are still shaking...

m/33/70"/170

Saturday-ruck march 7 miles 1:26 w/65# rucksack and LBE.
Sunday-off
Today-Crossfit Total
Press 115
BS 260
DL 300
Total 675

Followed by yesterday's 1 pull-up/min etc.
11 rnds + 12

I've never deadlifted more than 225. Well, I started with 225 today. I'm amazed at how easy that was for me to lift. I'm pretty psyched that I nailed 300. Very surprised. I love this Crossfit stuff.

Just want to say thanks to all of the staff and participants at the Sonz Decatur cert,, I had a great time and learned a lot about myself and CrossFit.

--DS

Well I know it's a rest day but I had to make up yesterday's pull-ups today. Second time doing this WOD and I made a great improvement.

first 14 min kipping
15 - 26 min jumping

that makes 105 kipping and 246 jumping

Total 351

I don't believe the right to bear arms should give citizens the right to have assault weapons.

Shoulder rehab is progressing nicely--finally!

Thank you Sonz Decatur for another awesome Cert. It is always a pleasure to see my fellow Sonz coaches.
Thank you to Nicole, Pat, Tony, and Andrew for all your encouragement, humor, and knowledge. Special thanks to Tony for making me learn how to walk FORWARD on my hands. The workout was great!
MikeG, Jilly and Mikey (Yeah Mikey we represented FLA)I had a great time working out with you all. I can't wait til the East Coast Challenge.
To all the level 1's congratulations. Each cert I am always impressed with the athleticism everyone brings. I hope to see some of you at another cert in the future. Carrie and Taylor thank you, it was my pleasure. I enjoy everything about CrossFit and the CrossFit community.
THANK YOU!!

Awesome weekend! Once again CrossFit HQ raised the bar. Nicole, Andrew, Tony, Pat, Mike G, Jenny, Jill, you guys delivered a First Class Cert, and to all who attended this weekend you guys were also great all weekend, "thick skin" and great effort. Super Impressive Job!

RIP, Mr. Heston - a hero of liberty, a life well lived. Paul

That is one awesome speech, whether you agree with Heston's politics or not.

Thanks for posting that, Glassmans. You've really made me think about some fundamental ideas in a different way today.

I missed yesterday's workout, so I plan on hitting it today. I had a few questions for those of you more experienced CF'ers:
1. I've been doing some home/yard projects recently and my hands are really beat up from tile, lumber, etc. I know CF "rules" say no wrist straps, supports, etc., but would gloves be acceptable? Don't know how far I'll get on my pull-ups today without some protection.
2. Question on the Zone diet: I read in one place that, for any food you eat, you only count the blocks for the main category (protein, fat, carb) and any calories derived from secondary categories are essentially free. But then I also read that if you are eating a food that has two or three categories in it, you count the biggest one but also have to subtract the secondary calories from their respective categories for the block. For example, if you eat ham, you count the blocks of protein for your block count, but you also have to count the fat calories and subtract that from the fat allowance for the same blocks. Can someone clarify for me? Diet has always been the weak part of my fitness, so I would like to get it right this time.
3. On the topic of food, the block chart listed under the FAQs section lists cheese as a protein. However, I recently got some brie that had more fat than protein, so shouldn't I count it as a fat instead? Going back to question 2, if I count it as a fat instead of a protein do I still count the protein in it as part of the block nutrition, or is that protein "free" and I still add a block of protein from another source?

I hope my questions aren't too confusing, and I appreciate any feedback you can give.

Thank you for the tribute to Mr. Heston. He was a great actor who portrayed great characters and did it very well.

What I get out of his speech is his call to THINK! It bothers me that in today's political agenda if you take one side on one issue then people expect you to have the same party line on all issues.

Whatever you beliefs are- if we take the time to think about our positions, and put our money where our mouth is, there can be more discussions between people with differences instead of the polar divide we have today.

jakers - you're right, that's how it is currently interpreted. but looking at the two amendments, the langauge is clearer in the first than the second. The second must be read by splitting the sentence up, as you did, to mean the "people" as individuals have a right to bear arms. But the people are who? Maybe not all people. But only those in the militia. We don't allow felons to have weapons. Would you want us to change that? My point is that the first amendment is more clear than the second, and yet comes under attack more often.

FYI. I support the right for responsible individuals to have guns. I grew up with guns in the house, etc. etc.

gmack - your argument was confused. You said "thankfully I am not the one interpretting the constitution." who should be? the 9 members of the supreme court? congress? so does that mean whatever they say is correct? does that mean you think Roe v Wade is correct?

as far as taking an historical perspective, you are correct, the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to include a constitutional right for individuals to bear arms. For Now.

But looking at History, as you have, is only used when convenient.

For instance, some would say the founding fathers desired the ninth amendment to mean something - a right to privacy among other things. But it currently means nothing. Why would they include this in the Bill of Rights if it didn't mean anything?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

On the mark #19.

The Supreme Court will not find the right to bear arms to be an individual, constitutional, FUNDAMENTAL right.

This would mean that any restrictions (perfectly legitimate even for you gun nuts)in the form of state and federal gun laws would be subject to strict scrutiny and thus none would stand in court.

I am happy with this.

Charlton Heston: a fine American and the original "Angry White Male" now being slung around. RIP, Sir. I'm going to forward that speech to a few friends.

He and Ronald Reagan are sorely missed.

Oh yes, and interpretations change, as they should, to fit an evolving social, technological, and moral context.

And no the supreme court has never ruled specifically on the nature of the right to bear arms prior to this court session.

Hmmm, someone mentioned that the Japanese have a violent crime issue by using swords? You know, America would be better off if citizens had to use a sword instead of a pistol or rifle. Considering the muzzle velocity of today's firearm, it's very easy to kill the innocent, but it'd be very hard to kill an innocent bystander with a sword unless they hopped right into the middle of a fight. Plus the survival rate would be a deterent considering that you might survive such a fight but wind up being very maimed. Maybe the Japanese are onto something?

I think there's also a 'problem' with swords in Britian too.

The Supreme Court is close to ruling on the 2nd Amendment in relation to the Washington D.C. gun ban. I think it is pretty clear that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p25s07-usju.html

God bless Charlton Heston!

Congrats to all the new Level 1's from this weekend's cert at Sonz in Decatur, GA!

You all were an awesome crowd, full of energy and lots of fun. Thank you!

Thanks to the entire Sonz staff and Eric for making us feel so welcome and being a great host.

Thanks to all the trainers. Everybody gave 100% to put on a fun, informative seminar. I can't wait for the next one!

**and to Pat Barber.....I'm trying to look like you with the beard in the hope that some of your strength overhead will magically enter my system!**

#19-20 The Gift-

While you did cite the text of the 1st amendment, it's not such an opened and closed case. You still have to define what exactly speech is. Also, there is considerable debate as to whether the text from 2nd amendment refers totally to the right of people to bear arms in militias or whether the right to bear arms was supposed to be an individual right.

I have never really listened to Heston speak (although I did see the famous quote about pulling a gun from his dead hand in that Michael Moore movie, nice editing by the way Michael), but I thought this was a great speech. I think he was more talking about people taking action and not being herded into a certain way of thinking or acting based on being too PC. I don't think the purpose of the speech was to advocate for or against current specific application of Constitutional amendments.

M/22/6'1"/185

Did the April Painstorm today:
34:49
Added a box jump (20") to the Burpees to make sure I didn't cheat and went high enough on the jump.
I'm going to see if I can find a chair or something that I can bring into the shower because standing is not really an option

#62 Before we go too far with this argument, lets suppose you had to defend yourself against a street assault or home invasion with your sword. You opponent pulls out his .40 cal. and blows you away.

In liberal land, everyone follows the rules. In the real world, someone who would rob you on the street or in your home could care less about the rules.

The only thing restrictive gun laws do is let the bad guys know it is reasonably safe to go about their business. I suppose we should leave our protection up to law enforcement professionals. They will be the first to tell you that by the time they get to a 911 call, the violence is over and the damage is done. I live 20 miles from town, in my case, police response could take from 20-45 minutes, depending upon the weather. Think I'll keep my firearms.

I am grateful to Charlton Heston for his inspirational message.

He prompts me to speak up. America, we need to get out of Iraq NOW.

America’s actions in Iraq, are not liberating. America is dominating and controlling. We are taking from the Iraqi’s their own right to self-determination. We are trying to plant our values and extract their natural resources. Our celebration of freedom should not be a celebration of the freedom to go to those parts of the world that we pick and choose for exploitation. The world is filled with tyrants and oppression that America often chooses to support and perpetuate. It is bewildering ironic that the African-American soldier is willing to go to Iraq by the thousands and defend Big Oil’s needs, but there is no clamoring to go to their own ancestral homeland to save the lives of starving and butchered children, their own cousins, across many parts of the African continent. America spends millions on bombs, weaponry, and warriors that could be spent to educate, heal, and feed. America chooses to drink from the fossil fuel faucet and ignore the greatest gift of energy that burns brightly overhead day after day after day. America chooses to be led by dollars, instead of by sense. America has bound itself up with convoluted debates about spiritual leaders and faiths, joining the world in confusion about mysticism and God. Now is what is true - not the stories and tales and fables of thousands or hundreds of years ago. America chooses to continue magical spiritual thinking that is not dissimilar to fantasies about marriage to forty virgins, a fantasy that seems to successfully lead some culture’s members to suicide. The military exists in this country to defend America, not to extend America’s selfish hands around the globe to embrace bullies, snatch the goodies, and intimidate the weak. America’s military needs to reflect on its mission of defense. America can protect itself. America will protect itself. America does not need to continue to be pulled on the leash of the corporate war machine. The America citizen has become over identified with the hero propaganda fed to him/her by the President, by the Man, by the history lessons of teachers who have taught about wars and America’s roles in wars like they were comic book stories. America was once a hero. The President needs to learn that Hero is not a role you choose. That role happens, and America can fill it when needed. Iraq has its own heroes, and America should let Iraqis figure out who those persons are going to be.

I would like to thank Mesa Fire, and the Crossfit staff for an awesome certification this weekend. I can't wait for my next one. Thanks again Todd for helping me get that first Muscle-up! Great weekend all around.

#51

When our Bill of Rights was created the only "arms" the "people" had were muskets, pistols whatever. It wasn't until 1944 that the term "assault rifle" was brought into existence. Originally it was the Sturmgewehr in Germany, the MP 44 to be exact. Translated, that means assault rifle. Since then, the semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine has been branded "Assault Rifle". When Mr. James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights the "Assault Rifle" was unheard or undreamed of. I'm sure that if they were in existence in 1791 they would have written "the right of the people to keep and bear assault rifles, pistols and any other means to protect themselves, their family and our society as a whole". Yes, I'm a freedom loving, gun loving veteren of combat in two separate regions on this lovely planet and I still continue to serve. Not everyone has to partake in the freedoms and rights that we are so privelaged to have in this wonderful country but they are secured there in our Bill of Rights should the opposition have a change of heart when they feel they need to. Good day and God bless.

It is important to think of the definition of militia as it was used in 1776. The militia back then was not the national guard we have today. It was just family men organizing to fight when the need arose. Thomas Jefferson said that governments should fear the people, not the other way around. Would that be possible if only a government instituition possessed arms? Addtionally there is an argument that the 2nd Amendment should not apply to modern weapons, however if that were the case then wouldn't the 1st amendment extend no further than the movable type printing press and not to TV, internet etc? It is funny how we pick and chose which Amendments give us unalienable, unflinching, uncompromised rights and which ones are open to interpretation.

Theresa #51: Assault weapon is a term invented by the Brady Campaign that doesn't really mean what you probably think it means. There are automatic weapons (which is what most people think of when they hear the term assault weapon) and there are assault rifles (which usually refers to military type weapons with selective rates of fire). "Assault weapon" just refers to a bunch of superficial features that make a weapon look scary and high-tech, but don't effect lethality or rate of fire or anything worth noting.

Mark,

Why do you think the Iraqi government keeps voting to ask us to stay? Is that in any respect relevant to your rant?

Point to ponder: Political Correctness needs to be called what it is, Leninism. I will say more later.

#66, davidorr
Never bring a knife to a gunfight, right? I've always thought it was 'funny' when someone brings up banning firearms. The sword example is prime in proving that if someone wants to hurt someone else, they'll find the tool necessary to get the job done. Firearms are like a hammer; they need a hand in order to be used for their function. In other words, people are the root of the problem and not the firearm.

My sister, who used to work in the Cinci ER, told me about a redneck fight that started between one drunk family versus another drunk family. They wound up whacking each other with shovels and picks and the damage was horrific, and she used to work in the children's burn unit in Indi before the Cinci ER. Apparently ER nurses like bullet wounds over back gouges with a pick, or shovel whacks to the face...

On a side note, I can't wait until CERT this weekend in Ann Arbor.

Heston on one hand going to the wall on 2nd amendment rights and then speaking out agianst 1st amedment rights when he doesn't agree (Time/Warner) is quite telling. It must have been hard to be a "cafeteria" patriot.

This is getting good. And to think that people assume athletes, etc. have little intelligence. This is a good discussion. Also, if you comment on something that you have never done or experienced, does your comment really hold much value? To the people who are against Iraq, whatever, have you been there? Have you talked to the people? I wonder why re-enlistment numbers are so high? Ponder that one.

I had a blast at the Sonz Decatur cert this past weekend! Andrew was particularly helpful and encouraging, but I was extremely impressed with all of the trainers' knowledge, instruction, and enthusiasm about CrossFit. You are all inspirational - thank you!!!

Nicole, Andrew, Tony, Pat, Mike G, Jelli, Jilly, and Mike M thanks for sharing so much knowledge and experience. It's always first class, fun, informative, and hard as hell when you guys are in town.
Tony thanks for letting me be one of your test subjects. Still feeling a little un-even!

The Decatur certification was excellent and it exceeded my expectations. I could write paragraphs about how impressed I was with the staff and their knowledge, enthusiasm, intensity, and joy at which they went about their work. The attendees were a joy to be around as well and boy did they put out. The certification was a display of virtuosity. I realized it isn't just part of the foundation of Crossfit, but it should be and is part of everything that we do with fitness everyday. Thank You All.

The well regulated militia is formed by armed citizens that show up with their personal weapons from home to form said militia. No one was showing up expecting for the government to give them a rifle. You can't expect to protect yourself from a tyrannical government with a militia that gets their weapons from said government. The logical interpretation is the people have their own weapons so they can defend themselves against tyranny.

Hmmmm, just like we did against the British. I don't recall the Brits issuing the colonial rebels weapons in history class.

From my cold dead hands shall they pry my gun if they want to "control" it.

Any help on my questions from #56?

While I would love to enter the fray on the Amendment interpretation discussion, time and space do not allow. Just need some clarification on the workout/nutrition.

Right on, Mr. Heston.

What I get out of this; think for yourself! You have a brain and a heart! Stop listening to those external forces trying to manipulate and control you! Be your own person and do your own thing. Stand up for what you know to be true and right in your heart, and do it in the face of fear. The elusive "they" will try to use your fear to control you.

Heston didn't even have to say anything about guns. He's talking about freedom, but not the kind of freedom the government can "give" you. It's the kind that comes from inside you.

