September 4, 2009

Friday 090904

Rest Day

wallball-th.jpg

Enlarge image


CrossFit Underground Start-up, CrossFit Journal Preview - [wmv] [mov]


"Farewell America" by Wegelin & Co.

Post thoughts to comments.

Posted by lauren at September 4, 2009 5:30 PM
Comments

I posted the following late yesterday, but I'll toss it out there again and see if anyone has any thought:

On my browser right now, on the left side of the mainsite page, where the rotating testimonials and moto pictures are posted, is a picture of a tac squad, SWAT team, SF unit, or some such outfit, featuring six gentlemen pointing what appear to be shotguns directly at the cameraman. This is a textbook example of unsafe weapons handling, and it renders one a jackass to anyone who's been taught how to handle and operate a firearm or that firearms are not just really cool toys. To the uninitiated, it may look cool. It is not cool. I humbly request that such pictures not be posted and thereby encouraged or implicitly endorsed as cool or moto. There are plenty of great mil/leo pictures posted to this site that are both inspiring and responsible in the weapons handling they display.

A while back when the Infant Swim Rescue video was posted, some commenters seemed to think it was too heavy and serious a topic for this website. Too scary, too much of a downer. I disagreed and thought it was great; the video and link conveyed real-life safety information that could realistically have helped someone out, given the reach and exposure of this site. A highly responsible and even beneficent use of the site for non-fitness purposes, I thought. I see this issue as substantially similar. If you like, look at it as analogous to a form issue. Hell, make a bi-panel slide show of good/bad weapons handling.

Alright, apologies for the long post and for what may come across as sanctimony. Clearly, I feel strongly about this issue, as most of us in the Marine Corps do. You only have to see one guy get shot with a supposedly unloaded weapon to become fairly rigid and even annoying about this.

That's it. Two year of Crossfit, and this is the first time I've seen fit to comment. I'm curious to hear people's thoughts. And please hold off on the tempting "lighten up, bro" response, as this sentiment adds nothing of value to the conversation.

-Tim

Comment #1 - Posted by: Forrest Chump at September 3, 2009 6:31 PM

I finally got 5 muscle ups in a row and Walked across the gym on my hands! (We have a really big gym). I'm getting the hang of controlling the direction I go in when I'm up-side-down. Yay!

Gillian, great shot of you on CrossFitEndurance today! You're making us proud :D

Comment #2 - Posted by: AllisonNYC_CrossFit Obsession at September 3, 2009 6:31 PM

Regarding the article: the attack on UBS should be the expected outcome for folks who voted a socialist regime into power who has and will continue to villify us evil 'rich' people who actually create jobs for others. What makes some of us evil capitalists even more reprehensible creatures is that, yes, some of us strive to hide our earnings and wealth from a government (especially the one under our new communist president and his czars) that is bent on taking it from us and 'redistributing' to the weak, ignorant and lazy.

Comment #3 - Posted by: woody at September 3, 2009 6:37 PM

Rest Day! I need it.

Comment #4 - Posted by: Fritz at September 3, 2009 6:38 PM

CALLING ALL VIDEO MAKERS: I looked around a bit, but couldn’t find a short (ideally 30-60 seconds), family-safe video explanation/demonstration of Fight Gone Bad. Does anybody have a link for one? If not, can somebody put one together in the next week or two for those of us interested in promoting FGBIV to non-CrossFitting friends in emails and Facebook updates? I am picturing something showing all levels of competitors in action as well as a verbal and text explanation of the format and purpose of supporting The Wounded Warriors Project and Athletes for a Cure. Thanks!

Comment #5 - Posted by: WeemsFit at September 3, 2009 6:44 PM

Zach is a beast, training- and business-wise. I'm definitely watching the video first thing in the AM.

Comment #6 - Posted by: Carl D at September 3, 2009 6:45 PM

Come on guys, we are supposed to be a bunch of meat heads who like to work out and push our limits not a bunch of whining poli sci majors. Love your country, pray for our leaders, and most importantly take care of your familly and yourself. Get some!

Comment #7 - Posted by: Mike M. 29/6'/175 at September 3, 2009 6:47 PM

#6 Joe-

Dude, I'm a veteran. I am not unpatriotic. Taking advantage of tax loopholes is one of my top five hobies. When I'm in the mood to give my money to the less fortunate--I do. The Constitution does say that the government will provide for a common defense---I support that. The Constitution does not, however, say that my tax dollars will pay for a stimulus plan, a welfare state, cash for clunkers, universal health care, etc etc. As long as our government furthers social engineering and flawed economic policies--I will continue to be creative with how I keep the books.

Comment #8 - Posted by: woody at September 3, 2009 6:49 PM

Why all the political stuff? If anyone doesn't support the troops in all they do, then I don't think they deserve to live in this country....IE paying taxes.....anyway

On to more relevant topics;
I was in the Globo on an Air Force base today and couldn't believe how many people were doing bicep curls. I feel like I have an inside joke with all of you while I was observing how silly it seemed.

I was doing the overhead squat 5x3 of a few days ago and got weird looks while they were doing said curls. I must also add that there biceps were quite large, so I guess it was working for them.....though I don't get what good it is.

I'd also like to add that after my workout I walked past a small group of airmen in front of the firehouse that were doing a Crossfit routine of there own making. Pulling cars, flipping a tire, uneven farmers walk, and clean and jerk.....looked like fun. Too bad I didn't know about them until now and won't get a chance to try and work out with them.

To sum up, I am impressed with how large a bicep can get if you train it seriously.......but I think it is ridiculous to bother.

Thanks again coach for all of this greatness!

Comment #9 - Posted by: Shane/30/6'/182 at September 3, 2009 6:55 PM

#1

For all you know the camera could have been on a timer with no one behind it at all. Weapon safety is critical yes, but unless you know the circumstances you can't really be judgmental.

Comment #10 - Posted by: Sean at September 3, 2009 6:57 PM

Zach Even-Esh is the guy that introduced me to CrossFit! I might have never known about CrossFit if it wasn't for this guy! Thanks Zach!

"PROPS TO THA FRAT!!!"

Franiel

P.S. I'm about to hit my last post-evaluation WOD for the 30 day FRAT Paleo Challenge... "Fran" I'll brb...

http://crossfiteclipse.typepad.com/the-frat-paleo-challenge/

Comment #11 - Posted by: Daniel Krull AKA "Franiel" at September 3, 2009 6:59 PM

Hmm.. investment bankers suddenly have credibility again.. interesting.

Comment #12 - Posted by: RK at September 3, 2009 6:59 PM

Zach Even-Esh is the man! subscribe to his youtube channel, it's well worth it!

Comment #13 - Posted by: Kris Kepler at September 3, 2009 7:06 PM

Article - typical dribble from people who aren't the lead dog and have to look at ass all day.

