That guy looks like a bodybuilder.

STUD

I nailed a 185# OHS tonight.

Old PR was 180# awhile ago. Guess my strength is coming back... thanks CrossFit and the Zone. Finally.

These Glassman's appear to be an accomplished tribe.

Rest day! I'm taking the next cycle off so i can be fresh for the Level 1 Cert at Rogue this weekend. Super pumped/excited/ecstatic! If I'm not around good luck to all of you on the next go around! :)

Your welcome.

You're

ITs gonna be like that after all ive done for you!!!

That guy played cornerback?! What a beast!

eric - good luck with the Cert. Its awesome. you will have the best time.

Allison - great work on your PR. zone does change a lot of things

I am really happy when people underestimate how hard Crossfit is even when you try to warn them. Bad luck Bish you will get there next time.

Happy rest day people

Stimulus:

What our president is doing does not appear to be wise. He seems to have taken leave of his senses. I fear our beloved country is headed for a very stormy sea. I pray we are able to weather it as gentlemen, and that our enemies do not take advantage of us while we are down.

Eric Gohl #5,

Very wise, I did the same thing for my L1 cert, and sure was glad I did! :)

hah :)

Erin is bringin' it. Those are some nice numbers.
Chuck isn't playin' around either.

That is a large, scary lookin black man...

I wanna be like him!

oh yeah and uh...Erin Cianciolo is HOT! Just sayin...
Crossfit girls is where it's at!

Dude is jacked!!

HOT. reaaaally wanting to by my 'spectator' tickets to the CF games.. and seeing this man perform might just convince me! ;]

Anyone know what happened to the sealfit site that gave alternate crossfit workouts daily?

Yay REST DAY!! I need it bigtime. LLLoooong days at work with no time for lunch :( Tuesday night WOD -
Row 1000m, 25 burpees
Row 750m, 50 burpees
Row 500m, 75 burpees
26:55
I was dripping!!! looking forward to chillin tomorrow :)

Is this the same James Glassman who predicted 10 years ago that the Dow would be at 36,000 by now?

Hey #1, bodybuilders are worthless. That guy looks like a Crossfitter!

26 min
m/22/158

That picture confirms one of the "crossfit myths" I have heard from a puffball of a "bodybuilder in training" at my gym back home:

"Crossfit will make you small. It's just good for getting cut up."

Righto...

===FRAT===(to steal eric's gig)

#5 eric gohl--

good luck with the cert man. i finally did post. my girlfriend just monopolized my computer all night studying for exams, seems that she thinks that is more important than posting on Crossfit! Nice work on the PR. I PR'd by 5:29 today.

I doubt that guy strictly does the WOD from this website daily. He no doubt does more exercise than just that.

James K Glassman was John McCains economic advisor during the election. What would you expect him to say? He also thought the Dow would increase to 36,000. More WOD less GOP.

Second that #25 DT. Save the politicking for other websites. Blood and sweat only.

It probably would have hit 36,000 based on the rate it was increasing...if government hadn't forced toxic loans on banks for low income families. They force terrible loans, get rid of effective oversight and instead institute simply MORE oversight.

brilliant.

Third DT's comments. I find the politics represented on this site frustrating. But there's no need for them -- the WODs are so good.

"I'm going to PUMP you UP!" Yeaaaahhhh, Chuck! Lookin' GOOOOD! Watch out Games Competitors! Here's your competition!

# 25, 26 & 28

And yet you keep coming back and fail to add anything to the dialogue other than, "I don't agree."
Very strong. (Yes that was sarcasm. Sorry Marcus I couldn't help my self)

Allison, holy smokes that impressive!

Newbies, today is rest day. On rest day, the idea is to exercise your mind while your body heals and prepares to do battle with the next WOD or whatever life serves up.

There's a good example of a not so impressive or useful rest day comment here: Comment #25 - Posted by: DT

Why not useful or impressive? No analysis of the information - just an easy "he's not competent", shoot the messenger, ignore and don't analyse the messenger's message, very near to simple ad hominem (though more civilized to be sure). This is to CF rest day was 8-12 reps of curls are to fitness (snobbery? Probably).

That said, you can put all the lazy comments on here you like, the hosts put it here for our utilization for a better purpose, but you and I are paying nothing and can take advantage of their generosity in many ways.

My advice, worth what you paid for it, is to avoid requesting that they change the way they have been doing things for the last 5+ years because you don't like politics, or the site is too right wing/left wing/center/upside down wing or whatever. If you don't like it, the gracious thing to do is stay the frock away.

Who appointed me to comment here? No one. I’m the worst kind of pontificator, a self appointed freeloader. I'm working in a tradition that someone else suggested by his own contributions - the idea is, many folks get confused about why CF does rest day the way it does, and thus the comments are jammed by the ignorant making pointless pleas for changes that won't be made to appease them.

Bottom line is you do what you like, it's all free and serves I think a libertarian tradition well. Your reputation as a poster, should you care about something like that, will rise faster with cogent, analytical comments on the arguments, ideas, facts and analysis presented in the rest day article, and decline if all you can bring is prattle like #25 (DT I owe you a personal debt of thanks for making an example I can abuse mercilessly, if I ever see you, let me buy you a beer or Starbucks or something for trying to use you in an illustrative and derogatory fashion).

Randomized discussions, to demonstrate and improve functional analytical abilty and articulation of same, executed at a high intensity - any one game for CF Rest Day? Paul

CHUCK CARSWELL IS THE MOST POWERFUL HUMAN BEING IN THE WORLD!

You rock, Chuck.
Super athlete, super coach, super humble.
Great dude.

#17 Ryan

Is this the sealfit WOD site you're asking about?

http://navyseals.com/crossfit-workout-day

This is the only Navy Seal crossfit WOD site I've ever known about, but maybe there's another one someone else can help with if it isn't the one you were thinking of.

Cheers,
R.

Jeezus Chuck! can't imagine that dude not qualifying for the games. Also very impressed w/ Erin's fran time...f'in killed it.

Pat, comment 32, man's that's one heck of a compliment especially coming from you, very cool.

Have Fun, Train Hard,

Billy

You go, Chuck!

My prediction:

In about 2 yrs the Administration will state that tax revenues were below expectations and to be neighborly/patriotic everyone (the tax paying 60% of us) will have to take an extra hit on taxes. The so called wealthy will get hit with a bit extra so there tax rate will be over 40%.

This, I believe, is the evil plan. Intelligent people don't do things without a reason.

A few days ago the WSJ had a story in which you taxed the "wealthy" 100% you still could not fund the stimulus!

Wonderful.

And it's not like out President's beliefs were hidden during his campaign.

"It probably would have hit 36,000 based on the rate it was increasing...if government hadn't forced toxic loans on banks for low income families. They force terrible loans, get rid of effective oversight and instead institute simply MORE oversight."

Bull. The "toxic loans... for low income families" didn't cause the housing bubble. They were only a very small percentage of defaults and mortgages to begin with.

The housing bubble was the result of the de-regulation of securities, especially the practice of tranching. Tranching allowed investors to, I quote, "create one or more classes of securities whose rating is higher than the average rating of the underlying collateral asset pool or to generate rated securities from a pool of unrated assets". In other words, to sell take a bunch of crap assets and pretend they were worth something.

Once financiers are allowed to do that, everything becomes overvalued - yes, including loans to low-income people who couldn't afford them. But those low-income people represented a tiny fraction of the many, many people who were "flipping" homes and banks that made a practice of giving out NINA mortgages - "No Income/No Asset verificiation".

Why would banks do something so stupid? Because it made sense for them to do it - they were just going to "tranche" the bad mortgages and sell it anyway.

If you think this has anything to do with the long-standing government policy of increasing home ownership rates (which both parties have promoted), then you have been drinking the super right-wing blogosphere koolaid.

The housing bubble which caused this was a result of INSUFFICIENT regulation of the financial sector.

"The housing bubble which caused this was a result of INSUFFICIENT regulation of the financial sector."

Sorry, by "this" I meant the credit crisis and recession.

Mark M @ 9:46 PM

Might it also be said that what caused this was the financial institutions belief they could tranche with impunity because if their financial models of return were off (ahem)they felt secure in being "to big to fail" and that the State would cover their losses?

Not a lack of regulation but a lack of accountability for risk.

Adam,

You are way off base here.

#24 b

"I doubt that guy strictly does the WOD from this website daily. He no doubt does more exercise than just that."

Yeah because the longer you work out the bigger you get, right? Right?

Noooooo, why ruin this wonderful community with talk of politics?

#43 Jakers
Thank you

Glassman discusses the twin levers of Fiscal Policy and Monetary Policy.

Defining Terms Fiscal Policy is the State’s Taxation and Spending Policies

Monetary Policy is the supply of fiat Money and its interest.

Monetary Policy is a lubricant for the financial system. It makes change (growth/contraction) easier/more difficult but it doesn’t cause it. (Rare instances of hyperinflation excluded.)

Fiscal Policy is the engine of the economy. It drives growth/investment or kills it.

The Market is always correct. And in every instance the current administration has made an announcement of their plan the market has dropped 300 points. This is not a coincidence. Barack keeps moving the levers the wrong direction to create economic growth the right direction for economic dependence on the state. I mean sure we expected some wealth redistribution but I didn’t expect him to zero it out.

Currently the Market is sitting on its hands and waiting Barack out. Capital will not be invested if the return is going to be confiscated.

And comparing our current situation to the Great Depression at this point is a little overwrought. But don’t worry there is still time for Barack to hit that mark. But a comparison to the Carter administration would be more applicable.

#30 jakers

I didn't say I didn't agree, I just don't like polluting this fantastic forum of physical achievement with crap like politics.

"The Market is always correct."

This is absolute nonsense.

The market is generally a useful tool for allocating finite resources, yes. The market will generally find the most efficient use of resources. The market is also occasionally suffers from wild-eyed speculation and a short memory.

In other words, "the Market" is nothing more than an aggregate of human actions. Or you're going to tell me that if enough people start doing something, that makes it absolutely correct?

Give me a break. "The Market" is not some infallible god which hands out destiny. It's made up of regular human beings who react (whether rationally or irrationally) to information - information which is always incomplete.

"And in every instance the current administration has made an announcement of their plan the market has dropped 300 points."

Actually, right after the election, every time Bush made an announcement, the DJIA tanked. Every time Obama had a press conference, it went up.

None of what you are saying makes any sense any way. If we followed your approach, we'd let Citigroup and AIG fail completely and their stocks would be worthless. But you're telling me that when Obama and Geithner announce more aid for them, their stocks go down? I hope it's cozy in your echo chamber.

Mark M

Bull Feathers and Fairy dust. That's all you are bringing to the party?

Man color me disappointed. Your first post was so promising. I agreed with your diagnosis and offered a different prescription.

If you are a trader, yes, the market is always correct. Never ever fight the market. It is made up of large numbers of normal human beings with their own best self interest at heart. The only occasional blip in the market is caused by a viscosity of information. A lack of transparency if you will.

>>>>If we followed your approach, we'd let Citigroup and AIG fail completely and their stocks would be worthless.

Exactamundo check out the big brain on Brad! Their stocks will be worthless soon enough. They would go bankrupt (as GM should) and either someone would buy the assets that had value and leave the tranche lying on the floor or reorganize and take another run at being a profitable company.

Capitalism is a creative destruction. Failure is allowed.

>>>I hope it's cozy in your echo chamber.

Where are Marcus and Alberto V to defend the respectful tone that we are suppose to keep on this board.
Which reminds me I'm going to invent a submission called the ad hominem so it can be announced from the cage, "And winning in 2:32 of the 2nd round by ad hominem attack jakers!"

I do have a cozy little echo chamber. I picked it up cheap. The previous owner was a contractor who way overpaid during the boom, got all the bells and whistles and then realized he was in over his head. I only paid a 1/3 of what he did. Some economists call that deflation but I call it a deal.

Ah man. I got caught in the filter.

Bummer.

I nailed a 185# OHS tonight.

Old PR was 180# awhile ago. Guess my strength is coming back... thanks CrossFit and the Zone. Finally.

Comment #3 - Posted by: AllisonNYC in VB_24/5'2/115 at March 3, 2009 7:35 PM

Wow! Congrats Allison. That's well strong and it makes me, I am sad to say, look really week (again). Good job.

"It probably would have hit 36,000 based on the rate it was increasing...if government hadn't forced toxic loans on banks for low income families. They force terrible loans, get rid of effective oversight and instead institute simply MORE oversight."

Do you honestly think that is what caused the liquidity crisis? Nothing to do with inappropriate risk profiles on derivatives/tranching.... right.

Mark M

On October 1, the Dow was 10,831. On November 3, it was 9,319. On December 1, it was 8,149. By January 1, it actually went up a bit, 8,776. On Inauguration Day 2009, the DJIA closed at 7,949.09. Now it's around 6,730.

That is a serious trend. Not a fit and start daily tracking poll issue.

As Rx'd

3:13
4:45
6:30
7:00
6:05

23/m/180
3x3FS(225-225-225) bad idea after Fran yesterday
3rds of 2MUs/400mrun/8~30"boxjumps - 8:03
STC - 10 second hold each 90 degrees

CATHLETICS.COM workout, again. At local gym at Warhorse...

Muscle Snatch: heavy single: 45x1x3, 67x3, 95x1, 117x1
Snatch Balance:heavy single45x3, 95x2, 145x1
then 80%x1x2= 128x1x2
Clean and Jerk:60%x2x3= 45x1x5, 95x3, 133x2x3

GHD SU + 2 russian twists (on roman chair): 3x10 with 15lb med ball.

Chuck - Go! You are definitely a solid contender for the games! I've enjoyed training with you at certs. Like Pat said, you're a great coach and incredibly humble. What an asset to the CrossFit community.

Economy - Why is it that it's okay to let small businesses fail across the country, but save businesses like AIG and the car industry? Let those who've failed to perform fail. Let the unions eat dirt for helping to drive down the economy. Giving money to these failing industries can't possibly save the economy. It's just reinforcing failure and prolonging the inevitable. It's just life support. Time to pull the plug.

Instead, to get this economy rocking, infuse the average American with a stimulus. Instead of giving $700b to industry, give the money, if there's really any to give, to everyone who pays taxes (read the middleclass) so that we can turn it around and spend it. Hey, wouldn't it be easier to just cut taxes and achieve the same result without having to actually spend the money or give the handouts?

How about tax credits for credit? In the early '80s, credit card interest and car loan interest were a write off. Cut the capital gains down to $0 for a few years to boost property transfers. Give a tax credit for gym memberships, which will, in turn, help reduce healthcare costs. The list goes on and on.

@jakers

You seriously think letting fanny and freddy fail was a possibility, for EITHER side of the political isle?

What we lacked in accountability we should have made up for in regulation, that's not conservative policy. Surprisingly, where the market was naturally skewed and we failed to counterbalance it we now have a crisis. (yes that was sarcasm)

And about the taxing of previously untaxed assets...regardless of how the market reacts it's been a massively unfair flaw in our system for too long that the wealthy could protect wealth from taxation while poorer people couldn't.

Chuck...who's body did you put your head on! ha ha
What the hell man...I just saw you two months ago and I was bigger than you. Not to say the bigger man wins in crossfit

Oh, and Joe, you took the words right out of my mouth. Only you did it better. Thanks.

Looking amazing, Chuck. You are a great coach, a great athlete and a wonderful person.

Apolloswabbie - Where can I sign up for the upside-down wing party?

ERIN!!!

Amazing! Great job representing Crossfit Moms!!

You Rock!

#24
If you're a muscular dude when you start CrossFit, you will remain a muscular dude...no extra workouts needed

No worries Big Chuck, I'm sure one of the 7 "Dirty South" slots are yours!!

CFE WOD

1200m Row on set at 10 damper
5:11

I'll never get used to working out at 530am. But once in awhile I enjoy rowing super early. Reminds me of Arizona... Just much, much colder. Freakin' virginia

I finally got one of my coworkers in the gym for yesterday's WOD. Him and our Chief go over and go through thier movements of one bodypart a day and criticize me on what I have been doing for the past 3 or so weeks. Before we went he said this doesn't look so bad, once we got done he was huffing in a different tune. Highlight of my day.

Chuck dude you are "freakin serious" and a First Class Person, you have no worring for Qualfier, Keep it up u Inspire all of us

All hail The Chuck!

I'd check out some Brad DeLong, if you're interested in rebuttal to today's article. Here's a quote from a recent post, which I will link to below:

'The answer to the question "why not do monetary policy?" is "we are." We are doing expansionary monetary policy--but that we have done all the expansionary monetary policy that we can, and we do not think that it is enough to keep us out of a depression. Milton Friedman quoted his old teacher Jacob Viner's advice as to what to do in the Great Depression:

[G]overnment and Federal Reserve [expansionary] bank operations have not nearly sufficed to countervail the contraction of credit on the part of the member and non-member banks.... There has been... a fairly continuous and unprecedentedly great contraction of credit during this entire period.... Assuming for the moment that a deliberate policy of [credit] inflation should be adopted, the simplest and least objectionable procedure would be for the federal government to increase its expenditures or to decrease its taxes, and to finance the resultant excess of expenditures over tax revenues either by the issue of legal tender greenbacks or by borrowing from the banks...'

Here's the link:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/03/notes-for-uc-davis-debate-on-the-stimulus-package.html

That was a very good article.

It is interesting to note that Hayek's Austrian Economics school, exemplified by Ron Paul and the Von Mises institute, were the first to predict this latest crisis and it would probably be a good idea to heed their advice. Bailouts are probably not the wisest thing and will probably squander money with little to no stimulative effect.

That being said, I thought it interesting that Mr. Glassman backs reforming the tax code, the nation's infrastructure, and social security. I also think he is correct.

Nice work Mr. Glassman.

Mark M. is correct about the traunches ... & a beautiful shell game allowed to be played by financial bankers like Goldman, Lehmann & Merrill.
Here is a little more on the story: The Formula that Killed Wall Street: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/03/036223

As John Mauldin has said, it will take years to rebuild the financial system with trust earned. There are people in Congress asking for metrics to measure the success of stimulus plan. If you can't measure it, you can't manage it. So far the request is falling on deaf ears of those able to vote through then plans.

Awww, Chuck! Lookin' good! We miss you down here in the A...

"CHUCK CARSWELL IS THE MOST POWERFUL HUMAN BEING IN THE WORLD!

You rock, Chuck.
Super athlete, super coach, super humble.
Great dude."

I fully agree with all that, Pat, even if I only had the brief window of going through an L1 cert weekend to see it.

Kick ass, Chuck!

The reality of Capitalism is you have business cycles. For every up, you have a down. However, it is an undulating wave which goes UP. It has gone up continuously for at least 200 years.

The alternative is socialism, where you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, and secure stable poverty for all except Party members.

Social Democracies are capitalist systems that don't have to pay for their police (the US) to protect them.

Any time you have a massive expansion--especially one that happens too fast--you need a contraction. In my own terms, you have to make money "real" again, in that borrowed money is not actual wealth. I don't advocate going back to the gold standard, but the logic behind that goal is sound.

By taking a situation in which far, far too much money has been borrowed--and is thus owed--and trying to fix it by borrowing MORE money--creating further liability--you compound the problem.

Yes, we can print money. This devalues our currency and increases inflation. That does nothing, again, to make money again "real". On the contrary.

As I see it, our problems stem from too much interference from the Federal Government in the private sector. Specifically, the Fed has put too much money in circulation, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--who wind up with 75% of home mortgages--have put too much money in circulation by borrowing, themselves, substantially everything they loaned. Where did the money come from? The Federal government, at a discount.

The roots of the current crisis, in my view, are threefold. First, excessive debt. We've covered that. Second, the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--who wound up owning 75% of American mortgages (meaning, we the United Taxpayers of America were underwriting these clowns)--caused a general collapse in confidence in the mortgage industry generally. This was long overdue, but it's worth pointing out that lousy credit was accepted by many lendors because--and only because--they knew that they had a buyer who would take it: F&F.

Had they been exposed to the full risk of the loans--had they not known that the Federal Governement backed them, ultimately--they would have been much more risk averse. They knew what good loans looked like. They just didn't care because they didn't have to.

Needless to say, F&F were almost ENTIRELY unregulated, because they were Democratic pet projects (Fannie Mae-Roosevelt, Freddie Mac-Johnson).

The problems created by the securities deregulation would not have happened had the mortgage industry not collapsed. The number of securities riding on them no doubt created a ripple effect, but the simple reality is that the place where meaningful regulation was needed--F&F--it was stymied by Democrats, despite Bush's best efforts.

Finally, the simple fact that the media does not want to talk about is we just elected a man about whom we know almost nothing, except that he gives really good talk. He won't release his college transcripts, he apparently had a trip to Pakistan paid for by a friend from college, he was registered as a Muslim in school, his biological father (who he idolized and who was the topic of his first book "Dreams from my father") was a Communist, his mother was a Marxist, his Big Brother in high school--Frank Davis--was a Communist, and since Davis was friends with his grandfather, we can assume his grandfather had similar beliefs.

Obama has often cited Saul "the red" Alinsky as the most important influence in his political life. Obama was the most liberal member of the United States Senate, and likely the Illinois Senate. He has accomplished nothing in his short life, has no practical real world experience doing anything except shaking people down for money or political favors, and in the views of many of us is one of the worst POSSIBLE choices to be President of the United States in a time of war and economic upheaval.

These letters he's sending (to Russia) and receiving (from Hamas--although that one got caught) do nothing to alleviate these fears. He has shown no support for our troops. He didn't even want to talk with them when he (finally) visited Iraq, and has wanted us to quit that battle since it began, no matter what the cost to our national security, or the Iraqi people.

I could go on, but I think jakers showed it best by pointing to the steady meltdown of the stock market since Obama took office. The mass layoffs started as soon as he was elected, in anticipation.

He said in his campaign that only 5% of Americans would see their taxes raised, and that he was committed to a balanced budget. You do the math. Either he's lying, or he's a class warrior in a an old school socialist mode. It appears the latter is far more likely.

In that climate, why invest? Why take a chance that some know-nothing ideological redneck is going to steal at gunpoint everything you worked so hard--and risked so much--to earn?

Nobody wants to talk about this.

Day 26 post-op on the shoulder. All is well.

Step side Anthony Bainbridge. Chuck C is my new man-crush. :)

Doing it right - healing it up ONCE!

Oh Happy Rest Day Everyone! I've only been doing crossfit for about two weeks now. I couldn't make it in on Sun, so I did Helen Mon and Barabara Tues and that was rough! A well deserved break I think, take it easy everyone!

"And comparing our current situation to the Great Depression at this point is a little overwrought. But don’t worry there is still time for Barack to hit that mark. But a comparison to the Carter administration would be more applicable." - Jakers #47
Yeah and Obama's approval ratings are already lower than Carters were at the same time. See? We talk a lot about socialism, but when it comes down to it everybody (including the market) sits on their hands.