Response to #73 Hoodlm
Why are troops re-enlisting? More than 16,000 Army captains are eligible for a $25,000 bonus if they re-enlist. Officers commissioned in critical skills such as the use of armor or ordnance may receive up to $30,000 in bonus money, and certain types of intelligence officers qualify for a re-enlistment bonus of up to $50,000. The House Armed Services Committee has asked the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office to find out how well the money is being used and how long the Pentagon can afford to keep up the sweeteners. The accountability office looked at the issue three years ago and found that, while retention numbers overall were holding up, the Army was having trouble retaining many of the special skills needed for counterinsurgency and counterterrorism missions that have become the bread and butter of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are people re-enlisting? The WAR MACHINE will pay them to re-enlist, and America lost 80,000 jobs last month. Bush and Company are working both ends it seems to keep Corporate profits for the WAR MACHINE growing, while you and I write the check.

CHARLTON HESTON WAS MADE OUT OF PEOPLE! HE WAS MADE OUT OF PEOPLE!!!!

What a great speech by Heston! That's what makes this site so great! Crossfit promotes intelligent thought and conversation. If anyone really wants to challenge their thoughts, they should watch the movie ZEITGEIST. The great thing about the movie is that on their website they tell you not to take their word, but go find out the facts for your self. Our personal freedoms our beeing attacked from all angles in this contry from the controlled media, to our bought out government( since the federal researve is privately owned!)if people in this country don't unite against the forces that be, then you might as well go volunteer to have that computer chip tracking devices put in your arm and sell your soul! Yes they have already had people volunteer for it in florida! That way when someone "abducts you or your child" they can track you down with a push of a button!

Great certification in Decatur this weekend. I will definitely return to do this again when I can.

I think you'd get more constructive and useful feedback if you had a better process of surveying attendees than a blog posting.

No rest today, let my twins give me a workout to celebrate their b-day:

"Zac & Zandra turn 15 today"
10 rounds for time of:

15 Back extensions
15 squats
15 sit-ups
15 walking lunges
05 jumping pull-ups (nope, knew I couldn't do 150 of those:)

29.11 Labor was worse, but not by much. HB Twins!

Excellent Speech, of which the point was to clearly establish critical thinking. To not become part of the mindless masses who bend freely to the collectives whims of what is correct or just. Basing his argument on his life he showed not only his own resolve but more importantly the risks he was willing to take. His examples,to the point, showed some of the overzealous ridiculous claptrap that is pervasive in our every day world.

Those of you on here who are arguing for or against guns, or whether his examples were 'confusing' only post to have yourselves be heard or to prove your own intellectual prowess. Prove your might on field, but leave this post session to discuss the real issues at hand. Critical thinking in the American mind....one that values what real freedom is...what it stands for and how to fight for it.

What then do we have to discuss? Well, maybe blindly following the social morays of a culture manufactured by 24 hour news networks and over reaching government institutions that tell the citizens that give it power what they can and cannot say... because it might not be "politically correct"

"When I hear the words Politically Correct, I reach for my gun"

Regards,

I love turtles

Well said Charlton Heston.

I'm so tired of our cowardly culture. You can't have a discussion about anything without some Ninny getting their underwear all knotted up. This generation doesn't have the stomach to stand up for what is right. We should stand up to the tyranny of political correctness like our colonial rebel forefathers stood up to the British. Sheep, a country full of sheep being led to the slaughter of mindless obedience to the jack booted thugs of political correctness.

Additionally, you can have all of my legally purchased, never used in a crime weapons when you pull them out of my cold dead hand. I'm sure our forefathers expected the government to give them weapons for their well regulated militia, not! The local militia was to show up with their personally owned weapon. You can't do that unless the individual has the right to keep and bear arms. That is how the populace protects themselves from a tyrannical government.

Now, "get your hands off of me (and my weapons) you damned dirty (politically correct) ape!"

I want to be a WAR MACHINE.

Quick Question - thinking of doing crossfit, but tend to run long distances (half marathons mostly). Can I do Crossfit and continue to run long distances?

Congratulations to Decatur Level 1 certification graduates! What a hugely rewarding experience it is to be surrounded by such positive energy. It is true, CrossFit self selects for great character and great "characters! Thank you all for your encouragement and support. As a new level II trainer, I learned more from you folks than can be imagined and I will endeavor to "pay it forward". Nicole, Pat, Tony, Andrew, MikeG and the "Jilly-Jelli" sandwich, thanks again for your expert instruction, patience and good will. It was great seeing you all again...until next time!

#19,

GET A CLUE!

I won't say who I am with, but I worked very closely on the recent DC gun ban case (D.C. v. Heller), and it is so obvious that gun ownership is an individual right. If you would like to get a little knowledge, read any of the briefs on Heller's behalf. A collective gun right, like the one you are advocating is based on a cherry picking of American history- plain and simple. Also, if you have heard the oral arguments from the case, it is pretty obvious it will be a 5-4 decision, on the side of the gun owners. 4 misinformed liberal souls, trying to structure society!!

Thanks to all the Decatur Cert attendees - you made it a pleasure to Train this weekend! We had so much fun coaching you all through the movements as well as the hellish workouts. Feel free to tap into any of us for advice on training, opening an affiliate or how to get your own workout in while spending all day training others!

Jason & the others who have been doing this on their own - what you learned this weekend will open your eyes to a whole new level of CF in terms of speed, intensity and even max weight PR's. You all did awesome despite what you were thinking in your heads! Good luck & 3-2-1-Go!

Nicole, Tony, Pat & Andrew - thank you for all the support, great lectures and fabulous feedback. Mike G, Jelli, Mike & Chuck - thanks for the "Uneven" and "Roaming" workouts during lunch. Jelli - you're going down on the running & gymnastic workouts. You can have the weights. See you all at the SE Challenge.

My favorite quote of the weekend: "If it grows, feed it".

#86/Mike, yes, but it will be a lot more fun and you will be more fit. Also, you won't have to burn up as much of your life doing LSD. Plenty of good info in the Journal and with various affiliates who are doing this.

Better fitness, more bang for the buck, boatloads of new skills to master - you have a great ride in front of you.

Paul

#86,
I don't personally run long distances, rather I do alot of sprint drills, but I do have a friend that runs around 8 - 10 miles a day and he throws in a 20 mile Sunday run once a month. He usually does his running around lunch time or early afternoon and then comes back into the gym around 6 to do the WOD's with me. I must say, he doesn't resemble your average long distance runner. Although he is very lean, he also has an incredible amount of strength and muscle mass. I'd say you have everything to look forward to by incorporating crossfit into your daily routine. Good Luck bro!

For the record, I'm active duty military also, but I'm thankful that my call is to take take of the sick and injured. When you've seen what weapons do from that perspective, you may look at the need for the public to have assault weapons, or any other weapon for that matter, differently.

I wonder if Mr. Heston and Moses have discussed Heston's role in the ten commandments film yet? Can you imagine?

In reverse order.
#88
LOL! I almost got myself worked up in high dudgeon & then realized I wasn’t 19. I was 26. My bad. & Thanks for representing Heller.

#83 If you are reaching for your gun in DC you should thank Alex84.

Comment #58
“The second must be read by splitting the sentence up, as you did, to mean the "people" as individuals have a right to bear arms. But the people are who? Maybe not all people. But only those in the militia.”

I split the sentence up because there is a comma that makes it a dependent clause with a change of subject. It’s been a while since I have diagramed a sentence so I could be wrong. I welcome correction if I am.

Good question about who are the people? At one time women and blacks were not full people. We amended the constitution to address a change in society. Law’s are defined using the ‘reasonable’ person. A ‘reasonable’ person interpretation of ‘people’ will probably create the broadest category of ‘people’.

#31
Switzerland on the other hand is one of the most armed nations on the earth. Very low gun crime rate. Shooting someone loses it’s appeal when you think they can shoot back.

Mark #86

Crossfit works wonderfully with endurance training and you should consider attending a Running and Endurance Certification to clarify the relationship.

MikeG- What's up bro, how's the ATL?

CCTJoey- LMAO!!! It was good talking to you the other day brother.

Jakers - laws are defined using a "reasonable person" standard only if the law specifies to use a "reasonable person" standard or there is a common law tradition that used a "reasonable person" standard.

There are many laws that use the "subjective person" standard, i.e. relative to a particular person.

In addition, given tthere is a lot of debate about how to interpret the second amendment, I would challenge your notion that a "reasonable person" would interpret people to mean the broadest category of "people."

As far as diagraming the sentence: I think your interpretation is fair, but I still think it may be incorrect. With a semicolon insead of a comma, you would have a better argument.

A subordinate (what you call a dependent) clause generally relates back to the dominant clause (that's why one is dependent/subordinate to the other). Since the object of the dominant clause is a "militia," the subordinate clause "the right of the people to bear arms" should also be refering to the "militia." You really want to argue that the two phrases are independent clauses, not dependent. Then, at least, your argument would be clearer.

#78 (Mark) -- I'm just curious so I have to ask this question: have you ever served?

Saying that military members sign up (or re-enlist) because of the money is like saying that women become nuns for the free room and board: it's nice to have but you're really kind of missing the bigger picture.

Just my opinion . . .

Couldn't do the WOD when it was Gwen last week, so subbed it in today.
135
8-7 (dang it), 7-5 (argh), 9 (finally).
Woof, that's tough.

Kevin,

It is funny how we (and I mean you) pick and choose how we (you) are going to interpret the amendments based on your desired outcome.

For instance, you insist that we remember that historically "militia" meant "family men" (debatable, but I'll leave that aside). Yet, you say that we can't apply history when interpreting the word "arms" because that would limit the First Amendment. You are doing what you say we shouldn't. So which is it: the historical perspective or the modern perspective?

Or are you saying that you think we should be able to mix our interpretive strategies as long as it suits our argument? If that's what you are saying, then the argument that the first extends to all modern media, but the second limits "arms" to those arms possessed by "family men" would be just as correct as any other.

Curious.

MidWest CrossFit Challenge was GREAT!
Thanks Ricky and Joe! You've got a great group.

Did CFT Today

BS - 195# SP - 81# DL - 245#

F/29/155

Crap.

Now I really have to think. (That was the point of Heston's speech, yes?)

How about a 'broader' group of people?

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Are you saying this is an adverbial dependent clause?
If not it wouldn’t be a subordinate clause. It would be dependent.

It might help my argument marginally to claim they are independent but I can’t place a period intelligently to make the case.

What I really want to argue is that a militia consists of a well armed citizenry. The National Guard is not the militia.

In addition to defining the ‘people’ how about we define “the security of a free state”? What is a state? What makes it free? And what are we securing it from? Invasion or encroachment by the state?

#67 and #78 (Mark) - I will not attempt to sway you with my opinions because you write with the style of someone who thinks they already know everything. But I will fill you in on a little secret: I live and work with people who have left their high-paying jobs and their families in order to serve in the U.S. Military. They do so out of a sense of duty - a concept you are obviously unfamiliar with. You will probably sneer at this and call them “fools” but that's OK because all of those fools who understand duty, honor and commitment will defend you in spite of it.

A lot of people state that owning a gun is a right. Well, what if we made that right a privilege much like voting. I read somewhere that there are approximately 600 million fireamrs in America (enough for everyone to own two). that's alot of guns. Has anyone ever been to a gun show? It is not hard in America for someone to get a gun, and unfortunately that means that both good and bad people are armed. Which is a major argument that responsible gun owners use, i.e. the need to protect themselves from armed criminals. What if there were laws governing the amont of weapons produced/sold and who could buy them. I know there are laws like that now (in regards to who can have a conceled weapon), but with the amount of weapons produced each year, it is still easy for the wrong people to get guns. If we tied repsonsible gun ownership laws to production quotas, we might see less gun deaths each year. And to reply to those who state that criminals will find a way to assualt people even if they do not have a gun, I would say that I like my chances against almost any weapon other than a gun. Someone armed with anything other than a gun would have to catch me to kill me...

The Gift: I am saying that the historical facts highlight the intent of the amendment. In order that the government remains subordinate to the people, the government must not possess the whole of the power in the country. Ask yourself if we would be better off if there was no private firearms ownership.

Comment #100 - The Gift

Actually, if you take an all-encompassing historical view, the musket was the standard infantry weapon when the Constitution was ratified. It seems obvious that the "arms" the second amendment is talking about should be viewed in an abstract sense and necessarily encompasses whatever the modern equivalent may be.

Incidentally, since you brought up common law in a previous post, I think it is worthwhile to consider the English historical precedent for the second amendment. It's also illuminating to consider the obvious motivations whenever the English government chose to limit the people's access to weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

admittedly, wikipedia isn't always the most reliable and non-biased of sources. I'm not historian enough to dispute the facts laid out in this article but based on what's here I have to side with Mr Heston on the gun issue.

The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, provided a means to change the constitution if and when its provisions proved to be outdated or otherwise undesirable. This would be the only legal way to curb the public's access to firearms and would seem far preferable to chipping away at the Second Amendment by successive reinterpretation in opposition to what the Founding Fathers intended. Why, do you suppose, that hasn't happened?

Incidentaly, there is also an internal link describing the "ablative absolute" which hopefully settles the grammar question. Not that it really adds anything to the argument, other than giving us another obscure piece of jargon to throw around and further confuse the discussion.

I highly recommend reading "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. It's one h&ll of a 2nd amendment cookbook.

I also highly recommend disobedience.

I think this rest day conversation may be an appropriate time to voice a thought I had a couple weeks ago while visiting the local Cabela's. On that particular Saturday they happened to be hosting a gun show, where folks could "buy, sell, trade" various firearms. After perusing the collection they had there for a couple hours, my buddies and I decided to head home. On our way out the door we passed several individuals who were entering the store with their firearms to sell or trade. Just then a thought crossed my mind: I've never heard of a shooting (like those in recent history at college campuses) at a gun show. I mean, several hundred people, just as many guns... isn't this a disaster just waiting to happen? Or maybe it's the fact that many of those shopping there that day probably have concealed weapons licenses and were packing their favorite hand gun.

The element of deterrence is often left out of the argument when discussing the right of the civilian population to keep and bear arms; guns don't necessarily need to be fired to be effective, their mere presence (real or perceived) can cause a nut job to think twice.

Good point, LisBeth. I'm not in it for the money and really don't know anyone who is.

Comment #104 Dave

Production quotas!?!? Did you pull that straight out of Marx or is it from a derivative text? Yikes dude.

I was at the Bill Goodman's Gun and Knife show a few weeks back and a couple gang-stars came strolling in to buy ammo. They needed help 'identifying' 7.62x39. I was like, "you're kidding me." They had NO idea what it looked like, but they wanted to buy bulk. When they pulled out that wad of cash, the seller was tripping all over himself to help them out.

Can anyone opposed to an expansive reading of the Second Amendment approvingly site an example in which the Supreme Court used a strictly literal and/or grammatical reading of the Constitution to limit a right; or, in the alternative, disapprovingly site an example in which the Supreme Court used an expansive reading of the Constitution to create or expand a right?

To put the question more clearly, other than the right to bear arms, is there any other right constitutional right that liberals would like to see reduced in scope.

Why is it that coach only points out articles on misinformed liberals, does he believe that all liberals don't think, don't research in-depth enough, and or are all weak minded. If so then what does he think of George W. Bush or a Donald Rumsfeld.

If modern day liberals are more like socialists and socialism is a natural progression to an Oligarchy than aren't modern day conservatives are more like fascists and fascism is a natural progression to a Monarchy. I call modern day conservatives, fascist on the basis of that we are in a war brought on us by reckless nationalism.