Comment #14 - Posted by: G at September 3, 2009 7:29 PM

#8 woody

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

"General Welfare" is not defined in the Constitution as to allow for the elected Congress to do what it believes is best in a world far beyond what the Framers could have possibly imagined.

The stimulus plan, a welfare state, cash for clunkers, universal health care, etc etc... is covered by the Constitution and if you believe otherwise you should file a lawsuit with the US Supreme Court instead of posting inaccurate rhetoric.

Thank you for your service.

Comment #15 - Posted by: dmac at September 3, 2009 7:29 PM

News Flash, there isn't a need for an income tax, it's all about controlling your life and soliciting campaign contributions. To say one president/party is different than the other is laughable, one wants to tax you at 38% the other at 33% big deal.
Pick up a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Creature from Jekyll Island" and you'll be amazed.

Comment #16 - Posted by: adam at September 3, 2009 7:32 PM

"...The Constitution does not, however, say that my tax dollars will pay for a stimulus plan, a welfare state, cash for clunkers, universal health care, etc etc. As long as our government furthers social engineering and flawed economic policies--I will continue to be creative with how I keep the books."

Comment #8 - Posted by: woody

Props, bro.. I agree completely!

Comment #17 - Posted by: Herm at September 3, 2009 7:43 PM

I am working like the devil is standing behind me with his lash, trying to fix my house up for sale. I have no time for this.

However, considering the article is about taxation, I assume I don't really need to tell everyone, AGAIN, how I feel.

Have fun, ladies and gents.

Comment #18 - Posted by: Goat 33/M/185/5'-11" at September 3, 2009 7:52 PM

dmac at September 3, 2009 7:29 PM

The Constitution also made slavery "legal". It is not handed down by a higher power, it is flawed like all human documents. Luckily I never signed it so, as a contract, it does not apply to me. When they revise it so that it suits me, and I sign it, and it is witnessed and a copy of the signed and witnessed document delivered to me, it will then be legally binding and applicable to my life. Until then it is just paper.

Comment #19 - Posted by: Goat 33/M/185/5'-11" at September 3, 2009 7:57 PM

Don't really know how to do this "rest day" WOD.
What am I supposed to do? sit on my 20lb dynaball?
How long should I sit for?


Comment #20 - Posted by: Bob at September 3, 2009 8:05 PM

i am going to do fran on "roids" again not satisfied , it has been bothering me , i need to settle our battle , and wish me luck i will win

Comment #21 - Posted by: KRONICK at September 3, 2009 8:06 PM

bob i feel the same way cant sit still...that 5k was a rest day

Comment #22 - Posted by: KRONICK at September 3, 2009 8:11 PM

Goat #19

Well, if you're a natural born citizen, you could also say that the Constitution FORCED citizenship unto you. Did you ever CHOOSE to become a citizen? Did you ever sign anything that made you a citizen?

"When they revise it so that it suits me..."

Such melodrama.

Comment #23 - Posted by: priapus at September 3, 2009 8:31 PM

#19 Goat

You're right it is not a perfect document, it will never be, but it does have written into it the process by which to change it. Slavery was legal and now, by the 13th 14th and 15th amendments, it is not.

Maybe the same will one day be true of Income Tax or "general welfare". All it takes is a vast majority of support throughout the country to change the document. "They" as in "when they revise it" includes you.

There are plenty of smart arguments to be made on both sides - I didn't sign it - is not one of them.

Comment #24 - Posted by: dmac at September 3, 2009 8:32 PM


Wengler & Co is one of the "intermediaries" and it is upset. It thinks it (and its "business model") can no longer win in the US.

The Greenbook requires American QIs and their intermediaries who provide them with services to report on the value of their investment accounts. Requiring the intermediary to do so is intended to peel the shell of offshore accounts and offshore tax evasion. Not so bad.

I don't like what seems to be the reverse onus placed on anyone who uses non-QI intermediaries. Though, I imagine the folks who will be burdened with this onus (until they figure out how to avoid it) are a fairly sophisticated bunch served by expensive tax lawyers who are adept at tax avoidance (and in some cases, tax evasion).

By requiring QIs to report on the worldwide non-US accounts of their American clients, this is suggesting that the relationship between the US state and its citizens is one of inextricable obligation. Wherever a US citizen is in the world, the US state is obliged to take an interest in him or her if s/he is persecuted. On the other hand, wherever in the world a US citizen sends his or her money, the IRS wants to watch it move.

Banking is a regulated industry. As regulated entities (like meat packers and water filtration plant operators) banks and other intermediaries are subject to reporting requirements. A reasonable objection to those requirements might be that they are too burdensome in terms of time and expense, or that they are unconnected with, or unimportant for, the regulated activity. I don't think it is reasonable to object that reporting requirements allow the regulator see what's important, or to "close the loopholes."

The IRS must always walk the fine line between regulatory inspection and criminal investigation. It is difficult to venture opinions on these things without seeing the actual words that set out the obligations.

Goat,

That reminds me, I haven't read the Spooner yet. It seems to me that the criteria you set for being a "party"? to a legitimate Constitution/Contract (we'll assume they are the same thing) is impossible to meet if you hope to have more than a few dozen? hundred? thousand? signatories. I wonder if you are really saying, as a person who lives where you do, that you do not want to ever live under/as a party to a Constitution.

Comment #25 - Posted by: Prole at September 3, 2009 9:26 PM

Woody

you served but you won't pay your fair share of taxes.

Er...whose money do you think paid for your wages, equipment, food and shelter during your service when you were happy to receive the government paycheck?

And...c'mon. You may not like Obama and you may well be right to believe he is a socialist and more of one than he lead us to believe during the election campaigns but he is no more a communist than W was a fascist.

Comment #26 - Posted by: nick in sydney m/37/6ft/183 at September 3, 2009 9:50 PM

#15 dmac-

Please do show me how the intent behind promoting the "general welfare" of the people could be possibly construed to mean 'we're going to take your tax dollars and give them to people for their crappy cars so that, in most cases, they can finance new cars, thus throwing them further into debt--all making us better off.' As far as suing the federal government--c'mon man I have enough problems--I'll just stick to cheating on my taxes.

Comment #27 - Posted by: woody at September 3, 2009 9:55 PM

#26 Nick-

Trust me I pay more than my fair share of taxes. I also take full advantage of all the loopholes that are at my disposal. But here's my real question for you: What do you consider the "fair share" of taxes? Give me a percentage. What percent of my income should I pay in federal and state income taxes combined? At what rate should my real estate be taxed? Just give me a percentage so that I know your definition of fair.

Comment #28 - Posted by: woody at September 3, 2009 10:01 PM

I hate these days

Comment #29 - Posted by: Andrew at September 3, 2009 10:01 PM

I'm placing the over/under line at 97 comments today.