I love that big black dude. He's gorgeous. I want to see more of him.

#74 Barry Cooper
Ditto dude. I talk about it all the time. The ethic is changing. More people in my community are hunkering down economically - staying out of the market completely and waiting. Things like bartering and trade are coming alive again here where I live. Small farmers are trading food for volunteer labor, I have traded canning and food storage lessons for babysitting time (YAY date night!!), I am trading my Crossfit knowledge with a friend who will help me build a fence this spring. It is a return to Old World style living which unites communities, and makes living around people a lot more fun. I don't know what to call it, but it makes sense today to lie humbly. Humility, unfortunately is not an ethic most politicians admire. Especially ones from Chicago.
I think we will come out of this money mess a lot better spiritually than if the past rampant personal and public spending continued. I'm just trying to be positive.

uh, that should have been live humbly

Comment #62 - Posted by: Danny Dodge at
-Danny, just send me the money you were going to give to some other worthless party, and you are in! Paul

b #24:

What's your point?

Apolloswabbie: I couldn't have said it better myself. Wait..

My fresh poem about crossfit and why do I love it:

- when I wake up in the morning, I never know which muscles will hurt. Than I get up, and find out quickly.
- the guy in the main page looks like Hulk and trains for the Games. I am as happy as he is - my shoulders gave me first hint I will, somewhere in next few months, be able to do my first pullup!
- today is rest day, I love it. First thing tomorrow morning I will check new WOD, and love it.

Life is good. Enjoy!

I wonder if CrossFit will be allowed in the New World Order...? Or perhaps required...

BEAST!!!

Chuck Carswell=Power ( I stole this from Pat)

Joe #41:

Actually the trade deficit has been FALLING because the dollar is relatively low in relation to other currencies.

Regarding consumer spending and saving, consumers are not spending due to a lack of available credit, true. But this is only a part of the phenomenon. They are also not spending because of a PERCEIVED lack of money (classic correlation between a low consumer confidence index and reduced discretionary spending) and because they are saving MORE (results of consumer saving at a rate of 5% of income reported in yesterday's WSJ.

How do these facts affect your analysis?

Pat's comments about Chuck are right on...we are super-fortunate to have such high quality people serving as coaches in the CrossFit community. I speak from personal experience that Chuck goes above and beyond to help out (as he has done for me) and he barely knows me! Chuck you are a beast! I hope I am at the DS Qualifier to see you wreak havoc!

#31 Apolloswabbie...great post, 'nuff said.

When folks posit the more regulation by the govt would have saved us, but incentivising banks to provide 100% financing of the 'market value' of a home wasn't an issue - it makes me wonder what people think the govt is capable of. The govt cannot even regulate itself - the DoD cannot, after years of having this as a stated goal, produce a clean audit of itself. It cannot wipe its own backside, and yet, folks persist in the belief that it can regulate other things, markets, people.

It makes me think that those who long for certainty must be so desperate to think it can exist that they imagine the powers of the govt as if it were a god.

In the sense that regulation creates the sense that due diligence is not required, I would like to see some analysis of whether regulation creates more opportunity for bigger risk and loss - whereas in a clearly understood 'buyer freakin beware' environment, markets would be under the onus to create their own systems for providing investor confidence in order that they could even exist.

The issue is not so simple as poor people with bad loans for sure. But I can hardly take anyone seriously who posits 'more regulation' would have staved this off; the implication that govt is competent to save us from the financial wolves has yet to be demonstrated. I'm more likely to believe govt is manipulated by the wolves in order to facilitate a fleecing.

I think Jakers' comment above about the intent of the President's initiatives deserves a read for those of you that missed it - #47 "The President keeps moving the levers the wrong direction to create economic growth the right direction for economic dependence on the state."

Joe # 42, on the demand model - I think it is backwards. If you add more money to a static financial model the increase demand for consumption causes inflation, vice productivity (my armchair economist definition of productivity is a good delivered to the marketplace which is valued more highly than that sum of its components including labor) - look at Iran after Ahmadinejad for one example. What is missing right now is products that would be demanded if they provided increased value in the market place at a lower price, in other words, increased productivity is what is needed. Demand is a symptom of productivity, not a cause. There's no amount of demand that will cause significant productivity increases. Productivity results from successful investment in capital goods. I don't really need to argue this point much - just stand back and watch. The govt will spend money, and inflation will eat all our lunches.

The approach I would take to increasing productivity is noted by Steve above - with no capital gains tax, the ROI for investments in capital goods increases as does the motive to take the associated risk in said investment.

Paul

Chuck, as Reigning Queen of the Beltway, with all privileges and rights pertaining thereto, I hereby exercise my emergency executive powers and unilaterally enact the following amendment to the US Constitution:

YOU MAY NEVER EVER WEAR A SHIRT AGAIN.

Oh my GAWD, Chuck. A moment of awed silence, followed by a vigorous round of applause, please.

WOD Front Squat/Man makers (found them on gym jones) burpie with 25 lbs weights in each had with one arm rows on each side and push up. Did a latter 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 Weight for FS was 95 lbs.
Time: 21:57 next time im goin up in weight

Then DL 1111111
175,185,205,225,235,245,255
PS 185
I haven't done DL 1's in awhile i probly could have gotten alittle more but form was starting to get sloppy an didnt have awhole lot of time but still much better than before next time shooting for 280

# i don't know it was several people talking about trade deficit

The way that net trade is calculated does a poor job of accounting for the real outcome. In the US economy of the past decade or so we have shifted toward an economy in large part by intellectual capital. The model used has a hard time accurately keeping track of things like brand equity, consulting fees, intellectual property franchise rights, and other goods (sometimes services) that don't have a tangible piece of equipment to inventory.

I am not convinced that we ever really had a trade deficit, simply a problem in accounting.

Bingo is correct, in general dollar up = physical exports down, dollar down = physical exports up

1) have 3-6 months savings where you can't touch easily
2)Be diversified (multi asset class, multi style, multi manager, have more than one financial advisor)
3) Be insured

more later

Chuck! Lookin good. See you in Jax if I don't see you around A-town first. You rock

There are some great podcasts out there about the financial crisis and how we got into it.

This American Life has done a few of these. They are very well researched and very objective and even-handed in their analysis.

Download podcasts or transcripts-

The Giant Pool of Money #355
A Better Mousetrap 2008 #366 (middle segment)
Bad Bank #375

There may be some other ones but these have really helped me understand how this happend and where we are at.

And the options are not looking too good. It basically boils down to unemployment in the mid 20% range. Or trillions of dollars of tax payer money to bail out all kinds of businesses.

How has the economic situation affected the Crossfit Affiliates? Are gyms closing?

More regulation? Hate to tell you guys but this is a world wide problem. So whatever regulations we have would not have prevented the rest of the world from doing anything differently. We have tax regulations which has not prevented Prez O's nominees from paying their due! Rational business sense would have prevented the sub-prime mess. Remember when banks loaned to people who could pay their mortgages. And of course another thing that led to this was short term greed to make your numbers to get your bonus.

Going back to the article. During Prez Bush's years he was admonished for deficit spending but now the answer under Prez O is to double down on deficit spending! Come on guys.....

QUESTION:
I've been crossfitting for about a year, and have been loosely following the Zone. How many blocks should I be on if I follow the 3 on 1 off cycle? I'm 6'4'' 195# and 19 yrs old. Thanks for the help!

#92
Good level headed advice. Sadly less than 4% will heed it.

Trade deficit.
You personally have a trade deficit with the local grocery store that you will never recover from (unless you work at the grocery store)
You (the consumer) go give them money every week and all you get is consumable food. You're never going to get out of that cycle unless you grow your own food. So quit your day job and get to work on that Victory Garden.
What? You think your better off with the trade deficit? How could that be?

I think he is right that it is a problem on the books not in real life

Herm - i did Helen yesterday and i sooooo wanted to go sub 9 i thought about your comment the whole time and it totally inspired me however... i didn't do it damn it but on the bright side i did do it AS RX'D!!! no assist on the pullups which is huge for me as 4 months ago when i started CF i couldn't even do 1 pullup. I love CF!!

time 11:03 as RX'd!!! next time baby after the cert in three weeks when i learn to kip.

I am having a hard time finding rubberbands to assist me with pullups on the website. Could someone tell me where to look and which to buy? Does anyone know how long they last? I am 163 lb female, 5'10" and can barely pull one on my own.

Chuck Carswell! As I learned at the CF Alamo cert, he is scientifically proven to be the world's most powerful man! JJ from CF Central

You know, I am in the fortunate (for now) position of being able to take an hour off and sit and smoke and imagine.

The key factor that Constructivists (Hayek's term for what I tend to call leftists) don't understand is the power of unintended consequences.

When you look at something like Fannie Mae, it made sense on paper. You use the credit--not the cash, but the credit--of the Federal Government to buy up loans originated at the local level. Since these loans are, after all, investments, you have lost nothing. In fact, you have made money through interest income.

What was not foreseen, however, and what is front row center in Hayek's distressingly often realized dystopican visions is that power which is offered to do good, often turns south, and does ill. Any power We the People offer up--sacrifice--to a centralized entity, can be used in whatever manner that entity deems fit. To the extent it does good, we benefit. However, when it fails, it also fails big, as is happening now.

If I were President, I would get rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The idea is good. The potential for abuse, regrettably, is all to clear, and has already been realized. I would get rid of the DEA, ATF, Housing and Urban development, the Education Department, most of the Commerce Department, the Food and Drug Administration (we could sponsor something like Underwriters Laboratories to do testing, so that there is some stamp of approval), and a number of others.

I would end Social Security payments within ten years. The annual contribution of taxpaying Americans would go down 10% per year, to zero. We would build nice retirement homes, on nice wooded lots, for people who could not survive without Social Security to live in. We started the damn thing, so we can't bail fully.

I would end federal support for both Medicare and Medicaid. Currently, the money to support those programs comes from Federal and State taxes. The States that wanted to could then continue to collect the same amounts, and provide the same services. It just wouldn't be a national mandate.

I would require all insurance carriers to provide catastrophic health insurance, and make it legal in all 50 states.

I would expand dramatically the vehicles for tax deferred or tax exempt savings for retirement.

These are a few ideas. No doubt on careful analysis, some changes would be needed, but this is the scale with which we need to be thinking. Maxing out the national credit cards is just more of the same. No doubt it makes sense to Nancy Pelosi and Barry O., but they aren't serious thinkers. Never have been, and never will be.

When I say retirement homes, I mean GROUP homes, that would decrease our carrying costs.

Those homes would be transferred to State ownership within 20 years or so.

Chuck-

What a great video, you are a beast! You will crush it at qualifiers, and best of luck at the games!

p.s. love your hat. :-)

best,
nadia

#97 Lisa - AWESOME!!! nice work :)

It continually disappointing to me (not that my disappointment counts for much) to see economists and the lay public discussing whether stimulus is the best way “fix” the economy, or if leaving it alone would have better results, with nary a mention of the moral implications of the stimulus. In other words, almost nobody mentions what the stimulus actually is. “Stimulus” means the government is going to hand out money it doesn’t have, and when it has to pay back the loans it will take the money from the public by the threat of force. No matter if this stimulates an economic upswing or not, it ends with taking money from someone using the threat of force. Is this what we have government for? I thought it was meant to protect our individual right from threats. Maybe I’ve read the Declaration of Independence too many times.

My father told me when I was a lad that there were bullies in the world, and that they were bullies because they were powerful enough to exert their will on others and immature enough to enjoy it. He said that weaker people hired big strong bullies of their own to protect them from the other bullies, and that these “good” bullies were called government. In a recent phone conversation with him I pointed out that our “good” bullies have turned against us. The government has turned predatory.

For those who claim to place the good of the group ahead of the good of individuals, please tell me what makes a group? Ludwig von Mises said that if a crowd all shouted “We!” at the same time, it would still be individual voices saying “We!” A group is nothing more than the sum of the people in it. Nothing more. There is no way to trample individual rights for the good of the group. How can there be a way to hurt every individual in the group and somehow benefit the group?

That being said, there are plenty of good arguments against these economic stimulus packages.

Under the present, planned economic system, the banks which received these T.A.R.P. funds are already an economically privileged class. This article ( http://mises.org/story/3355 ) shows how these banks have benefitted from the inflation of the U. S. dollar, at the expense of those with the lowest incomes. It also shows how Fed policy strongly discourages saving and investment. Keep in mind that this saving which is supposedly causing all the trouble is a prerequisite to investment. How can anyone lend without having something to lend?

Mark M. #38, I was going to say that the very existence of Fannie and Freddie, the very fact that bankers could make high-risk loans and be covered against loss, leads to high-risk lending. Who is going to resist a bet where he could get rich on the upside and lose nothing on the down? But jakers beat me to it in comment #41. But one thing I wonder is this; how is it okay for the government to force you and me to back these high-risk loans via Fannie and Freddie? Why am I on the hook for these?

#41 Joe, Are you suggesting that having a balanced budget and lower spending equals unemployment? Keep in mind that 14% unemployment was the LOWEST point during the New Deal period. Also, you mention that during the Reagan years, taxes were “very low” at the top marginal rate of 31%. How can you suggest that a 31% income tax (in addition to payroll taxes, state taxes, local taxes, sales taxes, excises etc.) is somehow low? Is it bad to pay down debt or save? Does investment not come from saving?

#47 Ben Kirshner “…crap like politics” is the stuff of everyday life. It affects all of us and it is a lot like real crap. If somebody comes in and takes a crap on my kitchen floor, I can pretend to not care, but that won’t make the crap stop stinking up my house.

#48 Mark M. The market is how investors and entrepreneurs obtain information about where to invest and what to produce. The market does what central planning cannot. Nobody can track the value of every single transaction in every area of the U. S., let alone our global economy, not even with a room full of supercomputers.

Citigroup and AIG were failing because they made poor decisions, they should have been left to fail, to free up their limited resources for wiser, more successful lenders.

#58 yoritomo
>>massively unfair flaw in our system for too long that the wealthy could protect wealth from taxation while poorer people couldn't.”

Are you suggesting the poor should be “allowed” to keep their wealth, or that the rich should NOT be allowed to keep theirs? I don’t fault anyone who stops another from stealing from him, no matter how much he had to begin with. My belief: massively cut taxes for EVERYONE. Of course, without a corresponding cut in spending, it will just be borrowing and won’t have any good long-term effect.

Barry Cooper #74

>> The reality of Capitalism is you have business cycles. For every up, you have a down. However, it is an undulating wave which goes UP. It has gone up continuously for at least 200 years.

I disagree with this. This article explains better than I ever could:
http://mises.org/story/3239

>> He said in his campaign that only 5% of Americans would see their taxes raised, and that he was committed to a balanced budget. You do the math. Either he's lying, or he's a class warrior in a an old school socialist mode. It appears the latter is far more likely.

He not only claim to raise taxes on “the rich” and lower them for “working class families” (I guess the implication is that rich people got rich by NOT working), he also listed a whole slew of new and expensive government programs he supported. How could anyone not see the oxymoronic nature of this?

#78 Julie Parisien

The re-awakening of barter and trade is an indication of the impending collapse of the dollar. As things get worse we can expect more barter, until eventually the citizens will drop paper dollars entirely and find some better medium to facilitate trade.

#88 Apolloswabbie

The government, unfortunately, are the “financial wolves”. They created the C.R.A., which mandated high-risk mortgage loans as a precondition of banks being allowed (allowed!) to merge. They created Fannie and Freddie, they created T.A.R.P. I could go on, but why bother? None of it is news.

#100 Barry Cooper, If some government official came to my door today and offered me a contract whereby I could stop making Social Security “contributions” (that word makes is sound optional, doesn’t it?), but I would never, ever be allowed to collect, my signature would be on the paper before he finished speaking.

As for the many comments I’ve seen on here that this site is too right wing / left wing / whatever (I believe #31 Apolloswabbie mentioned this as well), why is it that any open forum where moderators don’t expressly tell you which side to take is attacked as too right wing by lefties and too left wing by righties? Even if it were true, does it really bear mentioning? Is it important? Have none of you ever competed on the opposing team’s home field before?

Yes, this is how I spend my lunch break

Barry Cooper,

you sound like Milton Friedman,

I'd rant about government do-gooderism being nothing more than a puppet for special internists, but I have a meeting to get to. Besides my man Milton does a far better job of this that I could hope to.

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

it's about 30mins long

I would abolish the 14th Amendment, or modify it substantially to undermine entirely the already very shaky legitimacy of the judicial activism of the Supreme Court. It should not matter as much as it does who gets appointed. They have arrogated to themselves far too much power over the sundry States, especially for an unelected body that is placed in positions they hold for life.

As far as Afghanistan, we could just tell Pakistan to deal with the Taliban, or we will. This is the same situation that obtained during the Vietnam War, in which the Cambodians were allowing the NVA to use their port (to unload Russian weaponry, you will recall), and to travel through and stage on their border. In point of fact, cross border invasions are quite legal, if the originating nation fails to curb the problem. Willing or not, they are accessories to the Taliban currently.

This is the Barry Goldwater approach, but one nuke in the right place would convince them that they need to give up the fight. And as far that goes, does anyone think seriously that since we haven't used a nuke since 1945, that our enemies, were they to get one, would hesitate to use it? Not when you read Kuwaiti academics glowing with joy at the prospect of 40,000 dead from a successful anthrax attack.

I want to be clear: ALL of our problems can be solved, and many of them can be solved quickly, given effective leadership.

The best we can hope for under Obama is a more general reawakening of common sense, in reaction to its full and total abdication under his Administration.

I have had the distinct pleasure in working with Mr. Carswell on a couple of occasions, and have nothing but tremendous respect for this beast of a man. I actually "worked out" with him on one of those instances. I use quotations b/c he could've completed two wod's in the time it took me to finish the one. I know he will do extremely well at the Qualifiers, and will be rooting for him. He is also one of the nicest people you will ever get a chance to meet. Make sure you go out of your way to talk to this man. It will make you better just being around him.
Good Luck Chuck

Casey O'Donnell
CrossFit Alexandria

Well we are getting sweeping solutions from Barry today. I like it. Go figure

Goat,
My wife wanted me to explain what I was laughing about when you addressed comment #47. Well said.

And I'm guessing I'm the only person this happens to but does anyone else get mixed up between Von Mises and Milton's works?
Same thing happens with Socrates and Aristotle I know the quote and then have to look up which one of them said it.

My left hip has been bothering me a little. It doesn't feel like a soreness issue but I feel it when stretch (Samson) and when I'm squating (any kind). It concerns me that I feel it when squating. It does seem to get better when it gets fully warmed up but I'm not sure if it should be hurting. There is no pain in my right hip. Do you all think I should take a cycle off and see what happens? Herm? Bingo? JPW? I know you aren't doctors but you might have some insight.

#17 Ryan, #33 Renata G,

Could also be this one? Its mentioned in the Journal right now... http://www.brassringfitness.com/

Barry, this is very significant, in my humble as ever opinion: "In that climate, why invest? Why take a chance that some know-nothing ideological redneck is going to steal at gunpoint everything you worked so hard--and risked so much--to earn?" Well said - the academic explanation of that of late was titled 'Regime Uncertainty" and addressed that as a fundamental driver of the depression - answering the question 'why did the GD last 15 years or more in the US, whilst ending in about 18 months in the other western powers?'

However, per your post #106 above - the effective leadership caused the problems. Without effective leadership, no one would have been willing to cede all the power to the federal govt, and we wouldn't be in the hole we're in now. Effective leadership isn't lacking. What's lacking is the effective leader who will convince us "the government that governs least governs best." At least, that is the case if my beliefs about govt are correct. Paul

Jaker #50 and karen #89 - I'm crying! Stop it so I can see again, the dehydration by tears has to end ...

#58 yoritomo:

The poor do not pay taxes; their income is "shielded" from taxation by virtue of this fact.

We should agree on a definition of "poor", middle-class", and "wealthy".

I propose the following, for no other reason than that it makes some intrinsic sense and is internally consistent, and to start the discussion:

1) Poor. Divided into two groups. Very Poor: does not pay taxes; receives a majority of services/income from government; is not employed in any real sense (does not include employment that involves illegal activities). Working Poor: does not pay taxes; is employed and employment contributes income which is used to obtain life's necessities.

2) Middle Class. Divided into two groups. Lower Middle Class: pays taxes at levels up to the highest marginal rate but NOT the highest marginal rate. Has discretionary spending ability, the magnitude of which is dependent on the local and regional cost of living (eg. more in Wheeling WV, less in Williamsport, VA). Upper Middle Class: pays taxes of all types at the highest marginal rates. Has discretionary income, the amount of which is dependent on local and regional cost of living. Lifestyle and consumption is dependent on income; a 20% or greater drop in income will erase discretionary spending, saving, and potentially imperil asset maintenance (eg. $250,000 in Wheeling WV, $400,000 in Williamsport, VA).

3) Wealthy. Pays highest marginal tax rate on all taxes. Does not qualify for any indexed tax deductions. Discretionary spending and saving is only partially dependent on income. Highly region-dependent. Substantial savings, either realized or potential. Significant decreases in discretionary spending have minimal real effect on lifestyle. (eg. $400,000 in Wheeling, WV, $750,000 in Wiliamsport, VA.).

I think the very loose definition of "middle class" and "wealthy" now being used in our national discussion is dangerous. In most parts of the country individuals making $250,001/year are spending $250,002/year; increasing taxes on this group will assuredly decrease spending and deepen the recession.

M/36/67/246

Helen - 14:16
Reps as rx'd, but with 40# db's and assisted pull-ups.

CFE on the bike.
4 x 5:00 intervals (med-heavy resistance, all out)
3 mile hill (13-14 minutes, heavy resistance, mostly in the saddle).

Chuck,

Great Video and it could not have happened to a better man!

I wish you well on all your endeavors and would be willing to bet $1,000 that you place first in the games.

Go get em "hairy-dog"!

bingo #86,

Consumers are holding back on big ticket items, especially homes and autos, for lack of credit. They also do so because prices are falling. The anticipation of cheaper prices and greater job insecurity with rising unemployment makes the decision to hold off on any kind of buying perfectly rational.

Producers of goods and services must cut back in response to the fall in consumer activity. Capital expansion is coming to a halt, introduction of new products will fall to nothing, and old production will decline. Producers are acting rationally.

This is the making of a chronic business cycle. Everyone is being rational.

Because of the collapse of credit, producers cannot borrow for capital expansion or introduction of new products, even if they were inclined to do so. Producers cannot get money from the sale of equity because of the Bush-Obama stock market collapse. Small companies, e.g., S corps, are soon going to be hit with higher taxes, so Obama will reduce small business seed money. He is planning on attacking the accumulation of capital on all fronts, and instead of stimulating anything, he will starve business to death.

