That picture is just sick....

Check my baby Brother EthanNYC on CrossFitSouthBrooklyn.com!

I'm so proud. My two favorite things - My Boo and CrossFit. :)

He was so excited to finally see where I go all the time. When he gets mad at me he tells me to "Go to the Gym" ... or "go on a plane and go to California". He played with everything. The parallettes, the rings, he rolled plates, kicked balls, ran around, jumped on stuff... it was awesome. He's going to be a great CrossFitter.

I'm so excited about the cert in Ann Arbor this weekend! I can't wait to get there and meet everyone!

Sweet Adrian

Ouch.... yeah pistols with double ketbells... thats some insane stuff right there

That link is un-fracking-believable.

Yay...Now I just need to make up deadlifts during lunch or something. I guess I'll get some extra sleep to make up for it.

Pistols destroyed my knees for a week last time I did them. Any suggestions other than not doing them.

cool. a rest day on my b-day... guess i'll celebrate with a 5k!!

The rocking russkies was awesome. Two things I love in the world. Rock and Roll and communists. Yeah!

Rest day! Hale-lujah!

What a performance of that song! Surreal!

I like that t-shirt. Boz is the man.

Pistols - gotta get me some of that!

Allison, Ethan is cute with the rings and parallets. Have fun in Ann Arbor!

Sweet Home Alabama - Rush L. uses that song a lot in his radio talk show!

Is anyone else still suffering from Kelly? My legs are wack. Rest day is welcome but I think I'll go skiing!

Love the hairdo's.
Love the outfits.
Love the go-go dancers.

Amazing what happens when people decide to forget about century old feuds. Whatever their secret is we need them to export it.

Hmmm... gonna remember that vid for long time .

shiver!

Wish my gym had a keg in it.

ahh rest day...did that as rx'd...one cycle behind, however.
sweet video. That is one smooth pistol...perhaps it is time to subscribe to CFJ...

Is this what has happened to the Russian officials in the Rocky movie after Rocky beats the Russian?

That video blew my mind. Where do I get some of those sweet shoes they were wearing?

Just finished today's and yesterday's WODs:

Deadlift

160
190 (PR)
190
185
185
185
185

First time doing Kelly, slightly modified, 18" box jumps--full hip extension at top of jump, 10# wall ball shots.

Kelly 35:10

Skynyrd they ain't.

Wow, just watched the video. Beach Blanket Babylon Gone Wild!

The irony of the "Red" Choir giving that Limp-D!ck, Pinko, Neil Young the "one finger salute" like Skynard did makes my day.

Liberty Rocks

America Rocks

The only thing they could have done better is sing "God Bless The USA!' by Lee Greenwood, which I am sure they do in private like most of the rest of the world.

as a bald man I envy their hairdos - I may ned to try that for a toupé someday

Great Juxtaposistion of the old and new waves sweeping across that land

now to get the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing backup some goth death metal band

Dude! That's just sick.. Awesome!

Get some, Go again!

DJ!!! Get those fins on!!!

JT style workout-group workout, so did not time, just made sure the work got done (legit)

Finisher-
10 pull ups
10 KTE
10 wall ball sit ups
5 rounds

wish us luck on our 1/2 marathon tomorrow. Have a good day.

Great music video. I've heard of the Leningrad Cowboys before and it seems like they were doing a whole concert with the Red Army Choir. If you watch some of the other videos that pop up afterward (Stairway to Heaven, My Way), the Red Army Choir also is in those. The Red Army Choir been singing popular American songs in English as long as they've been allowed to tour outside the USSR. It just goes over well that after they sing a bunch of native Russian songs, they pull out a classic in English for the English speaking audience to enjoy. The funny thing here is that it appeared to be a concert in Germany, so it was a Finnish band with a Russian back-up choir singing for German youths... and in English.

Though, to tell you the truth about the Red Army Choir, they really don't sing in English. Probably a high percentage of their members don't speak English fluently, if at all. Instead they sing phonetically, trying to match syllables of English. You can really tell on My Way that they just don't get the English. It's like a standard American choir singing in Russian. We'll sing it as phonetically correct as we can, but because we don't speak the language, the nuances will be missing in stress and pronunciation and to a native speaker it just won't sound quite right.

Anyway, what are we supposed to be learning from this besides Lynard Skynard wrote catchy tunes?

Loved the Russkie link. Other than being very entertaining, I'm not sure of the significance of it. It probably is some sort of commentary on the loosening of the disbanded Soviet Union's belt, but I'll just enjoy solid rock performance, the wacky presentation and outfits.

Dan

www.CrossFitStickers.com
The only authorized CrossFit Bumper Stickers!

I didn't comment on the video...
funny stuff. That would be the soundtrack to drive someone to suicide.

correction to my 'name'...now 95kg

#24 - lovin' the mormon tabernacle choir with some death metal idea.

Well, Metallica did do S&M - which was fantastic. Maybe next go around they throw in the mormons for "The Call of Kthulu" for an interesting juxtaposition sorta thing...

Wow great pistol work! Makes me think of Steve Cotter with two 70's...

A cross between the B52's, Bello the clown from Ringling Bros, American Idol, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Rocky IV. All we needed was Stallone to come on stage and make a can't we all get along speech from the end of the movie.

I miss those damn Russians! The world was much more "stable" when the Red Army had those pesky satellites under their thumb. Granted, there were some human rights being violated, but you have to admit the Cold War kept the whole world in 'check'.

Does Crossfit recommend taking suppliments such as protein powders, creatine, etc?

If so, what is recommended?

Thank you.

I must say, a refreshing change from the politically charged articles that we usually get.
Entertain me damn it!
Am I missing something?

Comment #23 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at April 10, 2008 10:01 PM

"The only thing they could have done better is sing "God Bless The USA!' by Lee Greenwood, which I am sure they do in private like most of the rest of the world."

Nope. Most of the world has actually the contrary opinion about the USA.

#35 Well, the Zone doesn't really care where you get your protein from, as long as it's a low fat source. Crossfit recommends the Zone, sooo...
Anyways, I just go with whatever 100% whey protein is around and less expensive than the rest.
As for creatine, someone else will have to answer, but I don't use the stuff.

Is the keg in the background of the left pane a subliminal motivation filming technique?

Works for me!!

Cheers, have a great weekend.

thought i'd put in a extra session today

5 rds for time: 1000m row, 15 chin ups, 15 slap press ups, 15 down ups, 15 sit ups - 39 mins

almost blacked out

Not a completely bad rendition of Sweet Home Alabama. It's much better than any version I could ever do. Although it did seem like the dude on lead guitar was a little fast on the tempo..I felt like he was really Russian it. **badum-CHING **
Thank you ! I'm here all week !

Dead serious... how long would it take to do my hair like that?

The Russians still want to be like us so much that their entire choir learned the song.

Russia is currently in a flux state of communism and capitalism. Their economy is growing because they have scores of resources - with that much land - who wouldn't?

Too bad the har is a mixture of something from the 50's and the 80's. Rally funny to look at, though. I guess they couldn't buy cowboy hats, so they made their hair to be that long.

Off to till the garden - not much of a rest day.

Stuart

We've come a long way in 20 years! Russians singing "Sweet Home Alabama" would have been unheard of back in the day! See what arch enemies can do when they bury the hatchet (especially when we won the Cold War without a shot)! Just think, maybe in another 20 years we'll see a Taliban or Al Queda choir singing "Losing My Religion" with REM. Of course, if we give up in Iraq and Afghanistan like the Dems want us to, perhaps it'll be one of our armed forces choirs singing some rag head tune, in Arabic, over in some desert oasis in the Middle East. I think it's all about who wins and who doesn't.

Last time I did deadlifts was about 10 years ago and my PB was 392lbs. Not sure I could do that now, but worse still my gym doesn't hold 392lbs in the first place. Since beginning CrossFit it has become rapidly apparent that most gyms contain a load of junk. I'll be assembling my home made pull-up bar this weekend and fully expect the neighbours to wonder what the hell is going on. More prospective converts.

NNNNNNOOOO LETS TRAIN

those guys remind me of devo. except devo was a good band. there are just some things you can't unsee.

Well, today is a welcomed day of rest after my first three WODs. I can feel it! The Zone has been going fairly well and I am looking forward to the results!

Semper Fi! from a former Marine.

One of my favorite sons, some of those soldiers were really into it. And the costumes of the band, try CFing in those. What a crack up - hilarious!! Great way to start the day. I am a day behind so deadlifts for me today.

"Does Crossfit recommend taking suppliments such as protein powders, creatine, etc?

If so, what is recommended?

Thank you."

According to that video, a tapped keg of beer seems to be the suppliment of choice. Very much within the Zone Diet:)

Does everyone see the keg in the background of the video. That is my kind of gym, hard work out and some ice cool keg for the cool down

The Leningrad Cowboys are one of the most tongue in cheek rock creations around. Never mind the hair - what about their shoes!!!!! So cool. It's an old video. Actually are/were fronted by Nicky Tesco from The Members. Sigh. I don't kow if you serious minded guys would understand...