There was some heavy mental concentration required for the article.

Comment #30 - Posted by: jakers at September 3, 2009 10:04 PM

can't we just workout, isn't there enough places for politcal jive

Comment #31 - Posted by: joe blow at September 3, 2009 10:19 PM

"Elizabeth" done with cleans instead of squat cleans(rx'd #95) and tiny band dips - 9:39! I am so freakin excited about this! I fought for those cleans Paleo has increased my strength TREMENDOUSLY!! Loving it!! Not too late to join our challenge http://crossfiteclipse.typepad.com/the-frat-paleo-challenge/
GO FRAT! Happy Rest Day everyone!! Big hugs!!

Comment #32 - Posted by: Cookie at September 3, 2009 10:24 PM

Rest Day !! I'll Take it. I know that Crossfit will have a "Rocky" moment for me on Sat.

Comment #33 - Posted by: Christopher Haley at September 3, 2009 10:38 PM

I'm surprised at the number of people who get queasy at the rest day political discussion. You are willing to run you body through the ringer 3 on 1 off, yet unwilling to do the most ancient human endeavor, think for yourself, 1 on 3 off.
“Mental WOD… post thoughts to comments."

Comment #34 - Posted by: crusty chuck at September 3, 2009 11:45 PM

Woody, cash for clunkers is authorized by the commerce clause.

Stop your whining bro. You sound like the libs who say the war was not authorized by the constitutions.

Comment #35 - Posted by: Leroy at September 4, 2009 2:22 AM

#35
I'm clear on the fact that war would fall under "common defense...all enemies foreign and domestic" yada yada. Attempting to stimaulate (bail out) struggling industries or finance the purchase of other citizens' modes of transportation through redistribution of wealth would, certainly, not have been what the framers had in mind when discussing regulating commerce amongst the states.

Comment #36 - Posted by: woody at September 4, 2009 2:48 AM

Woody, what congress has authority to do is determined by Supreme Court case law. Under current Supreme Court case law, Congress has very broad power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress also has the power to tax and spend which is always redistribution of wealth whether it's for defense or cash for clunkers.

What you understand the constitution to permit is completely irrelevant to the discussion. A person could certainly argue that invading Iraq was not a matter of national defense and therefore congress did not have the power to authorize it. Fortunately, the framers did not empower the people to determine what is or is not allowed by the constitution. That authority was given to the Supreme Court.

Comment #37 - Posted by: Leroy at September 4, 2009 3:23 AM

#37 Leroy-
Your civics lesson is correct. My original point in all of this, which I could have stated better, is that as a productive citizen I don't mind paying income taxes--but in recent years I've reached my breaking point. Giving away in excess of 40% of my income between state and federal taxes is absurd. Its mine, I earned it, and I just want to keep a little more of it. Punitively taxing citizens for working harder, being more talented, etc. ruins the incentive to go out there and try to kill it every day--especially, when you see how the money you were forced to give away is being spent. It is for those reasons that I feel compelled to utilize loopholes in the tax code. It's like this: if you ask me to go out and run 10k with you on a nice day--I might not be thrilled about it--but I see the benefit and I'll go bang out some miles. If you hold a gun to my head and tell me you're going to throw me in prison if I don't run a marathon with you at 3am, in the snow, uphill both ways--well, I'm gonna try to find a way to skirt that one.

Comment #38 - Posted by: woody at September 4, 2009 3:53 AM

Wasn't that video meant for the Affiliate Blog?

Comment #39 - Posted by: James CFAddiction at September 4, 2009 3:55 AM

#3

Ummmmmm I'm not rich at all infact I'm technically poor by many standards. Yet I'm weak, lazy, or what ever else you said. No offense, and I applaud you on standing by your beliefs, but it is thoughts like that that really make me wonder sometimes. How come you think like that? Why is that if someone need goverment assistance then they must be lazy. I just don't get the rich in this country, or really any other, it seems as if once you get all this wealth you just want to hord it for some reason. Why is it that you can't just keep. What you need to live your life style and take what else you have and help some people out who other wise would never get any where in life no matter how hard they tried? I don't know if this will mean anything to you at all I'm sure you'll just get angry and call me a hippie or something I guess I just don't understand. Oh and invade you where wondering I'm in school and my wife and live with my parents until I'm finished just in case you where wondering why I'm so poor. And to everyone else sorry fir the rambling.

Cheers

Comment #40 - Posted by: Zachers at September 4, 2009 5:10 AM

gonna run the CFE WOD today, and probably go tonight for a little treadmill run. Perfect day for it!

Comment #41 - Posted by: neil at September 4, 2009 5:45 AM

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join me as we try to change it." - Barack Obama

Comment #42 - Posted by: JR at September 4, 2009 5:55 AM

5k
29:01 40/5'9"/190 lbs.

Comment #43 - Posted by: Pik at September 4, 2009 6:16 AM

Did some strength training today

Power rack bench press, moving the rack up each set
135x10
185x10
225x8
285x5

plyo pushups, 3x10

3 rounds
20 wall balls
100 single unders

30 leg kicks on heavy bag, each leg

Comment #44 - Posted by: DNICE/M/34/175 at September 4, 2009 6:26 AM

WHY CAN'T WE JUST STICK TO THE WORKOUT REGIMEN? EVERYONE HAS AN AGENDA IN THIS WORLD. WTF? WHAT IS THIS "FAREWELL AMERICA"? WHO IS WEGELIN AND CO? TRY READING THIS, ITS ABOUT THE MOST STUPID AND BORING THING YOU'LL EVER READ. THE BIGGEST GOV'T EXPENDITURE IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY IS THE IRAQ WAR. 1 TRILLION AND COUNTING. WHO GAVE US THAT? O'BAMA IS A BREATH OF FRESH AIR. THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO TAKE CARE OF ITS OWN. CALL ME A SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST, WHATEVER....I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS BUT NOT THE WAR....IM STEPPING OFF MY SOAPBOX NOW.

Comment #45 - Posted by: marcos at September 4, 2009 6:31 AM

Hey everyone, just had a question i just wanted to know what excercises i could do to make my core stronger. I feel on some of the workouts i struggle because my core might not be so strong. Any suggestions??? Have a good weekend everyone be safe :) Ciao

Comment #46 - Posted by: Giovanna Carollo at September 4, 2009 6:39 AM

"Punitively taxing citizens for working harder, being more talented, etc. ruins the incentive to go out there and try to kill it every day"

Punitively taxing people for working harder? Don't see where anyone is being punished for working harder. Sounds like you're distorting what is going on.

Progressive taxation is the most effective means of raising tax revenue. There is no intent to punish someone for having a considerable amount of disposable income. The govt could enact a flat tax of 25% on every worker but that would effectively double the effective tax rate for 90% of the workforce. Overall spending power in the private sector would fall and the economy would suffer as a result.