Then there’s inflation, a factor especially poorly understood among economists who have four different operative definitions of it. Obama will have to borrow heavily, let’s say two or three trillion dollars more than a year ago. This is to cover the short fall between his spending and his tax revenues, which will plunge with the economy. The auction for treasuries will be flooded with new offerings, and this will depress the price. The sale has nothing to do with China, who like everyone else will hold off to get even cheaper prices. Cheaper prices mean the discount rate will fall. That means that the interest rate on the new debt will rise. It looks just like inflation when T-bills pay 10% instead of 5%. All market interest rates, those that prevail in the public sector, ride on top of the inflation rate.

As market interest rates rise, borrowing drops. Expansion drops. New starts drop. The breakeven point for new goods is foreshortened. Old products are kept around longer. More of the ever declining domestic manufacturing will move off shore as product life is stretched. More US jobs will be lost.

Infusion of government capital into financial markets, into the hands of the producers, and into the hands of consumers will not fix any of these problems. It will exacerbate them because of the borrowing and taxing.

Socialism is not a state of being any more than fitness is. These things come in degrees. According to the media, Obama is heading toward 40% socialism. That is, the federal government will control 40% of GDP. It’s going to be a lot worse as GDP goes into its slide. It won’t be 40% of 2008 GDP; it’ll be 50%, maybe 75% - who knows - of 2010 GDP. Socialism produces no wealth; it only drags momentum off the flywheel of capitalism.

Socialism is the ratio of Government GDP divided by Total GDP. Obama socialism goes up in the numerator as he adds universal rationed health care to government spending. Obama socialism goes up again as he whacks non-government GDP in the denominator with carbon cap and trade, and taxes, and inflation, and no way to raise capital if the public sector wanted to.

Obama and the Democrats are creating Depression 2.0. It’ll make the last one look like a picnic.

The Austrian School is getting almost no media coverage or attention, yet these are the guys that predicted the recession. They predicted it and gave an explanation on why it would happen. The Federal Reserve is never questioned either. Why would we allow a private entity a monopoly on printing money and controlling monetary policy? Weren't there warnings and opposition to a Central Bank by the founders?

The question is often asked, which system or method will render the best overall score. Why isn't the question, which system will give the most fair playing field? Intervention in an attempt to gain a better overall score requires control. I fear control much more than poverty.

Made up the DL workout. Posted that date.

I love the rest day discussion. I love it when folks bring their analytical game to politics, and the rest of their lives and not just fitness.

Drinking the Kool-aide is OK...if you've done your homework.

RicT

I like the proliferation of common sense I'm seeing here, its too bad its not more contagious.

How is it that a financial system built on survival of the fittest can get well on third party intervention(government stimulus)?

If the mega corporations were to fail, what would happen? Their assests would be bought up by bargain hunters-jakers I'm counting on you- who may be able to do it better.

The shift from dependence on actual goods and services, to credit, seems to be inflating a reactionary economy. What happens today in the market is a reaction to what has happened before, not what is GOING to happen.

Individuals tend to survive or not. Institutions as well but not before they take down as many individuals as they can get to.

It was unreasonable to think that the unprecedented financial growth of the past several years would continue indefinitely.

Bear down, leave it alone and we'll all be better off.

I see a similarity between federal financial policy and wildfire mitigation. We may be able to "control" it for a while, but eventually the natural order straightens itself out.

have a great day.

In science and math the simplest solution is the accepted one. Scientists will always look for the simplest solution. Convoluted and complicated solutions are rejected for the simple and elegant. Sadly, in economics, politics and geopolitics the inverse is too often the case. The current economic situation is rather easy to understand and the policies and products that led us here are not so complicated or vague.

Financial institutions (banks, GSEs, mortgage companies, GE etc.) in all their forms, driven by near term profit and political strong arming became more and more leveraged. Banks traditionally hold leverage of 10-12x their capital base, but that changed over the past 20 years (yes, the problems we have now originates at least that long ago) and 40x leverage became very common over the past few years. The leverage was allowed by regulators (who knew better but were silenced by political forces) and bank executives (who also knew better but were too busy banking bonuses).

A major symptom of the problem was the homeownership rate in the U.S. For more than 40 years (all the data that is available to me) 58-62% of households in the U.S. owned their homes. Beginning in 1998 that percentage began to climb until it peaked at 71% sometime in 2006. That rate WILL go back to 60% in the next 4 or 5 years regardless of rescue packages. There are very good reasons why 60% is about right for the U.S. economy. Changing rules to artificially move that number up (all our politicians share the blame here) to 71% sounds great in theory and feels good during the ride but is unsustainable and the ride down to 60% is going to be very painful.

The ride up in leverage is part and parcel with the ride in home ownership rates. The ride up in leverage sounds great in theory and feels good during the ride but the deleveraging is going to be very painful and cannot be sidestepped. There are not enough printing presses to fill the void that is being created. That is why all the rescue plans so far enacted fall short and are ultimately revisited and increased. We had our party and now we must take our medicine. Moving the chairs on the deck of the Titanic (increasing regulation, bailing out banks and car companies) makes some feel better in the short term but will not fix the problem. The only real fix is time, deflation and prudent savings/spending decisions.

I really don’t care what the politicians do to regulation, or taxes or spending. Ultimately, the global economy will reset itself at a lower lever (dictated by the amount of leverage removed) regardless of government intervention (some of the lost leverage can be replaced with government spending but nearly enough to erase the pain – for more see Iceland). The real question for us as citizens of the United States is where the U.S. will fit. If we come out of this as an attractive country to invest in (relative to other countries) with the rule of law firmly in place (no confiscations please) we will remain a world leader.

-jakers #49

Surprised to find out I'm the morality police now. Don't worry, once someone starts up with the racial epitaphs I'm all over it ;)

He was quite a runner! I looked up the "Walton High School Track & Field all time bests".

4 x 100m Relay, Men’s
42.20 Livingston, Campbell, Greer, Carswell 1986 (1st)

100m Dash, Men’s
10.60 Chuck Carswell 1986
(1st)

200m Dash, Men’s
22.20 Chuck Carswell 1986
(3rd)

4 x 200m Relay, Men’s
1:29.00 Livingston, Campbell, Greer, Carswell 1986
(1st)

Source:
http://www.waltontfxc.com/pdf/All-Time%20Bests.pdf

I recommend everyone view the film: "I.O.U.S.A" for a pretty good history of the debt issue...and way ahead. http://www.iousathemovie.com

"Obama and the Democrats are creating Depression 2.0. It’ll make the last one look like a picnic."
When Jeff Glassman say this I have to take it very seriously.

#120 epicurious

Indeed, the correction is coming, and no government policy is going to stop it. My fear is that the current policies will work to make it deeper and longer (the bad kind of deeper and longer, that is).

Attaboy, Chuck! GO DAWGS!

Jeff #116:

I did note state or imply that the consumer buying decisions were not rational. In fact consumers are under-buying in addition to not making purchases. By this I mean that they are moving down the purchasing "food chain", buying store brands rather than national brands, buying less expensive alcohol (Dewars instead of Macallan), putting 87 in the tank instead of 93, delaying doctor visits to avoid a co-pay. They are doing this in response to having less money to spend, both real and perceived.

I agree that this is rational bahavior when it is in response to a real decrease in spendable income. It is not rational, but is a well-established pattern in the study of consumer behavior, when it is in response to a perceived (but not actual) decrease in spendable income (they feel less wealthy due to a decrease in an IRA account, for example, which is not spendable).

Neither of these phenomena constitute the "business cycle", although I agree that a % of what we are witnessing is no more complex than that.

The stimulous was designed to fail. It is merely a means of expanding our dependancy on Gov't. I fear that our children will not be free people.

Barbara

3:24
3:44
4:57
5:09
5:03
My second time doing Barbara, sit - ups are the biggest time consumer.

Re: #125 Goat

I have no doubt that government intervention will make it longer and worse for most but it will be better for a few. Regardless of your political affliction (not a typo) that is the case. Each party has their congregation and they must be appeased lest funding be withheld. We can't have that.

The ultimate culprit is the voting public that re-elects house member 94% of the time. Think about what this means… We the people, in order to form a more perfect union… overwhelmingly re-elect the same people over and over again. Albert Einstein is often (wrongly) credited with saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I’m just saying…

And for those of you who think Obama is new, fresh or for change just remember where he came from. And I am not talking about Hawaii or Africa. I speak of Chicago, the land of dead voters.

Hey guys I need some help on this one any advice could help i've been working with a trainer 2 days of the week for about 6 months the first one i had was cf certified and was great the second one was trained by the previous one but was not certified still was pretty good though now this guy got fired an they want to set me up with anther personal trainer but who is not cf certified nor has he ever really used it hes more of bodybuilder guy but he said he was goin to have a cf workout ready for me the next time i come well if this workout is lame im goin to do something else b/c cf has gotten me into better shape than anyother program out there but at the same time i dont want to overtrain etheir so my question is does anyone know any small sets or anything just i dont were im at now just incase this guys workout is no where near challenging enough i thought of this set but i dont know if it's rx'd enought 3 rounds of d-ball slams 25lb ball, kb swings 35lbs, and squats 50 reps each

Allison- great job girl! Do you jerk it up or take it from the rack? Either way it is still great. I just have wondered when doing OHS for max if that means jerking it up or not.

20 Cleans @100#
20 Cleans @ 85#
20 Cleans @ 65#
= 13:44

Went at about 85% effort. Will try for sub 10 on this next time I do this. My forearms were what was fatiguing from last couple days wods. They would tighten up and I would have to stop. Otherwise, did not get majorly “out of breath” or toasted.

Worked on SP a bit while arms were tired so next time it seems easier ;)
Erin

This video is classic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UywVLZjSqA

I am personally not buying any big ticket items because I am in fear of losing my job. Even if I got a huge tax cut, it would go into the emergency fund in case I lose my job. I would not use it to hire a roofer or landscaper or interior designer. I'm not trying to employ anybody with my extra tax cut money. And besides, what good is a tax cut if you can't find a freaking job like over 7.9 percent of Americans? The new unemployment rate comes out on March 6th by the way.

At a household level, that is why I am not out spending or hiring. So why should a company hire people if there is no extra work to do? And who is out there trying to get loans for cars and houses if they don't think they will have a job in a month? And aren't these the people that the banks SHOULD be a avoiding after all that has happened? And isn't pretty much everybody nervous about job security?

There are some jobs that need to be done here in America. New power grids, new bridges, updates to government buildings so they use less electricity, would all be good investments that could get people working.

We've been doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 8 years. And we've been getting ripped off left and right by contractors who got a blank check from George Bush. And then when he was asked to throw in some cash for the TARP to bail out the banks, he sent out another blank check with no strings attached and we have no idea where billions of dollars went on that first TARP Payout.

I didn't see CrossFit posting any rest day articles when reports came out about that stuff.

But when the Obama tries to do something to create infrastructure and jobs for America it's called socialism. At least he said he wants it to be public knowledge where the money is going. At least he's doing something and not just waiting it out until the end of his term for someone else to fix it.

I still don't think the plan is perfect and to be honest it doesn't make me feel any less likely to get laid off but it is better than nothing.

I don't want this stimulus to fail. But it sounds like there are people advocating for doing nothing. The only alternative that has been presented is to let the banks and the US companies fail and let the market sort itself out.

#120 epicurious
Best response yet.

How can we be ready to pin all these evils on a president who's been in office for a month? He inherited a huge problem, and he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Of course he can't fix this, no president can. I have a feeling everyone who's fuming about what he's doing now would be just as PO'd if were doing something different or doing nothing.
From a budget surplus to where we are now, there were some years in between, where some things happened when some other people were in charge, let's not forget.

#95-

Probably about 19 or 20 blocks, depending on your bodyfat percentage and whether you're trying to lean out or gain weight. Go to www.robbwolf.com...among about a million other good things, he's got a few Zone charts and bodyfat calculators in his FAQ.

there is good news in all of this, in 2010 there will be 36 senate seats up for grabs as well as all of the House seats.

Capitalism will triumph it is just going to take time, and resolve.

"At least he's doing something and not just waiting it out until the end of his term for someone else to fix it."

What he's doing is borrowing money we don't have to stimulate economic activity on the part of the very people his positions most alienate.

Call it what you will. I call it stupid (unless his actual goal is the subversion of the American Constitution and nation).

Doing nothing would have been infinitely better. Better yet would have been developing a plan to eliminate Social Security and Medicare as Federal entitlements. He is, however, going the opposite direction.

I'm reminded of the Robin Williams line (from memory) from Birdcage: "Never have I felt such tension. I feel like I'm on the back of a psychotic horse running into a burning barn."

For whatever reason, I feel good. The news is all bad, but we need bad news. Nothing straightens people up faster than actual reality.

I told people before the election: it's all fun and games til people start losing their jobs. And it's happening. And with the internet, talk radio, and Fox news, we can be damn sure the blame gets placed where it belongs, at least by those with the courage to think and perceive accurately.

We don't live in a fairy tale world. Bad things happen to good people all the time. As Americans, on balance, we have supported more good than any nation in the history of the Earth. But our political body has become mentally ill, and the consequences of this have made our economic body ill. We can sink or swim.

It will be interesting to see what happens. No person and no nation lasts forever. But I for one will go down fighting to the extent of my ability. This may just yet, at the end of the day, prove our finest hour.

I have to agree with you again, epicurious.
Our founding fathers did not intend for us to have career politicians. The idea was for us to elect representatives who had proven themselves to be more than competent in their respective fields in the private sector, and that they would accept this appointment as a service to the country, then RETURN to the private sector to continue being successful leaders in their areas of expertise.
That would be so nice.

#134 Marshall and #135 moak

It seems that "doing nothing", by which I mean having the government do nothing, and letting the people sort out their own affairs in the ways which are best for them, is the quickest and surest path to maximum recovery, and after recovery, to future stable growth.

And it's true that Obama is in no way to blame as President for the current mess. As for what he voted for in Congress, that's a different matter, which I won't delve into now. But the policies he is advocating and implementing are probably the worst possible move, for private individuals. Now, for the government itself...

moak @ 11:24

Sure sure, Barry and Crew have only been in office for a couple of months. And if he did nothing statistically the recession would start to turn around in June.

A President can fix this. His name is Ronald Reagan. Carter laid out the basic game plan that Barry is following. A Reagan turned it around by doing the exact opposite.

moak, You can now return to doing the Chicken Little dance.

Spider Chick I feel you are just a couple of cocktail away from busting out the Chicka whaa whaa bass line.

#103 Cookie

Thanks!! I had my band there to do assisted and thought well i'll just try without and i rocked it (well sort of) at least i did them just not quickly. I think that felt better than getting a smokin' time with assist.

Barry,
You are a wise seer to predict that people would be losing their jobs after the election, seeing as it was inevitable and all.
Come on, you think McCain would have averted this? That ball was rolling a LONG time before the election.

#143 moak

McCain? Nope. McCain was government intervention light. His policies would have had much the same affect as Obama's, just a bit slower and probably less drastic. But then, it probably would then not have been so obvious to so many that these policies are so wrong, which in the end may have been worse.

Re: #135 moak
You misunderstand my intention. I am not defending Obama’s plan(s), action(s) or his presidency. I am saying that he is as guilty as Bush, Clinton, Dodd, Frank, Pelosi… list all current and past elected officials since 1990 and I only pulled that year out of a hat. Remember that Obama inherited these problems from a Senate that he was elected to. He was a member of the body that passed these laws and he took more money than anybody save Mr. Dodd from Freddie and Fannie. The very idea that he is somehow a change is laughable at best. His hands are just as dirty as Bush’s and Clinton’s.

I would love if he would do nothing. Enforce the laws on the books, let us know the rules and get out of the way. If you want to extend EXISTING benefits go at it but be clear about the rules and don’t keep changing them.

As for the budget surplus, we have not had a budget surplus since before WWI. The notion of a budget surplus went away with the creation of the Fed Reserve and the final nail was the creation of Social Security. It CANNOT be a surplus if you don’t count the biggest expense. We don’t include the cost of social security, Medicaid or Medicare in the budget. So don’t pretend there was ever a surplus. It’s a lie told by liars that we elect and then re-elect.

Re: #134 Marshall
Some times the best action is no action. Saving Bear, then letting Lehman fail, then sorta saving AIG and the automakers does no one save the execs and lobbyist at the saved any good. Banks fail from time to time (more so during downturns, recessions, depressions etc.) and we have laws and procedures in place to assist in the unwind. Solvency risk is just another risk like any other and should be considered when making an investment. The FDIC relieves the little guy from solvency risk but the big guys should fend for themselves not the government. This doesn’t mean that it will be painless. It will be painful but must be done that way. Just like CrossFit there is no shortcut.

Definitions:
Recession == "You lose your job."
Depression == "I lose my job."

Row 500 M / 21 burpees / Run 400 M - 3 Rounds

18:38

Burpee times were nothing to write home about

#122 - anton - nice find.

WELL DOCUMENTED

Coleen #98

Rogue Fitness Equipment
Info in the FAQ under equipment
They have a pull up band package, 3 bands for $75.
The bands are excellent quality and the service is really fast. Had mine in a few days.
Well worth the money and I have improved my pull ups in less than two weeks.

Let me be clear. I do not like any living politician save one. Ron Paul has had and will continue to have my support. He is a lonely voice of reason in a sea of money and power.

CHUCK IS A BEAST!! AND A GREAT GUY

Comment #131 - Posted by: jon M/160/6'1/19

Jon, check out Brand X's scaled WODs - CF main page, start here, brand X and go.

Earlier someone asked about bands for pullup assistance - Iron Woody, Garage Gym, other linked at the very bottom right hand side of the main page ... go get 'em.

Paul

Cheap bands at Walmart in the bicycle dept. Inner tubes 2 for 6$

#153 Roden

Aww, crap! Why didn't I think of that?

#145 epicurious

I didn't misunderstand your intentions at all, you had something to say that made sense so I agreed with you.
We probably voted for different people, but what makes sense makes sense. I don't do the strict party line thing, and I'm willing to give someone new a chance to try to make things better. If he f's it all up, I will admit it and be as angry as anyone else, but that hasn't happened YET, so I'm going to withold judgment.

Does anyone have a diet they would recommend that compliments the Crossfit program? Looking to get lean!

#156 Chet

Doing the Zone diet myself. I've lost 43 pounds in six months, feel great, sleep better, tons of energy, can't stop buying new belts...

#134 Marshall (and others):

Doing nothing (option 2) is in fact a viable alternative to the Obama stimulus (option 1), but option 3, which would have the exact opposite effect of the current "stimulus" bill, is to enact corporate and other tax reductions equal in dollar amount to said stimulus. On a static basis, each would increase the federal deficit; however, option 1 does so by spending tax dollars toward social-services, pet and other projects that create no economic growth, while option 3 leaves those dollars in the hands of businesses and investors.

In fact, option 1 in my view does double the damage in that not only does it direct money toward nonproductive ends (from a pure economic standpoint), but that money must ultimately come from those who would benefit from option 3. Put simply, you're looking at a swing factor between options 1 and 3 of nearly two trillion dollars between government's and the private sector's share of GDP.

Hence the likely continued contraction of the private economy and, as evidence thereof, the staggering swoon in the stock market under the weight of both option 1 and Obama's budget proposal. The President has made his intentions clear, and the private economy, which will bear the onus of paying for it, has made its reaction clear.

On the bright side, the government is hiring. Heck, Congress just gave everyone working for The Man a raise. Who is John Galt?

Is it possible to hire Tyler Durden to just blow up all the banks and credit card institutions? or should we view the stimulus package as the sequel, "Fight Club II: our barrack is against the wall"

Since many are still arguing over the Great Depression, its not likely we will make sense of this, whatever it turns out to be, for quite a while.

My biggest fear is everyone is so worried about the next 10-20% drop in the market that we will miss the next 50-60-70% jump in the market. And believe me, it will happen. And if you are not on that train when it starts rolling, even crossfitters aren't fast enough to catch up. Economists, grad students and the media will ponder for decades why so many people didn't see this next bull market coming.

Crossfit Santa Clara WOD

As many rounds in 20 minutes

10 Ring Dips or 25 Push-Ups
20 Box Jumps
50 Jump Rope
40 Lunges
250m Row

As Rx'd with Ring Dips - too sore from Barbara to do PU's
4 Round + All reps of Jump Ropes

Chas #158:

Who is John Galt, indeed. +1.

OK, here's an interesting question: at what point does this cease to be "George Bush's recession" and become "Barack Obama's recession/ depression"?

I think that it's pretty clear to most that the so-called stimulus will stimulate nothing but the remoras of the Democratic Party, and that the most likely medium term impact of what's being done now will lead to Jimmy Carter style stagflation in 3-5 years- increased debt, leading to higher taxes and therefore economic contraction, plus loose monetary policy leading to inflation. It's going to be tough to link this to the first 7 3/4 years of the Bush presidency (and an argument can be made that he had all but abdicated by August 08, if not earlier).

With the markets tanking each time your president takes to the airwaves, I would suggest that it's already the Obama economy, and has been since October when it became apparent that he would be elected.

I never thought that I'd see the day where Canadian fiscal policy was substantially more responsible than American (even still, it's not particularly responsible)

I am John Galt...

Barry, Doing Nothing? Seriously? How would that have been better? How is that supposed to make me feel better about keeping my job and get me to spend some cash?

Chas, I was trying to make the point that if I got a huge tax cut. I wouldn't spend it if I didn't got it because I am concerned about my job. The banks already got big fat checks and they are laying people off left and right. The automakers got big fat checks and they are laying off people too. I really don't think a tax cut for companies is going to make the average worker feel better. It will make CEO's feel better. They might even pay themselves a bonus, which seems to be the hip thing to do with stimulus money. But even if my company got a tax cut, I wouldn't consider MYSELF out of the woods.

If my company doesn't get the huge military conract we are competing for, I'll be really scared. And here I am again waiting for the taxpayer to come through with some money to save my job.

made up "Helen"

400m run (treadmill)
21 KB swings (1 pood)
12 pull-ups (assisted, blue band)

16:01

SUCKED! Possibly my slowest time ever. My leg and hip started to hurt during the second round of runs, so I had to dial down the speed. Hip hurt during the swings, so they weren't nearly as strong as they should have been. And I wasted precious time each round trying to get into the silly band! I'm amazed that I didn't kill myself :)

Great 10 min warm up prior, and 5 min stretch after.

#158 Chas

Your post brings to light a bit of a flaw in what I've been saying. Or rather, I'm leaving something unexplained.

To my mind, saying that the government should do nothing means that they should stop doing the things they have been doing for more than one hundred years, such as manipulating rates, "printing" money, and so on. Basically, government should completely withdrawal from the economy, and then do nothing.