Anyway, from Wiki...

"The Leningrad Cowboys is a Finnish rock band famous for its humorous songs and concerts featuring the Soviet Red Army Choir.

The band was an invention of the Finnish film director Aki Kaurismäki, appearing as a fictional band in his 1989 film Leningrad Cowboys Go America. The fictional band, however, was made up of members of a real Finnish band, the Sleepy Sleepers, plus some additional people. In the film, they are joined by Nicky Tesco, former lead member of the UK punk rock band, The Members. After the film, the band took on a life of its own, recording music, making videos and giving concerts. The band appeared in two other Aki Kaurismäki films, the Leningrad Cowboys Meet Moses (1994) and the Total Balalaika Show (1994), which is a film of a concert performed by the band and the full 160-member Red Army Choir in Helsinki, Finland in June 1993. Kaurismäki also wrote and directed two videos featuring the band: their cover of the 60's folk standard Those Were The Days (1992) and Thru The Wire (also featuring Tesco) (1992).

In 1994, the band appeared together with 70 members of the Red Army Choir at the 11th annual MTV Music Awards, at the Radio City Music Hall in New York, where they sang the Lynyrd Skynyrd classic Sweet Home Alabama. The show was seen by an estimated 250 million people worldwide. That same year, the band and ensemble again joined forces for the "NOKIA Balalaika Show", a concert held in Berlin.

Currently, the band has eleven Cowboys and two Leningrad Ladies. The songs, all somewhat influenced by polka and progressive rock are performed in English and have themes such as vodka, tractors, rockets, and Genghis Khan, as well as folkloric Russian songs, rock and roll ballads and covers from bands as diverse as The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Lynyrd Skynyrd, all presented with lots of humour."

Oh look, a controversy-free rest day but some people want to stir the pot just to keep themselves entertained. I'll bite...

Here is what Ronnie Van Sant said about Neil Young:

"We wrote Alabama as a joke. We didn't even think about it - the words just came out that way. We just laughed like hell, and said 'Ain't that funny'... We love Neil Young, we love his music..."

Uh oh, world's colliding here. Gotta sit down...

(taken from http://www.learningfromlyrics.org/Southern.html)

What is all this crap about loving the Ruskies version of "Sweet Home Alabama"? I came very close to gouging out my right eye over such a horrific sight of that goofball prancing around the stage with that, that HAIR!

Yeah, it's all keen cute for kids and everything, but it's a terrible cover of an American beer/bourbon special. Oh wait, that's "Simple Man" I'm thinking about. Lynard Skynard is untouchable, like Led Zepplin; leave it alone. Oh wait again; didn't Cheryl Crow do a cover of the song? Well fine, they can have that one then, but I say "NO MORE!"

I need some System of a Down to cleanse my ear-palate...

; )

#23 CCT Joey.

Neil Young is a pinko, commi. But I love his music. Everybody in the entertainment industry is a pinko for the most part, that doesn't mean I don't listen to them/watch their movies.

Jane Fonda is a lefty wackjob, but she looks smokin in those old films!!

CCT JOey 23,

Rest assured, you are a WAR MACHINE!

I see in the main page pic on the left a nut doing a full back bridge with two KB's. What is CF's stand on BB's? I have begun doing them and have gotten great support from other sources.

I dare say the Leningrad Cowboys may experience some difficulty fitting in in Alabama, despite their obvious, and flattering, passion for it. Call me crazy! Flock of Seagulls ain't got nothin' on those haircuts.

The Russkies made me laugh -- and that was not at all what I expected for a Rest Day link! A nice change of pace.

If anybody's interested in more chuckles, we've posted CrossFit-themed jokes on our blog today: http://www.crossfitwatertown.com

Be forewarned, though, some of them are real groaners and we have an odd affection for the knock-knock joke . . .

CCT Joey 23,

You are an American WAR MACHINE!
Put it on a T-Shirt, or a business card or something (maybe a helmet).

My gut instinct is that the image of America presented by leftist intellectuals throughout the world is as negative as it is here. We have our anti-patriots, and of course they have sympathizers overseas. For the Code Pinko protesters here there are analogues in Prague, Paris, and Berlin. These people's message, here and abroad, is that the US is unpopular.

That it is unpopular with them, I have no doubt. That any rational use of our power for anything but submission to corrupt bodies like the UN bothers them. We have in fact been an object of hatred, by intellectuals, since at least the 1930's, and likely earlier. And the simple fact, in this regard, is that intellectuals do most of the writing both here and abroad. They control much of the press, and other forms of media. Here, for example, the New York Times all but roots for our enemies. They have to be careful to conceal their true feelings, lest they offend normal Americans, but they still succeed in expressing their views covertly by ignoring all evidence that would support a pro-American, genuinely patriotic stance.

For example, they ignored the Venona intercepts nearly entirely. This was a top secret program under which Soviet cable traffic to their spies in the US were intercepted and decrypted. The Army hid it from Truman, because they didn't trust him. Like FDR, he had a history of promoting known agents like Alger Hiss.

Released in 1995, they show clearly that the Democrats throughout the 40's ignored widespread evidence that their Administrations were riddled with paid Soviet agents and even more sympathizers. McCarthy was entirely correct to call attention to this problem. Venona proved that the substance of his allegation was correct, even if he himself may--and this part is far from clear cut to me, pending more reading--have at times gone too far.

I think both ordinary Americans, and ordinary members of other nations understand that on a gut level, Americans mean well, and that the world as a whole is much better off with us having helped win WW1, WW2, the Korean War, the Cold War, and the first Gulf War. We are a nation that combines tremendous power with unprecedented reluctance to use it.

When I see videos like this, it reminds me that in their heart of hearts, all people want to be free and happy. They want to be members of parochial communities, but also want to be members of humanity as a whole. Our vision of global fraternity and universal peace and democracy is a very powerful one.

It can only be combatted with lies.

#54
'I need some System of a Down to cleanse my ear-palate...

; )'

Would you like a bucket and some mouthwash as well?

"Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you"(Нравится вам или нет, но история на нашей стороне. Мы вас похороним)—

Nikita Khrushchev

Hello everyone. Happy rest day...as rx'd.
Have a great weekend!

The second day I was stationed in germany in 1998, I went to a local bar/pub by myself and wanted to soak up the german culture (beer) and see what it was all about. I was enjoying myself, looking at the ladys and putting down a few. Then it happened the song by John Denver, (forget the exact name) "...country roads take me home, west virginia" came on in the bar and everyone started singing. There were these two heavier german women singing the song as loud and as proudly as they could with that german accent, in english. I cracked a smile and realised for the first time I was not in the US anymore. ahh the memories.....

M/22/6'1"/185

Yesterday:
375, 395, 405, 425, 435, 445, 455(PR)

Post:
KB Snatch Right Arm 10 (1.5 pood)
DB Snatch Left Arm 10 (1.5 pood)
Box Jump 10 (48")
3 Rounds
4:50

Today: "300"
14:34 The hardest part are the Floor Wipers

I have friends in Greece, and when I was visiting them they told me that the many of the clubs in Greece actually have policies on not playing American music for a certain number of consecutive songs!! I visited them 2006, and they still had all of the classic 90's alternative songs saved to their cell phones!!!

I think we often forget how exceptional out musical tradition is here. For such a young country, we have really developed many distinct styles of music. Delta blues is the basis of most classic rock, Jazz music, whether you like it or not- Hip-Hop/Rap, Bluegrass (which is derived from scottish/Irish type folk music)

American exceptionalism !!!

31/m/190

"Tears & Power ver 2.0"

HSPUs 20, 15, 10, 5 reps
Knees to Elbows 15, 10, 5, 20 reps
Hang Clean @ 135# 10, 5, 20, 15 reps
Pull-ups (rings) 5, 20, 15, 10 reps

24:04

Was Neil Young really a communist? I mean, for real? He's a hippy, I know that much...

Hey guys, quick question. I am about 3 days behind schedule, and my last few showing have been less than spectacular. I could probably squeeze in Kelly or the deadlifts sometime today, but was thinking about just taking the rest day and get back on track with the next WOD. What do you think? I am worried that playing catchup and working out 6 days in a row is going to mess with the programming and my recovery ability.