25% comes from dividing the nations adjusted gross income (8 trillion) by income and payroll taxes (2 trillion).

Comment #47 - Posted by: Leroy at September 4, 2009 6:41 AM

Made up a WOD from a while back:

21-15-9

95# squat snatch
C2B pullups

1) 6:23
2) 5:34
3) 3:19

Total: 15:16

Comment #48 - Posted by: Arthur M/34/5'11"/175 at September 4, 2009 7:00 AM

It's worth noting the Constitution does NOT, repeat does NOT give the Supreme Court the authority to determine what Congress can and cannot do. The slippery slope involved in arrogating to them such unchecked power was, in my view, well understood, certainly by Jefferson.

As in the 2000 election, the Court just ruled itself the right in Marbury v. Madison, and now it is precedent. It is not law, however, except by common usage.

Couple comments on the article, which I did not read all the way through.

Do the Swiss allow their own tax cheats to hide their records in their own banks? I doubt it, but I'm curious. If they don't, then all he's saying is there should be one rule for them, and another for everyone else.

Second, taxes are not to be collected because they CAN be collected. When the Government takes our money, it is in exchange for something. They provide roads, national defense, etc.

Logically, if overseas investors are not reaping any of those benefits, why are they being taxed? If this not a disincentive for them to invest in our economy? I mean, it's a good deal for us. We get money for our corporations to use for capital improvements; we tax the corporations; and those corporations create jobs that we also tax.

Finally, there is a direct ratio between tax rates and cheating. As one goes up, so does the other. High tax rates on people who can move their money around encourage them to find safe harbors elsewhere. Yes, maybe they don't change citizenship initially, so we can find their money and appropriate some of it.

But long term, the best solution is simply to offer a good value. Citizenship is, in effect, a business proposition. You pay X in taxes, you get Y in benefits: what do you think?

We are surrounded by Leftist propaganda. All of the major networks have shown themselves fully beholden to political corrrectly recently. None of them, for example, appear to be making ANY issue at all about Van Jones, the Apollo Alliance, or Jeff Jones.

Part of this propaganda was the the rich got an unfair deal under Bush. In point of fact, under Bush the amount of money collected from the rich, as a percentage of total revenue, went UP considerably. Taxes on the rich weren't cut: they were increased.

No doubt this is a somewhat complex issue, but in my view the simple fact is that more people with money chose to invest their money here, and report it more or less accurately, which meant we collected more.

Comment #49 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 4, 2009 7:01 AM

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. "

Comment #50 - Posted by: Matt HP at September 4, 2009 7:08 AM

Thanks Zack great video!

Comment #51 - Posted by: Justin at September 4, 2009 7:11 AM

Our government's addiction to debt - nay, our *society's* addiction to debt - is going to kill our country. "The borrower is slave to the lender." The real message in that document is the ultimate devaluing of our currency and the drastic consequences that will have. Be aware of the possibility (likelihood) of our dollar crashing. Prepare yourself for that! What will you do then?

Comment #52 - Posted by: Michael m/46/5'9"/175 at September 4, 2009 7:23 AM

***FRAT***

The whole family did Tabata sit ups yesterday in our living room, what a proud day for me!

My Wife got a total of 83, my 9 year old son got 85 and my 4 year old just kind of followed along with his own version of mini sit ups. We were all sweating and cheering for each other, it was awesome!

Parents: Your kids are watching you, so lead by example. Mom and Dad do Crossfit, so our kids want to exercise too. I eat Paleo and my son is starting to ask questions about which foods are good and which are bad...it's exciting stuff!

Props to Herm and the FRAT Paleo Challenge for getting me started with proper nutrition:

http://crossfiteclipse.typepad.com/the-frat-paleo-challenge/

Happy rest day and man hugs to the FRAT!

Comment #53 - Posted by: Playoff Beard at September 4, 2009 7:28 AM

Awesome vid today :)
Fantastic job on your family's tabatas PB!!!

Comment #54 - Posted by: Cookie at September 4, 2009 7:33 AM

Great Video!!!!

The ambulance siren was a nice touch.haha.....it proves that the environment that we train in is as real as where we live and that's how it should be. Not the superficial glorified look of pretty/proper globos. As Zach says "THIS IS WHERE THE REAL s*#% HAPPENS!!!!!!!!"

Comment #55 - Posted by: John DiMercurio at September 4, 2009 7:34 AM

Thanks Cookie, I hope you and the girls have an awesome weekend!

Comment #56 - Posted by: Playoff Beard at September 4, 2009 7:45 AM

I am a newbie to this site as I have been using the program for almost 2 weeks now and am loving it. I however am becoming increasingly annoyed that I have to wade through political post to get to the information that I am looking for. I don't go to political sites and post workouts why would I come here and post political views. I hope that site administrators nip this in the bud.

Comment #57 - Posted by: Jim at September 4, 2009 7:48 AM

Two points on the article:

1: Wegelin is pointing out that using a moral argument to justify the end of Swiss banking secrecy is hypocritical. They state that given the US has committed immoral acts in the past (in their opinion) it is wrong to try and take the moral high ground in this situation.
2: As this should not be viewed as a question of morals, it should be viewed in terms of business. The United States has been the dominant market in the world due to the ability to raise and move capital and ideas efficiently. This should be illustrated by our decreasing manifesting and industrial base and the increase in idea capital businesses (i.e. finance, consulting, insurance etc) The current financial crisis has increased the uncertainty that the US market should be the dominant financial market in the world. Decisions by our politicians are increasing the cost of doing business in the US. Likewise, efforts by politicians rather than properly regulated free markets to increasingly monitor and control capital and ideas drastically increase uncertainty for businesses.

To conclude
I believe it is this reason that we should pay attention to articles like the one posted today. If the US loses the trust of the world as to the integrity of our markets and our economy it is bad for everyone.

For other reading regarding our current state of affairs I strongly suggest reading: Kevin Depew at Minyanville.com, Mish Shedlock, Karl Denninger at the Market Ticker and lastly Zerohedge.

Comment #58 - Posted by: John at September 4, 2009 7:52 AM

last post should read manufacturing and industrial. Not manifesting.

Comment #59 - Posted by: John at September 4, 2009 7:54 AM

I've trained with Zach and Netro at the Underground and they're the real deal. It's not a classic affiliate in the Santa Cruz model, but Zach as tires, sled drags, sledge hammers, strongman stones, ropes, all sort of toys for us lunatics. Great to see him on the main page!