I don't mean to attack coach, but I find it poignant to freely speak my mind after reading Mr. Heston's speech.

Also, for those wanting to rid the world of handguns, shotguns, rifles, and military ordinance, just how would something on this grand scale be operated? Seriously, that would be one heckuva line reaching around the block...

I'm not volunteering my personal possessions to be destroyed by the government, and I am 1) a liberal, and 2) a law abiding citizen of our country (no, that's not an oxymoron- HA ahead of time). It's real easy to think altruistic thoughts of happiness and kindness, but dastards aren't going to give up their weapons. So, me not being a dastard, and yes, that's my opinion of myself, I'm not giving up my personal protection for some government piece of paper stating "We'll protect you".

Now if it were ammo that were made illegal... but crap, there you'd have a nice black market, and since the government CAN'T keep crack or heroine or Mary Jane off the streets (well, ixnay that last one), who the crap is going to be dolt enough to believe that argument? And no, ha-ha-ha, not us commonsense libtards would believe that one either.

Guns are here to stay, and I for one certainly don't want to rely on our respond-and-not-prevent orientated police force for my protection. It’s not their fault; they can be sued just like anyone else, so I'll rely on them for EMT services and such. It's my responsibility and no one else's to defend and protect my interests, personal property, and the personal safety of myself, loved ones, and livestock (dang Clayton coyotes!).

K, I am climbing down off my petty soap box. Hope I elicited at least one laugh. : )

#111 Hari

I've got one the other way around. The decision in Roe vs. Wade was the result of an expansive interpretation of the Fourth Amendment which resulted in an increased scope.

I don't want to delve into THAT argument when there is plenty to argue about with Amendment 2 so I'm not going to proffer an opinion on the ruling. Still you've made an interesting point. Liberals are perfectly happy with an extremely broad interpretation when it comes to the abortion question. Why not with guns?

Attended the Mesa Level 1 cert. this weekend. Absolutely awesome. How inspiring and motivational it was to see and listen to the founding father of CrossFit, Coach Glassman, in person. The line-up of coaches was top-notch. Jolee, Speal, Todd, Lisa, Steve, and the rest were patient, strict, and great to be around. Thanks to MFD and the CrossFit staff for a great weekend and an opportunity to network with other CrossFit junkies.

James #113,

Nah, stay on your soapbox dude. I love it when liberals start talking sense; it doesn't happen often but when it does... poetry!

To "The Gift" and the other gentleman who referred to gun owners as, "you gun nuts".

I don't need to be eloquent or a scholar on this point. Right now, I can own a gun. Right now, I do own a gun. If that bothers you, tough.

If you don't want to own a gun, that's fine. Don't. You have the right not to, if you so choose. I have the right to do so if I choose, and I am exercising that right.

You and your liberal buddies may one day succeed in making it illegal for me to do so. If you do, I will do EXACTLY as Mr. Heston suggested...I will disobey. I'm confident many of my fellow "gun nuts" will do the same.

And so, much as the Persians experienced while attempting to face down the Spartans at Thermopylae, you will have to "come and get them." And you will discover that all your liberal grandstanding and alleged moral superiority provides very little in the way of cover.

Good luck with that.

Thanks to everyone at the Decatur cert! I learned tons more than I expected and met some of the most amazing people of my life. I can't wait to up the intensity of my own workouts and start planning when to attend another cert!

Also, looking forward to seeing Mike's pole skills up on the blog.

Here is the transcript from DC vs. Heller
(wfs)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

Also here is a portion of the findings from the Foundation of Moral Law in response to the question of the 2nd Amendnment being an individual right.

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Whether the following provisions—D.C. Code §§
7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02—violated
the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are
not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who
wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private
use in their homes?

from page 17...
Tench Coxe, “Remarks on the First Part of the
Amendments to the Federal Constitution,”
Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, at 2,
quoted in Halbrook, at 126 (emphasis added). Coxe
noted the familiar fear of tyrannical government and
cited the amendment’s “confirmation” of an individual
right to bear “private arms” as the remedy to the
possible perversion of power. Coxe’s “Remarks” were
reprinted in other papers5 and no contemporary took
up a pen to refute his interpretation.
III. THE TEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
RECOGNIZES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP
AND BEAR ARMS.
While the final wording of the amendment differed
from Madison’s proposal, the meaning Coxe gleaned
from Madison’s version remained unchanged through
the drafting process. The focus remained squarely on
checking government power via a personal right to
keep and bear arms.
In its final form, the Second Amendment would be
listed separate from the Constitution in the collection
of amendments known as “the Bill of Rights.” The
Second Amendment provides:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
U.S. Const. amend. II. The Statutes at Large version
of the amendment leaves out the first and last
commas, see 1 The Public Statutes at Large of the
5 New York Packet, June 23, 1789, at 2; Boston
Massachusetts Centinel, July 4, 1789, at 1.
18
United States of America 97 (R. Peters ed., 1848), as
reprinted in CBR at 181, indicating that the second
comma was grammatically necessary to set off the two
major parts of the amendment, while the other
commas represented grammatical quirks of the time.
Reading the amendment sans its superfluous
commas—“[a] well regulated Militia being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”—more
cleanly illustrates a second, weightier point of
grammar. The clause containing the militia language
is a dependent clause, while the arms-bearing
language is located in the independent clause—as it
was in Madison’s proposed, but differently ordered,
version. This means that the arms-bearing language
can stand on its own as a sentence, but the “well
regulated militia” language only forms a complete
thought if coupled with the main focus of the
compound sentence—the “right to keep and bear
arms.”
The sentence structure confirms what the history
behind the amendment indicates:
The plain language of the amendment, without
attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the
function of the subordinate clause was not to
qualify the right, but instead to show why it must
be protected. The right exists independent of the
existence of the militia. If this right were not
protected, the existence of the militia, and
consequently the security of the state, would be
jeopardized.

Sorry so long. You can read it all at...
http://www.nraila.org/heller/proamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_foundationformorallaw.pdf

(wfs)

I don't understand what he's saying. He wants free speech and doesn't want someone telling him what to think, but he forced Time/Warner to not sell Ice-T's album because he didn't like what Ice-T had to say?

He wants free expression, so long as it's not cross dressers dressing up in public?

"Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!" becomes "Ice-T/transvestite, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!"

This is one problem with the strong version of the anti-political correctness argument is that it can be just as stifling as the strong version of the policital correctness argument itself.

#67 Mark...

And for anyone else who wants to see some controversial media...

Watch "No end on sight" and "Zeitgeist"

I felt that there was a lot of truth in those two movies, and I'm sure many will feel that there is a lot of false info too. Watch and be the judge.

I must admit that I respect Heston a little bit more after reading that but it doesn't change what he stands for. As a Canadian I really have a hard time understanding the facination that so many Americans have with owning guns and why there is even a conversation on being able to so easily attain them. Who says you have a right to have a gun in your house that your 16 year kid can pick up and put to use when he gets bullied at school?

Regardless I did enjoy reading his speach.

The Pie, Crossfit Vancouver.

#78 Mark,

Not wanting to launch into a irrational tirade such as you so kindly provided, a little piece of personal info. I got commissioned in the Army Reserves after grad school. I didn't receive any sign-on bonus or compensation other than the honor of serving my country and putting on the uniform. I will be deploying again to Iraq in July, a venture which I welcome openly and by the way, take a substantial paycut to do so. You are for certain entitled to your opinions as they are a right that so many great individuals have provided for you. However, while you may not agree with the war, all you need to say is "thank you" to those that serve in your place.

I have very conservative values yet I find myself more and more drawn to libertarianism. I've already informed my wife that if either of the Democratic candidates gets elected then she will have to wait to get a new car since that money will be going towards my 2nd Amendment defense fund.

78 & 98

A note on military service: I left a higher-paying contractor to serve and I know many more who've done the same. There aren't any bonuses for intel officers or cryptos that I know of, though there are some for those with very technical specialties, such as engineering. Of course, there is a very generous raise at O-3, when most individuals' active duty service commitment ends. For the enlisted folk in specific specialties, there are significant bonuses. As I understand it, they are intended to prevent members from leaving the service for contractors and other agencies where they can make much higher wages for their experience and clearances. In either case, these individuals are still serving their country.

#112 It must have hurt really bad when you fell off the turnip truck when you say things like. . .

"Why is it that coach only points out articles on misinformed liberals, does he believe that all liberals don't think, don't research in-depth enough, and or are all weak minded. If so then what does he think of George W. Bush or a Donald Rumsfeld.

If modern day liberals are more like socialists and socialism is a natural progression to an Oligarchy than aren't modern day conservatives are more like fascists and fascism is a natural progression to a Monarchy. I call modern day conservatives, fascist on the basis of that we are in a war brought on us by reckless nationalism"

I am not neccesarily for the war, but to say that it is a fascist war based on reckless nationalism is just plain wrong. If you believe otherwise, I would like to hear your definitions of nationalism and fascism if you are going to prove me otherwise. Furthermore, I hate to sound like the radical libertarian of the group, but the left would squander our personal freedoms all in the name of society long before those on the right would. (although unfortunately, those on the right would do it in the name of "security"). But what I am saying is that the real threat to freedom that would be akin to "fascism" may come from the left in the form of rampant big government, stealing from peter to pay paul policies, and the whole abundance of generally ridiculous ideas that come from the left in America.

Response to #98 Lisbeth Darsh

Excellent response, and absolutely right on! It would be idiotic to think that soldiers re-enlist for money. “Hoodlm” asked the question, and I just felt like he needed some kind of answer. I can only guess that there are hundreds of different reasons that soldiers re-enlist. It seems likely that they re-enlist for some of the same reasons that they joined in the first place. It also seems likely that those who do not re-enlist have hundreds of reasons for making a different choice.

I am encouraging you to THINK, just as Mr. Heston was trying to get the Harvard grads to think.

Why is Hoodlm asking that question? Why do you wonder if I have served? Wonder if I talked to the people? Wonder if I have been there?

Would that make it all true? Would that make my propaganda real for you? Don’t be a sucker. That is exactly the game that BUSH is playing.

“Hey, everybody. I know some guys who went there, and they say we need to stay and WIN.”

Why? Because it’s a football game? We have to get more touchdowns than the other guy, then we can come home?

Why? We need to WIN against the bad guys, who want to hurt us?

Five years have gone by, and I am supposed to believe that those bad guys have not hurt us because we have kept them so pre-occupied with Iraq that they could not find Austin or San Francisco or Knoxville. I am supposed to believe that if we do not stay there and WIN, then the bad guys will hop on their boats and planes and start landing in my backyard.

That kind of thinking is the thinking of a child, and that is how the government likes you to behave.

No, I have not been in the military. I am the son of a 20-year military officer, a decorated war veteran. What difference does it make what I have done or not done?

I am responsible for THINKING for myself and examining the information that is in front of me. Think about the facts that you know. Look at what is in front of you. Before the war in Iraq, was Iraq anything more than a boogie man that might get you if you fell asleep. We were not asleep. We were duped.

I have not spoken to the Iraqi people, and I have not visited Iraq.

However, I did hear on television that they were shooting at Americans and blowing Americans up with bombs. Seems like maybe the Iraqis are trying to tell the occupying Americans something by those acts.

You did not ask me if I have been to Africa, where America ignores genocide, where America ignores massive health and nutrition needs. Why isn’t that question asked? I think it is not asked because the government propaganda says don’t ask that question, and if you hear it asked, then don’t listen to the answer.

Just as the government/big oil/war machine cronies/BUSH does not want you to think about the SUN!, and how it shines and is full of energy and heats the planet, and heats and heats and heats and radiates and is full of so much more energy than the fossil muck that we keep relying on.

The SUN is not going anywhere. If America wants to be a leader, solve the solar energy dilemma. Give everyone access to the sun. Let the sun power us. When Kennedy said we are going to put a man on the moon, look at how quickly it was done, and look at how much less technology and wisdom existed at that time. The SUN is not going anywhere. It will be hot tomorrow. Wake up to the SUN.

Yep...let there be light!

Reply to #122 Brian
I absolutely honor your service in DEFENSE of America and my family and myself. I would be naive to think that the American military is being used in a DEFENSIVE action in Iraq. American is an occupier there. If the world were threatened in the way that BUSH wants us to believe, I think the leaders and people of many other countries in the world would rally around the cause. BUSH wants America to believe that he is LEADING, and to believe that is the reason why there are thousands and thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq, while other nations stand idly by. In truth, others recognize the sovereignty of the Iraqi people and their lands and their oil.

I honor the service of every soldier willing to die for this country, but I grieve for the soldier who cannot recognize when the leader that he is sworn to obey has led him him to offend the sovereignty and rights of another nation under the guise of defense.

#121

The debate exists because of the historical roots of America. The right to protect yourself from others and the government is a common law tenet that goes back to Blackstone's laws in England. Furthermore, if you look at the general decline of other states throughout history, disarmament has been a consistent feature. Think about it, how hard is it to coerce people in a state who are not armed. If there were ever an oppressive government, or a attack from abroad on our soil, I would say America would have a pretty good chance with our 600 Million guns.

Also, it goes back to what I said about self defense. Private property is a major tenet of American Law. (if liberals had there way this wouldn't be true, society would be centrally planned out the wazoo- just had to throw that in) . Therefore, the right to protect you property and the things in is crucial.

I have the same thoughts you do about gun-nuts, and unreasonable demagogues on the issue, BUT, if you truly look into the background of the debate, why it takes place, and what it means in the broader scope of history, it becomes much more than just a bunch of "gun-nuts" arguing about their cherished right.

However, I would say that it bothers me that the gun faction fights so hard for the 2nd amendment while our others are constantly trampled on. They put speech, religion, and press as #1 for a reason, and gun nuts just blab about only the second. I honestly do believe there are some loonies out there on the issue, but I do agree with most of what they say.

What exactly is a "gun nut"? As the term is thrown about alot, I would appreciate a definition from someone who uses the term. Sincere question, curious as to what the boundaries are from a "normal" gun owner and a "gun nut."

#119, Mike, writes,

"I don't understand what [Charlton Heston is] saying. He wants free speech and doesn't want someone telling him what to think, but he forced Time/Warner to not sell Ice-T's album because he didn't like what Ice-T had to say?"

He did not force Time Warner to do anything. He simply repeated what Ice-T had to say. ("The proper response to bad speech is more speech.") The government did not force Time Warner to act; the marketplace did.

or is a gun nut just someone who believes the 2nd Amend. allows them the right to bear arms?

36/m/193

clean/press
95lbs 15-12-9
10min rest
pullup wod 12 rounds
rest 5min
tabata situps
17-16-14-13-12-13-13-14

CCTJoey, #85
That made me laugh out loud.

Gift, Kevin

At the time the 2nd amendment was written an individual’s right to bear arms was of secondary importance, behind citizens’ rights not to be oppressed by a tyranny maintained by a centralized authority maintained by a standing army, and not to be over-burdened financially by having to support a standing army (these concerns go back through Harrington and Machiavelli all the way to Cicero). This was also tied to a fear that if a professional army were created and citizens no longer contributed to military service, they would have less at stake in civil society, as the ‘burden’ of military service lifted off them they would focus more on wealth creation through commerce and this in turn would corrupt their martial and publicly oriented values. Standing armies required commercial societies able to finance them and commercial societies (so the thinking went) were beholden to luxury, petty appetites, and incapable of maintaining the public virtue that had sustained the great civilization of Rome. The ‘Country Party’ in England, and Jeffersonians in America supported the militia and the classical republican view of society, and through compromise the second amendment was enacted.