29/m/210

Four rounds of HSPUs, KTEs, Hang Clean, P/Us with the following rep count:

HSPUs 20, 15, 10, 5
Knees to Elbows 15, 10, 5, 20
Hang Clean @ 135# 10, 5, 20, 15
Pull-ups 5, 20, 15, 10

25:18

29/f/112

deadlifts 1-1-1-1-1-1-1

205-215-225-230-235-240-250 (ties pr)

pre: wux1
post: freestanding HSPU practice, almost got 3 consecutive

before my last set some dude thought he'd come up to my bar and ask 'is this you?' i said yes, and he said no way- you're gonna lift that? i don't believe it..i can't lift that. he said he needed to see this to believe it. 250 went up pretty easy (thank goodness) and he says, 'wow that's pretty good for a girl' what a jackass. i'm going for 255 next time.

terry # 12- i'm with ya, my legs are still trashed from kelly. it hurt so bad i made all my clients do it this week.

adrian- you are a badass, freckin awesome weighted pistols!

andrea #160 from yesterday- thanks for the nice comments and keep me posted on your hspu progress! hopefully our paths will cross soon!

Newish to crossfit... Is there a warmup routine established prior to the WOD? I am digging through the site and haven't found one.

Check out the FAQ or demos. I'm sure there is the official CF warm-up or try Greg's warm-up on the demo's. Good luck.

Further to my last ref the warm-up: check out FAQ 1.8 and Greg Amundson's Warm -Up on Demos General Exercises.

How do you handle when you have to miss a day? Do you just take that day off and get back into the wod's or do you try and make it up? Just wanted to see what others do....Thanks

Amy 37/124/63"

Made up yesterday's DL
154 165 180 190 195(previous PR) 200 210
New PR by 15# ... yeah, I'm stoked. I got a PR the other day during the SP PP PJ workout too. Now I just need to put everything together on a CFT and I should have a PR on that by 25#.

This stuff works! Thanks so much Coach!

#41 CalmlikeaBomb...

booooooo

Although, by far my favorite post since the one where the guy asked about self pleasure in relation to crossfit (like boxers).

#41 CalmlikeaBomb...

booooooo

Although, by far my favorite post since the one where the guy asked about self pleasure in relation to crossfit (like boxers).

thought i would do "LINDA" today but instead she did me.
275/190/100
all sets unbroken except for the 9 reps on deadlift.
29:18

Is it just me or are the rest days as hard to get through as the WODs? I know I have to recover...but I don't want to.

pinko or not, o'le Neil is UNTOUCHABLE!!

RossFit

I feel your pain, I love rest days but I want to workout so bad. Rest days are definitely harder for me than workout days.

"anti patriot" - this rest day's contender for most orwellian phrase.

Where was the anit-patriot rhetoric of the NY times between September 2001 and March of 2003? The fourth estate went awol precisely when the nation needed it most - the lead up to the congress' authorization to use force.

Those must have been glory days in Patriotville USA.

Did Yesterdays WOD today, introduced a friend who was spent after the cfwu, but i coached him through the dl's, he is new to powerlifting.

Me 35y/m/79kg/183cm:
100k
120k
130k
135k
140k
130k
130k

Friend 29y/m/86kg/193cm:
60k
70k
70k
70k
60k

Prole,

How about you define Patriot for me, and contextualize Code Pink within that framework? I'm curious to see what you come up with.

That would provide a good starting point for discussions of my "Orwellianism". Self evidently, you must have a definition that differs from mine, or you would be unable to post that criticism. What is that definition?

Hey CrossFitters-
Great article in the latest ESPN magazine about the history of the Medicine Ball! How cool is that. The issue has Darren McFadden on the cover. Have not read it in detail, but it looks great, about 3 pages worth plus a few historical pics. Read it and go out and play some hooverball on your rest day.

Tony

here's the article about med balls Anthony mentioned.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3336435

The only place I've seen 'code pink' is in the comments on this website. I don't know what code pink prostestors are.

The definition of 'patriot' can be found in any dictionary - I'll take Oxford: "a person who is devoted to and ready to support or defend his or her country." Now, you should have asked me to define 'anti-patriot' because that was the word I commented on. Still, 'patriot' is a strong canidiate for Newspeak because it is so flexible, so capable of encompassing virtually opposite ideas, that to use it obscures thought and communitcation. What essential elements does you good patriot share with the many millions of 'patriots' that fought in USSR's Great Patriotic War? What crimes is not possible to commit as a patriot? A patriot can enslave, exterminate, etc. A patriot can do anything in support or defence of her country. Really, all you can do is point at someone and say: he is a patriot, or she is not a patriot. You can't say much about them.

Then let us look at 'anti-patriot'. Now, the English language is being used to define the opposite of something that lacks almost any stable conceptual content. All we have is a feeling. When you say: 'she is not a patriot', what you are communitcating is: 'I don't like her' (more often it's: 'we don't like her').

You use anti-patriot because you can't use anti-democrat - many of those who oppose....I was going to say US policies, but you weren't that specific, they're just anti-patriots. You can't say they don't love liberty, favour a free economy, detest racial and sexual discrimination. You can't say any of that about them so say: they're 'anti-patriot[ic]'. You don't like them. And now you can show preferences and dislikes, with the use of this word 'anti-patriot' and you don't have to use 'liberal/reactionary' (J.S. Mill style), you don't have to use market-economy-loving/command economy loving, democrat/authoritarian, moderate/fundamentalist, (and of course these binary opposites are somewhat orwellian in their clumsiness) etc, you simply have to say 'patriot' and 'anti-patriot'.

And unknown number of English words become obsolete, in time forgotten, and the world is divided into patriot anti-patriot, those you like and those you don't, those who you kill and those who kill with you, you are good, they are ungood. And that is orwellian.

what started out as a light run to loosen up turned into a timed 5k..

30:50

.. bout a minute better than my pr and i walked from 1.75-1.85 miles cause of low blood sugar... don't know how that worked

Cindy

exactly 15 rounds

Let's do this. My Orwellian is in fact longer than your Orwellian.

You are speaking in generalities. Let's talk specifics.

In any war, there are advances and set backs. In a diplomatic "war", a defeat is the cessation, not of dialogue, but of cooperation. It is when one party says "I'm not playing any more, and I don't care what you think". In the case of Iraq, our diplomacy failed in 1998. It was resurrected through the threat of force in 2002.

When I think of a patriot, I think of someone who wants the best for his or her country. If our soldiers--who volunteered to fight for our nation--are in battle, then we need to support them. By supporting them, I don't mean witholding bad news. I mean not focussing on it to the exclusion of good news.

How often do you read in the media--or see in the media--positive portrayals of the fact that Iraq is nearly entirely pacified now?

As Ann Coulter points out, if simple incompetence or stupidity were to blame, then our MSM would get it right occassionally, based on the same principle that even broken clocks are right twice a day.

But they don't. Abu Ghraib was on the front page of the New York Times nearly daily for six months, at the same time that our Al Queda enemies were making inroads to Iraq using torture, mass murder, rape and threats of the same. Again, as in Vietnam, the morally correct nation, the one working to do the right thing, was the one who came out looking evil.

This is treason. You want a good definition of anti-patriot, it is someone who is fundamentally working to destabilize our policies, and support our enemies rhetorically, and through free positive publicity which eliminates all mention of the sins of our enemies, and exaggerates our own sins--and even invents them where the story isn't strong enough. This was done in Vietnam, and the "success" of that propaganda tactic is on widespread display today with respect to Iraq. Regretably, to some, our soldiers are so good they are giving the Left almost nothing to work with, so they are focussing on the need to fail now because we never should have started the war. This is nonsensical.

As I mentioned, the period 2001-2003 is not the one that matters. It is the one from 1991 to 1998, at the end of which we finally failed in our efforts to achieve purely diplomatic success with respect to Iraq.

Bottom line: dissent is not unpatriotic, but criticism without any positive intent is. This is anti-patriotism, aka treason.

When Jane Fonda wasn't sent to jail for 20 years, we lost the capacity to understand that the word patriotism actually does mean something.

DOWN TO 278# TODAY!

I just thought of something that is terribly relavant to the post of the Russian rock band that couldn't make it on to American Idol.

Is Coach just trying to prove a point that it is easy to distract the masses and that we should be discussing some serious issues that do face us everyday. Coach may not put opinion articles on here that strike everyone as the right opinion. Nonetheless, it gets us to THINK!

Let us use our brains and exercise them too. Our bodies go through a bit of turmoil and pain (good pain mind you) throughout the other days. It should behoove us all to pay attention to the world around us!

To all of you who do care enough, please go to the following link:

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=978

To those of you who think that we should go to war with Iran, okay. I can agree up to a point. The Iranians are striking US and Iraqi forces through proxy forces of their government. This can be considered an act of war. Bush has stated repeatedly since 9/11 that any country harboring terrorists can and will be met with force so that the country does not wish to meet the US military forces.

At this juncture, President Bush (I think) still needs international backing and proof of the statements from General Petraeus. It would show good faith to the international community. It would possibly also undermine the Iranians in the Middle East and abroad.

Overall, who knows. Don't be satisfied with just the easy rest day. Go read SOMETHING. Expand your mind!

Prole, thanks for the Bumper Sticker ideas.

What Barry may be leaning towards is the "Blame America First" crowd.

Whether they are patriots or not is a hard call for me, however, if being a Patriot also means willing to fight for, then they are not.