Comment #60 - Posted by: john wopat at September 4, 2009 8:00 AM

Jim #56:

Welcome to Rest Day. At Crossfit.com we exercise our bodies and test our will 3 days on, one day off. Every fourth day we exercise our brains through the discussion of issues that are prompted by an article or link offered by Greg and Lauren Glassman, the owners of Crossfit and this site. They have chosen, in their roles as owners/proprieters/administrators, to have these discussions as a means to increase mental fitness. As an aside, the drivel about capitalism on yesterday's comments was totally out of place and inappropriate on a physical work-out day; it was an impolite imposition on the part of the poster.

So today, and every fourth day until Coach and Lauren change their minds, we will be offered the opportunity to discuss, argue, or squabble over something that may, indeed, invlolve politics. You are not the first to object. You will surely not be the last. But your protestations will almost certainly have the same exact effect on this schedule as have all who have gone before you. None.Enjoy whatever version of Rest Day you find to be most helpful in your pursuit of fitness.

In any event, welcome aboard. Fasten your seatbelt.

Comment #61 - Posted by: bingo at September 4, 2009 8:06 AM

For those of you that didn't read the article all the way through, the key sentence is at the bottom of the first column on page 8. "Potential aggression and economic progress are mutually exclusive." That sentence is the basis for the entire piece and for Wegelin saying farewell.

Wegelin is saying that U.S aggression has lead to massive indebtedness. That debt has forced the IRS to become aggressive, it has led to a decrease in value of the dollar, and prohibited us from addressing social causes and what not.

I disagree with Wegelin, however, that potential aggression is the problem. Potential aggression is great. It's acting aggressive that has been problematic for us. The potential shows our strength. Using massive froces in two countries far far away probably wasn't the wisest move. Having the potential to do so isn't the problem.

Comment #62 - Posted by: andy at September 4, 2009 8:17 AM

I'm new to Crossfit but I'm going to just skip this site and get all my WOD info from Brand X if I'm going to have to wade through a bunch of libertarian/wingnut drivel every day

Comment #63 - Posted by: Jake at September 4, 2009 8:24 AM

#56 Jim and #62 Jake:

Bingo #60 is exactly right...again :-)

Comment #64 - Posted by: Playoff Beard at September 4, 2009 8:38 AM

Ran 5k today

time: 24:08

Comment #65 - Posted by: adam (m/23/5'9"/165) at September 4, 2009 8:42 AM

Hmmmm...the PDF file seems more like an Anti-American rant more than an investment study.

Funny how a Swiss banker is tut-tutting America while his predecessors gladly stowed millions of dollars for 3rd Reich personnel that became rich off of millions of dead Europeans. Pretty ballsy for an Investment Bank to write this from a country that didn't care while Europe burned to ashes around it.

BTW, Germany, France, and most of the EU are clamping down on banking secrecy, but US is of course the bad guy.

This guy wants Amerikkka to fail as much as Rush or some Left Wing Chicano studies Professor.

Last time I checked:
Tax funds the military.
Tax loopholes hurt funding the military.
Military personnel like to compensated for their time in service and have good equipment.
Many Cross-Fitters are in the military

Therefore...

Comment #66 - Posted by: jd at September 4, 2009 9:30 AM

Comment #1 - Posted by: Forrest Chump
-Chump, I like your point. In a year in Baghdad, I was sniped at a couple times but the good guys pointed their weapons at me daily ... clueless weapons handling.

Interesting that you posted about ISR on the same day as the weapons discipline - your child is 900 times more likely to drown in your pool than to be shot by the gun in your home. Paul

Comment #67 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 6'2" 205 45 yoa at September 4, 2009 9:34 AM

Jake - ever see what happens after you take your hand out of a bucket?

Comment #68 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 6'2" 205 45 yoa at September 4, 2009 9:34 AM

God Bless the newbie's who are threatening to hold their breath until the rest day posts are changed to non-political. I get a kick out of their threats to go somewhere else. Don't let the door hit your backside on the way out.

Comment #69 - Posted by: tracy at September 4, 2009 9:35 AM

Zack (Crossfit Underground) you have me sold. Too bad there is no Crossfit gym in my area. Been doing my thing at the local station. Haven't used my "globo gym" membership in months and I have no desire to go back.

Keep hungry brother!

Comment #70 - Posted by: John B at September 4, 2009 9:38 AM

#49
Thank-you for clarifying my point better than I was able to.

Comment #71 - Posted by: woody at September 4, 2009 9:39 AM

#15

Wrong...or so your link seems to suggest. Read further into your own reference guide and then perhaps you should follow your own advice. No fair to commit the same logical fallacy and proport it as factual.

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

Comment #72 - Posted by: Mateo m/34/5'10"/190 at September 4, 2009 10:52 AM

Since my first cross-fit day was yesterday, with the 5k, decided to do "Cindy's." Did 5 sets in 10:37...couldn't do anymore pullups...I need to build more endurance.

Comment #73 - Posted by: iamrphy at September 4, 2009 10:56 AM

I wish I could have read at least one original line of thought on this subject here today. As usual, all that the rest day god-bless-america-political-bullsh!t subject has proven is that opinions are no different to a55holes: we all have one.

Comment #74 - Posted by: GCF at September 4, 2009 11:07 AM

GCF: The only difference between YOUR opinion, and many posted, is that YOURS contains no content, original or otherwise, other than your personal FEELINGS.

We try to work in ideas here. I am going to assume you didn't see any original lines of thought since you didn't read all the posts, didn't understand them, or made no effort to think about them.

Carry on. Someone has to occupy the bottom rung of the ladder.

Comment #75 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 4, 2009 11:12 AM

I like the articles intent. Basically Wegelin and Co. are using the "Look overe here defense" where they point out something that someone else is doing wrong to draw eyes away from what they have been doing wrong.

Comment #76 - Posted by: Ryan at September 4, 2009 11:15 AM

Did 3-3-3-3-3 deadlifts today.

225-275-295-315-335

335 is my current PR, so 3x that is nice! Time to conquer my fear of heavy deadlifts and go for more.

Comment #77 - Posted by: Michael m/46/5'9"/175 at September 4, 2009 11:20 AM

"The borrower is slave to the lender." Our culture of indebtedness is killing our country - governmentally and individually.

Comment #78 - Posted by: Michael m/46/5'9"/175 at September 4, 2009 11:22 AM

Weighted pull-ups 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 reps

Body weight = 140
Pull ups with 60lbs

Comment #79 - Posted by: Kam at September 4, 2009 11:31 AM

#77

No question. Yet each time we don't learn from it.

Comment #80 - Posted by: Matt S at September 4, 2009 11:55 AM

#74 -Well done Barry. More of the same.

Comment #81 - Posted by: GCF at September 4, 2009 11:58 AM

I agree with #1 Forrest Chump. As a person who has been shot with a supposedly unloaded weapon, I have very strong feelings about "playing" with guns. When I see a picture of professionals handling their tools like that, I have to wonder what's going on in their heads.