One other thought on my mind lately. Somehow there is a concept being accepted that says that government is naturally part of the economy. This is best illustrated by using government expenditures to calculate the GDP. But if this were so, the government could simply set the GDP at whatever it felt like, by increasing or decreasing (yeah, right) spending. There would be no recessions, no depressions, just growth and wealth and milk and honey for all.

Why doesn't government do this? Because it's fiction. The government extracts it's (I use the possesive pronoun loosely) money from the real producers of the economy, us. The government produces nothing, it just takes and consumes. It REMOVES wealth from the system, reduces and discourages savings and investment, and generally makes a burden of itself. Adding it's expenditures into the GDP simply inflates an already suspect number, skewing our perception of how well we are really doing as a nation.

There was talk earlier of how the publics' perception of hard times can have a very negative effect on the economy, whether the hard times are real or not. This is probably very true, and I'm sure it works both ways, meaning that falsely perceiving good times can spur on over-consumption and poor investments. It's actually a pretty good description of what led us to the point we're at.

Knowing this, why would we want to allow the government to skew the things investors use to help "predict" the future, a.k.a., INVEST. Why allow it to use it's expenditures as part of the GDP? Why allow it to set interest rates (which, in a market economy, are really just indicators of people's willingess to give up current liquidity for future gains)?

Seriously, nobody trusts politicians individually. Why should we trust the government as a group of politicians? It makes no sense to me.

#165 Marshall

>>Barry, Doing Nothing? Seriously? How would that have been better? How is that supposed to make me feel better about keeping my job and get me to spend some cash?

Well, it isn't supposed to. That's the point. It would be unfortunate if the stimulus package actually got people to stop saving (just to clarify, paying down debt actually is saving), and start consuming more. Saving is needed, government induced spending isn't. That would only lead us deeper into the swamp.

CFSB week 1, day 4,

Front Squat 5x3, 85, 105, 115, 125, 135(2)
BSx20, 125

Skipping the 10 min. met-con; time to say "when."

CFSB: week 5, day 2: deads, 5 x 45,135,185, 3 x 225, 2 x 275, 1 x 315, 3 x 365 (pr); then 21 x 225; then metcon 5 rounds of 10x35 db hpc's,10 burpees: 8:47. I feel like I need a stimulus package.

Marshall,

If you got a huge tax cut, you would have had three options: spend it, use it to reduce debt, or save it. All three options are beneficial to the aggregate economy.

1) spend - the money goes back into circulation allowing someone else to make money and spend that money

2) pay down debt - if you pay down debt, that frees up committed capital from the institution that lent you the money. That institution goes and lends more money (either directly or indirectly depending on who is the end owner of the debt) {see footnote a}

3) save - when people save money in a bank the bank takes deposits, and then lends more money {see footnote a}

{A} the lending that I am talking about is primarily lines of credit issued to businesses that bridge the gap between a sale being in accounts receivables and actually getting paid

I'm not exactly sure when someone decided that de-levering and saving were bad for the overall economy, but i'm willing to bet that the same person decided it was imperative that the same number of car companies, and banks that we once had must be the same number of car companies and banks we will always have.

Mark M #38,

Calling the cause of Crash 2008 a “housing bubble” is an excellent idea. That way, we can easily shift the blame to greedy lenders and greedy flippers, and let our people escape who were responsible for fraud, failed social policies, and neglected oversight.

Your next good idea is to blame the “housing bubble” on the creation and trade of tranches among investment houses, facilitated by Republican’s de-regulation of securities. That’s a perfect counter ploy for the our over-regulation of lending. And let’s adopt your position, too, that the tranches were rated assets based on unrated assets, and never on rated bonds. And let’s blame tranching on the first tier lenders, and not tell people that lenders only created mortgage bonds.

Let’s tell everyone that, as you also say, the bad loans were insignificant as a percentage of mortgages or defaults, and a tiny fraction of the many, many flippers and evil banks. This way people might assume that the mortgage bonds that lenders sold were mixtures of good ones and bad ones! This way, the people are not likely to figure out that the bad mortgage bonds only contained bad mortgages, let’s call them, as you say, the subprime crap assets.

And then they might not figure out that these bad mortgage bonds, along with the good ones, were divided, tranched, and leveraged 20 and more times, leading to a 64 times leverage in Credit Default Swaps and a 17 times leverage in Collateralized Debt Obligations for a total of $70 trillion. We don’t want the people to figure out that when from 11/07 to 10/08 the three CRAs downgraded AAA ratings about 20 levels - to junk - they brought down the whole financial market, the Free World’s economy, and the stock markets.

We might have a problem, though, in saying that a housing bubble caused the crash with explaining why the default rate of good mortgages stayed normal, and why the CRAs didn’t pull the rug out from under those ratings. And how do we explain that the mortgage houses not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, like the Independent Community Bank Association members, had no unusual default rates or subprime debt? We sure don’t want to admit that the Carter’s CRA of 1977 and Clinton’s Federal Regulations of 1995 that put teeth in the Act need to be repealed in order for mortgage lending to re-start.

Also we might have a problem if people figure out that the subprime crap assets were rated AAA! They might ask embarrassing questions, like weren’t the ratings fraudulent? And, how much money changed hands to procure those ratings? And when and why did the Credit Rating Agencies downgrade their ratings? And weren’t retracted AAA ratings at the core of the derivative problem, and not the trances themselves?

And what did the three CRAs tell Congress when asked under oath about their rating procedures and raters? And who in Congress made the big bucks from doing nothing about it all?

We sure don’t want to admit that the three CRAs were in cahoots with Fannie & Freddie, AIG, and others, funneling extra money to Dodd and Franks. And that under Dodd’s and Frank’s protection the three CRAs could with impunity refuse to answer questions when the Legislature tried to do oversight on Bush’s Credit Rating Reform Act of 2006. And that the three CRAs could get away with threatening Congress with a collapse of Fannie & Freddie asset ratings if they tried to enact Bush’s requested GSE regulations.

So we only need to patch a couple of holes in the housing bubble Crash theory, and the Republicans will get all the blame.

My economic stimulus plan: buying gold, silver, food, guns and ammo.

That way, when the SHTF, I at least have something to eat and protect my loved ones with.

Seriously, at what point do we tell our gov't to suck a rock and stop allowing them full access to the takeover of America...which has been going on since at least 1913?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNIU2KEz4g

P.S. I will not comply. Period.

(see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNIU2KEz4g)

Heh, looks like Compliance and I are going to be sharing a bunker at some point.

bingo #127,

I didn’t intend to put words in your mouth. I apologize for giving that impression.

I did want to say that looking well beyond the factors you listed in #86, consumer spending is still, and perhaps always, rational, as are the reactions of the other actors in capitalism – the producers and the financiers. This is directly opposite activist government.

I’m skeptical about your “not rational”, “well-established pattern in the study of consumer behavior” that relies on an immeasurable parameter like people’s feeling of wealth. No social study is necessary to understand that people are going to withhold spending for lots of reasons, many having nothing to do with a sense of wealth. A good example is evidence of falling prices, as today in homes and autos. Another is unavailable credit.

With regard to the business cycle, I only said that rational actions are found in that natural phenomenon. This was intended to be in contrast to the current situation where investment banking and the credit market have crashed due to hanky-panky with the asset rating system plus federal regulations mandating irresponsible lending.

My personal opinion is that this is a correction and we shouldn't do any artificial 'fixing'.

Anyways...I may skip reading future rest day commentaries because I come to this site for a fitness 'fix'. I know everyone has an opinion on the economy...I promise that what I wrote above is my first and last.

What tomorrow's WOD?
Crossfit is pure and so sound in its fundamentals. Love it.

#142 - Lisa - I am totally inspired!!! Loving seeing a 40 year-old chick rock the pull-ups!! Who woulda thought at 42 a major goal of mine would be to get a pull-up? Hella cool!

Re depressions:

Thoughtful analyses say that the US didn’t recover from the Great Depression until the late ’40s or early ’50s. We had high unemployment from 1930 to our build-up for World War II in ’39 and ’40, and that was in spite of heavy federal spending and make work programs. During the War, we had widespread price and wage control, and tough shortages in the civilian markets (fuel, tires, metals, coffee, sugar, fats, meats). We took over 12 million of the most able-bodied men out of the workplace on a yearly basis. That was between 8% and 9% of the entire population. And Federal spending was massive.

After the War, Federal spending and defense employment relatively vanished. And we dumped 11 million onto the market or into schools. But the economy took off! Later tax rates dropped, and the economy got even stronger.

What FDR did and Obama is doing for the economy are exactly the wrong things to do. Obama is leading us into Depression 2.0, and it will endure. World War II didn’t get us out of the last one; it just froze us in place economically. And to whatever extent the War might have helped the economy, there’s nothing on the horizon anything like an all out war effort. What’s going to get us out of the Obama Depression is an overhaul of the government in which spending, taxing, and government jobs are cut to the quick. That’s going to take a lot of angry voters, and one of those rare Republicans with sense.

Most of Obama’s anti-capitalist measures can be undone with the stroke of a pen. Not so entitlements, and especially the Obama National Health Service. We’re going to have a populace dependent on a typically lousy, socialized health care service, with a severe shortage of good doctors, deteriorating facilities, and high disease and mortality rates. This is going to be the hardest thing to undo.

Man, I kept reading posts and thinking I'm going to jump all over there comment and then read a couple more posts down and someone already beat me to it.

I miss the good ol'days when I could take my time to pop off.

But this is awesome. A lot of good debate today. I like it.

COME ON! Somebody say something liberal so I can jump on it! I want a turn. Ah rats. I'm gonna go take a nap.

Well, you know who's happy right now? Sam Webb, Chairman of the American Fascist--wait, I get them confused, I meant the one with ten times as much blood on its hands--American COMMUNIST Party: http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/1015/1/27/

I recommend you look at the bullet points near the end, since what he wants to see is pretty much what Obama seems to be planning.

Coincidence?

Rest day = rock climbing!!

Yay!!! its so much easier with fresh arms and legs!

I've decided to start using the term "Red Fascists" for Communists. There was no difference in degree of prejudice or eventual outcome between the Nazis genocidal treatment of the Jews, and the Bolshevik's treatment of anyone termed "bourgeois". Actually, one difference: the Red Fascists killed MANY more people, and where the Nazis only held power for 12 years, the Soviets held on for 70, and the Chinese and North Koreans are both around 60 and counting.

I will add, that when a Red Fascist uses the word "people", what he means is the people he and his fellow intellectuals mean to ride on the back of and tyrannize. There is no "people" fit, in their eyes, for anything but slavery.

Only Party members count.

I will add, that the best way, in my view, to understand the subtle horror of Red Fascism, is to imagine the worst large corporations you've ever worked in, with the worst boss. Then imagine that if you fail to impress that boss--who is rude, domineering, stupid, and violent--that you will literally go hungry, or wind up in jail or dead.

So year after dreary year, you have to play the same game. There is no changing jobs. There is no "outside". There is nowhere you can go, no one you can appeal to. If he likes to make cruel jokes at your expense, you have to go along with it. Since liquor is in short supply, you can't even drink your cares away. Then, one day, thankfully, you die.

That is Red Fascism. That is Cuba, today. That is North Korea, and that is China.

Does anyone seriously think their rhetoric about ending racism means they care at all about ending prejudice or generating a regime of sincere human rights? That is the American project, not that of the masterful propagandists of regimes consisting solely of slaves and masters.

Communism appeals to intellectuals because as a general rule they are morally and physically weak. They lack that inner power to live life like normal people, so they want to live it vicariously through the use and abuse of power.

This is why I have elsewhere called Leftism "Cultural Sadeism", and declared the Marquis de Sade the patron saint of Red Fascism.

Jeff #176:

I understand your post a little better now. Thanks.

While "irrational" may not be an accurate enough word, the typical, repeatable, and predictable consumer spending pattern that varies on a straight line parallel with the consumer confidence index cannot truly be characterized as "rational" in the truest sense of that word, either. (I have had to do lots of learning about consumer spending patterns over the last 5 years, an odd pursuit for a doctor to be sure). We are seeing this pattern extend from only truly discretionary spending to essentially ALL spending in a predictable manner as the consumer confidence index craters; this pattern does not correlate with the measured decrease in available consumer spending capital but is dramatically worse than would be predicted based on that metric.

Given the climate (pun intended), that may be rational after all, eh?

"Barbie", details there.

I'm going to look at a used concept2 model D rower. Does anyone know how to tell a good one from a bad one?

Jeff,

What is the right thing to do to fix this economy?

And don't say, "Get into a world war."

So what would Sarah Palin, or Bobby Jindal, or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck do? This economic crisis isn't going to be fixed with sarcasm and that seems to be all the conservative leaders have to offer these days. So let's hear some ideas we can actually implement. I'll say the first the first couple for you; "Tax cuts." (Already in the Obama stimulus plan)and "Kick all the people on welfare, social security, and medicaid, out into the street and let them figure it out."

But seriously, what should we do to fix the economic crisis?

#184 bingo

Perhaps factoring in the idea that consumer confidence (and therefor discretionary spending) was higher than it should have been for many years may help explain the massive swith to predictable spending.

28 m 175 71.5"
2:43, 2:48, 3:07, 3:55, 3:59

I think the whole economic crisis can be explained by looking at the incentives created by various government policies. It was definitely not the "free market" that failed in this case. The federal reserve (central planner for monetary policy) set interest rates way too low for way too long. As a result, money was cheap and people over-invested. People who had no business buying a home were suddenly able to afford them. And because of this influx of buyers entering the market, prices shot through the roof. If we abolished the federal reserve and allowed the market to set interest rates, we would not have allowed a bubble to grow so large.
The banks were acting rationally according to the incentives provided by the government. This "too big to fail" mentality is especially toxic. It allows banks to take enormous risks, because they know that the government will always be there to bail them out if things go wrong.
The stimulus package is a tried, tested and proven failure. It didn't work for us in the 1930's or the 1970's or for Japan in the 1980's. What most people don't consider is that the only way to fund the stimulus package is to take money from the companies/people that are being productive and redirecting it to companies/people that were not able to compete and earn this money in the free market. It's like they are trying to save a sinking ship by bailing out water and tossing it into a viable ship. To save one ship, they sink both. What they could have done, is remove all the valuable cargo from the sinking ship and then let it sink. This is what would happen if a "too big to fail" company were to fail. If an automaker failed, it's productive assets would be sold off to a viable company. It's not like the factories and machinery would vanish into thin air.
A lot of people, especially after the Olympics, believe that we need to look at China and incorporate aspects of their economic model. After all, they have had incredible growth rates for the past decade. They are kind of a hybrid of communism and capitalism, with a very heavy-handed totalitarian government. They are able to swiftly direct its resources to any national goal, such as putting on an impressive show at the Olympics, and do an amazing job at it. But there are two things that make this a bad idea. Number one is that China started out at a very low level. Things tend to improve quickly when you start with very little. In fitness, we say "any program will work for the first six weeks". And it's true. China had nowhere to go but up. Secondly, China's method of distributing capital is very arbitrary. It's not a meritocracy. Who you know and what political connections you have is more important than the quality of your business. As a result, China has had a very high rate of non-performing loans. Lastly, any country that censors it's people will never compete in the world economy, except at the very lowest level, which is manufacturing and assembling goods. Censorship always stifles creativity.
Let's not get too down on America. Every major country in the world is moving in the same direction we are. In the end, we'll still be in our dominant position. And hopefully at the end of the Obama presidency, we'll regain our sanity and elect someone that will bring our country back to the economic model that made it great in the first place.

Cookie

I am totally with you there. Before i discovered CF it would have NEVER occurred to me to even try a pull-up and now all i want to do is be able to do Fran unassisted sub 5 min!!!! I am glad i can inspire somebody because everyday all the chicks on here inspire me.

CFSB C1W2D2 DL 340x3
DL 265x20 PR
One Helen round, 2.55 (1.38, 0.55, 0.23), tag Janet's hand as she runs out the door and I take the kids. Paul

No rest for today since Monday was travel and I am able to workout at a CF affiliate in Tucson.

Warm-up:
3rds
Push-upx20
GHD Sit-upx20
Walking Lunch 100 ft (15lb DBs Iron Mike-ish)

For Time:

1000m Row (Damper@10)
7 Rounds
7xPush-Jerk 115#
21xPull-Up

Time = 32:17

Pull-ups are still the bane of my CF existance, but, with James' help, I finally broke the freaking code on my kip. I now look less like a fish dying on a hook, and am now actually doing a semi-respectable kip. Granted, the kip is a bit slow but the mechanics are there and I can definately feel the difference.

Since '07, I've lived a great CF experience. Like most of you - I've met some really cool, smart, no B.S., CrossFit loving, WOD crushing, Bad A$$, genuine people. I'm so proud to be apart of this community.

Thanks for the comments and support. You're too kind, you're pretty damn funny, and others resourceful. Good luck in the Qualifiers.

On another note: Coach and Lauren thanks for letting TonyB Photoshop that pic... Huge success.

I hope rest day was rest, for tomorrow "we're gonna try and take over da world"!

What FDR did and Obama is doing for the economy are exactly the wrong things to do. Obama is leading us into Depression 2.0, and it will endure. World War II didn’t get us out of the last one; it just froze us in place economically. And to whatever extent the War might have helped the economy, there’s nothing on the horizon anything like an all out war effort. What’s going to get us out of the Obama Depression is an overhaul of the government in which spending, taxing, and government jobs are cut to the quick. That’s going to take a lot of angry voters, and one of those rare Republicans with sense.

Most of Obama’s anti-capitalist measures can be undone with the stroke of a pen. Not so entitlements, and especially the Obama National Health Service. We’re going to have a populace dependent on a typically lousy, socialized health care service, with a severe shortage of good doctors, deteriorating facilities, and high disease and mortality rates. This is going to be the hardest thing to undo.

Comment #179 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at March 4, 2009 3:14 PM

Now I am not trying to stir anything up I am just curious. Was'nt FDR known for fixing the economy during the Depression???? I thoguht fixing the economy during the great depression was his big victory??? . And I thought that was the major reason he served 12 years in office. Maybe I misread my history books.

Also, If he only made it worse then why is he regarded as like the second or third best president ever???(behind Lincoln and Washington)

Again, inquiring minds would like to know.

Chuck, great 'lil vid!

I'll be rooting for you, Mike G., Ken, and all the other Atl area studs at the qualifier.

#195 andrew reed

One answer to all your questions: Propaganda

Yes, he's known for fixing the economy. But he didn't.

Notice that Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt were all statists. Wonder why the federally funded schools teach children that these are our best presidents?

I think it's important to not go too far in the direction of criticizing governments. They are, after all, necessary to some extent to preserve the rights of life, liberty and property (I go in cycles with Jefferson; he was a very complex man who accomplished much, and screwed a lot up; "pursuit of happiness", understood in a non-Aristotelian sense, counts in my view for the latter).

If you think about it, our military protects property rights by preventing an invasion. The interstate highway system--which we need, and which was long opposed by Jacksonian Democrats--was a good idea. The question, it seems to me, is one of balance.

Similar to the Zone diet, there is an optimal zone of government protection, but not intrusion. Our traditional balances of power between the Fed and States, between the branches of government, etc, are in my view a good aim. Right now, power is far, far too centralized.

We need to be careful. I often make sweeping statements, but I can change the focus when I need to, and make fine distinctions where necessary.

With respect to FDR, the myth is that where Hoover did nothing, he did something. I think somewhere in the back of his mind Obama has Roosevelt's famous "100 days".

Basically what he did, though, was pass a bunch of make-work projects that got people employed by the government. He inserted the Federal Government into every aspect of our lives, including with Social Security and Medicare. If memory serves, he had constitutional problems with a lot of his ideas, and tried to pack the court by increasing the number of justices by two. It failed, if memory serves.

He created a lot of energy, and he was an optimist by nature, so his fireside chats gave a lot of people confidence, if not jobs. But at heart he was a socialist, and many of his key staff members were closet Communists.

He expanded the power of the Federal Government to unprecedented proportions, and did little in the process to stem unemployment. You can't take taxpayer money and use it to create jobs forever. Obviously, money taken as taxes is now not available to create sustainable, non-governmental jobs.

And we nearly elected an overt socialist in 1938. Huey Long would have been very capable, in my understanding, of carrying the national election, had he not been shot. As it was, he pushed the whole political realm to the left, as I would argue Obama has done.

The single worst thing we did was the Smoot Hawley Tariff, as it led to the global meltdown that, among other things, revived Hitler's political life. The best thing we did, in my view, was the FDIC. Both were Republican initiatives.

But in the final analysis, I can't see any firm data showing that Roosevelt's interventions had any short term effects on the actual economic problems, and it is abundantly clear over half a century later that his projects had PROFOUND effects on the power of the Federal Goverment, and by extension political life as a whole in America.

Make that 1936. I will add Roosevelt was elected 4 times, and died shortly after beginning his fourth term. That's how we got Harry Truman. Like Teddy Roosevelt, he scared a lot of people, as he wasn't supposed to actually BE President.

The most salient economic commentary I ever saw involved Paula Poundstone, 6 economists and the teacup ride at Disney World. The gist of it was: load each economist into his own car and start the ride, then stop the ride and whoever is close to the camera gets to give their soundbite.

The problem with the soft sciences like economics, sociology and psychology is that you have a statistically supported opinion, and not much more. Sure Glassman's essay has weight, but so do the 75 people that are supporting Obama's plan.

Somebody up in the early twenties said, "More WOD, less GOP," and was countered with a response of rest day is to activate your mind (or some such thing). I agree but wouldn't mind seeing a forum that supports both sides of the argument. Why? For the same reason that I read multiple books about diet, and health, and philosophy. I think of it as brain training across broad opinion and political domains.

So great article, but let's also see the other side of the aisle. The articles exist.

Made up Barbara today.
3:03
3:14
3:44
3:54
3:59

Brutal. Anchored situps with 85# dumbbells. Cant wait for tomorrow.

WOD compliments of Crossfit Affliction, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Thank you!

Warm-up:
3 Rounds:
10 pull-ups
10 squats
10 push-up
10 supermans

WOD:
As many rounds as possible in 30 min:
10 Box Jumps (I used a bench b/c no box was available to use)
10 reps 115 pound Push Press
400-meter run

I did 9 complete rounds plus the 10 jumps of Round 10

Post Workout: 50 squat cleans with 20-pound medicine ball

DL workout (090302) today:
Warm up:
45# x 15
135 x 10
185 x 5
225 x 3

Workout:
235#
245#
255# (old PR)
265#
275#
285#
295#
300# - PR! Had to go for it because I was so close in round 7.

Chuck, will you marry me???

Seriously, very impressive.

Victor Smith:

The article posted is nothing more than the serve, just like in tennis. Nothing prevents you from sharing "the other side".