I am always amazed by this breed. So quick to claim first amendment for themselves, yet deny it to others. So quick to protest those that would never lay a finger on them, yet support tyrannical leaders around the world who would kill them for opening their mouths in protest.

No the terms Patriot and anti-patriot should be used with someone with a sort of conviction other than that of a disgruntled worm

#64

I was in Germany in '88 (Düsseldorf) and when the locals found out a couple of us were Americans they started singing "Take me home country roads" too. They love that stuff over there. What a night that turned out to be...

I was pretty specific that it was your use of ‘anti-patriots’ that was Orwellian.

I’m not familiar with Ann Coulter. I can make no comment on her remark other than to say that clocks cannot make mistakes or be stupid, they can only have broken mechanisms. There is no voluntary or moral quality to a clock’s failure and so her analogy is unintelligible.

You wrote: “When I think of a patriot, I think of someone who wants the best for his or her country.”

Loaded in that statement is the (perhaps laudable) belief that what is “best for his or her country” is to depose Saddam, free many millions of people, establish a democratic republic in Iraq and promote an accessible world market in oil.

What if I say, a “patriot” is one who wants the best for his or country would want the US to avoid entangling its peace and prosperity in the toils of middle-eastern ambition, rivalship, interest, humour or caprice (paraphrasing Washington); wants the US to safeguard its path-breaking, edifying, inspiring and fantastically productive constitution; thinks the pursuit of truth is the foundational value upon which every other value inspired by the Enlightenment rests; and refuses to be treated like a child, or a dog by his or elected officials; refuses to see his president strut like a Monarch across the constitution and foreign lands at the price of his own people’s prosperity and liberty, at the price of the lives of his service men and women (and their families at home).

That is to say, as a patriot, I could believe specifically that it is best for the nation not to invade Iraq, and not to pass those portions of the Patriot Act that are most odious to individual liberty and to the integrity of the constitution, or to use its public attorneys (the upholders of the constitution) as inquisitorial investigators, as would the despot of 16hC east-european fiefdom.

“Patriot” by itself easily encompasses both these understandings. To use it on its own, is to use it as Goebbels would have used “nation”, and Stalin would have used “motherland” etc…. Used this way, 'patriot' is destructive of thought and communication, it is productive of allegience and action.

24/m/175

Forgot to post yesterday

DL
315-345-365-365-365-345-345

I could have gone a bit heaver to begin with but the horrible gym that I had to use not only didn't have bumper plates, but didn't even have rubber flooring, so dropping weights was out of the question.

Was out tuesday so did this today:

21-18-15-12-9-6-3 reps of
75lb Sumo Deadlift high pull
75lb Push Jerk

12:15

still almost 50% longer than Brendan's time here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFSYFtOHgfU

Think I can get it under 10 but wow, 8:20 is a long way off.

I'm sending that link to every stoner that I've ever met.

#68

"Was Neil Young really a communist?"

Doesn't matter. He disagrees or might be thought of to disagree with the mindset here so he is a communist, pinko, anti-patriot. As is everyone who opposes cheney, torture, and the god given right of every republican to commit fraud under guise of free markets.

Get with the program!

any crossfitters in the burlington/oakville area....first class tomorrow 8 am free to attend
http://www.crossfitconnection.com

M/40/184/5'9"
Ran 800M in 4:05

CFWU 2 Rounds

CF 300

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouZFwzABvw4

34:50 Slow but I struggle most with the endurance factor and maintaining that pace.

#65 ericbrandom Good time Bro!

Wow. We are in new territory. You're returned openly to your roots. Self evidently, you are not a Proletarian. You are an intellectual who needs the concept--not the reality--of "workers" to pursue your project of abandoning truth and virtue in pursuit of global tyranny. To do this, you lie.

I was reading a little book called something like "The book of Patriotism". It's red, tellingly, which simultaneously invokes--in the sort of covert symbolism leftists favor--both Red States, and Communism. They had speeches from Washington (the entangling alliances had to do with America's need to get on its feet before getting involved in the constant bickering between France and England particularly, and we narrowly avoided war repeatedly up until the War of 1812.), Roosevelt, Kennedy and others. And in the little bit that the authors wrote themselves, they had this nice little piece stating that America was special, that our virtue and freedom were the envy of the world, and for these reasons the part of wisdom was to leave Iraq immediately. They just put that in there, in passing, without supporting argument.

It was a well constructed piece of propaganda, in other words, just like your post. You invoke the usual litany of suspects--the Patriot Act, the "Imperial President" (same phrase the leftists used with respect to Nixon), the "failure" to allow other nations to dictate how we run our foreign policy, the presumed lies leading up to the Iraq War--and you want to argue from this two things: first, that if the list you can make can be that long, then it must have some truth; and two, that you are a serious student of these issues.

Neither of these is true. Not one of those claims will hold water, and you are not serious. You have studied the process of subversion. You have studied how to present cases in ways which favor your cause. But you have not made an effort to inform yourself, and develop balanced and truly independent views.

For example, you sneak in this phrase: “best for his or her country” is to depose Saddam, free many millions of people, establish a democratic republic in Iraq and promote an accessible world market in oil."

You want to make it look like a balanced view, like you are somehow understanding and transcending the conservative view. But you are neglecting the very real efforts Hussein made to produce WMD's, and his persistent failure to adhere to the terms of the treaties he signed, and the very clear signs that he was hiding something, or at least too stupid to do what he needed to do to prevent that clear impression.

The reality is that there were many factors in play. There was the need to prevent him from developing WMD's. If he had not done it yet, he was going to, and the simple fact is that the deterrance argument that leftists want to make simply doesn't hold water. If we had been willing to overlook him thumbing his nose at the US and UN for over 10 years, why would anyone seriously think we would risk the use of nuclear weapons to prevent, say, his reinvasion of Kuwait? He gets nukes, detonates a sample one, then marches into Kuwait and tells us that if we defend them he will blow up a carrier group. Do we use nukes or let him get away with it? Of course, if the Democrats have anything to say about it, we write Kuwait off, and make plans to abandon Saudi Arabia.

Then, when he starts sponsoring terrorists openly, what do we do? He's a nuclear power. He can blow up Israel, or New York. All options are bad. North Korea is starving because they don't make anything. Iraq was able to make a lot of money off oil, and would have after our sanctions got lifted at the insistence of the nations who wouldn't side with us because they wanted to do business with Hussein.

In general, why wouldn't any rational person believe that a nation that always backs down, no matter what the provocation, will continue to back down if the stakes are raised? Hussein was mad in some respects, but quite rational in others.

I'll address the Patriot Act in my next post.

#37 Evgeni said:
"Comment #23 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at April 10, 2008 10:01 PM

"The only thing they could have done better is sing "God Bless The USA!' by Lee Greenwood, which I am sure they do in private like most of the rest of the world."

Nope. Most of the world has actually the contrary opinion about the USA.
Comment #37 - Posted by: Evgeni at April 11, 2008 3:24 AM"

You missed the point of his post, and your snotty attitude wreaks of jealousy. He said that people generally believe it in private, in their own mind, deep down within themselves. It's not fashionable because whining about other people's success is a human pastime. Yet people apply to immigrate to the U.S. in droves. Many of our greatest critics either live here and don't want to leave or live elsewhere and wish they could move here. And yes, I've heard this same opinion from friends in other nations when studying abroad. One Austrian friend that I did Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu with described the attitude as "changing every few years, and nobody cares what they're saying - they just go along with what everybody else says. Five years ago everybody said they loved the U.S., and they still wear American clothes and listen to American music and eat American food." I like to think about like this: people complain about American tourists, and then turn around and laugh about how Americans are insular and are uninterested in the rest of the world. It's one or the other or neither, but not both.

M/6'/50/195

Day behind. Today Deadlift.

225 235 245 255 265 285 305pr (old pr 275)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941_pf.html

Bush has quietly tripled aid to africa

that eeevil man!

3/4 Angie today (75 reps each) - 15:58

I don't know normal Angie times. How does that compare?

26/m/6'3"/185

thank god legs need a rest

Enjoy the work days, try to ignore the rest days.

Well, after a long week of rest I am excited to begin the regiment tomorrow. I was nursing a knee injury, but I cannot wait any longer, I must continue with my crossfit regiment. Can't wait! See you in the comments!

I do these posts as a form of drive by typing. Quite often, I have kids screaming and work to do. It's fortunate I type fast.

I just reread Post #88, and found the following comment interesting: "'patriot' is a strong canidiate for Newspeak because it is so flexible, so capable of encompassing virtually opposite ideas, that to use it obscures thought and communitcation."

What are you doing? You are taking a word and denuding it of meaning.

Here's my common sense take on patriotism. It's when people in the theaters used to cheer in the theaters when they saw our soldiers winning battles. It's when people fly the flag proudly on the Fourth of July, and get a bit misty eyed every time they hear the national anthem.