But after Louis XIV in France, the Glorious Revolution and then a century (18th) long military contest for empire, and for the US, its civil war, standing armies were necessary. There was no going back.

But, now the US has a standing Army the likes of which Jefferson could never have imagined. Now the US is a commercial society beyond comparison with any the world has seen. It runs the danger of taking the worst of both scenarios: 1) a commercial society corrupted by the thirst for luxury and lacking in public virtue, 2) a militarized society imposing order from and taxing the resources of the citizenry, making the state (and its citizens) addicted to credit to support its costs (this happened to France in the 18thC, and it was this tendency that Rousseau wanted to turn back with his ‘virtue’ and his “general will” that got him into so much trouble with post WWII American historians).

People have guns in the United States not for patriotic reasons, not to make them fully participating, citizens capable of bearing arms to keep America free from foreign invaders – if they want to do that Big Brother will give them a gun.

Barry,
Will wait for the equation of PC with Leninism…I don’t think avoiding ‘niggardly’ where ‘stingy’ will do just fine is the same as being shipped off to Siberia in a box-car. Perhaps being black-listed from a profession for being accused of being communist is on the same spectrum, but then we’re talking about PC’s nasty nasty brother, McCarthyism.

Re: Charlton,

It seems to me he speaks only of snails and tails and puppy-dogs’ tails, and that a little sugar and spice would have made him feel nice. I’m not much of an Ice-T fan myself, but then I don’t like Sports Illustrated for the same reasons (swim-suite issue and now I’m PC).

CCTJoey, #85
That made me laugh out loud.

Gift, Kevin

At the time the 2nd amendment was written an individual’s right to bear arms was of secondary importance, behind citizens’ rights not to be oppressed by a tyranny maintained by a centralized authority maintained by a standing army, and not to be over-burdened financially by having to support a standing army (these concerns go back through Harrington and Machiavelli all the way to Cicero). This was also tied to a fear that if a professional army were created and citizens no longer contributed to military service, they would have less at stake in civil society, as the ‘burden’ of military service lifted off them they would focus more on wealth creation through commerce and this in turn would corrupt their martial and publicly oriented values. Standing armies required commercial societies able to finance them and commercial societies (so the thinking went) were beholden to luxury, petty appetites, and incapable of maintaining the public virtue that had sustained the great civilization of Rome. The ‘Country Party’ in England, and Jeffersonians in America supported the militia and the classical republican view of society, and through compromise the second amendment was enacted.

But after Louis XIV in France, the Glorious Revolution and then a century (18th) long military contest for empire, and for the US, its civil war, standing armies were necessary. There was no going back.

But, now the US has a standing Army the likes of which Jefferson could never have imagined. Now the US is a commercial society beyond comparison with any the world has seen. It runs the danger of taking the worst of both scenarios: 1) a commercial society corrupted by the thirst for luxury and lacking in public virtue, 2) a militarized society imposing order from and taxing the resources of the citizenry, making the state (and its citizens) addicted to credit to support its costs (this happened to France in the 18thC, and it was this tendency that Rousseau wanted to turn back with his ‘virtue’ and his “general will” that got him into so much trouble with post WWII American historians).

People have guns in the United States not for patriotic reasons, not to make them fully participating, citizens capable of bearing arms to keep America free from foreign invaders – if they want to do that Big Brother will give them a gun.

Barry,
Will wait for the equation of PC with Leninism…I don’t think avoiding ‘niggardly’ where ‘stingy’ will do just fine is the same as being shipped off to Siberia in a box-car. Perhaps being black-listed from a profession for being accused of being communist is on the same spectrum, but then we’re talking about PC’s nasty nasty brother, McCarthyism.

Re: Charlton,

It seems to me he speaks only of snails and tails and puppy-dogs’ tails, and that a little sugar and spice would have made him feel nice. I’m not much of an Ice-T fan myself, but then I don’t like Sports Illustrated for the same reasons (swim-suite issue and now I’m PC).

CCT Joey, #85
That made me laugh out loud.

Gift, Kevin

At the time the 2nd amendment written an individual’s right to bear arms was of secondary importance, behind citizens’ rights not to be oppressed by a tyranny maintained by a centralized authority maintained by a standing army, and not to be over-burdened financially by having to support a standing army (these concerns go back through Harrington and Machiavelli all the way to Cicero). This was also tied to a fear that if a professional army were created and citizens no longer contributed to military service, they would have less at stake in civil society, as the ‘burden’ of military service lifted off them they would focus more on wealth creation through commerce and this in turn would corrupt their martial and publicly oriented values. Standing armies required commercial societies able to finance them and commercial societies (so the thinking went) were beholden to luxury, petty appetites, and incapable of maintaining the public virtue that had sustained the great civilization of Rome. The ‘Country Party’ in England, and Jeffersonians in America supported the militia and the classical republican view of society, and through compromise the second amendment was enacted.

But after Louis XIV in France, the Glorious Revolution and then a century (18th) long military contest for empire, and for the US, its civil war, standing armies were necessary. There was no going back.

But, now the US has a standing Army the likes of which Jefferson could never have imagined. Now the US is a commercial society beyond comparison with any the world has seen. It runs the danger of taking the worst of both scenarios: 1) a commercial society corrupted by the thirst for luxury and lacking in public virtue, 2) a militarized society imposing order from and taxing the resources of the citizenry, making the state (and its citizens) addicted to credit to support its costs (this happened to France in the 18thC, and it was this tendency that Rousseau wanted to turn back with his ‘virtue’ and his “general will” that got him into so much trouble with post WWII American historians).

People have guns in the United States not for patriotic reasons, not to make them fully participating, citizens capable of bearing arms to keep America free from foreign invaders – if they want to do that Big Brother will give them a gun.

Barry,
Will wait for the equation of PC with Leninism…I don’t think avoiding ‘niggardly’ where ‘stingy’ will do just fine is the same as being shipped off to Siberia in a box-car. Perhaps being black-listed from a profession for being accused of being communist is on the same spectrum, but then we’re talking about PC’s nasty nasty brother, McCarthyism.

Re: Charlton,

It seems to me he speaks only of snails and tails and puppy-dogs’ tails. I’m not much of an Ice-T fan myself, but then I don’t like Sports Illustrated for the same reasons (swim-suite issue and now I’m PC).

Mark,

I missed your response to my question. Why does the government of Iraq keep voting for us to stay? You say "Iraqis" are shooting at us. Are you one of those benighted racists who think all "darkies" think the same, and are utterly unable to distinguish between cultural patterns and motives? Do you simply think they are inferior, and not worth the support of an enlightened power?

The soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who keep going back seem to think otherwise. Having rubbed elbows and drank chai with them, they believe the cause of peace in Iraq worth fighting for, and even dying for.

You, on the other hand, likely believe nothing. Like all leftists, you are a crypto-nihilist. This is the very point of leftist assaults on reason: to destroy all meaning patterns except those which support the subordination of the individual to the State. You want to conform, because you lack the courage to use the freedom braver men than you died to create and protect.

I'll wait for your answer to my question. It is a valid and relevant question. I expect you to sidestep it, and launch into some sort of irrelevant diatribe whose sole purpose is distraction, and not rational debate.

#78

Mark, very well put. I suppose I'll keep contracting a bit so I can continue to serve and get back some of my money I pay in taxes to fund the war machine. There is profit in chaos.

#124 Please don't throw anymore Johnny Carson references my way

Nationalism- is a term referring to a doctrine[1] or political movement[2] that holds that a nation, usually defined in terms of ethnicity or culture, has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community based on a shared history and common destiny

Fascism- is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes.

After 9/11 the country became united. If you recall there were a lot of people who threw away differences and people all thorugh out the media expressed how much they loved America (with the exception of Bill Maher....before anyone says anything I don't like Bill Maher but he did speak out). This resulted in an increase of people enlisting in the military. Then with 85% approval rating George Bush takes the country into Iraq.
Now looking back at it many people regret their decision to support the war. 9/11 created an unbelievable amount of nationalism that are conservative power holding government took advantage of in a fascist way.

All that being said I know that the war was started over various reasons. My point that modern day conservatives are more like fascists and fascism is a natural progression to a Monarchy was actually a response to a post I saw a while ago from coach. It pissed me off that he only picks out idiots on the left and leaves out idiots on the right.

#135, Prole, writes,

"People have guns in the United States not for patriotic reasons, not to make them fully participating, citizens capable of bearing arms to keep America free from foreign invaders – if they want to do that Big Brother will give them a gun."

Since when does exercising a constitutional right require a patriotic motive?

#125 (Mark):

The word "no" would have sufficed.

I would offer that your need to explain this choice in your life in 16 paragraphs, however, was very revealing, whether you intended it to be or not.

Hari 139

Exercising a constitutional right does not require a patriotic motive. But when people attack the fact that American's have that (expansive) right, the Americans who like that right sometimes support it by pointing to it's role in keeping them free and America strong. They don't usually say that the second amendment is good because it's the second amendment.

I don't think the rate of gun-ownership (and gun homicide) has anything to do with American's liberty or the strength of their nation. I those things are supported by Americans' love of material wealth, their ability to produce it, and their tremendous standing army.

As a candidate for a right that some liberals do interpret expansively we could look to property rights?

What is the difference between a liberal and a sack of manure?

The sack of course!

Response to #136 Barry Cooper

I may be frightened, but not too frightened to answer your question. I think the “government of Iraq” keeps voting for America’s troops to stay because the “government of Iraq” does not represent the interests of the people of Iraq, as much as it represents the interests of a powerful few, who are happy to manipulate America for all the juice that they can suck from the lemon. I hope you do not believe that the individuals who are in leadership positions got there without U.S. puppeteering. Think about Hamid Chalabi. Remember how we were practically told to salute him as an Iraqi leader early on in the war.

I do not think I said anything about “darkies” in any of my posts today. I also do not remember doing any name calling, but your labeling of me as a “benighted racist” “leftist” “crypto-nihilist” comment puts you in that name-caller category now. Somebody might want to call your mother.

I happen to have the courage to use the freedom braver men have died to create and protect. I am grateful for their sacrifice, and thus use their gift honorably. THINK a little. I am that man who recognizes that freedom does not mean to fall in line anywhere somewhere props up an American flag.

Thanks for keeping me focused.

#140 Lisbeth

Tell me more. I love a woman who can read my mind.

Can't believe the filter has stopped my post twice today! So much for free speech.

Alex84

We are a very liberal country just to your north of you with similar historical routes and we have very little issues in comparison with private property or self defense.That is directly related to the difficulty in aquiring firearms in Canada.

Based on your arguement you think more lives are saved by people having the ability to bear arms. I would suggest that there are far more deaths related to easy firearm access compared to how many home invasion etc. have been prevented by owning one.

This really should be a no brainer. So many 1st world countries around the world don't have the gun issues America does and yet people like you continue to suggest the need for them because of your "right" to bear arms.

To the rest of the world your dilema is a tragic comedy as we can't believe so many Yanks can be so single minded in this argument that unfortunetely cost so many people their lives just because some people feel that they need to have a gun in there hand to be a man.

The Pie, Crossfit Vancouver.

Mark,

That flies in the face of everything I have read. What about the Sunni Awakening? What about our neighborhood oriented "policing"?

What shred of evidence do you have, other than leftist crackpots who want us to fail? I've been posting on this site for years, and this issue has come up dozens of times, and my case documented dozens of times.

Yours, not once. Do some work, son, or be quiet. My BS tolerance has reached zero, and I will ride you for the next three days if you don't want to play by big boy rules.

Documentation. Facts. Logic. That's what's needed.

Prole: Lenin used the term "politically correct" to define those thoughts that were allowed. Just think about the term - how can one way of thinking be "correct", and who decides what is "incorrect"? It is the most Orwellian term in common use, and that's why so many Libertarian-minded people absolutely hate the term. If it offends somebody to hear something un-PC, then that's reason in itself to say it. Saying the word "niggardly" where "stingy" would do is a provocation, a deliberate slap in the face of those people who desire you to lose the freedom to speak as you want. The word "niggardly" does not come from the word we're all thinking of quietly in our heads, and it is not intended to be racially offensive, but instead is intended to be offensive to the PC crowd.

Mark: If we quit now, it's Vietnam redux. Remember the "boat people"? The Khmer Rouge? Millions dead in Vietnam and all over southeast Asia? The 60s generation set back the cause of human rights and freedom for 50 years and we're just now beginning to undo the harm. And before anybody says that it was complicated, or that blah blah blah actually caused yada yada yada, that IS "how it happened". Our withdrawal condemned millions of people to a horrible death.

#138 TempleOwl

In your comparison of the post 9/11 run up to the invasion of Iraq, you appear to be bent out of shape over the fervor and use of support garnered by a tragic event to push people into going with something that they wouldn't have gone with before. You have named this as doing it in a fascist way.

If it is the use of emotionalism to incite the people in a case like that, then do you also take umbrage to the uproar that went across the country that pushed us into WWII from our stand-off position after Pearl Harbor? Was that also doing it in a fascist way, especially since the government went so far as to ask of the people to make sacrifices, enlist, be drafted, buy war bonds, etc.? What is the fine line between Nationalism and fascism?

#146

America & Canada do not have similar historic routes at all.

We fought a violent war not to have the Queen as the head of our country. You did not.

I'm not saying we are better or worse but we are not the same. Our backgrounds from 1776 forward are not similar.

M/48/151 Post-trip WOD

"Michael"
l+r=1/swiss ball/TM

18:38

19 / f/ 142 / 5'7

I was sort of 'resting' yesterday. A FEX isn't the CF wod. so I made up yesterday today

-- NEW PR - I got 6 hang pull-ups! --

then I rested a minute, did 3
Then the WOD
1 in 1st minute
2 in next minute
3 in next minute
then my arms were dead and i got zero
so I did
25 push-ups, 25 sit-ups, 25 squats, 25 lunges
and I was done.

#78

Assuming a workforce of roughly 150M people; lets's divide 80,000 by 150M...carry the....round the...and that gives us ~0.05 percent. Last month we shed five one-hundredths of one percent of the workforce. At that torrid pace we'll shed six tenths of one percent in a year and we ought to reach Carter era unemployment levels in about 10 years (113 months to be a little more exacting.)

Now, if you account for the illegal workforce we probably have what amounts to negative unemployment, in which case we'll have to redo the arithmetic.

Response to #147 Barry Cooper

Fact: American troops are still on the ground and dying in Iraq FIVE YEARS after the start of the war. That is fact number one about how welcome we are there.

No BS tolerance required.

Just messed around in the gym today with the rings and did my FIRST MUSCLE-UP EVER! I was so pumped.

Kevin, Prole, RifRafRob

I agree that the 2nd was passed to ensure that the Federal government would not have absolute power. There can be no doubt the founding fathers feared the tyranny of a large centralized government. No argument there.

The question is how do we protect ourselves from such tyranny? You certainly can’t be suggesting that the personal firearms we are permitted to carry now would protect us from the power of the US Military? But, are you advocating that we each need our own personal Nuke, fighter jet, etc? It’s an interesting idea, but I have a hard time believing you would agree with that. Recognize that the only way for “the people” to protect themselves from the Federal government is for “the people” to be armed with similar weapons as the Federal government. At the time of the 2nd Amendment, that meant cannons, muzzle loaders, whatever. People had those weapons in their homes (well, maybe not cannons).