Post 'em yourself and let's have at 'em. That's how we play...those are the rules of engagement.

Computer crashed a couple days ago so playing catch up with my posts.

Did "Barbara" last night. Second time meeting her this way...
Scaled to:
10 Pull Ups - band assisted vs jumping last time
15 Push Ups - all on toes, but rounds 4&5
broken reps
20 Sit Ups - Abmat anchored - unbroken
25 Squats - unbroken

2:26 Previous 3:06
2:29 3:08
2:58 3:24
3:18 3:31
3:20 3:13

2:09 faster than last time. Now if I could only kip.......

This morning did the DL WOD - as Rx'd

135-155-165-170(PR)-175(PR)-180(F)Bar wouldn't even budge off the floor -180(F)Tried mixed grip. Bar came up a few inches. Next time.

Extra credit: 21-15-9
Jump Rope - still trying for DU's - got 2(PR)!!
Box Jumps - 14"

Hope everyone else had a great rest day!

F58/140/5"2"(almost)

I was reading goat, and barry cooper's last comments and thinking about presidents, thinking about who my favorite president is. after a bit of thinking I have decided that William Henry Harrison is my favorite. He did the least amount of damage to the rights of the citizens of the usa. He did this mostly because he wasn't in office long enough to muck anything up.

Mike, #207, laughing ... wryly.

#195 Andrew Reed - are you for real? Chain yanking is ok, just trying to figure it out.

Paul

22 / M / 5'9" / 135lb

I did Deadlift 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 today:

170-175-180-185PR-190PR-195PR-200PR

Sweet. 20lbs over my last CfT deadlift.

Marshall #187,

The right things to do to fix the economy are beyond America's reach because of who controls the Federal government and the current mode of the public. None of your Republican candidates has revealed a reasonable understanding of the economics behind the 2008 Crash, and some have revealed too much political fundamentalism as opposed to reason.

What needs to be done are the following:

1. Abandon stimulus spending. Repeal what has been done as far as that is possible, and refrain from added spending programs. Minimize federal spending to avoid the dual economic hits of added taxes and added borrowing, and ultimate inflation.

2. Abandon all plans to limit carbon emissions, and abandon research on CO2 reductions. This effort is technically meaningless to global temperatures, counter productive to the environment, crippling to industry, and a pure waste. Reduce reliance on foreign oil by expanding domestic high yield energy development and exploitation, to cover oil, coal, and nuclear energy.

3. Abandon all plans to expand federal health care. The project is destructive to health services and extremely expensive. It is destructive of a major industry.

4. Reduce the federal budget to a level significantly below the previous year. This is to reduce the economic strain cause by taxing and borrowing by a manageable degree.

5. Repeal the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. This Act forces lenders to make bad loans, and is a lethal impediment to restarting healthy mortgage lending.

6. Charge the executives of the three Credit Rating Agencies with fraud, bribery, conspiracy, and racketeering. Work out a plea agreement for reduced sentences in exchange for the executives repairing the asset rating system to restore confidence in it and to provide sound ratings to financial instruments, all transparent to the public. The objectives include restoring financial assets and viability to financial institutions as much as possible.

7. Abandon intervention in failing corporations. Capitalism is the only source of economic strength, the only hope, and it includes businesses maximizing their viability and wealth in a life struggle against bankruptcy. The reality of the threat must not be weakened.

zzzzzzz

You guys are killing me with your fear of New World Order. I haven't seen conspircy theorists like this except in Berkeley.

Barry,

You wrote: "Communism appeals to intellectuals because as a general rule they are morally and physically weak. They lack that inner power to live life like normal people, so they want to live it vicariously through the use and abuse of power."

Now, as a self-identifying "intellectual" I'll admit that my "complicated" morality seems to be lamentably fanciful to some people. And I'll also admit I am physically useless for any task requiring more than 90 seconds of sustained effort or which demands me to keep my eyes open. However, I must draw the line when you castigate my intellectual brothers and sisters as "communists". No intellectual who could read French has been a communist since the seventh decade of the last century, and well really, if you can't read French you're not really an intellectual are you. Barry, you've gone too far, and might actually have hurt my feelings, as well as those of my partner, (who is of course a beautiful beluga-brained intellectual who toots Melville in her sleep and coughs Stravinsky on the bus), if we were not too busy gloating over our successes (attained, of course, with scandalous ease). What's that honey? today we're heaping scorn on other people's successes? oh yes, we gloated yesterday.

Prole in '16.

*sigh*

Yet another attempt at coach to pimp the rest of Glassman brood. Here is a thought, stick to what you know. That would be talking about excercise.

To take this article seriously is akin to taking the advice on excercise from a politicians.

Well, Jack, that was intelligent........not. I normally don't pick on people's grammar, but since we're stooping low here, "Yet another attempt AT coach to pimp...." You mean another attempt BY Coach, right? I mean, if you're going to hurl ad hominems, at least take the time to say it in English.

Prole, I admire the humor, if not the politics.

Joe P - I don't think these are conspiracy theories - our new president has been quite open about what he's doing and I don't think anyone sees shadows skulking about. We just see very bad economic policy and it's not sneaking up onus. It's being rammed down our throats and millions of gullible sheeple are gulping it raw because that's easier than the unpleasant alternative of self-reliance and independence from Uncle Sam's teat.

A few people have talked about WWII as the factor that pulled the US out of the great depression. It's true, but there's a critical factor that a lot of people overlook in the analysis.

What drove the recovery was not so much the recruitment of a large part of the male work force, but instead two lesser known factors:
1. It took FDR's focus away from the economy, and onto something else. The cessation of the tinkering and experimentation allowed capital to come back to the market as it could make more rational expectations of the future

2. Much of the war buildup in '39 and '40 was not the buildup of US forces, but instead of British forces. For the entire length of the war, Britain depended on the US to be its armourer. This amounted to a massive injection of foreign capital into the US. It also bankrupted Britain- witness the collapse of the Empire following the war.

As a result, the wags who suggest world war to end the current slowdown miss the point. While the first element might be consistent with the depression, the second would almost certainly not be the case.

Man, I miss these discussions...

Prole,

I am not saying all intellectuals are Communists. Functionally, I am an intellectual. I am not, however, someone who is incapable of imagining the real world consequences of my "chic" ideas. Those are the people I am targeting, and they are very much still with us, talking up the virtues of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Hugo Chavez.

Let's take one example, with a follow up. A massive famine overtook much of Russia in 1891. Alone among intellectuals at that time, Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov (aka Lenin) opposed relief. He not only didn't help, he opposed all efforts to offer it. As one of his friends later recalled, and I quote "Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov had the courage to come out and say openly that famine would have numerous postitive results, particularly in the appearance of a new industrical proletariat, which would take over from the bourgeoisie. Famine, he explained, in destroying the outdated peasant economy would bring about the next stage more rapidly, and usher in socialism, that stage that necessarily follows capitalism. Famine would also destroy faith not only in the Tsar, but in God, too."

So the deaths of some 500,000 people were "useful" to Lenin. When he took power, he engineered, directly and indirectly, hundreds of thousands of more deaths.

This, of course, was to save them. I am not making that up. His efforts, we were all told, had to do with bettering the lot of "the people". But, as I said, there are no "people". There never were. There is, and always will be for Communists and their fellow travellers, the Party--as embodied in an oppressive, autocratic State, and everyone else, who lives as a slave at their whims.

This is what Communism is.

Last week, I went to a local pub I hadn't been in before, and they had pictures--large, wall sized pictures--of Marx, Lenin, Mao, and others. It's a trendy little place, and no doubt they think it's chic. It's countercultural, vaguely subversive--just the thing to piss the "suits" off.

But it is quite literally as if they had put pictures up of Hitler, Goebbels, Goerring, Himmler, and for good measure a small picture of Dr. Mengele.

PEOPLE DON'T GET THIS.

People have this vague notion of the State as a mother. George Lakoff pioneered this notion, to counteract the--to him--unpleasant notion of the State as a father.

In actuality, Obama seems to want the State to be BOTH our father and mother. His vision, which he can't achieve in the short term, but to which all his actions point, is quite literally the de facto cessation of the functional independence of the private sector, and the individual liberty associated with it.

Like Lenin, a crisis--partially manufactured, as with Lenin--helps him do things he would have wanted to do structurally anyway. By any means necessary, he wants the growth of the State, and the dependence of as many as possible on it.

For the person talking conspiracy theories, look at your paycheck, if you work. Do you see FICA? That's money they are taking that you will never see. You have been programmed to accept as normal what would have raised an open, armed rebellion 200 years ago.

More Brad DeLong to slap around those who feel that deficit spending does nothing to spur production...

http://posterous.com/getfile/files.posterous.com/braddelong/N5biSbdhngW9LmXa5ehDakzXsX9TxSx1iozAe8G9aHYorWEhB18FOL24UEzI/20090304_deficit_spending.pdf

"I still cannot believe that I am really here, debating this, in 2009. We are here because Professor Michele Boldrin of Washington
University in St. Louis signed his name and his authority as a learned and trained economist to the Cato Institute’s proposition that:

'It is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today…'

"I cannot believe I am here debating this because Professor Boldrin’s claim that deficit spending does not spur employment and production is
false. It is not only false, there is no good reason to believe it might be true. It is not only false, it has been widely known to be false in the community of professional economists for 75 years."

And he goes on to mention the "we-must-suffer caucus", or what he calls the "Karl Marx-Herbert Hoover-Friedrich Hayek axis".

Here's what Herbert Hoover had to say about the genesis of his(disastrous) policies:

"the 'leave [the economy] alone liquidationists' headed by [my] Secretary of the Treasury Mellon, who felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: 'Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.' He insisted that, when the people get a [bubble] brainstorm, the only way to get it out of their blood is to let it collapse. He held that even a panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: 'It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people'..."

Milton Friedman (no leftist, he) rejected this kind of policy as dangerous nonsense. So why, DeLong asks, are we back debating this same crap in 2009?

"I think for the answer we have to go to the philosopher George Santayana, and his dictum that those who do not remember their history are doomed
to repeat it—and unfortunately those of us who do remember their history are doomed to repeat it with them. Milton Friedman rejected the view that
a bubble must be followed by a depression, and that attempts to cure the post-bubble depression simply make matters worse. Many people have held to this view in the past: Karl Marx, Herbert Hoover, and Friedrich Hayek being the most prominent among them. But I had thought until this
year that Milton Friedman and his reformulation of the quantity theory of money had turned the right wing of the economics profession away from
this point of view. Yet now here I find Professor Boldrin a card-carrying member of the
Marx-Hoover-Hayek axis. Milton Friedman’s turn away from it has had no influence on him. And I really do think this is the result of an ignorance
of history—I don’t think Professor Boldrin knows the reasons why or indeed that Milton Friedman made this turn."

So, what he is saying is "the science is settled?" Other than his effort to denigrate the ideas of Hayek by linking them with Marx (who did talk about business cycles, but who failed entirely to realize that information--which is not finite--would become capital), what concrete, debatable point did he make? That we shouldn't have to have this debate? Is that a point, or a rhetorical trick to avoid an engagement he is not able or willing to commit to?

Do we, or do we not have to pay back money we borrow? This is really a yes or no sort of question. Hell, let's cheat: the answer is YES.

Now, for the tricky part, where does the money come from to pay it back?

The real question is, "what was the result of Hoover's actions?"

Well, I suppose that should be, "what WERE the resultS of Hoover's actions?"

Dale,

As far as my politics go, I'm waiting for a Green/Christian/Libertarian candidate to run in my local riding.

Barry,

Of course Lenin, Stalin and Mao belong in the company of Hitler and Pol Pot.

And like Mandeville and Hume I think that greed, pride and ambition are likely necessary for the sort of productivity and economic well-being we have had in the west. Obama's big plans scare me because they are so big, because if the wager fails the consequences are...unkown.

I don't think he's a communist because he's a big spender and a quasi-nationalizer. You might take his plans to their "logical extension" and conclude that he is at bottom a statist collectivist. But this won't be of much use beyond making us aware that, if taken to their logical extension, these measures could result in the US becoming a communist state. In practice, people and governments rarely act at "logical extreme". And because we rarely know what the world would look like, what circumstances will exist, as we approach act at the logical extremes of policy, it is difficult to say whether things will behave as our conception of the "logical extreme" dictates they should. It is perfectly possible to combine so-called contradictory "systems" in practice, with the chosen arrangement being a more or less precarious balance between two or more systems. We like it when things are clearly in the more or less free, more or less safe, more or less prosperous middle (at least I do), and get nervous when things approach the wings.

I think Obama needs to be kept in the middle despite the circumstances (like Bush needed to be kept to the middle on safety/liberty despite the circumstances). But, if you call Obama (or his supporters) communists, you foster a discourse of extremes, pushing them and you into dangerous rhetorical, and then policy positions form which you will have great difficulty recovering. I don't think the people who support him want collectivization and the spectre of its attendant evils. I think most of them want what you want, relative prosperity and safety. You can scare them by saying they're on step 7 of 20 toward Stalinism, but you might be better to say: step 7 won't get you where you want to go (prosperous and safe), let's take it back to 3 or 2.

Can anyone recommend a book on the Great Depression?

The big gaffe on the part of the Republicans following the Crash in 1929 was the Smoot Hawley Tariff. Basically it raised protective trade barriers to, supposedly, protect American jobs, but which had the effect of collapsing foreign economies, which ruined our export business, which led to even more economic malaise.

To the point, the collapse in China does not do us any good. True, we have a trade imbalance, but that does not mean that we don't make a LOT of money there. We just consume more here. We are, after all, a larger economy, so that would be expected.

If Obama starts pursuing protectionism--and he seems to have made a few nods in that direction--he might--incredibly--be able to COMBINE the worst of both the 1930's Republicans and Democrats.

Change indeed.

I can't resist adding, that the ONLY sustainable way for people to support themselves is jobs or business ownership. That's it. State employees are a necessary evil, but at their best all they do is create the conditions for other people to make money. You can't pay people forever without revenue, and real revenue can only come from real money, which is generated in the private sector.

Thus, if we take a common sense approach, we should always start with the beginning in mind (Steven Covey, by the way, owes everything to me), and look at our desired end state: full employment and a booming economy. This means successful, profitable businesses in a position to make money and keep reinvesting it.

Does the Stimulus work in that direction? To the extent of tax cuts, possibly, but the very people to whom tax cuts would ordinarily appeal do not trust Obama. They also know that fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the Federal Government will eventually have to act as a massive break on any momentum they may achieve. Again, this is why they don't trust him long term. Short term, he is going to soak them for everything they got, if he can get away with it.

Thus, even if the logic of the Stimulus were sound--which it isn't--you would still have the problem of trust, which Obama can't solve by any way other than acting like a responsible moderate, which he doesn't appear to be.

Make that "Start with the END in mind". OK, maybe Steven doesn't owe me anything.

#223- Prole: try reading "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes. It's out in paperback now. Introduces you to all of the key personalities involved.

Prole,

It's not that I'm saying Obama is a Communist. I don't know. What I'm saying is that in the same way moral relativism is really moral ambivalence, leftism is really a soggy mess which has never really rejected the stated INTENT of Lenin, or the reality as it exists today in China. But the historical reality is the Soviet Union progressed exactly as Lenin intended.

And the current historical fact is that the face of the most prolific mass murderer in human history is displayed prominently to this day throughout China.

As we saw on the thread on a unifed Europe, many environmentalists are talking openly even today about the subversion of democracy, human rights, and capitalism in the name of the new oppressed class: Nature. Nobody can take seriously talk about "workers" any more so all they have left as a vehicle for the abuse of power is nature.

These are not idle concerns we are discussing about totalitarian impulses on the part of the Left.

They would not be idle concerns under any circumstances.

Prole - I like your post (#223). A point it is sometimes easy to miss. I think most Americans, college graduates and all, can probably not talk very confidently about the logical conclusions of whatever political positions they hold. Why is it, for example, that Boston Irish Catholics overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, the pro-choice party? Are they not Catholic enough (be careful, my ex-in-laws are among that demographic). My own view is that it largely historical: the Irish vote for Dems because that's what they've always done and (I'm also guessing here) because they separate their religion from their politics. Cognitive dissonance, if you will.

But we should also be honest that the extremes of both parties are the ones who drive the agenda and the "compromise" we all get is frequently a product of the moderates' compromises with the fruitbats in their own parties. We have an obligation, therefore, to keep our eyes trained on the fruitbats. Barry is an ardent devotee of fruitbats on the Left. I like having him around even when he's being extreme or vitriolic - he's like a Carbon Monoxide detector for me (love ya, B-Coop). Or maybe, under the new regime, he should be a Carbon DI-oxide detector.

Cheers, all.

Thanks, Dale, I think.

I've always said that just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.

As an example, I would encourage people to watch the first three minutes or so of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji-qdC5zYd4&eurl=http://www.jihadwatch.org/&feature=player_embedded

The UN is literally trying to pass BINDING resolutions making criticism of Islam a CRIME. They can kiss my lilly white ass. I'll put the freaking Danish cartoon on my bumper and start keeping a gun in my glovebox. I'll be DAMNED if these wife-beating totalitarian bastards are going to shrink my freedoms one inch.

Britain is already caving. They have already virtually agreed to a parallel Sharia court system, and just barred Geert Wilders from entering the country because some bearded prick in the House of Lords said it hurt his "feelings".

I tell you, there will be a MASSIVE backlash in this country if this bullshit keeps up. We have patience, but its not unlimited, and the Left can only seduce completely a small percentage of us. They just trick the rest.

Dale,

One other comment: bombast creates space. There is method in my madness, although I'm not always sure myself where one leaves off and the other picks up. I just kind of watch my fingers move, and am often surprised at what I see.

Well, I'm going to cancel my home internet since I'm a freaking moth and the internet is the flame that keeps burning up my time. I will still have other internet access, but this will reduce my posts considerably, which will gratify some, disappoint others, and pass entirely unnoticed by something well in excess of 99.999999999% of humanity.

I am sorry I did not see this before.

The piece is actually one of the better I have read on the issue from any source. I particularly like the line:

I would feel better about stimulus if Elmendorf were clamoring for permanent tax cuts and Feldstein for food stamps.

I think the piece goes a bit far in saying that the stimulus is almost certainly harmful. I think there is real reason to suppose that it could be helpful.

Given that current borrowing rates are very close to long term expectations for inflation, the government pays very little for the effort.

This may make sense immediately but I will go into it if it does not: The interest payment is the effective cost of loan to an infinitely lived institution. The principle is almost irrelevant.

Moreover, I think the breakdown in the economics community is in large part over whether or not the circumstances warrant extraordinary action.

I think Paul Krugman if cornered would admit government spending on any scale that is likely to be achieved is not going to snap the recession if it is as severe as many of us perceive.

That having been said I do think it is possible to beat back any level of recession with a powerful enough stimulus.

In practice almost all of it would have to be in temporary tax cuts, unless you really want to pay people to do meaningless work. It is not realistic to think the government could find enough projects that pass cost-benefit analysis in a short enough period of time.

I half jokingly said when stimulus talk first began that if you really wanted to knock this recession on its ass, you could just suspend the payroll tax for 18 months.

I now wonder if we had been willing to hit the real economy hard and fast, if we couldn't have taken significantly more risk in letting the financial markets play themselves out.

Barry-
Any chance you'll reconsider? We like you. You would be sorely missed.
-Karen

Oh, I'm not quitting. I'll just be posting less. Look at all the verbiage I've spilled today. How can anyone be productive writing that much?

My hope, in any event, is to get paid at some point for my writing. That is the focus that is not being well served by my constant typing here.

It is IMMENSELY useful, but still time consuming. We have a TON of highly disciplined people here. I'm not one of them. I am in constant motion, but the only way I get things done is in circles. I've learned to live with it--and actually make it productive--but I need to cut off one major node of my circuit.

I'd be happy as a clam at high tide to spend my days working out in the AM, pontificating all day, and drinking in bars in the evenings, but that hope is a lot like that of the kids whose parents hope they will grow up to be professional video game players. I suppose it can be done, but not often, and not likely by me.

I called the cable company, but it will take 10 days or so. After that, I'll have to be at work, or affecting disaffection in black at a Starbucks somewhere. Oh, the ennui, the BURDEN of living. Sigh. Another mocha grande, with whipped cream please. Where IS that "L'etre et le Neant" I was pretending I could read? Perhaps it is gone.

for the record:
I've been doing CF for about 1.5 months and have seen a decent increase in muscle mass. Translated: even people who see me everyday say, "damn you are getting bigger." I only do CF 3-4 days/week in between my run and swim. and the way I train the later are supposed to lean body mass. these cats must know a thing or two about exercise.
-jackson

Day 26

Rest

Paul, I'm not being deliberately provocative here, but above, you posted at #31:

"If you don't like it [politics or the political slant of the articles], the gracious thing to do is stay the frock away."

With the greatest of respect, this site is hosted by self-professed contrarian libertarians. So while being rude is not to be encouraged, what's wrong with someone objecting to the political stuff or the content of the articles? Consider:
a) this is a fitness site but there's politics on it 25% of the time. This is at best, confusing. It is not even mentioned in the FAQs;
b) the articles are all from one side of the spectrum - surely worthy of the odd comment?;
c) this is a big community, not a fan club for the hosts. If I take issue with something here and I express it politely, what's the problem? There's a "ganging up" element to all of these posts about "what Rest Day is supposed to be about" that I just don't like. Isn't Rest Day a collaborative thing where views can be shared? What is so wrong with challenging perceived ground rules?

You go on to say that Rest Day is really about "Randomized discussions, to demonstrate and improve functional analytical abilty and articulation of same, executed at a high intensity...."

This is my chief gripe. "Randomized" how, exactly? I have lost count of the number of times I've been steered towards an article sceptical of global warming theory, or been sent to read some of Krauthammer's bile, or some pointy nonsense from "the Von Mises Institute". This is most certainly NOT randomized. It's actually powerful dissemination of political ideas from one side of the political spectrum. The improvements in rhetorical capability by those who participate is a major - and perhaps the major - result. No doubt. But there is another more subtle by-product, which is the pushing of an agenda. Minds are being changed and ideas promulgated to a captive audience. Why does it bother me? Because it's not up front. If you're a big time libertarian anti-AGW groupie, then great. But set this out on your site. It's the decent thing to do. I'm logging on here for a year and honestly cannot recall one intelligent "left wing" or "pro-global warming" article.

You think you all like freedoms, but you all chip in when someone disagrees on these precious ground rules. The Sacred Cow of Rest Day Discussion and Article Selection. Bingo above (hello, Bingo and respect) even refers to the articles as "the serve" in an intellectual game. I'm calling bs. It's steering, changing, directing and it's not up front. You want truly randomized intellectual training, try the odd pull up with your thruster. Throw in an intelligent defence of "AGW". Throw in someone from the other side to Krauthammer. But that won't happen, because this isn't random. Which is fine. But I object to:

a) people pretending it's neutral or random; and
b) people shouting down others who have a problem with this and telling them to just stay away.