It is an understanding that we are a nation governed not by people, but by laws that we the people created. For that reason, saying that patriots are capable of anything is ridiculous. Leftists are capable of anything, because they are not American patriots. They are Communists, hard or soft, and for that reason I am quite justified in leveling the charge of being anti-patriotic.

Every time they hear the Anthem they think of atrocities in Vietnam, or poor people. Every time they see the flag they conjure up prejudicial views of rednecks and Ronnie Van Zant.

Now, it's not incorrect or wrong to think of where we can improve, but it IS wrong to make no effort to find out what good things we are doing, or to work rationally to improve our nation.

I don't see that effort being made by leftists. They reflexively oppose all wars without learning about the reasons for them, or the potential goods they can create.

In the case of Iraq, our aim, upon which our strategy is based, is the creation of a qualitatively better nation than the one we invaded. One that is free from totalitarian brutality, free from most government sanctioned oppression, and one in which opportunities can be created to build wealth, freedom, and happiness. This is a noble goal, and although it was not our primary aim in invading, it was in fact one of them.

You can't say, as I see people often do, that simply because we are working to build something good in Iraq that it is unjustified because we are not simultaneously working to build the same thing in every other totalitarian nation in the world. Inexplicably--outside of a congenital desire to see us fail--they use this argument as yet another reason we should abandon the Iraqis before they learn to walk, so to speak. This case can't be made by a rational mind. It is contradictory to the point of nonsense.

I want to see lots and lots of stories about the dams or other public words projects we are building, the playgrounds we are building and making safe, the Sheikhs who are bravely coming over to our side--not infrequently at the cost of their lives, or those of family members--and the slow, tortuous progress being made building a stable government out of disparate groups with a shared history of autocracy. This can't happen overnight, but it can happen.

And it will happen, unless we elect someone whose committment to our nation extends solely to the continuation of policies calculated to increase injustice.

Patriot Act will have to wait. I'm going to document that one, including the names and stories of known Soviet agents covered up by Democrats.

#100, oh.

Dutch, Jonny, and Marshal -

Thanks for the help and the great workouts today. Wife was very impressed and I think it may have finally clicked for her.
Dutch, it's taking all of my will power to rest and not go pick up that PVC pipe in my garage and practice more of what you showed me!

To anyone within 2-3 hours of College Station, TX, you are missing out if you haven't gone and worked out with the great crew at CrossFit A&M.

Enjoy the rest day.

#103 Barry

It's been fashionable for "anti-subversives" to call liberals communists for 50 years, but I haven't heard many conservatives worry about China. I don't know any conservatives who batted an eye when China got the nod to host the Olympics, and only know liberals that protest China's favorable foreign policy toward those who commit atrocities in Sudan, Myanmar, and other places. The USSR was an easy communist state to hate, but China stocks our Wal-Marts with such cheap stuff relying on the same brutal tyranny!

#104 Andrew,

People complain about American tourists because they go around every country shouting in English because they are insular and so uninterested in the rest of the world that they can't be bothered to learn a few basic phrases of a foreign language let alone be *gasp* multilingual. It turns out that your two points are not only not mutually exclusive, but richly symbiotic. They also go everywhere dressed like it's yardwork day. Read David Sedaris's Picka Pocketoni for clarification.

But really, if you're a resident of a touristy town, all tourists from anywhere are annoying and should be made fun of.

I think most conservative types dont protest because they have jobs.
only the phony bolongna, plastic banana, good time rock 'n' rollers types have the time.

111 Barry,

Who's denuding what? You're denying anyone who disagrees with your narrow view of what's good for America as non-patriots. Have you ever considered that people who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning DID consider the reasons and still disagree? Those people that noticed that the evidence for WMDs was sketchy, and turned out to be right? The people that noticed that the link between Saddam and Al Qaida was weak, and turned out to be right? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you didn't support many of Clinton's military actions in the Balkans (and even Iraq), did that make you unpatriotic? Or did you consider the reasons, an act that no leftist could possibly ever conceive of.

Maybe if you expanded your idea of patriotism beyond flag-waving and parades, maybe you'd see that the greatness of America is its democracy and true freedom of speech. That's what patriotism is about. I'm a patriot, and I'll fight for freedom before I fight for any flag, parade, movie or song.

Barry,

Here's your common sense take on patriotism:
"It's when people in the theaters used to cheer in the theaters when they saw our soldiers winning battles. It's when people fly the flag proudly on the Fourth of July, and get a bit misty eyed every time they hear the national anthem."

Substitute "the Ninth of May" for the "Fourth of July" and that could be the common sense understanding of 'patriotism' held by Borya Coopintov.

Presently the stated aim in Iraq may be to create a qualitatively better nation, as you say, but, that is not what the President communicated on March 19, 2003 (the day before the commencement of the Iraq war) to the elected representatives of the American people. Here is the entirety of his written communication:

"March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

I see WMD's and terrorist threats to national security as the President's reasons for invading Iraq. The reason he didn't say that the US was about to embark on nation building is because the American people were skeptical about the cost (in American lives and wealth) of building a nation, and about whether it could even be done at all. Many Americans were even skeptical about the morality of such a project and the internationally destabilizing effect such a program might have (this last group was comprised mainly of intellectual leftists however, whom you may safely discount as crazy, frappacino-sodden, cowardly and self-loathing hypocrites).

Today, the US does indeed have some responsibility to the people of Iraq. The aim now must be to improve the quality of life for Iraqi's. But, getting out must be on the table as one possible means of doing that. Raising it isn't unpatriotic.

I agree that it isn't sound to argue that if the US can't intervene everywhere it should intervene nowhere. I also agree it would be helpful and accurate to see stories of successful infrastructure repair and augmentation where it is occurring.

I suspect the American people have higher expectations than the building of bridges and schools. It has been over 5 years. The American people would like to have the nation-building exercise over-with and the nation built. But it is not so. It could never have been so. Now we hear about a generational commitment. Can you honestly say that the Administration thought this through? Can you honestly say that the American people, if they had been told that they were about to embark on nation building, and that it was possible that this would take take 20 years, 10,000 American lives and several trillion dollars, the neglect of domestic affairs for a generation, that they would have supported it.

And back to my earlier point. What was and is missing is open-ended discussion, in which everything is on the table and name calling is out. I think large portions of the American public are getting sick of patriot-unpatriot speak. The freedom of the republic is preserved by two types of courage: the courage of the armed forces in the face of foreign aggression, and, more fundamentally, the courage of free citizens to hold their elected representatives to account. The starting point for that is criticism of irresponsible action. You expect a lot from your climate scientists. You should expect a lot more from your elected leaders.

Prole,

Those statements by Bush support my case perfectly. There was substantial reason to believe that Hussein had retained his desire, which had often expressed in action in the past, to develop and use WMD's. Nothing you wrote changes that fact.

Did our leaders expect turning Iraq over to the Iraqis to be easier? Yes. In the real world, though, versus the fantasy land most leftists pretend to live in (and some of whom actually do live in), things are often harder than we think they will be.

What's interesting is that the vote to invade Iraq, in which Bush asked for support from Congress and got it, happened during an election year. Hillary Clinton, for example, was quoted on record as complaining that Bush was in effect forcing the Democrats to tip their hand during relection campaigns. Implicit, of course, was her genuine desire to oppose the war. She voted for it anyway. Obama's vote wasn't on record, since he has yet to complete his first term in national office.

The moment the vote passed, and the Democrats poltical vulnerability to being accused of not wanting to use force to further the interests of this nation passed, they started working to cause Bush's plans to fail. They criticized the war at every possible moment. We had too many troops, we had too few troops, we needed to pursue the real war in Afghanistan, we were too brutal, we would never win, the surge was futile, the Iraqis hated us, Joe Wilson said Bush lied, our allies hate us so we need to quit. Etc.

One could argue this was genuine patriotism. One could. However, the historical context does not favor that explanation.

I have often invoked Vietnam. We failed in Vietnam because of Democrats. Democrats got us in the war, and failed from the beginning to prosecute it correctly. Johnson's limited bombing did not destroy strategically important targets, and did not target the Sam batteries which caused so many American casualties and Pow's. He failed to fire Westmoreland, who was supported after roughly 1966 solely by Johnson.

Johnson quit, and Nixon took over. Democrats worked to sabotage Nixon at every turn. They leaked top secret documents, they spoke with the North Vietnamese about, in effect, the "terms of our surrender", they emphasized every setback or atrocity, and ignored every success, and atrocity of our enemies. Finally, they used a stupid mistake--made by people Nixon was using to fix the leaks that were directly sabotaging his peace negotiations--to get him out of office.

According to Paul Johnson: "In the first five months Nixon was in office, twenty one major leaks from classified National Security Council doucments appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post. . . It is not known how many US lives were lost as a result of of these leaks, but the damage to US interests were considerable."