But I wouldn’t trust “the people” with rocket launchers, missiles, nukes, or fighter jets. I think it’s clearly too dangerous. I would trust a “well organized militia” though. Perhaps the National Guard?

Also, Rob,
you are right that there is a way to change constitution. However, we are talking about how to interpret the 2nd Amendment, so your argument is circular (a fallacy). It’s not logical to argue that my interpretation is incorrect by assuming it is incorrect and then telling me that for my interpretation to be correct, I must amend the constitution. You assume the conclusion of your argument.

That said, I think maybe it the constitution should be amended to make sense – at least in terms of the 2nd A. Let’s have it a little clearer and settle the issue.

Mapwhap –
please point out where I called anyone a “gun nut.” You’re ridiculous. I have owned guns. I’m debating the interpretation of the constitution. Seriously, pay attention.

#149 TripMN

9/11 and Pearl Harbor cannot logically be associated that way. We went to war with Japan because they attacked us and declared war pulling us into a conflict. We did not invade Iraq because of 9/11. The forgotten war of Afghanistan was a result of 9/11. No one really debates that one.

We were duped into the support for the Iraqi invastion. Hell I thought it was a great idea at the time because I made the flaw of believing the government and taking the press at its word that it looked into the WMD stories. The Bush administration used our emotions to slip one past us. They are the "deciders" after all.

Question for Conservatives, why is it that when guns are the issue we can't trust the government and we need our guns to protect us from the evil that lurks inside the beltway, yet when it comes to invading a nation that posed no clear and present danger to America we are anti American for questioning the validity of the invasion? Which is it? Is the government all knowing and righteous or is it to be feared and never trusted? Seriously someone answer this.

PS I love my guns and would not let them go, but at the same time dogma does not, and will not rule me.

149

No, it wasn't fascist of are government to do that in World War II, because we went into the war knowing it was just. There was a genocide already in progress and they were decimating our allies. There is no war that was more worth fighting for than World War II.

I guess the point which I was trying to convey (obviously very poorly if people are reacting very differently than I expected)was that saying modern day liberals are more like socialists and socialism is a natural progression to an Oligarchy is ridiculous. THERE IS as you said a fine line. The fine line between nationalism and fascism is conservatism. Modern day conservatives are not fascists and modern day liberals are not socialists.

The Decatur cert was fantastic! Thanks to Andrew, Pat, Jelli, MikeG, and Jill for the great instruction; to Eric and Chuck for the facility; and especially to Tony and Nicole for making the trek to the east coast and sharing their wisdom. I learned more in the last two days than in the past two years of CrossFit--if only I had attended a cert sooner! Can't wait to see you all again soon.
Many thanks,
George Campbell

29/f/112

With a continuously running clock do one pull-up the first minute, two pull-ups the second minute, three pull-ups the third minute... continuing as long as you are able.

Use as many sets each minute as needed.

14 +10

ouchie, grip fried

pre: wux2 + burgener
post: stretching

UNAGRUABLY THE BEST REST DAY ARTICLE EVER POSTED.

Man I loved Heston's speech!

Great job Coach.

Will be making up yesterday's workout today and getting a three mile run in. Only two weeks left until the Baker to Vegas Challenge Cup Relay...any Crossfitters here going to be participating?

#158 & 159 Erik & TempleOwl

I almost wrote that it wasn't a fair comparison. I just was wondering if the point was the use of emotional response to historic events as a catalyst to foment national movement toward something was what he was objecting to and calling fascism. If that was the case, then I would have started drudging out the historic events that led up to the American Revolution. If something on the scale of Pearl Harbor or 9/11 happens and people don't react to it, that's when I become worried. When they react to it and become scared and start giving up their freedoms for "security's sake", then I also become worried.

As far as Bush's Administration being the "deciders", technically Congress has to declare war, so perhaps besides shouting for impeaching Bush (or just waiting out his term when we can thankfully stop having to listen to him destroy the English language), we can also elect all new people to Congress to replace those who knew more than we did and yet still decided to vote yes for the war.

Today's WOD: 3 rounds for time of:

21,15, & 9:
95 pounds Thrusters
Pullups
GHD
Floor Swipers, 95 pounds

#146: The greater our personal freedoms the greater the risk we assume. Assuming guns create violence (an assumption not supported by fact) then the risk of said violence is a risk associated with said freedom. Freedom of speech creates the risk that we might hear something offensive.--again there is no freedom without sacrifice, and that sacrifice is paid for not only in the assumption of the freedom, but also in its maintenance. Ben Franklin said that "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

#156: The federal government is exceptionally bloated and that presents a tremendous threat to personal freedom, as it has throughout history. As to your claim that the only way the people can resist the government is with similar weapons, I believe the Viet Cong and the Mujihadeen would disagree, as would the founding fathers for that matter (compare Naval strength in the Revolution, even after the French showed up). Voltaire said "God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best".

I just arrived home from the Mesa Cert and I have to send out a great big thanks to Coach and all the trainers for their amazing dedication. I also want to thank Mesa fire for being great hosts, awesome facility! If you have not been to a cert yet, you have to find the time to go, well worth it and more. I am really looking forward to passing on my knowledge and honing my new found skills. 3 to 5 years for a perfect squat, i have a lot of work ahead.

The Gift, #157

There's no circular logic here. If you pay even the slightest attention to the history surrounding it, it's hard to come to any other conclusion about what the Founding Fathers actually meant when they wrote (laboriously) and ratified the second amendment. The People need to be equally or even superiorly armed in order to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. You've affirmed that interpretation yourself, or did I misunderstand post #156?

Arguing on the basis of what we can probably call "modern realities", as you have done, makes a good case for amending the constitution but you can't pretend that the original intent of the second amendment was anything other than what it was just because you don't think it jives with the modern world. There is a legal process for fixing those things. No case can be made for defying the clear intent of the Constitution in such a way that it restricts freedom through any means other than amendment.

no rest
tabata sprints figured out at 100yards a pop x 10

#158, Erik Lilliedahl, writes,

"Question for Conservatives, why is it that when guns are the issue we can't trust the government and we need our guns to protect us from the evil that lurks inside the beltway, yet when it comes to invading a nation that posed no clear and present danger to America we are anti American for questioning the validity of the invasion? Which is it? Is the government all knowing and righteous or is it to be feared and never trusted? Seriously someone answer this."

I have yet to meet anyone who argues that the "questioning the validity of the invasion [of Iraq]" is and of itself anti American. I also have yet to meet any rational person who believes either that the government is "all knowing" or that the government is "to be feared and never trusted."

Rings or kettlebells tomorrow, or both. Please

24/m/175

I've been sick for the past two days so today I went ahead and did the CF Total.

SP- 155
DL- 375 (pr)
Squat- 355

Total- 885

After I was done I calulated and realized I probably could have broken 900 if I tried harder

Meador 148,

I fully concur about the Orwellian character of PC. I just didn't find that Charlton Heston's examples upsetting.

May I offer a companion to your most Orwellian term in common usage: "war on terror".

Behind that might come: "insurgent", "terrorist", "patriot".

Did Sunday's WOD. Got through 13 set in 13 minutes. Good times.

#158

In answer to the question. Because the government, like any other group or organization, has the capacity for good or evil, at any given time. It is not static, as it is made up of different people, at different times, with different agendas. The framers understood this. So they built in a safeguard against the tyranny of a central goverment abusing it's authority, yet they understood that a government is necessary.

Hari 170

I think there were/are people who think questioning the validity of any US foreign military policy is unAmerican. But lets say (hope) its a small number. I think you've hit on something.

I think people who like to think themselves as independently minded, critical (you know, smarter than other people) found themselves sympathizing with the emotional tenor, if not the intellectual expression of Administration's propaganda. Perhaps this is understandable. 9-11 was a terrible shock. These people did not voice their opposition to the invasion of Iraq or the formulation of a foreign policy with such an ill-defined ('Orwellian') goal. Now, these people say that they were told it was unAmerican to speak up so they didn't (as though Rush Limbaugh was their neighbour, boss, spouse and barrista. Many of them didn't want to speak up, they wanted to see the US assert itself, get off the defence and take to the offence, and, some even wanted to be entertained.

Many liberals like big foreign policy when it goes well, then, when it appears to be failing, and it's safe to criticize, they become smarter than their friends again.

It seems that we judge ourselves by our intent and others by their actions "in our eyes." If we sincerely hold and practice strong beliefs about free speech, peace or the environment, then, in our eyes we are committed and sincere. If someone else feels as deeply about a position which we oppose, then we label them a nut, because it's easier than engaging them to find out why they feel as they do. It's why we have labels instead of viewing one another as thinking people. I hold views what would be considered "conservative" positions on some things and "liberal" or "libertarian" positions on others. Guess I am a nut to somebody. Oh well. There ya go!

I count myself as liberal. I believe our tax dollars should foot the bill to make public school classes smaller. I believe that Americans will only have adequate healthcare in the future if the government intervenes in our twisted healthcare system. I believe that until campaign finance reform prevents corporations from exerting immense pressure on our political system, we are not part of a true democracy. It is a popular notion with fiscal conservatives that all large organizations will function best if they follow a corporate business model. I reject this notion as ignorant, and an indication of hubris of the wealthy. Anything but free trade, and data driven enterprise is short sighted in matters of commerce. But recent attempts to create data driven school systems have ignored decades of research, and thereby relied on empty, often meaningless, even intentionally manipulated data. And the acceptance of profiteering in the world of medicine places unsafe power in the hands of often insidious pharmaceutical conglomerates. Am I a socialist? Psshaw! Not if you believe some things (police, for example) cannot be trusted to private enterprise.

What does this have to do with gun control? NOTHING! These issues are connected by the peculiarities of our political system, not by logic. I am not a gun owner, but accept that guns are inextricably part of our culture. We are the nation of the Western. Our speech is rife with gun-slinger idioms. I consider guns to be generally negative objects (but thoroughly amusing if used safely, I'm sure). However, I hold no hope, or even great desire, that they should be eliminated, just as I hold no hope, albeit with great desire, that evangelists preaching obedience should suddenly watch their followers and profits shift their allegiance to more enlightened churches.

That being said, I believe the ease with which Americans can acquire guns on short notice and without background check is idiotic and inexcusable.

I guess I'll weigh in on the Iraq war as well. I did not support to war at its inception. It too was an endeavor founded on hubris, and ignorance. But I am concerned that abandoning the war at this point would be as ignorant and selfish as it was to start the war. Our country founded this mess. To leave at this point for the good of America, without the interest of the Iraqi people in mind, is irresponsible. This belief does not imply any faith in the Bush administrations handling of things.

As for the men and women of the armed forces, I can express nothing but admiration, thanks, and apologies for our country's failure to provide adequate equipment for those facing direct threats and services for those returning, whether or not they have been wounded. I have several friends who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq. One chooses not to talk about. Another is eagerly awaiting his return to Iraq, in part because it gets him away from his family, but also because it fulfills and itch he hasn't been able to scratch since he played quarterback in high school. A third was disappointed when, after a turn in Afghanistan, he was sent to Kuwait rather that Iraq. I would recommend anyone holding a strong opinion on the war have conversations with people who been directly involved. Such conversations have little in common with the rantings of TV pundits in search of nothing but ratings. In many corners of America, love of country has become tangled with disgust at events in our history since WWII. I believe many folks who have no personal connection to the war assume that members of the armed forces are wildly nationalistic, and blind to the faults of our leaders. On the contrary, I believe that maintaining a sense of duty and the will to serve in spite of knowledge that our politicians have made rash, even horrible choices (Vietnam being the obvious example) is as admirable and remarkable as the decision to risk life and limb, when a safe comfortable existence is not a rare thing at home in the USA. Thank you all.

-Ben

I attended the Decatur cert this weekend and was really impressed with the level of genuine enthusiasm and care of all of the trainers. I didn't learn much new information, but learned what I know better. The personal physical application of this knowledge is permanently imprinted in my brain ready to serve up to anyone interested. My physical pain (muscle soreness) just reminds me of the great time I had.

Thank you all trainers, participants and hosts! Your encouragement didn't just help me get through the challenging parts, but also reminded me how important it is for me to encourage others.

I wasn't at the Mesa cetification, but I am learning a lot from my husband, who attended...lots of great stuff. I can't wait to hear more about the lectures, philosophies, etc.
He is a firefighter and is gone many nights. He has taught me to shoot a gun and convinced me to obtain my concealed weapons permit.
My instructor was a police officer, who convinced me that there are a lot of wolves in the world (and in this city) who wouldn't bat an eye at taking a life. I don't carry a gun, but I have one in my house that I can access in a heartbeat. I would use it if I felt threatened, and no one could convince me that i don't have that right.

Great read. Thanks Coach.

Great CrossFit testimonial from Eric Velazquez of Muscle & Fitness. I expected to see a more academic approach that legitimized the principles of CrossFit rather than one man's testimonial. While it was a good read and hopefully something that sparks more curiosity from the fitness-oriented world, I think Weider's writers could have been more inclusive in their account (and maybe given a little credit to its founder too).

Worth the $6.99.

Wanted to share a fun Charlton Heston story.

Background: GB Shaw (may have been someone else, but let's assume it was Shaw) was present at the opening of one of his plays. It was so well-received that, after the actors had all taken their bows, the audience began chanting, "Author! Author!" (The story is improved by believing this to be a rare occurrence, which it may well be.) So Shaw went up on stage to take his praise. But despite the thunderous applause, Shaw could hear one man crying, "Boo! Boo! Rubbish! Boo!" Noticing that the man was in the front row, Shaw leaned down from the stage and said to him, "I'm inclined to agree with you, sir, but who are we two against so many?"

Now, the Heston story: I lived in England for a little while after college and went to see Charlton Heston speak at the Oxford Union. I wanted to see high-strung OU types get in a spitting match with him. Heston began by praising England, and continued in that vein for some time, until reaching his point, which was that England's chief defect is that it hasn't got enough guns. I was delighted by this provocation and was looking forward to shouting and mania. But when the time for questions came, people were more interested in asking him to recite lines from Planet of the Apes and to talk about what it was like to play Moses than in his political views. Heston complied and was witty and funny, so everyone was loving it. I was somewhat disappointed because I had wanted to see a slugfest but, really, I was happy to see the Retrograde American acquit himself so well before the Skeptical-and-Mildly Hostile International University Audience.

Toward the end, though, someone began a question by saying, "Well, you're the first visitor to the Union who actually needed to read the teleprompter to make your feeble points, which I take issue with as follows . . ." Heston immediately smiled and said, "Oh, is that a heckler? Good, I wanted to tell this story. . . ." Then he told the story of the playwright above. As he spoke the last line ("who are we two . . ."), he raised his arms in Mosaic fashion, the place just blew up in applause and cheers, and the heckler was forgotten.

So rad.

attended the decatur cert learned so many details of work first hand and thanks to nicole im sold on the zone

I like guns. They work better than pillows in a fight.

I have been CFitting for two years now, and i just did the Decatur cert. I have leaned on this community in that two years, having lost sight in my left eye about 20 months ago, there were a dozen or so people on the posts whose encouragement had me doing scaled WOD's within four days of my injury. I have come to love this community, and I wish I had done this sooner!