Well, I got that all off my chest. No intention to be mean or anything other than polite here and the beers on me if any of us ever meet up.

Barry, no longer shall we be able to bear witness to your epic one-man crusade to expose the evils of Leftism? If true I'm going out now to buy canned goods and a shotgun. Those "wife-beating totalitarian bastards" (wow - you're going out with a bang!) will rejoice and may even make this a Feast Day... Seriously - good luck with the writing if you get the chance to concentrate - you have a sharp mind and a lot of knowledge, even if we disagree on everything.

Peace.

Chuck..I mean this in the most respectful way: that photo is a nice piece of eye candy!

Disclaimer: to my husband, no one is as a good a piece of eye candy as you!!

Chuck -

I have to agree with Fit Mom! Looking GOOOOOD Chuck!

#237 J1

I diagree with a couple of things you've said. I do that a lot.

#1
>>Minds are being changed and ideas promulgated to a captive audience.

Maybe it's different for others, but I was not forced to log on and read these posts. I don't think anyone here is "captive". And if minds are being changed, it's not by force but by powerful arguments, read by free choice. I don't see how anyone could have a moral objection to that.

#2
>>I'm calling bs. It's steering, changing, directing and it's not up front. You want truly randomized intellectual training, try the odd pull up with your thruster. Throw in an intelligent defence of "AGW". Throw in someone from the other side to Krauthammer. But that won't happen, because this isn't random.

Apparently, YOU are the other side. Link me to an intelligent defence of "AGW". Link me to someone fromt he other side to Krauthammer. Chastise me for using "link" as a verb.

Truly, if I weren't so damned contrarian, I'd probably call myself a libertarian. It's not a populous or popular philosophy, and I've had to carry it with me into places where it is definitely unwelcome. I don't count that as unfair, as b.s., as "wrong" (whatever the Hell that means). Simply put, you can't always play on the home field.

Hey, otherwise, I'm behind you all the way. I think it's crap when someone who disagrees with the majority in an open discussion is told to bugger off. For what it's worth, I say keep on posting.

J1: I'm not going out. I'm just reducing available outlets for my (mostly beneficial) OCD.

As far as the Rest Days, if you frame it as--"here's an interesting idea I mostly agree with, what do you think?"--you can see the fallacy.

On the Message Board we have a long thread started by someone who has since been bounced for reasons I don't know, but that started out as a claim that the military is moving away from CrossFit.

In the course of the thread, I think the point has been made well that that claim does not appear to be accurate, and on the contrary, it appears that the military, in general, is moving TOWARDS CrossFit.

From a lemon has come lemonade. Of course, that's how you make lemonade.

If you object to the "prejudice" of the articles, then fight and fight hard. Argue your point of view until we see that a one-sided, party line approach is not just unhelpful, but wrong.

The whole value of Rest Day is in asking people the simple question: why do you believe what you do? If you can't answer it, then you are helpless in a competition of ideas.

If you can answer it well, though, not only can you block moves for further consolidation of conservative/libertarian ideas, but you can actually move the whole debate in another direction.

Thus, even if the impetus of the piece posted is conservative, or otherwise distasteful to you, I would submit that you still have an opportunity to achieve precisely the OPPOSITE outcome as that for which the posted article argued.

In fact, going through that process would strengthen not just your own convictions, but your capacity to argue them in an agonistic environment.

With respect to my own views, I started out as moderate (Joe Lieberman-esque) Democrat, and have moved steadily to the right as I have realized that none of the ideas of the Democratic Party hold water. None of them work to increase human freedom, human rights, or prosperity for anyone but members of the government. Quite literally, I can't argue any of them and expect to win, even though I'm a good debater.

I am capable of seeing good points in Harry Truman and John Kennedy. Even Bill Clinton. I can see flaws in Republicans like Reagan and George H.W. Bush. But the current round of Democrats have lost their moral compasses completely, in my view, and thus have nothing to offer whatsoever that any rational American who actually understood the deal being offered, would accept.

J1 #327:

Hello right back! My personal view remains the same: the topic is the serve. Kinda like tennis. If your "opponent" always serves from the same side does that mean you cannot return serve? The fact that the topics/posts/links are not random is irrelevant.

Return serve. It's as easy as that. Just be prepared to volley.

:=)

If anyone thinks like Kevin #160 that a bull market is on the way, take a deep breath.

A talking head was just on the TV telling a panel that the market is sending Obama a message. That seems to be the conventional wisdom. Anthropomorphize the market so whichever side you’re on, it can relay your personal message to the leader.

The market is reacting to Obama’s attack on capitalism, a plan to cripple business. He has a plan that takes away every access to capital for American business.

If you’re a small company, an S corp, and you accumulate some capital to introduce a new product or to expand, Obama is first going to whack it with a heavy tax under his top 2% rule.

If you’re a large business, perhaps you might have sold some equity to raise capital. That’s gone with the Obama-Bush stock market. Obama is messing with a powerful positive feedback in the equity markets. The market is going down because the market is going down. If prices are dropping, sell. It’s rational.

If you’re a business, you might have mortgaged your personal or business property to raise some investment capital. But that’s every bit as hard as selling equity. Besides, the lenders are not about to re-enter the mortgage business when the law requiring lenders to make 10% bad loans is still on the books. Obama has no plans to fix that; he doesn’t even talk about it.

If you had plans to borrow some capital, good luck finding a lender. The lenders are rare because bank assets are in the toilet, thanks to a collapse in the asset rating system. Obama gives no sign that he’s even aware that that happened. If he does, he’s protecting the Democrats who were on the take to look the other way while the shenanigans were underway.

Now if the wrecking of capital is not enough, Obama has another plan for business. He’s going to institute cap and trade to restrict CO2 emissions. If your business uses carbon based fuels, you’re going to be hit directly with the carbon tax. If your business uses electricity, your electric bill is going to be sharply up (look for it to double quickly). This is the indirect carbon tax. It comes about because the US generates electricity extensively from all types of carbon fuels, thanks to the nonsense over the nukes. The carbon tax on electricity generation will be a carbon tax passed on to businesses along with everyone else. Obama is in favor of reducing reliance on foreign oil, but he’s against the rational alternative: increasing domestic production on oil, coal, gas, and nuclear power. Alternative fuels are mostly hot air.

And taxes on business will surely go up under Obama. He has yet to announce how he plans to finance his national health care system. Just in the last hour, I heard Obama say how the greatest threat to American business were the costs of health care. He went on to say something incompetent about the rate of business bankruptcies, and the talking heads chased after that like a cat after a string. Health care costs to business are not the issue, and not even much of a threat.

The outlook for business is worse than immediately after 1929. The greatest threat to American business is Barack Hussein Obama II. The greatest threat to the American way of life, to our role as defender of liberty and provider of charity all around the world, and against the evils of Islamic terrorism is Barack Hussein Obama II.

No telling how much damage one man can cause in four years! He is trashing the wealth of the nation right down to the individual level. So far, your 401K has been halved, and about 25% of your home value has been lost. There’s a 25% chance your job will be on the line, your taxes are going to go up, and inflation is just over the horizon.

Obama is not taxing our children and our children’s. That’s another popular myth recently repeated by the Republican of the Future, Bobby Jindal. It's a myth because Obama’s massive debts, like the already massive debt, are never paid off. When treasuries mature we always replace them with new issues. We pay carrying charges on the new debt from day one, and pay it forever. When Obama forces another trillion dollars or two onto the bond auction, the interest on the debt will rise, and this will look just like inflation. The more we borrow the more interest we pay, and higher yet goes the interest rate. The Consumer Price Index is a surrogate for the accumulated interest on, say, 10 year treasuries. This is another third rail, positive feedback that Obama is playing with. If his head had a zipper, he’d take his brain out and play with it.

We are bankrupt as a nation when we can no longer pay the interest on the debt. That is not out of the question within Obama’s term. As the crisis looms, Obama will have to institute price and wage controls, the inevitable result of socialism. This leads to shortages, just like we ran out of 39 cent gasoline because of Nixon’s price controls. The growth of interest payments can lead to default on our debts, a whole new currency, and unbelievable misery.

All this is stock market tea leaves. This is what the Dow is saying. We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and Obama is making the fear a most palpable reality.

Don’t look for the business cycle to come around any time soon to produce a bull market.

Cheerio.

Jeff,

Let me say firstly that I'm sure you know much more than I do about the markets, the financial system and many other economic institutions. Given this, my response to your comment, as usual will focus on characterization.

1) You wrote: "The greatest threat to American business is Barack Hussein Obama II. The greatest threat to the American way of life, to our role as defender of liberty and provider of charity all around the world, and against the evils of Islamic terrorism is Barack Hussein Obama II.... No telling how much damage one man can cause in four years! "

Please, let us think all the way back to November 2008 - Obama did not set fire to the Reichstag (Capitol). He won an election on a platform of big "change", big spending, tax increases for some and tax cuts for others. He is doing some of those things now. The American people asked for this (or something like it). Obama has democratic legitimacy, and is neither Zimbabe's saboteur from the top nor Orwell's boogie man from everywhere (Goldstein). To say "he [Obama] is the greatest threat to the American way of life" misses the point that perhaps the majority of the American people want "the American way of life" to change (for a time and to a degree). When they voted for him these problems were on the table. They voted for him to handle them.

Now, as always, you mention specific policies with which you disagree and help to pull apart widely held misconceptions.

My point is that "the right" (loosely) is going to have to do more than attack Obama (hopefully), it is going to have to persuade the public that "the right's" constellation of ideas can better deliver than "the left's" (loosely) since it is "the left's" constellation of ideas that the Obama administration, congress and a large percentage (majority?) of the public currently favour.

2) "If his head had a zipper, he’d take his brain out and play with it."

If that is your phrase, I must commend you. No doubt Obama's "playful" attitude would have impressed the better among his school-teachers, but I too am a little concerned about just how much he is willing to play with. There is always "playing" (manipulating, "engineering" as they used to call it). The most basic legal code based on property rights and contractual obligations "engineers" or encourages certain economic and social relationships (none of these are "natural"). The playing is not the problem, it's the extent, the direction, the success. How do we determine when enough is enough, or more in line with the train of your post, when too much is too much? Of course to me, playing with 5k seems grand, let alone 2 trillion kabillion jillions.

3) "All this is stock market tea leaves. This is what the Dow is saying."

The people voted to take the seat of governance out of the stock market and to put it back in the congress (wisely or not). They do not trust (for now) the marketeers - those discredited priests who make daily their profitable self-fulfilling prophesies out of the entrails of the public's sacrificial bull.

Prole,

The people voted for an affirmative action candidate who in 3 years of campaigning made an art form of appearing to say something, but in reality offering only vague generalities in such a way that the viewer could fill in his or her own desires.

To the extent that he DID offer details, we are getting them. Jeff has not reviewed anything above which was not foreshadowed in Obama's campaign FOR THOSE WITH EYES TO SEE.

We have to understand that our educational system has been corrupted. Not by lack of money: we spend far more for far worse results than almost any other nation in the industrialized world. No, it has been corrupted by leftist ideologues who think they are saving the world because they are stupid. They don't teach economics; they don't teach history that matters; they don't teach ACTUAL critical thinking, but its bastard cousin Scientism; and they teach, above all, white guilt.

So we got a black guy in the White House--so what? Race shouldn't matter in either direction. Let those best qualified do the work, no matter what they look like, what their "orientation" is, what gender they are, or what side of the tracks they came from. That's fairness. Stupidity is basing important decisions--like who we elect to be President of the United States--on external factors like appearance, or ability to generate good rhetoric.

And as far as that goes, I have largely avoided watching Obama speak, but I watched his Inaugural--or, as much as I could take--and he isn't even that good a speaker. He is cocky, not confident, and trite, not bold in his language. I could program a computer to write his speeches.

In spite of all these things, though, I am confident. We NEED a trainwreck to wake up. I want us to go back to a nation of well educated, morally grounded, genuinely liberal, hard working individualists, who understand in their bones why our system is the best ever created for ensuring justice for all.

The only way this can happen is by a clear, unambiguous example of the logical consequence of the alternative being offered by the media, our educational institutions, and the Democratic Party. They won't be able to cover the stink on this one. They are in office, and in power, and won't have anyone to blame.

Barry,

"To the extent that he DID offer details, we are getting them. Jeff has not reviewed anything above which was not foreshadowed in Obama's campaign FOR THOSE WITH EYES TO SEE." - of course that is my point.

"White guilt"? - Barry, get on with your life, stop being a victim. Lots of us whites feel just fine.

"We NEED a trainwreck to wake up." - millenarianism is the first and last refuge of the sinful - again, get on with your life.

"I want us to go back to a nation of well educated, morally grounded, genuinely liberal, hard working individualists, who understand in their bones why our system is the best ever created for ensuring justice for all." - a fable told by the previous generations of school teachers, now, apparently replaced by the fable of white guilt (you should know it makes me laugh to even write that phrase Barry)

"The only way this can happen is by a clear, unambiguous example of the logical consequence of the alternative being offered by the media, our educational institutions, and the Democratic Party." - logical consequences are, mostly, theoretical and rhetorical scare-tactics. The logical consequences you talk of rarely (never, think of a historical example?) happen by progession - they happen by calamity, by revolt. The Russian Empire did not slowly devolve into the USSR, post-war Britain never went to logical consequnces, nor did post war Canada, nor has Eruope. Besides, logical consequences happen not by economic measures but by attacks on political and civil liberties (despite the Hayek theoretical/religion). When Obama starts attacking civil liberties (such as suspending habeus corpus or using wireless phone taps) then I'd be afraid about logical consequences. All manner of mixed economies may exist without ever approaching the gulag.

It seems this point is being missed: Even a "mixed economy" necessarily violates human rights. If the U.S. is no more socialized in four years than it is now, it will still not be showing any respect for my property rights, my freedom, or even my life, any of which it can take away under the current "laws".

Barry,

When you look back on your posts and see lines like: "The people voted for an affirmative action candidate", do you feel regret? embarassment? empowerment?

You need to be called out on this stuff Barry. You've been doing it too long.

White guilt is a pathetic white sheet behind which white resentment whines. Of course white resentment is really the personal, individual resentment of individual whites. Save it for your drinking buddies in the bar. When spoken your resentment is mercifully evanescent. When written on this forum it's fuitbat sh#@ odour lingers on for us all to smell.

Prole - #248

How do you feel about affirmative action?

Prole #244,

Read my remarks about the greatest threat and you’ll see it’s a counterpoint to Obama’s conclusion that the greatest threat to industry is health care costs. Clearly he is talking about the greatest threat now, not in the history of industry. In that context, I conclude that Obama himself is now the greatest threat to industry. He is drying up capital in a capitalist system, and debasing the currency through borrowing. And taxing, directly and indirectly through certain inflation and the newest craze, carbon taxes.

I have to credit some wag whose name I’ve sorrowfully long forgotten for the zipper crack, so to speak. Obama is playing with regulations and the treasury. He won’t recognize the broken regulations (CRA of 1977, as modified by TreasRegs in 1995 that strangles new mortgages), the failure to regulate (Bush’s requested reform of the GSEs who were bribing Congress), or the oversight failure of the 2006 act regulating the other CRAs, the credit rating agencies who precipitated the worldwide economic crisis. It’s a lot easier and more savvy politically just to sweep the problems under the rug with the slogan that the problems were caused by Republican de-regulation.

I should add that the US is the world marketplace. When we catch a cold, the whole world coughs. The patient now is dying, and the charming, handsome young doctor we called in hasn’t been to med school or ever treated a patient. He is unable to diagnose the problem so just doses out his family’s snake oils, and several of them are lethal.

When is enough enough, you ask. It’s a matter of what the meaning of is is. Someone on this thread repeated an old saying that the market is always right. There is mathematical truth in that saying, because the most powerful math in the world cannot predict whether the market will go up or down any better than a coin toss. If it could, mathematicians would become incredibly rich. The market and Las Vegas don't let that happen.

The market has no elasticity to make a rebound any more probable than a move in the opposite direction. Ample good reasons, all provided by Obama, exist for not investing in business. So the signals are all sell. We are undergoing crushing loses as individuals and as businesses, and it will soon impact the federal tax receipts. Obama is going to make it worse by radical spending, covered by the unsavory pair of tax hikes and borrowing. He’s driving us off a cliff. Enough is enough when someone grabs the wheel. But right now, the treasury doors are wide open and little Nancy and Harry are having a four handed field day.

Your comment that the seat of governance was in the stock market is silly. But it’s right out of the far left playbook.

Prole,

It's quite simple. I hate racism. Affirmative action is racism. What part of that are unable or unwilling to grasp?

I feel no shame whatever. I am proud to be a white American, whose ancestors created this great nation. I don't grudge Asians pride in their heritage, African Americans pride in their heritage, Hispanics pride in their heritage, etc. It is good to be proud. Self respect is a necessary virtue.

But I'll be damned if I'll allow "morally challenged" leftists to tell me to bow down to anyone who has not earned their place in society.

Obama did not earn the Presidency. He played effectively upon white guilt, people hopes and fears, and an existing base of dissatisfaction with the status quo. I had several people tell me they were glad we didn't elect "another old white guy". That is racism.

I played no part in Jim Crow. I played no part in segregation. Neither did any of my ancestors. Therefore, to blame "white people" for ANYTHING is as racist as the worst racial slur. Prejudice is prejudgement. Judgement is using your brain after gathering the facts.

With respect to "logical consequences" the situation is quite simple. I am offering a hypothesis which can be falsified. I am claiming that I can predict the future based on the past. I am claiming that certain things will happen, and offering my reasons why.

This is different than living in an eternal present in which the only realities are the sacralized victim, and victimizers. In the leftist mindset there is no history, and no future. There is no ability to use categories in the formulation of logical chains, to learn from past experience, or even to predict the future consequences of todays actions rationally.

How's this for a fun example: my local insurance company, a Fortune 500 company, has seen its stocks drop 41% in the last 4 days. Why? Obama's socialized medicine. They literally want to make insurance non-profit, meaning it will need to be paid for by taxpayers, from OTHER profitable concerns, which they are also attacking.

Obama is literally shaping up to be a Perfect Storm which is going to generate economic disaster. I can't say I look forward to the heartache and pain his "hope" and "change" are going to generate, but I hope we can learn the lesson, finally, and not forget it.

If we don't, we don't deserve to survive any longer as a free nation. It's as simple as that. History tends, on balance, to be fair.

Jeff,

Your comment: “Your comment that the seat of governance was in the stock market is silly. But it’s right out of the far left playbook”, - is very true (my comments tend to get sillier toward the bottom, not this time of course).

And as far as a US cold being catching, as a Canadian we tend to believe that when the US catches a cold, we catch pneumonia.

When I woke up this morning the first thing I heard was that GM’s auditors have substantial doubts that that company can remain a going concern. I also read yesterday that “America’s GDP shrank at an annualised rate of 6.2% in the fourth quarter, revised down from an earlier estimate of 3.8%.” Could it be that businesses, and not Obama, are giving people reasons not to invest in businesses?

Do you really think that Obama, in terms of knowledge and expertise is any less equipped to handle this than Bushes, Clinton, Reagan? It is his team that matters and not his “family’s snake oils”.

I think we may agree that saying “the market is always right” is like saying “in the end we always know”, and that this gives us no predictive power. I think that the idea is that the market is really a psychological measure, and the Executive is trying to “improve” our economic psychology so that the market will measure higher so that economic psychology will improve etc. We'll have to wait to see how well it works.

Barry,

No one expects you to bow down to the elected president of the United States or to any person – you live in a democratic state under rule of law. What people might hope - no one who has any familiarity with your indignant online personae could “expect” it - is that you do not to fall back on the bromide of the archetypal failed white man: “Obama [black man] won [beat me out] because he’s black”.

cl and Barry

Affirmative action does not blame white people for anything (people with courage and who care about equality and the Constitution blame racist white people for committing racist acts). Affirmative action recognizes that historic, systemic, institutionalized racism has disadvantaged blacks in the United States, and that this disadvantage is not only antithetical to any notion of meritocracy, equality or common decency, but is also bad in its social effects for everyone, white or black.

There’s your platform Barry….let us hear your angry man wisdom on this topic.

#252 Prole

>>Affirmative action does not blame white people for anything (people with courage and who care about equality and the Constitution blame racist white people for committing racist acts). Affirmative action recognizes that historic, systemic, institutionalized racism has disadvantaged blacks in the United States, and that this disadvantage is not only antithetical to any notion of meritocracy, equality or common decency, but is also bad in its social effects for everyone, white or black.

To me, that statement IS racist. Why would people with courage only blame racist WHITE people? Why not racist blacks et. al.? Also, why assume that blacks living today are any less capable of being successful in today's society? I've met a ton of successful blacks, and you know what they had to do to be successful? The same things I should have done, but didn't. The blacks who aren't successful didn't do those things. It had nothing to do with the color of their hides, or mine.

I will add: I have often made the claim that leftists are incapable of defending their viewpoints. Now, I don't think everyone who votes Democrat is a leftist. The actual number of people who would fit my conception is quite small, something less than 10% of the population, if it is even that much. But they control much of our media, much of our educational system, and much of our political dialogue. They do not so much state policy positions which are then adopted uncritically, but rather influence what we talk about, and how we talk about it.

The single worst structural problem for which I blame the rhetorical strategy they employ is the utter and complete abandonment of historical context. They just don't look at big pictures.

For example, slavery was a great evil in this nation. But slavery was practiced by virtually every nation in the history of the Earth. American Indians kept slaves. Sacajaweya was a slave, captured in a raid by one tribe against another, then sold to a French trapper.

A large part of the problem with the Barbary pirates was their desire to capture ships and take slaves. Slavery is perfectly acceptable to this day in Islamic nations. For that reason, the embrace of many African Americans of Islam is profoundly ironic. The Koran is always right, and the Koran explicitly condones slavery.

Rome kept slaves. The Greeks kept slaves. Virtually all pre-Columbian Indians kept slaves. Some African nations keep slaves to this day. Japanese, and Asian Indians, Chinese, etc. Virtually all nations for virtually all of history have kept slaves.

Only one nation, though, in the documented history of humanity has ever fought a war over the institution of slavery.

Anyone who wants to compare the relative intellectual acumen of conservatives/libertarians, and those I call leftists--or even moderate Democrats--would do well to dip into substantially ANY Rest Day in the last three years, and look at what is said by who.

What you will see is conservatives stating clear views, and reasons for those views. What you will see is almost everyone else, on almost every topic, questioning the right of conservatives to say they are right, since other opinions are possible. But they never stand and deliver. They never actually get to the point where the viewpoint that they presumably want to offer in counterpoint is fleshed out in a meaningful, non-contradictory, factually accurate way.