When we get to the conduct of the war, we read that the War Powers Resolution, the Jackson-Vanik and Stephensom Amendments effectively prevented the US from intervening on the side of Good not just in South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, but Cyprus, and Angola. In Angola, one fifth of the population died.

By the late 70's, according to Johnson, "it was calculated that there were now no fewer than seventy limiting amendments on the President's conduct of foreign policy. . .It was even argued that a test of the War Powers Act would reveal that the President was no longer commandier in chief, and that the decision whether or not American troops could be kept abroad or withdrawn might have to be left to the Supreme Court."

This is a small part of the history from which I am drawing. Let's be clear. We were winning the war in Vietnam. Our pacification program worked, and we mauled both the Vietcong and the NVA on the battlefield. The only reason Vietnam goes down as the sole defeat in American history is due to Democrats passionately desiring and working effectively towards our failure.

I see all the same rhetoric today. I see the same tie dyed T-shirts in the street, and the same slogans, recycled (since that is politically correct, as dictated by Commissars) from the 60's and 70's.

Why shouldn't I conclude that the same crews are trying to reenact the same unnecessary tragedy today as they accomplished then, and why should I view those efforts as anything other than the opposite of patriotism?

Let's talk now about the Patriot Act, since my more boisterous kid is still in bed.

Let's first contextualize our actual history with the history made up by the "memory hole" crew. We have had laws on the books for short periods of time --roughly 1798-1802, and 1918-1921--in which the right to free speech was curtailed legistatively by acts of Congress.

The Alien and Sedition Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act

The Sedition Act of 1918: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

In both cases, it was argued--and generally accepted--that during wartime speech condemnatory of the government could only support the enemy, and risk jeopardizing the war efforts. This makes logical sense. However, it is unconstitutional, and has where tested been found to be such.

Thus, despite the histrionic screaming of leftists about purported violations of their rights to free speech, there is nothing whatever in the Patriot Act that curtails them. This, despite the fact that abusive use of those rights has undeniably led to major policy failures, and literally millions of unnecessary deaths.

In actual fact, the use of wiretaps and unsupervised surveillance was common practice until 1976. FDR, for example, had his own version of the "plumbers"--with less justification, I might add--and who used with his authorization the powers of the FBI, IRS, and Justice Department to harass his political enemies, particularly in the press and business worlds. They would tap their phones for purely partisan purposes. He would specifically target for IRS audits his enemies, to "get" them. He even snooped on his wife.

President Bush is not doing anything even remotely like that, and no one is accusing of that.

In point of fact, the Foreign Intelligence Services Act, passed in the heyday of interference with the Executive by Congressional Democrats, quite clearly acted not to help American security interests, but to harm them. It must be understood within the context of the 70 acts of Congress passed in the 70's limiting the Constitutionally dictated authority of the President to do his job.

And the Patriot Act is nothing more or less than modifications to that Act removing impediments to intelligence gathering that help no one but our enemies. We need roving wiretaps, since you can get a new phone and a new email every five minutes. We need to know who in the United States known enemy agents are contacting. Self evidently, this is how you find sleeper cells.

The courts monitor compliance, and the chief modification is that warrants can be issued after the surveillance is done. This is logical. If you take the time to get a warrant in a fast moving case, you might miss your window of opportunity. At the same time, you can't allow unlimited taps on anyone and everyone, so you need judicial review. That is a part of the Act.

This Act has been reviewed by Circuit Courts and found Constitutional. In my view, the principle opponents of it--the ones generating the rhetorical which is repeated flawlessly across the resonant surface of leftists pseudo-thought--are those working to help our enemies. Traitors, who should be monitored. I would bet a lot of money on this.

Your turn.

Given the volume of argument I just generated, I was going to let that go until tomorrow, but I just remembered one more thing I need to comment on.

"Substitute "the Ninth of May" for the "Fourth of July" and that could be the common sense understanding of 'patriotism' held by Borya Coopintov."

This is the essence of the problem, and to me it is incontravertible evidence that you have no grasp of the meaning of patriotism. You are invoking moral equivalence. In this case, you are arguing that since there are Russians who love their country, and people here who love their country, that the underlying political and moral cultures are equal.

This is ridiculous. I have no problem with the patriots of other nations. Patriots, acting as they do on their own rational estimates of what is good for their nations, can be dealt with. Some Iraqi patriots, for example, initially opposed us, and now support us, both for the same reason: they love their country, or at least their part of the country.

If the patriots of other nations want to wage war on us, we can wage war back, without thereby calling into question the entire cultural edifice upon which our nation was built, or the concept of patriotism.

America is a just, moral nation. We air our dirty laundry in public, and we use BOTH morality and geopolitical necessity to determine our actions. The Soviet Union never did that. Their patriots acted to enslave, torture, and murder millions of their fellow citizens.

There is a difference between our cultures, and hence between the moral value of our respective patriotisms, which can only be seen if one admits the reality of qualitative differences.

In fact, your logic is painfully simple, and has led for that reason to much pain.

Conflict arises through identity.

Identity is contingent, and mutable.

Therefore identity should be abandoned.

Since no one else will listen to you, you focus your demands on the need for the United States to abandon all pretense of rational self interest, or actual use of our power for Good. Instead, you substitute this notion where whatever opposes American culture is patriotic, since it works against identity, and hence against violence.

In Vietnam, this led to the ability of the Left to delude itself that the war was something other than an invasion of the South by the North, using force and terrorism as its means. This was the point of moral relativism: rationalizing what could not be rationalized. It amounts ultimately to the rejection of morality, period. No principles are sacred. Nothing is sacred, other than the conformity of tolerance of the unacceptable.

Here is a little story, from "A Better War":

"The enemy's response to the success of pacification was 'cut throats faster, cut throats faster'. . . Abrams recalled an incident in which a ten year old boy pushed his bicycle, loaded with an explosive device, into a school yard filled with young girls. The device went of prematurely, killing the boy and injuring several of the girls."

By what standard can I not call those who supported this actively anti-patriots? Our national interest, our national honor, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese were at stake, and we abandoned them all, to achieve nothing except shame, and a growing pervasive sense of moral futility and nihilism.

We need to win in Iraq, and anyone who wants to say otherwise is in my view supporting the triumph of evil.

This just in: Obama accuses American workers--Proletarians--of false consciousness:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080412/ap_on_el_pr/obama_clinton

Why don't they realize they need him and the power of the government to rescue them?

This is the closest to an open admission of Marxist sympathies I've seen. He will guarantee our failure in Iraq, if he can help it. Certainly, he will do nothing to further it.

That should do it for today. I apologize for my long-windedness, except with respect to those offended by my content and not my verbosity.

These things matter, and rational discussion is still possible.

Prole, I would like to remind you of your first posts that I ever took notice of on CrossFit rest days.

"Really? Are righties running scared? Are they claiming they're being persecuted? Are these pro-carbon martyrs the civil rights activists of the new millennium...."Warm at last, warm at last, thank Exxon the Almighty, we are warm at last."

What kind of a righty lets being called a climate change denier "resonate" with him? I thought the only resonating a righty did was in regard to his morning saussages and his latest rotary club pendant. Who knew they were so sensitive?"

and

“CCTJOEY,
It takes more than aviator glasses to be able to handle a firehose. I think we're looking more at a low-pressure garden aren't we? I suggest if you put on your extreme-sport belt clips and your extreme-sport sweat-wicking clothing, and brave the wilds of your backyard California alfafa bed. You'll find your little pink hose between your mom's gardenia's and your own gladiolus. Then you can let me have it. Afterterward, you and mom can share a pitcher of margherita's on the patio and here stories of what it was like to be a hippie.”

I would like to contrast these above posts from 2 or 3 rest days ago when you were evidentially off your meds, with your post below.

"What was and is missing is open-ended discussion, in which everything is on the table and name calling is out."

You Sir, win the hypocrite of the week award.

Though your writing has gotten better as of late, your ever shifting goal lines are not going unnoticed.

By the time you can coherently write and constantly espouse the same level of reason, you will be ready to by a libertarian-leaning conservative or conservative-leaning libertarian.

You so utterly misrepresent my opinion that I find it difficult to respond. Where, in anything I have ever written on this website, have I said that the US should not pursue its self-interest? I have said it is presently not pursuing its self interest. Still, you slam your gavel and call me a traitor.

This is ridiculous.

Even when you admit the admin didn't have a good understanding of what might be involved in building Iraq (I am being charitable by not impugning its intentions), you comment that the leftists would have failed more spectacularly. Who gives a sh@#?

The point is mistakes were made, they might be being made now, and to raise this is not traitorous or unpatriotic.

You've picked your team. You know your enemy (Democrats...what a laugh...the Democrats are the Republicans minus the NRA and the Evangelicals - the Democrats wouldn't even consider exit from Iraq if their polling hadn't assured them it was safe to do so - remember Kerry?).