This was a significant lesson in humility as well as an open door for success. I can bring intensity and move weight fast (Fran - 2:36; Elizabeth 4:54), but when it comes to simple form, I am awful.

I was pulled out to be the squat therapy example, and I quickly realized my OHS/Snatch weakness, which I thought was weakness due to shoulder flexibility, was also rooted in hamstring issues, and poor engagement of my pelvis in maintaining my lumbar lordosis.

I have felt hopless for two years, in how poorly i have been able to gain shoulder flexibility, but in a few minutes i saw improvement in my ability to maintain some level of lordosis and get my arms overhead, there is hope!

I so strongly recommend that everyone attend a level 1 cert, it will do you great good. All of the instructors are intelligent and articulate, great examples of true teachers and motivated leaders.

I do however have one small criticism... what i perceived to be unnecessary use of the f bomb. It doesn't offend me, but i refer a ton of people to the CF website to watch videos, and to gain knowledge, to seek out affiliates and grow. I can only imagine a conservative family with a high school aged athlete with excellent skill, coming across a video that offends them. Could it possibly turn a kid off to CFit who might have been the next BEST, and instead he just achieves really good?

There is so much unrealized potential that will be found through CF, i just hope nobody loses that opportunity. The CF focus has changed my life, I know it will have that impact on thousands of people, and i know for certain that it will lead the demise of the globo gyms. The faster the better.

God Bless CF!

No rest day in Singapore.

Hang squat clean. 7 sets of 3 reps
1. 40kg
2. 40kg
3. 50kg
4. 50kg
5. 60kg
6. 60kg
7. 60kg

#158 is asking a beautiful question that I think pretty much nails down the unprincipled standpoint of the current conservatism with the more classical conservatism or libertarianism

I think he deserves a straight answer from all of you on this board who constantly blab about inefficient government (I am one of them) but then have all faith in a war that is obviously a Cluster@#$

Hey, this has turned into Soap Box Grandstanding day, so I'll throw my hat in the arena of discussion by making a 3rd and final proclamation, hopefully liberal enough to irk further proclamations!

Iraq: Don't agree with the effort and engergy being applied there. Iraq was not a post 9/11 threat to the United States nor to US interests in the region. And that's my thoroughly educated opinion on that subject.

Guns: I am a gun nut I guess. I like my two SKS', two Moson Nagant rifles (cheap, fun rifles too), my P345, and definitely my Remington 870. Guess what? I plan on having more, plus more ammo and lots of ammo boxes and a work bench where I can make my own firearms and they're all kept safe and idemize in a fire-proof gun cabinet with no access except for my combination that only I know. Why? Because I want to. Some grown-ups like Legos, others like to shoot stuff, plus I don't trust anyone outside of family and brother friends for my protection.

Our President: I don't like Silver-Spoons Bush, but that's my judgemental opinion after careful witness of his political ideology.

Other 'liberal' agendas: Leave gay people alone (why bully people over a personal choice), leave immigrants alone (if welfare recipients decided to work for a change...), police and... well, whatever.

What concerns me the most regarding politics is that there are people out there who live and breath this kind of crap all day long, they then lose sleep over it, and get paid gobs of cashola for it. They wind up being some sick conrol freak perched on some white chair by the kiddy pool screaching "Don't run by the pool!!" and the clown winds up being a politician pandering to either a right or left fringe group and making decisions about yours and my life by only being some Santa-Claus image on a television.

And one last thing, my right big toe hurts from turf-toe, and now my left bicep hurts and kipping is a pain and I've got CERT this weekend and wah, right? ; )

Mark,

So if a war takes longer than one election cycle for the House of Representatives, that is all you need to know? By your logic, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War 2, and Vietnam were all manifestly unnecessary and wrong.

I need to comment on Leninism. I haven't had time to read up on this in the depth this topic warrants, but my basic understanding is that Lenin created the basic propaganda template for "memetic regeneration" of ideas helpful to the Communist cause.

What are those ideas? First and foremost, they consist in the intentional abuse of language such that ALL words lose their common sensical and traditional meanings. For example, imperialism traditionally was when a nation used its military to invade another nation, and steal its resources.

Nazi Germany invaded half of Poland, and took what it wanted, while murdering in cold blood--as a result of misguided science--millions of Jews.

The Soviet Union invaded the other half, and liquidated, in cold blood, tens of thousands of Polish intellectuals and leaders, as a result of very rational efforts to prevent any organized opposition to Communist oppression.

Both of them stole whatever resources they wanted. It's quite simple. You take over a man's house, his possessions belong to you. This is imperialism.

In Vietnam, there were no natural resources we wanted. It was purely a war based on our desire to thwart Communist desires to enslave all of humankind.

In Iraq, there is oil, but we are not taking it. In fact, from what I read, the Iraqis are paying less than they could likely afford for their own defense.

We are staying there because Al Queda in Iraq (the group Obama forgot about) is using substantially the same tactics the Vietcong and the NVA used against the South Vietnamese villagers. They are torturing, murdering, and impressing people to commit mass murder of their fellow citizens.

This is evil, and we are working on the side of Good to stop it. If we choose--due solely to leftist propaganda--to lose this war the same way we chose to lose Vietnam, we will have to endure, in an internet age, much greater pangs of remorse.

The death of South Vietnam after we abandoned them was very much like listening to a friend to whom you pledged fidelity get slowly strangled--while screaming for help--in an alley next to your apartment, and to respond by closing your window, and turning up your music.

Vietnamization worked. Nixon won "peace with honor". And a Democratic Congress ensured the most mediocre President possible--to make it easier for them in 1976--and passed laws explicitly prohibiting Ford from doing anything whatsoever to prevent the rape and mass murder that ensued in South Vietnam upon our chosen abdication of moral decency, national responsibility, and foreign policy pragmatism.

We can avoid that fate for Iraq. It is the only right thing to do, and I will debate until the cows come home anyone who wants to claim otherwise.

#158

In answer to the question. Because the government, like any other group or organization, has the capacity for good or evil, at any given time. It is not static, as it is made up of different people, at different times, with different agendas. The framers understood this. So they built in a safeguard against the tyranny of a central goverment abusing it's authority, yet they understood that a government is necessary.

Oh, 2nd Amendment. Simple, the Founding Fathers distrusted a large standing Army. They felt that the defense of the nation ought to rest first and foremost with the individual citizen farmer. Adams in fact narrowly avoided being forced to allow Alexander Hamilton to command a permanent standing Army, which is good since many viewed him as an aspiring Napoleon.

This is the background of this Amendment, the need to ameliorate the need to defer to the State for self defense. Obviously, things have changed somewhat, as we do have a large standing Army. However, the principle--that of the indivisible need for ALL of us to stand together against all forms of tyranny--has not changed.

Moreover, the simple, readily provable fact is that areas with Conceal Carry Permits, and high rates of gun ownership, have low rates of violent crime. This makes sense if we apply common sense, and it is demographically, empirically, supported.

The simple fact is that anti-gun zealots resent the fact that violence is sometimes necessary, and would rather pretend that preparation is not needed, than that our soldiers--our warriors--are in fact often indispensible.

Again, this is an abuse of rationality. The goal is not to reach the objectively best solution, but to rationalize cowardice.

DrEric #171

Good on ya! Inspiring words from one who has lost much but sees only what he has gained. Thanks for the post.

D.

#187
Meanwhile some kid not old enough to know gets access to a poorly safelocked handgun that their parents keep in the house and kills a kid in school.

Choices, prices, whatever.

Even though some of the people that post on CF comments and forums scare me with their conservatism they aren't the people that gun regulation is aimed at. So when you tell me that you think it's perfectly reasonable for you to have a gun i say: yes i'm sure it is perfectly reasonable. However, as a law that we apply to an entire society...not so much.

Sadly the law cannot distinguish between those fit for this sort of thing and those not, and in the cases where lives are at stake we should probably aim to regulate the lowest common denominator.

This runs into the innocent child problem of utilitarian theory, which tbh is why i don't subscribe to it as a moral philosophy, but law is not moral philosophy, it is related to it, and in some cases built on it, but it is intended to create and maintain a functioning society - the kind of place we don't need guns.

Good job Mark!

Way to stick to your guns. (HawHaw)
You have well thought out views that aren't welcome here for some reason. I thought the article was on free speech..

I like the way you stand up for yourself.
Don't let anyone tell you can't have an view on an issue 'cos:

a. you haven't served
b. you are wrong
c. they are out of patience
d. you are young

For my mind you won this debate.

Great time in Mesa this weekend at the L1 cert. Anyone who is humming & hawing over attending one... DO IT! Best hands on instruction I've ever had, feel way more confident to bring it to others.

Thanks to Mesa Fire for the venue, great host and beautiful place for a vacation.
I'll be thinking of the heat while I return to the snow of Fort McMurray.

Cheers

Decatur cert It's the greatest show on earth. Where else can you go and pay 1000.00 bucks and the seats even cause you pain. I don't how many times I said to myself you paid for now do it. Great class. As far as the class and any changes I walked away (in pain)knowing that I learned something thats what it is all about. There is something about pain and knowledge that walk had in hand.You all did a great job.Even thou Monday is a rest day on the web site I went to crossfit nega and did the WOD. I guess the next big one is crossfit 2.

#198 Yorimoto

"Sadly the law cannot distinguish between those fit for this sort of thing and those not, and in the cases where lives are at stake we should probably aim to regulate the lowest common denominator."

If that was the case, no one would be allowed to drive. Not that I'm for guns, but regulating on that principle denies a lot of freedom.

I agree with #199. Mark, good show.

Attended the Mesa Level 1 cert this past weekend and I have nothing but great things to say about it. I learned an incredible amount and came out of the class with more enthusiasm for the program than I did prior. I've been doing Crossfit for 6 months now and thought I had a grasp on technique and the Crossfit concept. Little did I know how much I had to improve on and the quantity/quality of new information there was to attain. The patience and knowledge of the instructors was incredible. Listening to Coach Glassman was like listening to Jesus. I could have sat there forever and listened to his lecture. The workouts that we did each day left me gassed and wanting more. The intensity created when you have a group of type A fire breathing personalities compete with each other makes for a great time. I am looking forward to continuing the Crossfit program and attending more certs. Thanks to everyone for your help and enthusiasm.

That does it. I'm signing up for the Barry Cooper fan club.

It is funny, that many say BUSH lied. Of course I call him President Bush out of respect for our country, much like I call CLINTON, President Clinton.

Now much of this belief is predicated on WMDs. If they were to have been found. Even now, would anyone apologize for calling the man a liar?

stand by.

No rest today. Day off work and no kids so I made this one up:

800 m run
30 kb swings (2 pood)
30 squats
30 pull-ups
30 burpees
800 m run

14:45

Not great, but it was a rest day after all.

FYI, those committing crimes with guns don't care, or even know for that matter, that the second ammendment even exists. I don't know the exact statistics but would be willing to bet that when the Federal Assault Weapon ban was in effect there were no fewer gun realated crimes than there are now.

I guess my point is that the gun control argument is a mute point. There is no way to control any gun that is already in circulation, and there are millions. The best form of gun control is to have stiffer penalties for those who commit crimes with guns. At least then when I chase down some gun slinging banger I know he won't be out before I'm done with the paper.

#202

I don't think that is an applicable analogy.

In our society we need cars a great deal more than we need guns to function. I for example use my car every day, but i have never had need of a gun (although i have used one).

You are right in that it is on the same continuum; just wrong in placing the two instances at the same place on that continuum imo. It's all a matter of degrees, maybe in 20 years we will deem cars too dangerous. I don't pretend to know.

I had a letter that i wrote on paper in pencil. I looked down to see that i had misspelled many words; however, it wasn't my fault for the errors of spelling and grammar. It was all my pencil's fault. I think we should ban pencils to remove all the gramatical errors in the world.

The best way to prevent gun crime is to arm the entire f-ing population. If you don't believe me, look at the statistics for every state that allows concealed carry, or just look at Switzerland. Then compare those statistics to the increase in violent crime (specifically home invasion) in England and Australia following the restriction of private weapons.

#199, #202: no doubt Mark will continue posting, and provide the sorts of documentation that will prove him other than a semi-literate regurgitator of leftist propaganda. If not, then I will say simply that the facts support my contention that he has not thought this through, and that the well being of the Iraqi people is irrelevant to him.

Returning to Leninism, the basic goal is the ideological subversion of nations which are not currently Communist. I intend to read up on this in more detail, but the broad outlines of the strategy as it has actually been implemented is clear enough.

Culture is something which is passed on from parent to child, and from community to citizen in a broad range of ways. In order for there to be a clear transmission shared generally, there needs to be a clear, relatively interference free message.

Historically, that message has been that freedom is invaluable, and that it comes with responsibilities. One must serve at a minimum through working to understand the world, and to contribute thereby worthwhile ideas. Quite often, military service is a part of this as well. One must obey the law, and work to foster law abiding children who respect their elders and their nation. One must inculcate both a love of freedom, and the personal virtue to use that freedom without denying that same freedom to anyone else.

Martin Luther King was able to work peacefully within the system to show that our very ideals supported his aims, and to put moral pressure on Americans to support him. In this, he was successful. He was a great American.

The goal of Lenin, in my understanding, was to disrupt this process. It was not to generate peaceful, positive change within America or elsewhere throughout the non-Communist world. It was to create enough pain and chaos that America would collapse, and enable a "worker's state" to emerge.

The two principle axes of assault were language--by which he thereby captured thought--and morality--by which he captured meaning. The end state, described by Orwell, was a condition in which rational thought was disabled by making all words meaningless outside of the dictates of the State. Likewise, morality was meant to consist solely in conformity, because any template of thought not created by the State was understood as potentially subversive. Religion, particularly, since it provides a wholistic paradigm of the sacred, had to go.

How do you assault language? Simple, you use words incorrectly on a constant basis, and insult anyone who demands you use them correctly. You call a racist anyone who is not a leftist fellow traveller who is capable of distinguishing cultural differences between racial cultures. You then ensure that that person understands they are hateful, and not to be tolerated.

You call any use whatsoever of American military power imperialist. You concoct as many slogans as needed for the moment, and repeat them ad nauseum. As Goebbel's commented, any lie repeated often enough sticks, with some people. Self evidently, you invoke racism and capitalistic greed as often as possible. If in the course of the war anyone is paid for anything, you focus on this, and ignore the obvious fact that this is necessary to wage any war, and that one can in fact evaluate any given war rationally.

How do you attack morality? Simple, you point to the fact that no system of morality is adhered to perfectly, and call everyone who wants to make any moral claims a hypocrite. America killed the Indians, so it can't defend itself in Iraq. America enslaved the blacks, so it was unjustified in defending South Vietnam. It's quite simple.

The overall goal is to stick ideas out there which are sloganistic--simplistic to the point of imbecility--and keep repeating. This creates an offensive (pun there) momentum, and keeps decent people silent, since being honest they understand they are not perfect. Since the demand is apparently for perfection, they choose not to participate.

However, such scruples need not affect the dedicated revolutionary. Obviously, Communists killed in cold blood entire classes of people, in acts of prejudice that make our treatment of slaves look like saintliness. They invaded nations one after the other, or subverted them from within using outside aid. In South Vietnam alone, more men were executed in Nazi fashion following our ignominious abandonment of our ertwhile allies--who foolishly trusted us--than America lost in the WHOLE WAR. 65,000 men were shot in 1975. We could have prevented that.