On a lighter note; yesterday I did a 6:57 Elizabeth as Rx'ed! Big time PR! I was sucking wind during the cleans, but I blazed through the rings dips using a deep, full range of motion and not levering my upper body around. Now if I could do the cleans with, say, just one pause for rest, then I'd have a pretty dang competitive time! Goal: set.

M/40/71"/195

Comment #82 - Posted by: Greg at September 4, 2009 12:02 PM

F/38/118
Elizabeth with 95# full sqt cleans and unassisted ring dips. Cleans were soooooo heavy- def. struggled through them:
13:55

Comment #83 - Posted by: Raine at September 4, 2009 12:06 PM

Ran 3 mile course- 19:11. Ran an extra 200 for a 5K so around 20 flat. Previous PR on the 3 mile this summer was 19:45!

Comment #84 - Posted by: Eric/m/24/208/6'2" at September 4, 2009 12:57 PM

I still have yet to get an answer from anyone who has called my views 'unpatriotic', 'selfish' etc. regarding what they they believe to be a fair percentage of an individual's income that should be paid in combined federal and state income taxes. C'mon someone throw at a number for me.

Comment #85 - Posted by: woody at September 4, 2009 1:12 PM

Christine
3rds 500m row
12 BW DL
21 box jumps
rx'd 10;10

Active duty dudes put up and shut up even on rest days. I'd do it for free if they fed me better:)

Comment #86 - Posted by: Lt Gabe at September 4, 2009 1:38 PM

Woody, I'm on board with you though.

Comment #87 - Posted by: Lt Gabe at September 4, 2009 1:39 PM


Woody,


For the most part the people who want higher taxes on the so-called-reach have no idea what percent people pay.

Comment #88 - Posted by: tracy at September 4, 2009 1:49 PM

Tracy, of course they don't. I have plenty of uber liberal friends who, though nice people, produce nothing. The "tell me what percentage you think is fair" always trips them up when they're on the 'you and your wife are just greedy do you really need more' rant. The last time I had this argument with one of my buddies he said he thought in the neighborhood of 30% was fair--I told him--if he could make that happen--done deal.

Comment #89 - Posted by: woody at September 4, 2009 1:59 PM

Jerry Brown, during his last Presidential Campaign, calculated a Federal Flat Tax (on all individuals and corporations) at 14%. Lower than the nominal current rates, but also closing loopholes and shelters.

Still sounds like a reasonable number to me.

Comment #90 - Posted by: Benny1 M/40/74"/220 at September 4, 2009 1:59 PM

Benny-
I'ld give my left nut to pay 14%--hell, I'ld bump it up to 20%--no games, no loopholes.

Comment #91 - Posted by: woody at September 4, 2009 2:01 PM

I would too, Woody. It comes up from time to time still, Sam Brownback and Steve Forbes have also proposed it in the more recent past, both at a 17% rate I believe. The states (at least those like mine - CA - which levy income tax) would add a few % of their own, I'm sure. But 20% with a 1-page return that I can complete in half an hour for free? Heck yeah, sign me up.

Comment #92 - Posted by: Benny1 M/40/74"/220 at September 4, 2009 2:09 PM

Woody,

in response to your comment #28.

Firstly, let me tell you that Idream of only paying 40%. Top rate in Australia is 46% (over about 120k) and we also pay a 10% goods and services tax. In addition, we have more aggressive capital gains taxes than the US. I have a business and that allows me some methods of
efficiencies and fortunately, have a good accountant.

Fair is really hard to evaluate. What I can state is that I do believe in theory and in practice in a progressive taxation system. I think it is fair that to a certain extent those who generate higher incomes pay a greater proportion of it to fund what I believe are essential services and systems - health, education, infrastructure, defence, etc.

I believe in the state providing a benchmark level of education, health, pensions and benefits to those unable or less able to reach this mark themselves. The tough thing is agreeing what that benchmark is, who qualifies for it and who manages that.

What really ticks me off is waste, freeriders, unnecessary bureaucracy and spending based on personal mandates as opposed to generally recognised standards of fairness (and I am fully aware how wobbly that term is). I include too much unemployment and health benefits, huge swathes of government bureaucracy and also the Iraq Invasion and occupation (but certainly not the activity in Pakistan and Afghanistan whcih I fully agree with) and these crazy stimulus payments which in Australia are nothing more than cash handouts to low income people.

I agree then with handing over a portion of my money to the government to spend. But I hate it when they spend it on stuff I don't agree with.

if I could somehow calculate the proportion of government activity I wanted to fund and reduce my tax contribution to that and know that those projects remained funded then happy days. But part of living in a governed system is accepting the direction and governance of others. So short of heading into politics and becoming the Minster for Finance....it ain't going to happen.

Comment #93 - Posted by: nick in sydney m/37/6ft/183 at September 4, 2009 2:39 PM

Didn't feel like resting today so.....

3 Rounds for time

250 Meter row
21 KB Swings 2Pood
7 Burpee pullups

14:49

Hard as hell!!

Comment #94 - Posted by: Brian M. 32/M/5'9"/170 at September 4, 2009 2:41 PM

I didnt rest either (first week of xfit)

Did:

500 row
21 burpees
400 run

x3

burpees were tough!

Comment #95 - Posted by: Mickster at September 4, 2009 3:17 PM

Woody,

Fairness is a crock. Do whatever you will, but be responsible for the consequences and don't be high and mighty about it.

Comment #96 - Posted by: Joe C. at September 4, 2009 3:24 PM

Man, is this what happens on a rest day? Go crossfit and puke, please.

Comment #97 - Posted by: rlh at September 4, 2009 3:56 PM

I'm with Woody.

Tomorrow is PIA grand opening!! I am f'n pumped.

Comment #98 - Posted by: Jake/22/180/5'11 at September 4, 2009 4:14 PM

#95, i feel like puking more reading this stuff, than i did doing rowing fran.

Comment #99 - Posted by: trevor at September 4, 2009 4:54 PM

What makes me want to puke is people who value so little the freedom our fighting men and women--and town hall attending parents and grandparents, and greatgrandparents--BUILT for us, that they view debate as a painful chore.

If thinking and expressing yourself is that much of a burden, what good are you? How are you contributing to our democracy? Why do you DESERVE self rule? Wouldn't it just be easier for you to let someone dictate to you what to do?

I mean that quite sincerely. Why do you deserve freedom, when you are unwilling to work to protect it or use it?

Comment #100 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 4, 2009 5:18 PM

I took the over...I win Jakers!

Comment #101 - Posted by: bingo at September 4, 2009 5:30 PM

Did CFE Workout.
1.5m TT in 10:17

Comment #102 - Posted by: tooljunky m/28/5'10 at September 4, 2009 5:47 PM

#98 Barry Cooper: You do know that your kick ass, take down names posting style is getting Strong Lil' Pony all hot and bothered right?