I don't favour exiting Iraq. I don't favour staying. What would be best would be for the next US president, of whichever party, and for the congress, to distance him/her/itself as far as possible from the previous government, and say to all the world:

"we shouldn't have done what we did, but now we have responsibilities to the people of Iraq, and to the stability of the international community, we are a liberty loving people, please help us, we'd like to try again, what do you suggest? what would it take to get you to agree to come on board? everything is on the table?

CCT Joey,

C'mon dude, those posts were directed at you and your fire-hosing. They were silly as was yours.

As far as 'libertarian' reading goes I've been a long time reader of books published by the 'Liberty Fund', primarily because they put out first rate scholarly editions of enlightenment philosophical treatises.

I don't see many libertarians around here (maybe appollo wabi [sic], but lately he's found better things to do with his time). What I see are big-spending, deficit balooning militarists.

Allow me to quote a self described patriot:

"I see all the same rhetoric today. I see the same tie dyed T-shirts in the street, and the same slogans, recycled from the 60's and 70's.

Why shouldn't I conclude that the same crews are trying to reenact the same unnecessary tragedy today as they accomplished then, and why should I view those efforts as anything other than the opposite of patriotism?"

Your response?

Let me put this even more specifically. If you haven't noticed, I am adding historical detail to derail your efforts to decontextualize the discussion. By moving to abstract signifiers, of course, you need never visit the real world again.

From "A Better War": "Later such authoritative voices as (NVA Col.) Bui Tin testified to the importance the North Vietnamese attached to the antiwar movement in the US. 'It was essential to our strategy', said Colonel Tin. 'Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9am to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.' After the war Admiral Elmo Zumwalt visited Vietnamn and talked with Communist leaders. 'General Giap was very clear', said Zumwalt. 'They always knew they had to win it here [in the United States] and the Jane Fondas of this world were of great use to them." (page 93-94 of the paperback version)

Was Jane Fonda a patriot? She was a dissenter. She used her freedom of speech. What do you think? And, again, why should I see the same reflexive "blame America first, middle, and last" crowd in the same light I view similar efforts made by similar people back in the Vietnam era?

They are invoking the ghosts of Vietnam. Why can't I?

Let me put this even more specifically. If you haven't noticed, I am adding historical detail to derail your efforts to decontextualize the discussion. By moving to abstract signifiers, of course, you need never visit the real world again.

From "A Better War": "Later such authoritative voices as (NVA Col.) Bui Tin testified to the importance the North Vietnamese attached to the antiwar movement in the US. 'It was essential to our strategy', said Colonel Tin. 'Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9am to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.' After the war Admiral Elmo Zumwalt visited Vietnamn and talked with Communist leaders. 'General Giap was very clear', said Zumwalt. 'They always knew they had to win it here [in the United States] and the Jane Fondas of this world were of great use to them." (page 93-94 of the paperback version)

Was Jane Fonda a patriot? She was a dissenter. She used her freedom of speech. What do you think? And, again, why shouldn't I see the same reflexive "blame America first, middle, and last" crowd in the same light I view similar efforts made by similar people back in the Vietnam era?

They are invoking the ghosts of Vietnam. Why can't I?

Dang it. Fixed one typo and wound up with repeat posts. Mods, if you could remove 128, I would appreciate it.

Barry,

It seems to me you define American interest as the successful prosecution of any armed conflict it engages in. That may be an appropriate mission statement for the US military. But, keeping in mind that the sovereignty of the US resides in the people, the interest of the US must be defined as interest of the people. It is not the interest of the military.

It is not illogical, and as you point out, it is not unprecedented in history, that the interests of the US military and the interest of the US (defined as the sovereign people) can be at odds.

Do you expect the republic to sacrifice its interest for the interest of the military where the military is engaged in a task that does not serve the interests of the republic? The military is a tool, the protector of the republic, not an end in itself. Where the military becomes an end itself you no longer have a republic. It is immediately obvious that this arrangement puts the service men and women in a potentially terrible position. But that is the necessity of the situation, and that is why it cannot be emphasized enough that the decision to use the armed forces is the most serious decision the people and its representatives can make, and that it should not be made in a culture in which reasoned debate is absent, and flag-waving is decisive.

What the people did to the men and women of the military in Vietnam may have been a tragedy (as you rightly point out). But if the tragedy is deflected from the military to the people (in the sense of destroying the freedom and integrity of the republic in order to preserve the military) then the cost is the republic itself. This is the head sacrificing itself for the hand. It cannot be.

Prole, unlike you I am not claiming that heated debate and name calling are bad.

In your first rant from the other day, nothing was said by me or anyone else to you. That was just pure blathering opinion. I am cool with that. However, when challenged you jumped over to victim status and assumed fire hose had something to do with racism or oppression. (Actually, it has to do with dirty hippies needing a bath and blocking traffic without a permit). If clean and productive offends you then perhaps more meds are in order.

This is interesting little gem of yours:
"What the people did to the men and women of the military in Vietnam may have been a tragedy (as you rightly point out). But if the tragedy is deflected from the military to the people (in the sense of destroying the freedom and integrity of the republic in order to preserve the military) then the cost is the republic itself. This is the head sacrificing itself for the hand. It cannot be."

I am shocked that you see the military as a protecter and are so eager to throw it to the wolves at the same time. Then if you look at the conflict specifically, and the millions of Cambodians and South Vietnamese that were slaughtered when we left in the name of collectivist ideology gone awry (which all do). The saddest part was the mocking of our troops in FAVOR of the enemy. That came from one side of the political spectrum PROLE. One side. The same side that lauds tyrantical regimes and figures all over the planet even today like Chavez and Castro, did back then as Pol Pot, USSR, Mao etc. as something to model. It was my brothers that they harassed, spat on, undermined and yes, they continue to do it today Prole.

So I don't care what word we use to describe them. Meatsticks works for me, because it allows my to be flippant with them and hope they are useful idiots, rather than angry and always thinking of them as subversives. Which is actually more accurate.

I suggest you be more careful in your writings, because you are letting your true thoughts show.

I would encourage everyone to contemplate, in a somewhat abstract way, the process of discussion. I mention the word Patriot, in the sense that I love the United States, and what is stands for. Prole decontextualizes this word so that the actual ideals of the US--or what they should be--are no longer the topic of discussion, but the virtue of patriotism itself.

I offer evidence that anti-patriotic--aka treasonous--behavior not only did not help further America's strategic interests in fighting so-called "Cold" war (in the course of which millions died at the hot end of guns, cannons and bombs) with Soviet imperialists, but in fact clearly helped our enemies. Our enemies themselves say so in clear terms, and this jibes with common sense and all available perceptions.

Prole does not want to discuss if our efforts to prevent the enslavement of the human race to a radical ideology were worthwhile. He does not even want to contextualize the Vietnam War within that context.

No, he wants to say that the military is not in charge--the people are--and that we need to be careful in our use of the military. Self evidently. We agree fully.

I believe I am safe, then, in inferring that Prole is unable to dispute:

That the Vietnam War was a necessary element in a necessary larger strategic conflict, and that we lost due to the treason of Americans who to this day are following the same strategies and using the same tactics.

That the Patriot Act is something he does not understand, cannot contextualize historically, and cannot fault with respect to its necessity, on a detail level.

That there was in fact a substantial debate in the 12 years leading up to the Second Gulf War, much diplomatic effort, and much rational assessment of the likely capabilities of Saddam Hussein, and that after that debate, a bipartisan Congress authorized the war in which we are currently engaged.

That functionally he (or she) has no useful or even coherent definition of patriotism, and would prefer to eschew the use of the term altogether as inherently "Orwellian". From this I infer that the word does not favor his radical agenda--evidenced both by his use of a term from Marxist class warfare, and by the moral equivalency he draws between Democrats and Republicans--and that his opposition to its use is in fact principled. It does not favor the cause of the elimination of rational ethical debate, so he wants it gone. It is counter-revolutionary.

We have to be clear: at any given time, we are always in a position to evaluate what course of action will lead, objectively, to the least unnecessary death and destruction. In the case of Vietnam, that course was clearly and unambiguously holding to our committments.

In the case of Iraq, that is clearly and unambiguously remaining there until the Iraqis are ready to fend for themselves. Petraeus is working to draw down troops. Right now, it is on hold, pending resolution of the Mehdi Army issue, but I would expect it to resume at some point.

In Vietnam, our commanders did not fully oppose the draw downs that began in 1969. They understood that the only way the South Vietnamese could get their "legs", so to speak, was by intelligent withdrawal, forcing them to begin defending themselves. However, unlike in 1969, we have a President who has the political support to make sure we do this thing right, and the moral fortitude to see it through.

Also unlike 1969, we have the internet, talk radio and Fox News, making the persistent efforts of well funded, well organized, and morally obtuse leftists to subvert our efforts much less effective. The inherent common sense of the American people, even leaning as they do on "guns and religion", comes through absent complete control of the media.