That's enough for now. This topic makes my blood boil, so I'll be back.

Greg's WU

Did Bear Today..

BW = 75 KG

Bear as rex'd

30 Kg
40 Kg
45 Kg
50 Kg
60 Kg

:)

28 m 170
19 rounds + 11 pullups in 20th round

My dad sent me that Heston speech a while back as a way to fight any youthful democrat leanings I might possess. :)

Did Gwen with some of my judo teammates. Only used 65#, they are still kinda scared of CrossFit. Could have gone heavier. But hey, I'm converting the team one by one!

no doubt Mark will continue posting,
I do hope so, his point of view is as valid as yours.

and provide the sorts of documentation
I didn't see any documentation, from either of you.

that will prove him other than a semi-literate regurgitator of leftist propaganda.
He might just prove that. Or are you suggesting he is? Try and stick to the topic and stop 'playing the man'!

If not, then I will say simply that the facts
what facts??? My father used to say 'Son beware of the man who has all the facts'.. they are your ideas Barry, not fact.

support my contention that he has not thought this through,
I am sure he has.

and that the well being of the Iraqi people is irrelevant to him.
Foul! Played the man again! How do you know how he feels about Iraq's good people? (too PC?)

I am all for good debate but you just discount his opinion which is very unsporting and to a critical reader you aren't being persuasive.
The weak, simple lefty is actually making a clearer argument.

examples: What shred of evidence do you have, other than leftist crackpots. - discounting and bias.
My BS tolerance has reached zero, and I will ride you for the next three days if you don't want to play by big boy rules. - bullying.
You want to conform, because you lack the courage to use the freedom braver men than you died to create and protect. - degrading

Barry,

What about "leftist"? You seem to use it as a synonym for "ungood" in its adjectival form and as a synonym for "Goldstein" in its noun form. In your synopsis of Lenninist/Orwellian newspeak you noted that control of language can mean great power. Do you think the 'right' works to contrl language as well?

I don't have time to respond in the depth I will shortly, but for the time being I would like readers undecided in their sympathies to compare the content of my posts, with 214, 215, and indeed the ones preceding them.

I have alleged that a fundamental Leftist tactic is decontextualized criticism, making their criticism of the Vietnam War rhetorically indistinguisable from the wars in Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, the Global War on Terror, Iraq and even Afghanistan.

Who is actually saying something, and who is working to subvert rational discussion by claiming without recourse to facts or logic that any two positions on any issue must be equal since they are both apparently held sincerely?

I missed the implied accusation of anti-Semitism on 216. Nice. You are supporting my case.

Note that the effort here is to make me, and not the apparent topic at hand, the focus of attention.

At times leftists will be bullies, and at times cowering "victims" of rightist unrighteousness. Always, they will be unhappy, and complain that it is the fault of those working to use their right of free speech for actual, verifiable concrete goods.

What is acceptable, of course, is ideological conformity to the Party line. They are all for free speech, provided no one is foolish enough to say something that is incorrect.

At that point, of course, their view of "common decency" dictates that any and all methods available to applied to shut the offending person up. In post-Revolutionary states, of course, this includes judicially sanctioned murder, torture, imprisonment, and exile. They can't do that here yet, so they merely work to make these discussions so unpleasant that normal people feel so dirtied they discontinue them.

I have called this process Post-Rationalism. It is as good a moniker as any.

Barry,

If you interpret my reference to "Goldstein" as anti-semitic you are mistaken. I thought by your references to Orwell you might have read his thoughtful novel "1984", and would have known that in the novel, Orwell created a character with the name of "Goldstein" as the invidual and concrete (hence "noun form") of Engsoc's collective hatred. The adjectival form (corresponding to "leftist") was Asian, and Eurasian, depending on who Oceania was allied with at the time.

Your point on not conflating central america with Vietnam is well-taken. How about conflating Iraq with Afghanistan?

#206 CCTJoey

I believe the correct term is Former President Clinton.

lar, fair enough.

I read Orwell many years ago. That part I forgot. My apologies.

Iraq and Afghanistan are in fact two different conflicts. In Iraq we are battling Sunni subversive elements in AQI, as well as Iranian backed subversives working through Al Sadr. Both seek to destabilize the nation, and create a violent chaos from within which they can seize relative control, and prevent an American victory in the form of a stable, sustainable quasi-democracy.

In Afghanistan, we are battling Taliban elements who are actually easily in some respects to counter since they in general are not parts of the general populace, but rather existing somewhat tenuously in the mountains shared with Pakistan, in a manner analogous to the NVA sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos.

In both cases, failure will lead to more, not less violence, and more, not less, injustice and evil.

For these reasons, arguments in favor of chosen failure need to provide supporting evidence that somehow counters every available fact known to me. Simply asserting that we are "imperialists" is a known propaganda ploy with a provenance going back something on the order of 100 years, if not more.

Barry,

I agree that it is virtually impossible for the US to do anything in a poor/weak nation without it being accused of imperialism. You sell a Coke to an Afghani and you’re an imperialist. You set up a school in Rumania and teach Rumanians English and you’re an imperialist. On this understanding of imperialism, the US, its people and its money must stay at home - almost by definition, stepping outside is an act of imperialism.

This doesn’t mean, however, that acts of US foreign policy are not imperialistic. It seems probable that US withdrawal (if it is not replaced by some other coalition) from Afghanistan and Iraq would result in further chaos, death and destruction for innocent people. Many people who are against US involvement in Iraq know these things (or take it on authority from people like you who know more about than they). But, they are so upset with the decision to go in the first place, feel so betrayed, and cannot reconcile it with what they thought it meant to be an American in the world, that they hear arguments about tactics and what kind of support is required as arguments between car thieves fretting about making sure they keep their new vehicle in good repair. And these are the anti-war people in the US. Outside the view is understandably much worse. To people whose militaries wouldn’t last 5 days in a contest with the US, and whose economies rise and fall on the minor investments of US firms, the US’ willingness to go-it-alone (it took the UK but would have gone without it) is scary. Style matters. If the US wants to rehabilitate its international reputation it must at a minimum adopt a new style - asking, persuading, cajoling, bribing, intriguing, i.e. diplomacy, rather than steam-rolling.

Then there is the question of cost. Even if the US succeeds in Iraq, what financial cost to the citizenry of the US is too high? Is it possible for there to be a cost that is too high? What kind of generation-long act of altruism do the neo-cons expect of the American people?

Decatur Cert- Awesome weekend...thanks to all the trainers and staff for putting on a terrific cert. Jilly thanks again for your generous hospitality. I hope everyone remembers "what happens at the cert...stays at the cert:)" On the topic of the F-bomb ... many of you I met this weekend realize I seldom use the word myself. I agree it is a foul and ignorant way to speak...those that use it should be punished...I suggest 12 weighted calve raises! PEACE OUT!

Who is actually saying something,
you both are saying something.

and who is working to subvert rational discussion
you are when you go off topic, stick to your points and then you are going great.

by claiming without recourse to facts or logic
logic and facts in a political context, is in the eyes of the beholder. Either argument can be quite compelling at times.

that any two positions on any issue must be equal since they are both apparently held sincerely?
Exactly!! Your position is of equal value to Marks. You have your vote he has his.
Smarter men than us have spent life times in debate over these issue, it not as simple as you state, life isn't simple.

At times leftists will be bullies, and at times cowering "victims" of rightist unrighteousness.
Both sides do this at times logically.

Always, they will be unhappy, and complain that it is the fault of those working to use their right of free speech for actual, verifiable concrete goods.
unhappy and complaining ? this is not the domain of the left only.

Note that the effort here is to make me, and not the apparent topic at hand, the focus of attention.
You lack of self awareness is amazing..so YOU can attack the writer and that's fair play but if you are pulled up on it, it's a leftist tactic and not answering the topic.
Play fair Barry.

What is acceptable, of course, is ideological conformity to the Party line. They are all for free speech, provided no one is foolish enough to say something that is incorrect.
Well the far right doesn't like free speech, actually far left don't do free speech either - China for example.

At that point, of course, their view of "common decency" dictates that any and all methods available to applied to shut the offending person up.
I didn't take you for a victim. Speak on brother! say whatever you want!

In post-Revolutionary states, of course, this includes judicially sanctioned murder, torture, imprisonment, and exile. They can't do that here yet.
Well, we do have the CIA. Are they left or right?

unpleasant that normal people feel so dirtied they discontinue them.
Normal people? who are they Barry? are you feeling dirty?

In all fairness you make some good points, I just wish you'd write a little less angry and with less assumptions. Hopefully the parts I have picked out above show this.
If you want to teach the world a new way of thinking, terms like 'normal' need to be explained.

Glyn,

Translate that into English, then add content, and I'd be happy to respond. In the meantime, it looks an awful lot like you cut and pasted my post, added obfuscating and general objections to my tone where possible, and otherwise contributed nothing.

I have a long one in the hopper. I hope it makes it through, since there is nothing objectionable in there.

I had a long one last Rest Day that did not make it through, for reasons that are opaque to me.

Hopefully that will not become a regular occurence. It seemed to me self evident that if it was acceptable to call my posts vomit and diarreah that surely my election preferences would be within the realm of the acceptable. My hope is this, too, does not become a realm where speech needs to be moderated excessively out of regard for excessively refined feelings.

Went to the Mesa Cert. Had a great time and learned tons! Thanks to all the coaches for their quality instruction and the Mesa FD for hosting.

Barry,

We could go back and forth all day but Mark seems to have moved on. Which is a shame, he seemed perfect for you. I hate it when everyone agrees all the time. Preaching to the converted can be boring.

Yes, I did cut and paste a bit to show you specifically where I find your way of communicating irritating. It's not your opinion as much, it's your attitude. I don't have excessively high feelings and I dont object to tone. However showing others respect is just good manners.
He is entitled to his opinion as are you but you discounting what he says does not strengthen your arguement. That was my point.

26/m/89kg

70kg-70-70-75-75
75kg-75-75-75-75
70kg-70-70-70-70

Greg's WU

Did Bear Today..

BW = 82 KG

Bear as rex'd

30 Kg
40 Kg
45 Kg
40 Kg
40 Kg

front squats were killing me!

So your point is not to argue the topic at hand, but to point out that even though you cannot defend them , that other positions are possible?

There are people who believe UFO's live under the ocean. If I were to seriously propose that, would you also argue that the truth lies in the middle?

If you want to be taken seriously, or if Mark wants to be taken seriously, you have to have the capacity to back up what you are shouting with factual support and logic. If you can't do that, then of course you will either disappear or turn to insult, or try to shift the discussion to me.

All of these are forms of intellectual incompetence, and it is precisely this degradation of our national dialogue that Heston was referring to. Moral equivalency is creating a nation of unthinking, reflexively offended zombies.

In fact, I view the whole zombie fad as indicative of a latent understanding that common sense morality and shared cultural norms are falling victim to ponderous nihilisms couched in irony.

No, given the crayon scribblings you have offered thus far, I don't expect you to understand that, but hopefully some of the people reading this might.

That's it, I am packing up my crayons and going to the gym.

This is becoming a monologue, but lately I have been consistently annoyed by my increasing clarity with respect to the history of the last half century, and this is my principle place to vent. I have received enough encouragement to enable me to believe my rants are not purely solipsistic, or public exercises of my vanity.

Here is another angle: this event in Florida of an apparently meaningless attack on a 16 year old girl, apparently supported by the parent of one of the attackers, is an example of what I mean when I speak of nihilism.

When we abandoned Vietnam, after winning a sustainable peace, it became necessary to rationalize our abandonment of every shred of moral decency. This became even more essential after the widespread atrocities in Cambodia became evident, which were a direct result of the "Domino effect" which had in part precipitated our principled defense of South Vietnam as part of our Cold War strategy.

We could have defended Cambodia. We could have defended South Vietnam. We could have done so at a very low cost in money, men, and materiell.

We chose not to do so because the war was "unpopular", and it was unpopular because our press had shifted to the left and chosen to support, nearly openly, the victory not just of the NVA but the Khmer Rouge, who were viewed--even though we knew they were dedicated Communists, and even though they had written of their intent to commit mass atrocities in a form that was known to Congress--"freedom fighters".

Self evidently, neither the NVA or the Khmer Rouge were "freedom fighters". They were totalitarians who implemented Stalinist and Maoist policies in territories they were able to invade and subdue only with American acquiescence.

This has to be rationalized. The only possible recourse is to ignore the history to the extent possible, and to "deconstruct" the concept of nobility as a bourgeois artifact acting to cloak simple imperialist. To lie, in other words.

As a nation, we have lost the capacity to evaluate rationally our own self interest, and what is right and wrong, due to pervasive leftist propagandistic subversion. We are unabled to say "it is right to support allies, because loyalty is a virtue". We are unable to say "if we can prevent widespread death and destruction, we should do so".

Yes, we killed people going in to Iraq. We did not take their oil, steal their resources, enslave their populace. Nor do we have any intentions of staying in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Our policies are oriented around leaving as quickly as is consistent with success.

These girls in Florida: they grew up in a world where nothing is sacred, and where they are taught violence never solves anything. If you believe that, then what violence remains in you will get expressed not in rational acts of self assertion, or ambition to do good, or a desire to find a "good fight". No, it gets expressed in nihilistic destructiveness.

This is the logical end of the effort to destroy qualitative differences between human beings in mindless efforts to achieve material equality.

#233 Barry

Barry, I can only speak for myself but you've given me a lot to think about.

Do you have any prescriptions? (As in advice, not drugs)

I ask because many are quick to bring issues to our attention, but too few offer any prescriptions for how to deal with it.

#233 Barry
These girls in Florida: they grew up in a world where nothing is sacred, and where they are taught violence never solves anything. If you believe that, then what violence remains in you will get expressed not in rational acts of self assertion, or ambition to do good, or a desire to find a "good fight". No, it gets expressed in nihilistic destructiveness.

This is the logical end of the effort to destroy qualitative differences between human beings in mindless efforts to achieve material equality.
------

For starters, I can't speak to whether or not you're actually a solipsist (not that if you are, you'd have any reason to believe anything anyone says) but clearly people are listening (or you are imagining it very vividly), even this late in the game.

It sounds like you've almost reached the same conclusion that I have on the fundamental difference between "conservative" and "liberal" (as the words are used in the modern US). Liberals are unable to comprehend that anything other than altruism exists in the human spirit. What evil, greed, and aggression does exist must be the result of outside influences. This is a core belief of the American Left. You can see it clearly in the typical liberal approach to the justice system, i.e. the criminal is a product of his environment and should be treated like a victim. You can see it equally clearly in foreign policy and defense issues where the left rushes to follow a policy of "asking, persuading, cajoling, bribing, intriguing" (thanks, Prole) in diplomacy without realizing that no one takes your position seriously if the consequence of ignoring you is having to listen to you whine some more. They even get nervous about the "intriguing" part because it means we have to get involved with so many unsavory people.

The left seeks to neuter law-enforcement, the military, and foreign policy because they really, truly believe that if we offer no resistance to aggression, aggression will disappear. Most of them don't seem to see this in themselves but the logical outcome of their policies eventually leads to perpetually dealing from a position of weakness; a position that could only be tolerable to someone with that mentality.