Bingo wins!

Comment #103 - Posted by: Playoff Beard at September 4, 2009 6:20 PM

#71 Mateo

No where in my post #15 did I suggest that "general welfare" in the Constitution meant what you said: "public assistance."

What I wrote is that the language exists in the Constitution to allow Congress to do just about anything with tax dollars under the terms "general Welfare".

It doesn’t even need to work – many would argue the Reagan created a dangerous precedent by lowering taxes – but it was Constitutional because they believed at the time that it provided for the Happiness and Prosperity of the country.

#49 Barry Cooper

You've written well on the topic and while I don't share your views I respect your positioning - expect for this:

"...under Bush the amount of money collected from the rich, as a percentage of total revenue, went UP considerably. Taxes on the rich weren't cut: they were increased."

The first is true. The dollar percentage of total revenue went up. The next part is not true. The percentage each individual paid in taxes was cut.

The confusion is due to the distribution of wealth. From 2000 to 2008 the richest people made substantial gains while middle class wages actually lost to inflation. It doesn’t mean the rich were taxed more as a percentage under Bush – it means they made disproportionally large gains and paid more tax dollars than the vast majority of Americans who actually lost money during his term.

I suspect you already knew this and were just trying to pull a fast one.

Comment #104 - Posted by: dmac at September 4, 2009 7:07 PM

Woody:
Your question is a red herring. I agree w/ Joe C.

I would prefer a consumption tax over a income tax.

Why is it a privilege to die for your country but
a burden to pay your taxes?

Comment #105 - Posted by: don h at September 4, 2009 7:52 PM

Don-
A consumption tax would be perfect--because I would be the decision maker.

As for your second comment--I was part of an all volunteer military--if I had been killed in combat it would have been the result of my own choices--I had the privilege of making the decision to put myself in harm's way as an infantry officer. Now, as a civilian, I get bent over for working my ass off and making a ton of money--that is a burden.

Comment #106 - Posted by: woody at September 4, 2009 8:28 PM

Barry,

We agree (in part) again.

You: "Second, taxes are not to be collected because they CAN be collected. When the Government takes our money, it is in exchange for something. They provide roads, national defense, etc....Logically, if overseas investors are not reaping any of those benefits, why are they being taxed?"

Me: I agree, and the flipside (which I think you might agree with) is that if US investors are reaping the benefits of roads and national defence, etc., they shouldn't be able to avoid being taxed for it by using intermediaries to send their har-gow to Swistzerland.

And, I like your last line at #74. I don't understand what goes through the mind of a person who thinks - "these folks are idiots for writing in here" - and then proceeds to write in here. Sure, think we're idiots. But what could be more idiotic than telling a bunch of idiots that they are idiotic in an idiotic manner! Wait, it's irony. They've got advanced degrees in postsomething horeswank studies and they're actually employing a new pedagogical technique develped at, and printed by the press of ? University (a good bet the school's located north of the Mason-Dixon and west of Lake Champlain).

Woody 14,

The problem (as I see it from my weak-kneed liberal-sit-on-my-ass-and-let-you-pay-for-my-3500 itunes-and-fridge-full-of-beer-point-of-view) with going only with consumption taxes, is that the poorest end up paying the most as a ratio of non-discretionary expenditure to income - there is a minimum amount of food you need to eat, transit you need to take, rent you need to pay, whether you are rich or poor, it's just the rich don't need to think about it.

Comment #107 - Posted by: Prole at September 4, 2009 10:05 PM

#102: DMAC.


Our total receipts went UP. Total, dollar adjusted receipts. The tax cuts worked, as promised, to stimulate job and wealth creation. Since the investors who put their money in risked the most, they won the most.

Our systemic, long term problem is that we increased expenses as well, more than income. This happened under Reagan and H.W. Bush, both of whom suffered from Democratic Congresses; and under George W. because of the War on Terror, and the creation of a large new Dept. of Homeland Security, COUPLED with on-going increases in domestic spending. As a "compassionate conservative" the only objection he raised to our Welfare State was that the money should be spent by people who, in addition to doling out the checks, could also tell them to get their stuff together; faith based organizations, who differed from the places Obama will use for the same purpose only in that there weren't teaching people to overthrow the government.

I see people saying Bush "destroyed" the middle class. In reality, we have BY FAR, hands down, NO QUESTION the largest, most prosperous middle class ever to exist anywhere. What happened is that people are used to growing every year. Getting richer every year.

But systemically, job creation is tied to available capital. Bush freed up money for job creation, but he did it using deficit financing. More: most American households use deficit financing for their lifestyles. How can you not get into trouble spending more than you make?

I have never seen, anywhere, ANY reason to suppose that Bush was anti-Middle Class, or seen any credible argument as to how he supposedly destroyed (or that it was "destroyed). What I have seen is decreases in the INCREASE in the standard of living, coupled with his term. Correllation is not causation. That's basic.

What we need to do is VASTLY decrease the size of our Federal Govt. This guy in the article wants to blame our wars. Well, Iraq is mostly over, and although Afghanistan is not cheap, it is dwarfed by many other expenses we face, most notably Medicare and Social Security.

We need to begin thinking big, just like our opponents, who want to overthrow the government entirely, are.

Comment #108 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 5, 2009 5:28 AM

The big problems I see in this article are listed:
1. The Swiss, if they represent 'the world [with money]' are waking up to the fact that America is a less friendly place to do business than it once was.
2. The US is perceived as aggressive, bellicose, violent and hegemonic.
3. Democratic administrations in the US do not look pleasantly on personal property ownership within Anglo-Saxon legal frameworks.

1+2+3 suggest that the moneyed world can no longer turn a blind eye to what it perceives as our moral transgressions, as long as it does not have the business freedoms it once did.

An alternate example, from another perspective:

The United States supported Sri Lankan government efforts to dismantle the Tamil Tigers. Once the Sri Lankan gov't started killing citizens to get to Tamil guerillas, the US withdrew military aid for moral reasons. The Chinese stepped into the void, gave mil. aid to the Sri Lankans, and now have a strong political foothold and access to better trade routes.

Any objective foreign investor is willing to overlook US moral transgressions, as long as the US is able to 1. project its overseas military operations as humanitarian and morally good, and 2. as long as the US is a nice place to do business.

Anglo-Saxon law doesn't force anything, as do other countries, and we rely on taxing the source and holder of wealth generation. Continental [European] laws force ownership on anybody standing near the deceased, and then tax their property, which I personally view as punitive and expansionary governance.

If this banker is a small-to-medium sized Qualified Intermediary and signatory to US Tax agreements, then it will begin to suffer in almost the same way that it would by doing business on the Continent.