We see either some variant of "Bush lied; people died" sloganeering, or self righteous indignation at the failure of conservatives to understand that they COULD be wrong.

This is not just intellectual corruption, but moral corruption. If you can't think, you can't engage in purposive action. And if you can't engage in purposive action, you are fully useless--and often harmful--in fights between the forces of good, and those of evil.

It is evil to rape small boys and cut their heads off, both of which were done by members of Al Queda. It is good to defend ordinary, decent people against such predations.

But if you can't develop any meaningful way to distinguish good and evil, you foster evil.

We went into Vietnam to protect the south from the fate that finally befell them when we abandoned them: military conquest, and enslavement by totalitarians. 65,000 were murdered in cold blood, and some 100's of thousands more starved in "reeducation camps". Our abandonment of Cambodia enabled them to prosecute the atrocities they said, before their victory, they were going to commit.

This is supporting evil.

I am not a morose person, but I am also not willing to be an accomplice in deceit. And deceit is the perennial soup de jour of the Left. That much of it is self deceit does not make the soup any better.

Prole,

So basically, you are reduced to calling me a redneck?

I've often said, that leftists can only respond to the truth in one of three ways: ad hominem, changing the subject, or silence.

Perhaps some of you will understand if I compare the mythical coherent arguments for leftist positions which many seem to imply exist--but which never appear--with Carl Sagan's dragon in his garage. It's not enough for you to say you could make an argument if you tried. You have to actually do it.

And yes, Obama is in large measure the beneficiary of white guilt. That is my belief. I have no resentment against African Americans in general at all. I wish them well. I deal with them, as should be the case, as individuals with their own merits and defects. I imagine a world where we truly are color blind, and all that matters is the content of men's (and women's) characters. But we don't get there by looking, first, at skin color, for any reason, however seemingly benign.

And we don't get there by ignoring character defects, either, for any reason whatever.

While I'm at it, I may as well place the blame for the plight of much of black America where I feel it lies: the Democratic Party. Which was the Party of Emancipation? The Republican Party. Which was the Party of slavery, then segregation? The Democrats.

And now, their power base depends on convincing large numbers of black Americans that the only viable path forward, the only valid reason for "hope" is increased government intervention. By extension, when Democrats are not in power, black Americans are helpless.

And you see the effects of 30-40 years of this sort of indoctrination when you see public expressions of what might be termed the "Obama Cargo Cult", in which people think they no longer have to worry about paying for gas, or paying their mortgages. Magically, Cargo will now appear from the sky now that Obama has been elected.

Not only is this abuse of governmental power corrupt, it acts to delay the actual progress of people who were in fact victimized, into full and earned participation in our national political body.

In a meritocracy, you don't give people things just because of their accident of birth. This is no different in principle than ceding social superiority to aristocrats due to their accidents of birth.

Clearly, some people start out ahead of others, but you don't fix this by preventing the excellent--regardless of where they come from--from getting and keeping the natural results of their merit, which after all is the goal and method of socialism. Socialism is the precise opposite of a meritocracy.

Shall I coin a new word and call it a Mediocracy? The rule of the superior by the inferior? The triumph of resentment over merit? Looking at the sorry histories of true socialist systems around the world, that is a pretty accurate description. And the best get worse by being punished often and severely their "crime".

Yes, there are qualitative differences between people, as between nations. And in a system where all are equal before the law, results tend to speak for themselves. To claim that African Americans are powerless in such a system is to betray the worst sort of racist sentiment, which I can't share. I think African Americans would be quite able to rise to the challenge, if it were framed in some way other than "how can we get more from the Government?"

As it is, Obama got well in excess of 90% of the African American vote. They will regret it, if they are able, ultimately, to see how the Democrats used and betrayed them.

Prole #252

I asked "what to you think of Affirmative Action" you responded

>>"Affirmative action does not blame white people for anything (people with courage and who care about equality and the Constitution blame racist white people for committing racist acts). Affirmative action recognizes that historic, systemic, institutionalized racism has disadvantaged blacks in the United States, and that this disadvantage is not only antithetical to any notion of meritocracy, equality or common decency, but is also bad in its social effects for everyone, white or black."

So you told me what Affirmative action recognizes - I guess my question was not clear

Prole - What do you think of affirmative action in practice?

Also - you are clear that affirmative action does not blame white people for anything - whom does it punish?

I was inaccurate - I asked

"How do you feel about affirmative action?"

Barry, 254, 255, 256,

- do I get a prize for being the only person this rest day able to get you to mention the coward saboteurs of Vietnam?
- “redneck” is your word, not mine. I didn’t even call you racist. I said I thought your statements were informed by the resentment you seem to feel entitled/empowered to harbour as a white man living in the United States of America.
- no one has claimed African Americans are powerless. The claim is that like whites they do not live in a meritocracy, but that unlike whites, they (on the whole) face added obstacles due to the rest of society's response to their race.

cl 252-3
- I have no feelings about affirmative action.
- I have no knowledge of the quality or effectiveness of affirmative action in practice. If you do, please enlighten us.
- Affirmative action does not punish anyone. It reduces unearned advantages accruing to whites (on the whole) by birthright, while mitigating unearned disadvantages to blacks accruing to them (on the whole) by birthright.
- Does it work? In some cases. Will it transform society? In the short term I doubt it.

So affirmative action "reduces unearned advantages accruing to whites" by forcing companies to hire based upon race, by forcing them to turn away qualified white applicants and recruit non-qualified "minority" non-applicants just to fill a quota? Is there some way to express this that doesn't scream "Hire him because he's black, turn him away because he's white!"? Is there anyone who can claim this is NOT racism without blushing? If so, that person should run for office.

There is this strange assumption in society that if a government is capable of doing something, it should. This is seen as the role of government in our lives: fix everything.

Let's forget for a moment that government has never fixed anything it touched, that it only broke what wasn't and broke worse what was. Let's assume that government could "transform society" for the better. (Let's also forget for the moment that one man's better is another man's worse.)

Assuming that is could, it shouldn't. The only way the government can do anything is through the use of force, or the threat of force. Basically it boils down to 'do this or we will take your property away and jail you'. If I enforced my will on someone that way, if I went to a place of business and told them to hire me or they would be fined, I'd be called a bully, and it would be hard to find someone who wouldn't think I was in the wrong. So why is it that it's considered not just acceptable but even good for me to get the government to do this exact same thing for me?

The government isn't sacred, or holy. It's just people, like us. People we hire to protect our rights. Life. Liberty. Property. That's it. I don't have a right to a job. I don't have a right to reparations, no matter what someone's ancestors did to mine. I don't have a right to force people to treat me a certain way because of how I was born. Life comes with birth. Liberty comes with adulthood. Property I have to acquire. Anything beyond that is gravy, and I have no right to use government's guns to take my gravy from your pocket, nor do you, nor does anyone, black, white, or otherwise.

I don't resent black people. I resent people like you, who in trying to help them, hurt us all.

With respect to Vietnam, that is where our nation collapsed from moral coherence to moral idiocy. The North Vietnamese did exactly what they said they were going to do after their tank led invasion of South Vietnam.

I would like, one day, to see a documentary made which juxtaposes stoned flower children with South Vietnamese being beaten to death, tortured to death, shot, worked to death, and starved. You have these hippies, "just trying to make a difference, man", and the actual outcome: widespread and horrific pain and death. This is not debatable. This is not the German view of Versailles, which was inaccurate.

This is historic fact. The war was won, and we cut the Vietnamese off after the Congressional coup d'etat. EVERYONE needs this burned in their brain, SEARED in their brain. This is why doing what feels good cannot be accepted by anyone with a moral conscience.

As far as racism, perhaps a definition is in order. I view racism as judging a person by the color of their skin, not by the content of their character.

Affirmative Action judges people based on the color of their skin.

Ergo, it is racist.

You see, syllogisms are easily generated when you are defending the defensible. When you are not, well, you need a lot of words, don't you, and preferably ambiguous ones?

Prole #259
WOW!!

"Affirmative action does not punish anyone. It reduces unearned advantages accruing to whites (on the whole) by birthright, while mitigating unearned disadvantages to blacks accruing to them (on the whole) by birthright."

To my knowledge Affirmitive action is not applied "on the whole" it is applied on an individual hiring basis - if you have evidence that it is applied on the whole -please enlighten me - to use your catchy phrase

You said "I have no knowledge of the quality or effectiveness of affirmative action in practice"

then you said "Does it work? In some cases."

Which one is it? Do you know or not know?

If you do know it works please give an example of a case when it worked and then tell me if the person who didn't get the position based solely on their skin color was or was not punished?? (I'm sure you'll come up with a fun definition of punished and how that word doesn't apply)

Also, why ask this question if you have no feeling on affirmative action?
"When you look back on your posts and see lines like: "The people voted for an affirmative action candidate", do you feel regret? embarassment? empowerment?"

You have me very confused - maybe that's the point?

Goat#240, hello. You say:

"I was not forced to log on and read these posts. I don't think anyone here is "captive"."

Well, they're here and they're "drinking the Kool Aid". They're not captive in the sense of Clockwork Orange - eyes held open and forced to read - but they're captive in a sense still within the ordinary meaning of the word, which includes:

"Enraptured, as by beauty; captivated; One charmed or subdued by excellence, or affection."

The excellence is demonstrable in the field of exercise, not politics. But the halo effect transfers the subdued exaggerated openness and affection to this political arena. Is this cynical exploitation by a sinister force? No. I think it's probably more like:

"this is our site, our life's work, these are our views, we're good enough to put 'em up for free and you can go directly opposite to what they are if you like and we won't take your comments down. Not good enough for you, then screw you."

I'm challenging that. A reasonable person coming onto this site might see Rest Day as a great idea - a neutral boxing ring for intellectual sparring - great! But it's not. It'll dawn on them after a while that this is a boxing ring on a steep slope. Every single Rest Day kicks off with everyong being sent in the same direction, to the same trough, to drink the same right wing swill. It's tiring and dispiriting.

I'd respect this whole Rest Day idea more if it either was properly neutral and random and everyone got exposed to different articles and views, or there was a disclaimer up here somewhere about the inherent bias in the articles. As things are, you get involved and it becomes apparent after a while that "your side's turn" will never come. You're actually playing a part in someone else's movement. You're being played. You stick around and debate and reason and 4 days later you're back reading something even more inflammatory and offensive to where you're at.

I get that this is their site. They can do what they want. I can log off, etc., etc.

But I haven't walked away and I haven't logged off. I would like to spar, intellectually, in an amended forum. So I ask, again, in good faith, "What the hell is it with this right wing political stuff on a fitness website"?

I think that's a volley.

Peace.

Your basic point is that anyone can come and go as he pleases, nobody is forced to read it, opposing comments are left up to be read, and are usually addressed politely and with an honest attempt at either a sensible rebuttal or a request for clarification, and all of that isn't good enough. For the whole thing to be okay with you, they have to post articles you agree with, I assume in proportion to articles you don't agree with.

If this is what you require in order to see a level playing field, I wish you much luck in life. I won't try to convince you that you are being unreasonable any more than I would try to convince you that the sun is not blue with green polka dots.

Nevermind, I will try.

Now, let's talk about fair. In the past I've had a difficult time discussing fairness with people. I eventually figured out that my personal definition of fair is a little different than most peoples. Mine goes like this: When we compete against each other in something, we follow the same rules. Other peoples', I think, goes like this: I get what I want. Now, of course, that's not universally true, but I think it applies here. You see an unlevel playing field because you disagreed with the article, and many of the following comments. I say to you, post your article. I will read it. I will comment. You will rebut my comment. Rinse and repeat. That's fair, to me.

If they tried to implement your kind of fair, it would naturally fail. Remember that many hundreds (thousands?) of people read this every day. For it to be "fair" to everyone, they would have to post as many articles that EACH individual agreed with as they did articles which those individuals disagreed with. Frankly, it's impossible to do that for everyone.

I think the idea that the greatness of their fitness program will cause people to come into a rest day discussion and nod their heads in mindless agreement with the things being said like a bunch of stoners is a bit of an insult, don't you? I mean, are you suggesting that only you and a few others can shake off the mesmerization and see the "truth"? The rest of us are set up like bowling pins by the workouts and then knocked down by the rest day discussion? Are we being programmed? I don't mean to be rude, but that's the sort of thing someone says shortly before telling me "they" put floride in the water to make me docile, and "they" faked the moon landing. And yes, people have said those things to me.

As for your volley, there is really nothing for me to reply with. Your opinion is that "right wing political stuff" (funny, that article seemed a bit left to me, but I guess it's all relative to where you are standing) is not appropriate for discussion on this site. I don't know if you intend to say that it's inappropriate because it's political, or because it's right wing, but either way it's an opinion, pure and simple. I can't spar with you over an opinion. There is no fact or figure I can quote, no logical argument I can make. Your opinion is that they shouldn't have posted a link to that article for us to read. Okay. Thanks for sharing.

Peace to you to. But remember to duck if someone swings at you.

Goat, I'm not saying that the article is inappropriate. It's a perfectly reasonable starter for a debate.

What I dislike is that Crossfit ALWAYS posts up from that same side. Does that make me some naive moron who doesn't get that life can sling some arrows? No, actually, it doesn't. Do I think that everyone on here is being led like the rats of Hamelin with total suspension of their critical faculty? No, I don't think that either. Does it mean that you're justified saying someting insulting about convincing me the sun isn't blue? I don't think so and would respectfully suggest that it did nothing to strengthen your post.

My analysis of the situation is as follows:

1. Would someone who is honest-to-God interested in developing rhetorical excellence in his students stick to posting up articles from the same side of the political spectrum over and over again? Or would that person be more likely better served in achieving his aim by posting up varied articles? My answer to that question, is overwhelmingly that variety is more likely to achieve the goal of rhetorical excellence. It's also less likely to alienate people.

2. This is not done. For nearly 12 months now, I've watched the same slant on articles, over and over - with Coach chiming in now and again to doleo out proverbial sweeties to prize pupils if they agree with the views that permeate the article selection policy. I don't recall him chiming in to say, "Hey, buddy, I totally disagree with that view, but you totally blasted me with your rhetoric" (I'm open to correction on that).

3. So what is the point of Rest Day? Is it developing rhetorical excellence? I say, partly. I say, partly, it's also about someone pushing their own political agenda. On a fitness website. Which is weird. Let's call a spade a spade.

So you're dead wrong when you say, "Your opinion is that they shouldn't have posted a link to that article for us to read". I'm making a much wider point.

And this was prompted by what I see as a cosiness about all of the above which is fast becoming - or seeking to become - above challenge. Which sort of goes against the Crossfit method, in my book. You want to do Rest Day this way? Justify that to me, please, if you can. Maybe you're doing something that doesn't work as well as it could. Let's black box it. Let's see if Rest Day works better, when people like me don't constantly start on the back foot. Let's see if there are lots of other people out there who'd get involved and bring more to the gig if they didn't get turned off at the very beginning. Or maybe this really isn't about "mental fitness" at all. In which case - I really think Crossfit should front up about it.

Peace.

J1 #264

In case any of your post was about me - don't worry I was drinking conservative kool-aid way before I started crossfit

it does make me happy to see the rest days though - as I am an instructor at a university I get to endure the opposite every day

when it comes to ideas it seems a good one will stand alone whether or not the forum is slanted to the right or left - that is just my opinion of course

Prole #252,

GM is a failed corporation, and that is sufficient reason not to invest in it. The causes of GM’s failure are many, some caused by the federal government and some of its own doing. Those causes predate the current collapse of financial markets. Regardless of how it got to its present position, it is painted in the corner.

It cannot bail itself out by selling equity or making loans, and more importantly, it’s autos cost more to make than the price they command on the market. That, they say, is due to extraordinary labor costs they were coerced or forced into incurring. Obama cannot be thought to favor a specific remedy for these problems. I’ll bet that GM will be nationalized. It should be allowed to fail.

You asked what I thought of the intellectual differences between Obama on the one hand and the four Presidents, the Bushes, Clinton, and Reagan. Obama is unique in proving himself to be on the far left. Others have said that he is steeped in the socialism training of Marxism and Communism, to which I would add Black Separatism, and Harvardism.

Obama is little more than a radical political philosophy. He got into office with no prior experience, a secret (I understand) scholastic record, and no accomplishments either in writings (his autobiography doesn’t seem to have commanded any attention) or in job performance. To tie this into some of the other dialog on this thread, the election of Obama was a basically victory for Affirmative Action.

A number of leftists hold with the proposition that debt does not matter, and that inflation does not occur in recessions when the velocity of money is low. These are technically wrong. But like Keynes teachings, they justify a large central government, which is the carrot on the stick of populism. It is the way for the leaders to gain power, exploiting the weakness of democracy at the expense of the people in the end. These appear to be the philosophical attributes adopted by BHO.

The Bushes, Clinton, and Reagan made big mistakes in office. Bush’41 gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act by which the public subsidizes drug addiction. He lied about raising taxes to wound the conservative movement that had backed him. Clinton disgraced his office and himself, and got credit for a balanced the budget he procured by illegally merging the social security surplus into his operational budget. He did nothing to stave off the damage caused by the Dot Com Bust. Bush’43 failed to rally support for the war and to defeat the crooked Democrats, and in the end to maintain fiscal responsibility in the face of the Crash of 2007/8 engineered by those Democrats. Reagan surrendered to the big spending Democrats, and in the end increased tax rates. He condoned and promoted the disease of American corporations contracted from Michael Milken, the first case and the carrier. Instead of focusing on product and services, American public corporations retooled themselves to eat their own seed corn and maximize their debt in exchange for hundred million dollar plus personal fortunes for the executives. This is theft in many forms.

These are the worst that can be said against the four, and they are mere foibles. Obama is anti-capitalist, a rank collectivist, and far a field from the American spirit. He is leading us into a long, dark age, one of unparalleled economic distress. It will make us impotent against a resurgence of Islamic terrorism, leading to a war between Israel and Iran, et al., under the real threat of a nuclear exchange.

J1: I debated in high school. Round one we would take one side. Round two we took the other. It was totally randomized, and we had to be prepared for both positions.

To me, any one who understands their own positions can represent them with simplicity and clarity in any environment. This environment, frankly, is starving for effective rebuttals to consevative positions.

I would LOVE to believe that I have misunderstood the beast entirely, and that coherent arguments can in fact be made for leftism. Given our current political environment, it would give me greater hope than is currently possible for me, outside of my belief that the current negatives will awaken positives.

Thus, in all honesty I have to consign your basic complaint to the category of rank whining. If you have reasons to believe what you believe, then attack. Attack. Attack. The concept is not that difficult.

I've been the lone conservative in leftist forums. One in particular I've been bounced from twice, for arguing my points too well.

If you want to complain about the topic choice, but not offer your own counterpoint, you are, ipso facto, admitting intellectual incapacity to argue your own case. This is not the fault of the Glassmans, but your own.

Me, I take any comers wherever I find them. If the articles were left wing, I would dissect them ruthlessly, since I know how to do that, having much practice. Since they aren't, the onus is on you to show us why we are suffering from rectal-cranial inversion. If you won't do that, are we not well justified in assuming you CAN'T do that?

Goat #260
Where I live affirmative action-type policies do not permit the hiring of unqualified candidates. They mandate that among candidates who meet the minimum required qualifications, or in cases where candidates of equal quality are of different races, those who are minorities will be selected.

Goat #261

Set yourself the task of reading 100 books (any 100) in the next three years (that's less than one a week!). It will cure you of your Randian cataracts. My experience of Rand devotees is that, if they have any college education at all, they are engineering or business students hoping to find in a volume of Rand (maybe 2), the crib notes to what more appropriately would take a lifetime of engagement with the western tradition.

Barry #262

I can't believe you among posters to this forum made a comment relating to word count.

Of course affirmative action is racist.

I'll set out your syllogism a little more clearly for you:

I'm going to use "a racist" instead of "racism" with the hope of being more concrete - lets concentrate on actions and consequences.

A) A racist judges a person by the colour of his or her skin.
B) Affirmative action policies require some people to select other people for positions based on the colour of the other people's skins.

Therefore,

C) Affirmative action requires some people to be racist in their selection practices.

That's not an argument against affirmative action. That's an argument for the proposition that affirmative action falls within the category of things that are racist. We still have no idea whether affirmative action is good or a bad policy. I'll wait for the rest.

Here's my syllogism (a little more complicated, but then I'm not defining a word, I'm evaluating policy):

1.(1) A discriminatory policy is acceptable where its aim is the amelioration of conditions of individuals who are socially or economically disadvantaged (for instance with regard to employment or education) on the basis of their membership in a racial minority, and that has the following characteristics:

(2) it is rationally connected to its aim;
(3) it impairs as little as possible the rights of people who are not among the targeted minority;
(4) its beneficial effects on the targeted minority are proportional to its negative effects on the non-targeted majority;

2. Some affirmative action policies have the attributes of A(1-3).

Therefore,

3. Some affirmative action policies are acceptable.

cl 263

I will not repeat the portions of my already posted comments that supply answers to your questions because you are being disingenuous in your comments directed at me.

You do some defining - whether you can make it fun or not is up to you:

What do you mean by "punished"?
What do you mean by "applied on an individual hiring basis"?

Jeff, 268

In general I agree with you that it seems absurd to be throwing money at failed corporations.

Obama won enough votes to win the electoral college and become president. He was not an affirmative action candidate.

There has not been any capitalism in America for Obama to be the antithesis of for generations. There is panic in government, in corporate America and among the wage-earners. Obama is responding understandably, even predicatably, and yes, perhaps, irrationally to that panic. If it was boom time I don't think Obama would be quasi-nationalizing as he is. I don't think he has a universal economic doctrine or that his goal is wholesale collectivization. He is responding, as I said, predictably given the alternative ideologies, to the situation he finds himself in.

Many people who have been through college and have read more than their glossy paged textbooks, or who are sufficiently curious, have for a time taken the Marxist critique of capitalism seriously, and for good reasons. Anyway, conservatives have so utterly misused and misapplied the "s/he's a communist" accusation that the thinking public has become skeptical of any such accusation, again, for good reason.

As far as the American spirit goes, I think y'all are learning there is not, and never has been, a monolithic "American spirit", not even in '76 or '42, or on 9/11. As Whitman wrote, Americans sing "varied carols".

J1, I'm dumbfounded. It's almost as if you didn't really read what I wrote, yet you took offense at my little poke in the ribs, so you must have read it. I didn't mean to upset you, by the way.

So yes, obviously whoever chooses these articles has strong liberal leanings. Liberal meaning pro-liberty, that is. And, obviously, the articles follow that theme.