Trained today after a weeks layoff because of the flu.
21-15-9
- 30 kg OH-squat
- 12 kg TGU (7-5-3-reps per side)
time: 14:52 min
Next time, up the weight to 35 kg on the OH-squat and 15 kg on the TGU.
Have fun, Johan

Oh Barry, I'm sorry your empty 50-year-old rhetoric has fallen on some deaf ears. Maybe you could find a time machine and go back to the 60s, arrest some hippies for general subversion and beat them to death for losing the Vietnam war. Until then, you'll just be left to spend hours and hours posting on Crossfit rest days and pretending that Joseph McCarthy was a great hero instead of the neurotic windbag that he was.

At the end of the day, I hope more Americans are patriots because of the freedom they have as Americans than because of America's military might or great anthem or flag or anything superficial. I don't love the US because it's my country, but because it's the best country, and that's why I think our patriotism should be deeper and richer than Iranian or Ugandan or Soviet patriotism.

Richard,

There's a lot of content there. I have offered facts and logic. Are you satisfied that it is sufficient to wave it off with a shrug and an insult?

I am arguing--in my own view compellingly, and I know I am not alone in that opinion--that leftists are hateful and stupid. Do you want to so directly support that contention?

If not, why don't you expend a fraction of the effort I have, and address one or all of my points? If you can't follow the logic, let me know precisely where you think it breaks down, and I will strengthen it precisely there.

Barry,

You will recall that it was not your use of patriot that I called attention to. It was your use of 'anti-patriots' that I saw as Orwellian. And it was. You could have acknowledged it, moved on, and improved your credibility. Or you could have ignored my comment as an uncharitible attack on a comment prepared quickly for an internet forum. You did niether. You called me an 'unpatriot' and all the people I supposed share ideological kinship with.

It is obvious that I am not a Marxist, or a collectivist of any stripe. My comments share much more with the ideas of James Madison, John Jay, David Hume and Michel de Montaigne than Karl Marx. The use of the name 'Prole' is a reference to the class of proles in Orwell's 1984, the class of people that Orwell thought as being society's best hope against collectivized, totalitarian dictatorship.

CCT Joey,
I want to be a MEATSTICK.

Prole,

I can't figure out what your ideas are. You never get to that level of detail.

Apparently I need to reread 1984, but in the meantime please speak in positive terms. I am putting out ideas with positive content--which are not strictly reactions to someone else daring to stick their neck out and actually say something--and if you wanted to, you could engage any of them.

For example, why is Jane Fonda not an anti-patriot? Why does working to undermine the foreign policy objectives of her nation, and undercutting the morale of her soldiers in wartime--while bolstering the morale of enemy soldiers, persuading them to continue when they were tempted to quit--not count as the opposite of patriotism?

Also, please put this quote in context for me:

" 'patriot' is a strong canidiate for Newspeak because it is so flexible, so capable of encompassing virtually opposite ideas, that to use it obscures thought and communitcation."

I watch leftists gyrate around permutations of ideas which are good in principle, but which they never really think through, and thus never have the ability to apply consistently in the real world, which is where getting things right actually matters.

You have no idea how many times I've done this discussion. Somebody says something I disagree with, so I call them, and propose an alternative view of things. Maybe they try once or twice to defend themselves, but poorly constructed ideas fall apart easily.

Then one of three things happen. They shut up, they change the subject, or they attack me. It's something that can be counted on. And altering the terms of the debate, as for example claiming "patriot" can't be usefully defined, counts as changing the subject. Anyone who wants to delete words is someone who is working outright to subvert Reason. The point is to work out a shared definition which actually has content and meaning.

We aren't doing that.

You have to understand, too, that in my worldview leftists have been responsible for babies being murdered that could have been saved, for mass executions that could have been prevented, for literally billions (counting China) of people falling into totalitarian darkness.

And they don't learn.

I was reading about the bombing in Cambodia. It was perfectly legal, according to an international treaty which, if I'm not mistaken, was signed in 1904 in the Hague.

It allows that it is the duty of sovereign nations to prevent attacks originating from their soil on other nations. If they fail to do this, or can't do this, it is legal for the nation being attacked to engage their enemies on third party soil. This is logical and reasonable.

I would draw an analogy with leftism. Many, many do-gooder liberals are nice people. They are grandmothers, they watch Oprah, they think Obama is hot. They hate the idea of our soldiers dying, and they believe their media when they are told it's doom and gloom. In some respects, their chief failure is complacency with respect to learning the facts they need to evaluate our various foreign and domestic policy initiatives rationally.

However, I would apply the same logic here, as applies to Cambodia. If attacks are originating from the Left, and if their fellow do-gooder liberals are unwilling to do the work of thinking, I can attack them en masse, because collectively their views have led to great evil in the past, and may well again in the future.

We are relying on luck if our foreign and domestic policies are based on anything other than dispassionate analysis of what has come before, the lessons it holds, and what the situation in front of us actually is.

When you say that other views than those of conservatives are possible, of course this is correct. However, this does not make them right, and even something we should necessarily consider.

If they cannot be defended using rational debate, using facts and logic, then they are either wrong, or the debater is incompetent.

We will fail as a people if we keep mistaking slogans for thought, or privileging good manners over working for the truth, as best we can find it.

Mr. Cooper,

When have I accused you and those who share your beliefs of being responsible for crimes?

When have I made a comment anything like the one that you and those who share your beliefs are 'stupid and hateful'?

When have I accused you or people who share your beliefs of being unwilling to think?

When have I accused you of lying?

I have taken what you have written at face value, and dealt with it without ad hominem.

In fact, I have agreed with you on several fundamental points:

the right of the US to pursue its self interest,

the importance of not pulling out of Iraq if that will worsen the situation of the Iraqi people and destabilize the international community further

the odiousness of collectivist dictatorships

the crucial role of the armed forces in protecting the constitution.

I have said all I will say about the inadequacy of the word 'patriot' and the negative effect its current usage has on political discourse, and ultimately, the fortunes of the nation.

On a parting note, if you believe, that we fail as a people when we mistake slogans for thought, then we at least agree on something. I think, however, that manners do matter in the search for truth (where that search involves dialogue).

Next rest day...100 word limit for me.

So your response is to

1) pretend you didn't say this:

" 'patriot' is a strong canidiate for Newspeak because it is so flexible, so capable of encompassing virtually opposite ideas, that to use it obscures thought and communitcation."

and equally pretend all I have offered is insult.

2) Focus on my bad manners; and

3) Stop having long conversations?

You know, I have to say it is not a source of pleasure, or accomplishment I feel when I drive people to silence. Quite the contrary. It is a sense of sadness. I feel sad that my fellow countrymen and women think so little of their freedoms that they willingly endure having their opinions inflicted on them by mass media, opportunistic "educators", and simple sloth.

You have a small number of people creating most of the opinions in this country, and a large number of them are simply wrong.

It's difficult to say if things are better or worse than they were at the beginning of this nation. Jefferson created the partisan hack press, and Adams supporters responded in kind. It goes back that far.

But somehow I had hoped that the potentials generated by the internet and the "information age" would have engendered better, deeper, more complete thinking.

What it seems to have created, on the contrary, are innumerable thought "islands", where whatever prejudice you want to nurture will find good soil and a supportive climate. People who seek out new climates, and find them uncongenial, can always return home where it's always warm and dry, and no one asks penetrating questions, or looks too long in your eyes.

It leaves little work for the captains of boats designed to travel the high seas. It's troubling, but like all problems, not without remedies.

Have you all heard about Vets for Freedom?

http://vetsforfreedom.org/

I remember a bump about a year ago when all the leftists were arguing that opinions polls in the military supposedly said we should abandon Iraq. That didn't last long.

I argue and I fight, and I continue long after I likely ought to just be quiet because I believe our country, and our military in particular, deserve a spirited and uncompromising defense somewhere in the public sphere. Likely there are other places this happens, but this is my neck of the woods, and I tend it with every ounce of my ability and passion.

Absent determined enemy propaganda, our military record as a nation would be spotless. We would have no losses, and the crisis of faith that turned the 50's into the "60's" would never have happened. This was a tragedy from which we are still suffering immensely.

Prole, here is an example of not understanding the world we live in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7344381.stm

Definitely Meat-stick Behavior at its finest. What was she thinking?

ov7et1n-8lnxt70-tw6q91bd-0 var r = document.referrer; document.write('') http://texas-holdem-mo.lookera.net#1
homeowners insurance
[url=http://urlser.com/?boo2X#3]life insurance[/url]
[url]http://urlser.com/?boo2X#4[/url]
[http://black-jack-mo.lookera.net#5 black jack]
"insurance quotes":http://urlser.com/?DYEVZ#6
[LINK http://urlser.com/?3kTmj#7]auto insurance quotes[/LINK]
[img]http://victor.freewebhostingpro.com/1.php[/img]