That same core belief seems to lie at the heart of just about every left-right split I can think of, (in the U.S.) or at least at the heart of the rhetoric used to argue the left's case.

lar,

No time for a longer response, but I think step one is retaining a belief that moral clarity is possible.

Believe it or not, that is the primary target of most academic "deconstructionists". What do you think they are deconstructing? And why? To pursue political agendas.

Freudianism, in my view, is what is termed in academia a "deconstrutive narrative". So is the philosophical exposition of Darwinism.

When you see phrases like "morality is nothing but. . ." you are dealing with deconstruction. It is breaking down common sense, traditional notions like, say, marital fidelity, in terms of another story, say evolutionary adaptation.

You see these stories on Yahoo and other internet sites constantly. "Scientists discover genetic basis of altruism", or "Researchers develop game theory explanation of morality", etc.

They are taking one story, and using it to break down another story. Yet the story they are using is also deconstructable. I can deconstruct Darwinism in terms of its moral effects on its adherents, and its socially undesirable consequences. Both narratives are "true".

The root, though, of all this confusion--in my view--is the effort to eradicate from human society all pain. Part of this project rests on the historically untenable notion that people are basically Good, absent improper socialization. That is the latent assumption of the dogmatic atheists, for example.

Yet none of my reading in sociology, biology, or history supports this idea. Quite the contrary.

Bottom line, though, to return to the topic, the point of confusion is advance political agendas which feel good, but which make no sense and which can only be sold to a Post-rational public.

RifRaf 235
People on the left are not as monolithically followers of Jesus as you suggest, they do not all believe that an ethos of turn-the-other-cheek will solve the world’s problems.

And I know that much exists other than altruism (it may actually be a rarity). I the empirically you can make a good case that poverty, lack of education, racism, and an abusive upbringing constitute several of the MANY causes of crime. That doesn’t mean a murder should be treated like the bereaved family member of his victim. It means we (and law enforcement does this now) should take pre-emptive, structural steps to lessen the likelihood that someone will become a criminal. Why does setting up police protocols for dealing with domestic violence disputes require the neutering of law enforcement? Or creating units with special sensitivities to criminal forces in particular communities?

You seem to think the world is either/or. Either social environment is relevant to crime, or it is not. Either the US never uses force (or threatens to use force) in foreign relations or it does. My position (and you’re welcome) does not require that diplomacy is dispositive of force, it suggests that force without diplomacy destroys legitimacy.

The left is not monolithic. You would get a much better hearing from people who disagree with you (a little or a lot) if you attacked a position (that socio-economic situation is one among many influences on criminal behavior)rather than some pretended psycho-social 'type' you name 'liberal'.

It seems that what you might call lack of principle, I might call empiricism, or pragmatism, i.e. being guided by my observations. Surely I need some theory to help me interpret those observations (and I imagine this theory of is based on values that share much with yours: personal responsibility, honesty, integrity, industriousness, individual liberty), but, where I SEE that a way of doing things (i.e. a policy, law) based on those values IS NOT WORKING, then I need to rethink the priority I place on my values, and perhaps adjust them to fit with my experiences. I can’t just simply say: “my values are true, it’s the idiots [liberals] out there who are standing in the way of things running as they should.” If it’s not working, fix it.

More cops and more jails alone won’t fix crime. More soldiers and bigger military budgets won’t fix belligerent ‘rogue’ nations.

That’s it. That’s all. That’s the message. If it doesn’t work fix it, try something new. Even Popper thought that. Why is it so scary?

I think of myself as liberal

RifRaf 235
People on the left are not as monolithically followers of Jesus as you suggest, they do not all believe that an ethos of turn-the-other-cheek will solve the world’s problems.

I think empirically you can make a good case that poverty, lack of education, racism, and an abusive upbringing constitute several OF THE MANY causes of crime. That doesn’t mean a murderer should be treated like the bereaved family member of his or her victim. It means we (and law enforcement does this now) should take pre-emptive, structural steps to lessen the likelihood that someone will become a criminal. Why does setting up police protocols for dealing with domestic violence disputes require the neutering of law enforcement? Or creating units with special sensitivities to criminal forces in particular communities? Couldn't that just be ONE OF MANY factors in effective policing.

My impression of your comments and your diagnosis of the right/left split, is that you seem to think that existence is an unending serries of either/or propositions - either social environment is relevant to crime, or it is not; either the US never uses force (or threatens to use force) in foreign relations, or it does. My position (and you’re welcome) does not require that diplomacy is dispositive of force, it suggests that force without diplomacy tends to diminish legitimacy, which in some situations, poses a greater threat to national security than the target of the force.

The left is not monolithic. You would get a much better hearing from people who disagree with you (a little, or a lot) if you attacked a position (that socio-economic situation is one among many influences on criminal behavior) rather than some pretended psycho-social 'type' you name 'liberal'.

What you might call my lack of principle, I might call empiricism, or pragmatism, i.e. being guided by my observations. Surely I need some theory or set of principles to help me interpret my observations (and I imagine my theory shares many constituent values with yours: personal responsibility, industriousness, individual liberty, honesty, integrit ), but where I OBSERVE that a way of doing things (i.e. a policy, law) based on those values IS NOT WORKING, then I need to rethink the priority I place on my values, and perhaps adjust them to fit with my experiences.
It would be foolish to simply say: “my values are true, it’s the idiots out there who are standing in the way of things running as they should.” (that is what utopians and despots - Lennin, Mugabe say). If it’s not working, fix it.

More cops and more jails ALONE won’t fix crime. More soldiers and bigger military budgets ALONE won’t 'fix' belligerent ‘rogue’ nations.

That’s it. That’s all. That’s the message. If it doesn’t work fix it, try something new. That's what I learned from Popper (and he was no marxist). Why is it so scary?

It isn't, but a divide and rule politics has made it seem that way.

Prole you wrote: " It means we (and law enforcement does this now) should take pre-emptive, structural steps to lessen the likelihood that someone will become a criminal. Why does setting up police protocols for dealing with domestic violence disputes require the neutering of law enforcement? Or creating units with special sensitivities to criminal forces in particular communities? Couldn't that just be ONE OF MANY factors in effective policing."

Funny you write the above but remain blind sided by the on going totalitarian regimes and actions throughout the world or why we went into Iraq. I thought you were against pre-emptive action.

" My position (and you’re welcome) does not require that diplomacy is dispositive of force, it suggests that force without diplomacy tends to diminish legitimacy, which in some situations, poses a greater threat to national security than the target of the force."

Diplomacy is a two-way street. You appear all to willing to be the only side negotiating.

"More cops and more jails ALONE won’t fix crime. More soldiers and bigger military budgets ALONE won’t 'fix' belligerent ‘rogue’ nations."

You are right more law enforcement BREAKS crime. More military BREAKS belligerent 'rogue' nations. Hard work rebuilds the hurt communities. Diplomacy only prolongs the action of the just , to the benefit of the other side which only seeks to prolong it even further until it has discredited the just and intimidated the rest.

First point: preemptive action without sufficient diplomacy (Iraq) would be like setting up a preemptive policing progam without studying the problem first.

Second point: you're right about diplomacy only working if the other side is willing. I had coalition-building in mind (that would require compromises that the US may not like, but them's the breaks). Diplomacy with AQ wouldn't work. But diplomacy with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Russia, China, Thailand, England, Canada, India, etc might. And, my point: if you try openly and honestly with these nations and it does not work, if you try openly and honestly to convince them to join you, and listen to their concerns, then when you go it alone you have more legitimacy. The problem with a Bolten style attitude is that it not only assumes the US (Bush and neo-cons) are right, it won't even listen to anyone else, no matter what evidence they provide. It's like the climate change scientists who write out data that doesn't jive with global warming.

Third: Of course timing matters. If you don't resort to violence soon enough your work will be that much more difficult when you finally get around to it. But, if you resort to violence too soon, your work at winning the peace will be that much more difficult. This is not simple waffling that there are two sides to every story. What I'm saying is that both force and serious diplomacy indicating a sincere concern for interational order and cooperation are required. The neocons said "Reality be damned, we make reality what we want it by takin the initiative!" Oh yah? That sounds utopian to me, it sounds guided by a totalitarian violent impulse.

First point: preemptive action without sufficient diplomacy (Iraq) would be like setting up a preemptive policing progam without studying the problem first.

Second point: you're right about diplomacy only working if the other side is willing. I had coalition-building in mind (that would require compromises that the US may not like, but them's the breaks). Diplomacy with AQ wouldn't work. But diplomacy with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Russia, China, Thailand, England, Canada, India, etc might. And, my point: if you try openly and honestly with these nations and it does not work, if you try openly and honestly to convince them to join you, and listen to their concerns, then when you go it alone you have more legitimacy. The problem with a Bolten style attitude is that it not only assumes the US (Bush and neo-cons) are right, it won't even listen to anyone else, no matter what evidence they provide. It's like the climate change scientists who write out data that doesn't jive with global warming.

Third: Of course timing matters. If you don't resort to violence soon enough your work will be that much more difficult when you finally get around to it. But, if you resort to violence too soon, your work at winning the peace will be that much more difficult. This is not simple waffling that there are two sides to every story. What I'm saying is that both force and serious diplomacy indicating a sincere concern for interational order and cooperation are required. The neocons said "Reality be damned, we make reality what we want it by takin the initiative!" Oh yah? That sounds utopian to me, it sounds guided by a totalitarian violent impulse.

Prole,

Your basic argument amounts to "it's better to do the right thing for the right reasons than the wrong thing for the wrong reasons". We can agree on that. You add to this the notion that the world is complex, and problems have many causes and presumably many solutions, and the best solution is the one which accomplishes our aim with a minimum of violence. We can agree on that.

In all likelihood, however, that is where agreement ends. In the case of Iraq, the first Gulf War ended in 1991. The second one did not start until 2003. In the intervening period, the US, UN, and other nations were in consistent diplomatic contact with Hussein. He consistently failed to meet his obligations, outright attacked us on occasion--or threatened to--and cheated on our well intentioned approval of efforts to enable him to reduce suffering in his nation created by economic sanctions. He built palaces, and let his people die.

Thus, the argument that diplomacy skipped is ludicrous. It only makes sense to people whose notion of a diplomatic end game is "one more try".

Moreover, if you want to invoke the principle of efficacy, the historical reality conservatives, with complete justification, offer is that of Chamberlain's "Peace in our Time". He went to Munich, and got a peaceful agreement--peaceful for Britain and France, not Czechoslavakia--which enabled them to avoid war. It was the perfect solution, and Chamberlain received accolades from nearly everyone but Winston Churchill.

Fast forward 30-35 years, and I think we can with justification view the Vietnam conflict as the inverse of "Peace in our time". Nixon won peace with honor. Gen. Abrams, through intelligent policies, enabled troops draw downs to happen without militarily negative consequences. The only caveat was that the South Vietnamese needed American air support.

When the North Vietnamese launched more tanks against South Vietnam than Patton took into Germany in 1972, through brave fighting, and
American air support, they beat them back. It was only with our abandonment of our treaty--an abandonment forced by a Democratic Congress--that the heroic South Vietnamese were crushed in 1974-1975.

With respect to the topic of the say, let me offer an interesting comparison. Lt. Calley, who everyone knows as a bloodthirsty murderer, killed some 100 or so people. What actually happened, and who gave what orders is not clear, but it is patently clear it was not official policy, and that he and his fellow soldiers were court-martialed and prosecuted.

When the North Vietnamese invaded Hue in the Tet Offensive they tied up, forced to their knees, and shot in the back of the head 3,000 civilians. Non-combatants. Both events happened in roughly the same time frame, but somehow the latter was overlooked. It was official Communist policy. Those soldiers did what they were told to do. Execution of civilians was standard procedure for them throughout the war, and throughout South Vietnam.

Yet who did the leftists in this nation root for? To call this moral equivalence is a misnomer. There was no equivalance. The United States was considered the more evil party, and North Vietnam was given a memory hole, into which to pile all record of their atrocities, so as to expunge them from the Western political record.

I literally view this as the inverse of Chamberlains' futile gesture. He at least was able to argue that he didn't know any better, and in fact died young, in effect of heart break.

In Vietnam, we had victory. We pacified the South, and they were on our side. Then the Democrats took out Nixon, in effect because he was working too hard to uncover their frequent support of treason, and enacted laws preventing us from protecting a free nation from the tank-led conventional invasion of a nation with a long record of atrocities.

We appeased our enemies after we had victory. This cannot be excused, and the record has to be set through, or we will be unable to learn the lessons of history that Prole presumably also wants to learn from.

Last paragraph should read "record has to be set straight. . .".

I was distracted while typing that. There were several other typos as well, which can hopefully be sorted out. I type 60 words a minute, but as described in a recent CrossFit Journal, I only do about 50 accurately. Sometimes I let things through if I can't proofread them.

I'll be going to bed shortly, and wanted to end with a comment that I am currently reading Lewis Sorley's excellent book "A Better War". It is worth the read for anyone who cares about the Vietnam War, or our current situation in Iraq.

An interesting exercise he goes through early in the book is to point to the nearly complete lack of coverage by most major texts of the period after Gen. Westmoreland, which is to say 1968 on.

I read many years ago Stanley Karnow's history, which is one of the principle histories of Vietnam. Gen. Abrams barely appears. As Sorley points out, he does not get beyond Tet 1968 until page 567 out of 670, and does not list Abrams--who was in command of US Forces for four years--as one of the "cast of principle characters". He didn't matter, obviously, because by the time he got there, the decision had been made, for reasons of cowardice and political convenience, to fail, at least with respect to the Democratic Party, and most of our Nation and New York Times reading elite.

Constantly, we see condemnations of the "search and destroy" policy, with seemingly no awareness that it ended, as Sorley points out, "within fifteen minutes", of the end of the tenure of Westmoreland, who was supported by Johnson and seemingly no one else within or outside the military.

The whole history, as taught to kids, and as conceived by adults, stinks to high heaven. It is wrong, and everyone associated with it knows its wrong.

And this is the model, the history, the template that radicals want to apply to our current effort to win peace in Iraq for the Iraqi people. To avoid massive and unnecessary bloodshed of the sort that spilled in South Vietnam and Cambodia.

To do right is within our power. We need, however, to learn from our history. To learn, from both the failures and successes of the past, what works, and what should be consigned to the "scrap heap of history".

Last comment (thanks for your late replies)

1. I admit diplomacy did not work with Iraq. I’m thinking about diplomacy with allies.
a. Iraq posed no threat to the United States worthy of full-scale invasion.
b. I love regime change. It appeals to my sense of justice and altruism. But its not a sustainable policy (it would bankrupt the US) and when done without broad international support it appears as imperialism. Only when a situation is absolutely dire (annexation of the sudatenland, subjugation of Austria, invasion of Poland, by a nation that espouses expansion and can actually accomplish it [Germany], or the Soviet Union or China (Vietnam/Korea).
2. Iraq is/was/could never amount to anything near the threat posed by Nazi Germany.
a. US watched Japan stomp over Asia for almost fifteen years before it did anything, and Japan was a much bigger threat to US interests than Iraq.
b. Chamberlain failed. The context of his failure was the unprecedented and senseless slaughter of WWI. Not an excuse, I admit.
3. I obviously know much much less than you about Vietnam. I also think that now that the US is in Iraq, it can’t just leave. But I don’t think it should be framed as “turn tail and run”.

Didn't rest.
20 min ruck run w/45#
4 laps @ compound