You suggest that a fitness site is not the appropriate forum. Then you suggest that there should be more articles from a left-wing point of view. I don't know which you want, no political articles or a mix of political articles, but it really doesn't matter. The article is there. Do you disagree with what the author said? Why or why not? What is your point of view on the topic of the article? Why do you hold that point of view? That's what matters to me.

I doubt that arguing for leftist articles is going to be fruitful for you. It seems to me that if you think the articles they post are exposing this group of people to b.s., and it's having a bad influence on us, your goal of exposing us to better information would be best served by you arguing your case, and backing your argument with facts, than by complaining that the Glassmans won't argue your case for you.

Prole

It is not for the government to permit or require the hiring of anyone. Who I give my money to, as a consumer or as a business owner, is my decision.

Your other assumption is amusing to me. Why you attack my backround rather than the point I was making I don't know, but you are dead wrong. I've never read Rand. Any Rand, at all. However, I have read well over 100 books. I was probably still in grade school when I passed one hundred. What you mean by "the western (sic) tradition" I don't know; as I've mentioned before I have only a diploma. Would you count Bukowski, Fitzgerald, Palahniuk, Ellis, Kipling, Twain, Browning, Shakespeare, Shelley, Jordan, Steinbeck, Poe, Melville, Hemingway, Martin? Does Dante count? Translated into English, of course. (I am ashamed to admit I only speak one language.) Right now I'm working on Machiavelli, The Art of War. Assuming I'm an unread ignoramus because I don't feel that other people should be meddling in my daily affairs hardly makes much sense.

Now, enough tooting my own horn. Too much tooting, in truth, but I was a bit offended by that remark. But to the point: Do you disagree that my rights are Life, Liberty, and Property? Do you disagree that these rights may not be legally violated? Do you disagree that it is the function of government to protect these rights? Do you feel that holding a government job confers upon a person enlightenment beyond that of normal citizens, such that he should make decisions about how they should live, who they should pay, when they should die, etc? Do you disagree that the threat of violence is ultimately how the government motivates people to do as they are told? Do you think it is government's job to tell me how to dispose of my property? Would you still think this if government made it illegal to hire blacks at all? In other words, am I not a human, just as much a human as the President or anyone in Congress?

Man, I'm looking forward to the next rest day. This one has me worn out.

Prole, one last question. Do you get your name from "1984", or "Bonfire of the Vanities", or is it just a coincidence?

Do you disagree that my rights are Life, Liberty, and Property?
- if they are absolute, yes.

Do you disagree that these rights may not be legally violated?
- of course they may be legally violated. Just as they are created by government, they may be created by government. Without government there are no rights, there are only abilities.

Do you disagree that it is the function of government to protect these rights?
- I agree it is the function of government to protect those rights within the meaning given to them by the Constitution.

Do you feel that holding a government job confers upon a person enlightenment beyond that of normal citizens, such that he should make decisions about how they should live, who they should pay, when they should die, etc?
- Of course not. I do believe that democratically enacted laws operating within the bounds of the Constitution permit government employees who have been delegate the requisite authority to do some of those things.

Do you disagree that the threat of violence is ultimately how the government motivates people to do as they are told?
- Yes I do disagree with that. The effectiveness of government policies ultimate depends on the extent to which the people people buy in to them their own will. One of the ways of getting the people to buy in is to have them vote for the people who make the policies, another is to show them they are lawful, and to persuade them they are useful.

Do you think it is government's job to tell me how to dispose of my property?
- In some cases yes. I imagine you and I have very different ideas about what rights and obligations are attached to the "ownership of property", about what "property" is, about how it is "made".

Would you still think this if government made it illegal to hire blacks at all? In other words, am I not a human, just as much a human as the President or anyone in Congress?
- Passing a law making it illegal to hire blacks at all would likely not meet the criteria set out in 1(3) of my argument at #270 above. If the law, or policy could meet that test then it would be ok. Nothing is natural, nothing is sacred, nothing is beyond fiddling with....in certain circumstances.

You seem, in the main to have number of ideas that you "take to be self evident". Some ideas may be self evident in certain contexts and in certain times. The ones you set out, are not in my mind self evident. They may be clear and beautiful, but they are not self evident and, when made absolute, are pernicious, blind.

Yes the name comes from 1984. One day a few years ago (after I had already started posting to this site) I was listening to a sports cast on the radio and I began to fear that no matter how much education I undertook I would likely always be a prole, on the one hand because our media is ideologically and consumer driven (it provides the content [who is you and me, the readers/listeners] for advertisers) and the world is too complex for a person with a job and a family to spend the time piecing together what is really going on.

I have to say though, that sometimes I think Jeff has the capacity to piece it together (I think he might be retired?).

Lastly, my comment about your reading was offside, and was a small-minded prickish thing to do. I just get so tired of seeing the same right wing (now that the right wing is the corporate wing perhaps I should say "libertarian wing") dicta.

Well, I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree, because to me these are "self-evident". I wouldn't give them up, except on threat of death or imprisonment, and only then if I could see no way to win the fight. That's the only reason I pay taxes, or obey a thousand laws I find invasive or downright wrong-headed. I break as many as I can get away with, and a few I thought I could get away with and couldn't. To me, your way is the same as saying one person is less than another. Less in a very important, meaningful way. I don't believe that any world built on those premises can be good for anyone except (possibly) those at the very top. It's like I asked earlier, how can you do something that's bad for almost every member of a group and still claim to be benefitting the group? Anyway, that's my view.

Prole, it's not too many educated people who will admit to being resigned to the life of the proletariat. Perhaps it's not so much a function of the complexity of the world, or the commercial nature of the media (which is not to say the world isn't complex, or the media isn't commercial). Perhaps it is a function of the resignation itself.

Gosh,
I never thought I would be able to say this on this site, but you are all Classical Liberals. You talk about Life, Liberty and Property like it means something. So when we have the discussions about right and left (maybe I should capitalize those words for context) what we are really talking about it shades of grey within the Lockian Ideal?

That relieved me of so much burden on this.

Here is how you "fix" the economy. Cancel credit markets. All of them, for everybody; I know too many paper millionaires that don't own a pot to piss in. If a company is so poorly run that it can't stay in business, then eff 'em let them go under. If that means we lose 100,000 jobs then sack up and learn some new skills. Somehow in the 20th century the United States went from being a country that was listed as the largest creditor nation, to a nation that is the largest debtor. We used to have industry, we used to make stuff and it was coveted the world round.

Now we all have "service jobs" we buy shit using funny money that has no value. I feel like a crazy man but the problem is that the social contract we work under doesn't seem to work. I would actually love to see the next "rest day" be devoted to a debate on Hobbes and Locke. Let's talk about the Leviathan and about what the government's obligation and about the what our role in the "Evils of Men" are.

Prole, I'm sorry if it seems as if I'm belaboring a point here, but I'm trying to understand your views on this.

Do you disagree that my rights are Life, Liberty, and Property?
if they are absolute, yes.
So my right to life is not absolute? Somewhere sits a person who has a right to take my life away? And the same with my liberty and the fruits of my labor? I don't want to live in your world and I can't imagine why you would. Unless you are the person mentioned above.

Do you disagree that these rights may not be legally violated?
of course they may be legally violated. Just as they are created by government, they may be created by government. Without government there are no rights, there are only abilities.
Have you read any John Locke? He had a huge influence on the founding fathers, and they pretty much plagiarized him to a small extent in the Declaration or Independence. His argument is that life, liberty, and property rights predate any government, and are intrinsic to the human condition. This resonates well with me.

Do you disagree that it is the function of government to protect these rights?
I agree it is the function of government to protect those rights within the meaning given to them by the Constitution.
I consider the Constitution a flawed document. It gives the government an undue amount of power, especially over money (a power it's been unable to resist using), it tacitly condoned slavery, etc. The Declaration of Independence comes a lot closer to expressing the ideas needed for a truly civil society, one in which other people are respected as equals (as in equally human, not the egalitarian ideal of everyone being the same), one in which rights are treated as...well, rights.

Do you feel that holding a government job confers upon a person enlightenment beyond that of normal citizens, such that he should make decisions about how they should live, who they should pay, when they should die, etc?
Of course not. I do believe that democratically enacted laws operating within the bounds of the Constitution permit government employees who have been delegate the requisite authority to do some of those things.
In an earlier post you delineate the requirements for a discriminatory policy to be just.
(2) it is rationally connected to its aim;
(3) it impairs as little as possible the rights of people who are not among the targeted minority;
(4) its beneficial effects on the targeted minority are proportional to its negative effects on the non-targeted majority;

This implies a belief that government's power should be limited in some way. There are no limits on a Democracy. What the majority wants, the majority gets. Look to the current and many past actions being taken by government. How many of them violate the tenets of the Constitution, the supposed highest law of the land?

Do you disagree that the threat of violence is ultimately how the government motivates people to do as they are told?
Yes I do disagree with that. The effectiveness of government policies ultimate depends on the extent to which the people people buy in to them their own will. One of the ways of getting the people to buy in is to have them vote for the people who make the policies, another is to show them they are lawful, and to persuade them they are useful.
Indeed, those are ways to get someone to go along with what the government says, and perfectly wonderful ways since they involve free will and only free will. So if the government decides that I need to pay 30% income tax next year, and can convince me that this is a good thing to do, great. But what does the government do if I decide it's NOT a good idea, and that I won't let them take any more of my labor (which is how I define property, in brief, the fruits of my labor)? Does the government continue to try to reason with me, to get me to “buy into them”? Or does it just take it from my paycheck, or seize my property, or put me in prison?

A little story about that, if you'll indulge me. One of my coworkers is getting a divorce. His wife still drives a car that is in his name, as the divorce isn't final, but the car will be hers when it is. A government employee slid on ice and hit the car while my coworker's wife was driving it. The accident was ruled the government employee's fault, as he was driving too fast, but the government (I should mention that it's the federal government) calls my coworker up and tells him they have a policy to charge the other person involved a daily rate for the time the government vehicle is unusable, and that he now owes them $8,000, on a car probably not worth $5,000. He explained that it was his wife driving, that the police ruled the accident the other fellow's fault, and that he just didn't have $8,000 to give them because his wife was taking some and he had a kid to support. They explained to him that they would take his tax return and attach his paycheck for the rest, thank you have a nice day. I'm pretty sure that he isn't buying into this policy, and that nobody would, but he sure is paying a lot for it.

Do you think it is government's job to tell me how to dispose of my property?
In some cases yes. I imagine you and I have very different ideas about what rights and obligations are attached to the "ownership of property", about what "property" is, about how it is "made".
Property is simple for me. I own my mind and my body. What I do with it is labor. What my labor produces is my property. Should I choose to sell my labor to someone else, which I do, what my labor produces is then that person's property. Since my property is an extension of my labor, which is an extension of my mind and body, it is mine and mine alone. If someone has power to dispose of my property without my consent, he has power to dispose of my labor and therefore my mind and body. That's slavery. Of course, you mentioned earlier that you believe that my life itself isn't truly mine, so I don't expect to convince you that my property is.

Would you still think this if government made it illegal to hire blacks at all? In other words, am I not a human, just as much a human as the President or anyone in Congress?
Passing a law making it illegal to hire blacks at all would likely not meet the criteria set out in 1(3) of my argument at #270 above. If the law, or policy could meet that test then it would be ok. Nothing is natural, nothing is sacred, nothing is beyond fiddling with....in certain circumstances.
As above, we disagree on the idea that life, liberty and property are natural and sacred, so once again I don't expect to convince you of anything. Just remember that the U.S. was originally formed to be a limited republic, and later became a democracy. Also remember that in a democracy, the majority could make it illegal to hire blacks with nothing more than a majority vote. That's why Jefferson referred to democracy as the “tyranny of the majority”. I think history has born him out.

You seem, in the main to have number of ideas that you "take to be self evident". Some ideas may be self evident in certain contexts and in certain times. The ones you set out, are not in my mind self evident. They may be clear and beautiful, but they are not self evident and, when made absolute, are pernicious, blind.

I feel the opposite way. I think that a government based upon a true respect for the sanctity of the true human rights would govern a land of peace, enlightenment, and happiness. Would it be perfect? Hell no! But I do believe it would be better than the current system for 99.5% of the people living in the U.S. today.

Yes the name comes from 1984. One day a few years ago (after I had already started posting to this site) I was listening to a sports cast on the radio and I began to fear that no matter how much education I undertook I would likely always be a prole, on the one hand because our media is ideologically and consumer driven (it provides the content [who is you and me, the readers/listeners] for advertisers) and the world is too complex for a person with a job and a family to spend the time piecing together what is really going on.

I have to say though, that sometimes I think Jeff has the capacity to piece it together (I think he might be retired?).

Yeah, he definitely sees a lot which most others don't, and he's more eloquent than I am.

Lastly, my comment about your reading was offside, and was a small-minded prickish thing to do. I just get so tired of seeing the same right wing (now that the right wing is the corporate wing perhaps I should say "libertarian wing") dicta.

Don't worry about it, I'm over it. But let me express my point of view to you. I used the word “slavery” above, and I meant it. The policies your arguments support take my freedom away. To me that is an indirect attack upon my person. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that many who support the ideals of liberty feel much the same, so you can imagine why they defend their views tenaciously.

Prole: "Randian Cataracts"

You gotta get out more, chat a little outside your normal intellectual group. Although clearly 5-700 pages longer than necessary to get the job done, "Atlas Shrugged" is a more than adequate response to both Marxian economics and Marxian "fairness doctrine".

Williams College BA 1982
University of Vermont MD 1986
Well more than 1000 books consumed (including all Rand novels and novellas).

bingo #279

Recently my father told me I should read Atlas Shrugged because it would be "right up your alley". Is it safe to assume you recommend it?

Goat:

Yup. All young people should read "Atlas Shrugged" and "Das Kapital".

Prole #270,

You wrote,

>>Obama won enough votes to win the electoral college and become president. He was not an affirmative action candidate.

The first sentence is obviously true, but gives zero weight to your argument. And I didn’t say he was an “affirmative action candidate”. I said that his election was “[basically] a [] victory for Affirmative Action”. His half blackness is a qualification for office only under Affirmative Action, and I could find in Obama no other positive qualifications to be President, and indeed several negative qualifications.

I agree with Barry Cooper that Affirmative Action is at its core racist and evil. Hitler had an affirmative action program: “everyone into the camps and ovens, except you and you and you.” It’s all a matter of packaging, isn't it? Goëbbels was a lousy PR guy.

>>There has not been any capitalism in America for Obama to be the antithesis of for generations. There is panic in government, in corporate America and among the wage-earners. Obama is responding understandably, even predictably, and yes, perhaps, irrationally to that panic. If it was boom time I don't think Obama would be quasi-nationalizing as he is. I don't think he has a universal economic doctrine or that his goal is wholesale collectivization. He is responding, as I said, predictably given the alternative ideologies, to the situation he finds himself in.

Your claim that capitalism doesn’t exist here is amazing. Do you actually need examples and an explanation? Why would you write such a thing? Who might you persuade with such an off-the-wall position?

I agree that Obama is acting predictably in light of his education and associations, from his mother to his wife, from Ayres to Wright, and from Chicago ward politics to Harvard. Certain schools today are all about process and not substance. These include education, the MBA, and Obama’s choice, law school. A good teacher can teach anything, and a good MBA can manage any business, or so they say.

Obama believes that government spending is a stimulus to recovery. This is a tenet of the left, rationalized by Keynes, the Galbraiths and the Reiches, but unsupported by any experience anywhere. Lacking the latter, and steeped in the former, Obama would spend us out of a recession. It not only will fail, it is certain to deepen and prolong the crisis through taxing and borrowing.

Obama’s stimulus seems to have boiled down to national health care and the carbon tax. Neither of these was a cause of the crisis, and cannot remedy it. National health care will destroy the health care industry, which is a relatively large part of the American economy and until a week or so ago, in pretty good shape. The carbon tax will cripple industry and drive electricity costs out of sight. Obama is directly attacking prosperity.

>> As far as the American spirit goes, I think y'all are learning there is not, and never has been, a monolithic "American spirit", not even in '76 or '42, or on 9/11. As Whitman wrote, Americans sing "varied carols".

The operative word here apparently is “monolithic”, since you favor Whitman’s characterization. The evidence of the American spirit is all around you. Here’s a tiny sampler. I chose this one because it can be understood even in Canada.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7168697243274227693&hl=en

Re your post #252:

>>as a Canadian we tend to believe that when the US catches a cold, we catch pneumonia.

Dr. House pointing to a waiting patient: “Is he Canadian?”

Dr. Cameron, triaging: “He’s low-priority.”

Dr. House: “Is that a yes?”

Just more multilithic American spirit. House, BTW, is played by a talented but loony left-wing Brit.

Prole #275,

You wrote,

>>Do you disagree that these rights may not be legally violated?
- of course they may be legally violated. Just as they are created by government, they may be [un]created by government. Without government there are no rights, there are only abilities.

Not in this country. Not in the America that lies mostly between Mexico and Canada -- so far.

We come with unlimited and unenumerated rights, God given or by whatever means might be evident to the self:

>> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, … Declaration of Independence

and we are the authority for the Consitituion:

>>We the people of the United States … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. US Consitituion, Preamble.

and it gives the government no more power than what we listed:

>>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Tenth Amendment.

The Bill of Rights creates no rights, but protects specific rights from government regulation or infringement. No US government has the power to create rights, although the states may take some away. Sometimes all round “more honor’d in the breach than the observance”. Hamlet.

The struggle is between those who read and those who don’t want to.

what a guy! and a fine trainer!

Well, it may well be that no one will read this, but being built the way I am, I feel the need to respond. I don't have to have the last word--if that were the case, there would be no need for me to have, at time, the last 5-6 posts--but I truly enjoy the engagement. Like Sherlock Holmes, I truly enjoy it when "the game is afoot".

Prole,

You did a very interesting thing, that crystallized for me something that I had been dancing around, but not quite reeling in.

You changed "racism"--which is a behavior--to "a racist", which is not just a person, but an essentialized person, from whom time and change have been deducted. You changed a process, a system in flux, to an unchanging ontological condition. When I referred above to "the eternal Victim", this was the process to which I was referring.

On the Left, crimes can only be atoned by inflicting the same crimes in reverse. The purported crimes of the "bourgeoisie" were the reason that the Bolsheviks committed genocide against them.

And with respect to race, the solution of the Left is not to objectively improve the condition of blacks, but to punish whites. This is why "educators" (propagandistic agitators) like Ayers talk about educational "reparations". This is why the money paid to ghettos is much more akin to "wergeld" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wergild ) than to a well thought out, useful social policy. Demonstrably, our "War on Poverty" has embittered and enfeebled several generations of black people who otherwise would have found, on their own, the path to self respect and prosperity.

As it is, the Democrats have successfully cultivated in them resentment, self pity, helplessness, and a profound reliance on the Government. Gangster Rap was a mathematically necessary reaction to this.

With respect, specifically, to Affirmative Action, the simple, ineluctable fact is that you are hiring or promoting people based on the color of their skin. In a perfect world, they are the best qualified, but the degree of their qualification is logically and practically secondary to their race.

Once you admit racism to any organization, how do you know when it is no longer needed? The assumption is that there is some black person who is best qualified but who would not be offered the job because of his race. How would one prove this to be the case? In Affirmative Action you don't: you posit it. But since no evidence can show that the policy is needed, there is no objective means by which to measure it, other than proportions of minorities. But this says nothing about the necessity of the policy to ensure that the most qualified get jobs or promotions, regardless of ethnicity.

And in practice, once you allow this notion of government sanctioned, structural racism to enter the public sphere, you open up the possibility of the sorts of gangsterism Jesse Jackson and others (including Obama) engaged in, in which you use the threat of labeling (libeling) an organization racist, unless they submit to your demands. You shake them down. Jackson was a master at this, until the stink finally got too deep even for Chicago.

And this is precisely the sort of thing Alinsky counseled, in which you beat people up until they give you what you want. But this says nothing about whether or not such policies and tactics generate anything good at all.

And demonstrably, if you look at the inner city ghettos, the simple fact is either that black people are inferior to other races, or they have been misled by several generations of idiots.

I choose to believe they have been misled by idiots. If you believe otherwise, then I would submit, again, that that sort of racism is unhelpful for everyone.

One other thing, then I'll move on. As Jeff noted, describing the process by which Obama was elected is akin to explaining that it is cold outside by noting that the temperature is low. You have added nothing of value to the discussion.

In point of fact, I was called more than once a racist for not supporting Obama. One of my children was called a racist by the class idiot. We heard, over and over, how his Inauguration was a "historic moment". It was a historic moment: we have never elected a Socialist before who had Communist parents.

But the only way to get past racism is to stop caring about race. Let those with desire and skill move ahead of those without desire and without talent. Race should not matter, but it did and it does.

Obama's election, in no small measure, was a token of white guilt at past abuses of black people. Those abuses happened, but very few who are alive today had anything to do with them. Certainly, "white people" have nothing to atone for. If our ancestors sinned, our task now is to see the world as it is, and do what is right. And we have not done right by black people in this nation.

In point of fact, we have generated a system by which black people keep electing the very people who are most active in keeping them down. They haven't elected a Republican in Chicago or Detroit in probably 30 years, and large sections of both are more representative of the Third World than a developed, industrialized nation.

Their policies DO NOT WORK. They fail; they cause poverty, human rights abuses, and moral enervation and decay.

This medicine--this reality medicine the Democrats are giving to America--is going to hurt like a son of a bitch. This may be the most painful period in our history since the Civil War.

And it was all preventable. That is what makes those with eyes to see sick. This is how Churchill must have felt after the inevitable outbreak of World War 2, after so many chances to avoid it were squandered by well meaning fools.

Tuesday hurt. THis ias a good day to start Crossfit!

Barry,

"And demonstrably, if you look at the inner city ghettos, the simple fact is either that black people are inferior to other races, or they have been misled by several generations of idiots."

I bet if you tried even modestly, you could come up with ten or twenty or 80 plausible alternatives to this false opposition.

Then help me out. Is it that black people like being poor? Is it that 40 years of supporting sloth has been insufficient, and we need another 40 years? Is it that we aren't paying enough money for them to buy NICE cars, so they can't get jobs?

Or is it, possibly, that two parent families produce--according to mountains of evidence--better adjusted children better able to take advantage of opportunities, and that Democratic policies indirectly support out of birth wedlock, and have caused an increase in illegitimacy to something very close to 100%?

There is no need whatever to inject moral judgment into this. Common sense will suffice to tell you that if a kid is raised by a screwed up 18 year old parent, they are going to be ill equipped to handle adult responsibilities. This is bad policy, and making excuses for it creates MORE suffering, not less.

You are on the side that is increasing human suffering. I am on the side that wants to WIN the War on Poverty. We can do it, but not by continuing the same stupidity--and, to be clear--the same moral callousness and political opportunism.

HOT HOT HOT