We must face the fact that the U.S. is becoming less and less appealing to foreign governments and citizens as a place to do business, as long as we are perceived as being similar to them. America's exceptionalism, which critics have said is 'declining,' was, in fact, a calculable characteristic, if our tax laws are any indication. America, by trying to become more like those 'fair and equal' countries on the European Continent, has cut off its nose to spite it's own face.

The markets decide to reward innovators and experts, and here we can see a bit of market response to American finger-wagging and enforcement regimes. It's going to take decades for wise US citizens to clean this up, but I think it can be done.

Comment #109 - Posted by: Chris at September 5, 2009 6:12 AM

Chris:

Great post (#105, 0612).

The article is right to leave morals out of taxation - it's not a moral question and the tax man (of any sovereign) can never be in a position on the moral high ground. Holmes was right about law when it comes to taxation - it should be seen through the eyes of the "bad man". What do I owe the government? What the law says and not a penny more.

I think we would do well to heed the admonition that our banking friends view us as less "capital friendly" as we try to extend the territorial reach of our tax laws. People need to stop moralizing about "tax cheats" as well, as if someone who takes advantage of the laws as written is "evil" for not volunteering to give away more of their money than is required. This populist anti-"rich" sentiment is fueled by people for their own political purposes but is, if one gives the matter even a cursory thought, anti-"American Dream". How can you "rise up" with a marginal tax rate of 28% federal (plus $16,750) plus state (and that's if you're "middle class")?

Giving away over 1/3 of your income if you're successful hardly seems like the bargain that many of you here believe it is and I deny the premise that I have any "moral" obligation to "the poor" - or anyone, for that matter - beyond the very minimum the law demands. And please don't talk to me about health care on moral grounds, either. The federal government is the worst waster of money there is and why I limit my taxes to exactly the minimum.

It's like giving "extra" money to a relative who's an alcoholic or drug abuser. Would that money - your money - no matter your morals about it, not be better spent by you on something of more utility - to you?

Rant over.

Comment #110 - Posted by: Dale_Saran at September 5, 2009 8:03 AM

George Bush was one of the worst presidents for the middle class. Bush promoted free trade deals that sent our jobs overseas, promoted amnesty for illegal immigrants, and greater guest worker programs while our borders remain unsecured. Bush continued to spend to the point of breaking Lyndon Johnson's record by increasing the size of government. He borrowed from nations that are not the friendliest such as China and Saudi Arabia contributing to the current financial crisis, while the federal reserve printed money out of thin air devaluing our currency. Bush passed massive tax cuts that favored the wealthy and did nothing to address the budget deficit.

Comment #111 - Posted by: Repelican at September 5, 2009 10:47 AM

44/6'1"/185

195 215 230 240 245f 245f 245f

failed on the jerk on all 3 attempts at 245. pr on the power clean at 245 though.

Comment #112 - Posted by: ken c at September 5, 2009 10:57 AM

Barry @ #74

I find your comment:

Carry on. Someone has to occupy the bottom rung of the ladder

to be sad proof of who you actually are. Your cheapshots are beneath the veneer you try so hard to hide behind.

Comment #113 - Posted by: anderson_CF at September 5, 2009 11:09 AM

Can we take the political debate off-line?

Jeeze....


5K make-up (approximately, probably a little short)...

20:56


Comment #114 - Posted by: jpatrick at September 5, 2009 12:36 PM

#109: you do realize, don't you, that Bush is not longer President? That your anti-capitalist propaganda was SUCCESSFUL? You got a Commie in the White House. Are you not reading the memos with the talking points? That's oh-so-2008.

I do feel the need to add, though, that I am unable to squeeze my brain entirely into the small place required to limit myself soley to disinformation and insult.

NAFTA was passed under whom? Do you remember?

More importantly, free trade helps everyone. The simple fact is that all the cheap crap made overseas and bought here INCREASES YOUR STANDARD OF LIVING. You get more stuff, with less money.

The money Saudi Arabia and China invested helped fund our government spending. Should we have been spending that money? I think not, but if you want to worry about those two, why don't you worry about Iran, Cuba, and Venezuala?

As far as the tax cuts, I've dealt with that. They were tax cuts for the people who had money to invest. They invested it, created jobs, and achieved correspondingly large increases in their net capital, and hence further investing capacity.

Now, this is all lost on you, but I think it's worthwhile pointing out for a general audience, from time to time, the difference between debate and propaganda.

Debate is what autonomous, self respecting individuals who deserve a place in this democratic Republic do. Repeating speaking points they neither created nor understand is what sub-liberal creatures do who have offered up their moral and mental sovereignty to someone who is invisible to them.

#111: If you are offering up the example of what I should aspire to, I will take that criticism as a profound and unwittingly sincere compliment.

Comment #115 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 5, 2009 1:12 PM

I lost some data, and did want to add as well that a lot of manufacturing jobs were added under Bush, but primarily in "Right to Work" States.

At the same time, UAW bankrupted 2 of our Big Three carmakers. Coincidence?

Democrats should be proud of their support on that one.

It seems to me, as well, that the principle reason the most OBVIOUS means of improving our healthcare system--separating access to insurance from employment--has been blocked, is that it would hurt UNIONS.

They would lose members, since most Unions don't actually improve the lives of most of their members, and if too many options were available, then their numbers would continue to shrink.

If Republicans get power back, we need to revise the rules governing Unions; in particular, we need to bust labor Trusts like the UAW. GM, Chrysler and Ford can't get together and set prices. Why, then, can the UAW? It is CATEGORICALLY anti-competitive, and anti-free market.

Goldwater said it best: unions need to only deal with single companies; membership needs to be voluntary; and political activity on the part of the unions needs to be banned.

If, as part of that, we prohibit corporations from making political contributions, I could probably live with that.

Comment #116 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 5, 2009 1:25 PM

Barry Cooper: What are you talking about? My propaganda? Why would you presume to know the first thing about me?

I'm not even American - but I do reserve the right to laugh at you.

You're in over your head on this one. Go back to insulting others.

Comment #117 - Posted by: Repelican at September 5, 2009 3:03 PM

Vice President Cheney said that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks and no collaborative operational relationship with Al Qaeda.

Comment #118 - Posted by: Christopher P. at September 5, 2009 3:13 PM

The United States happens to be the only state in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism, would have been condemned by the Security Council, except that it vetoed the resolution. This referred to the U.S. terrorist war against Nicaragua, the court ordered the United States to desist and pay reparations. The U.S. responded by immediately escalating the crimes, including first official orders to attack what are called soft targets -- undefended civilian targets. This is massive terrorism.

Comment #119 - Posted by: AliceKerny at September 5, 2009 3:34 PM

Perhaps the international basis of the post is having an influence here.

Comment 1: If I am offering up facts, upon which I am layering logical arguments, then I am debating. Look above. You will see connections with the externally visible world.

"You are a big fat poopy head" is a subjective statement which does not offer up facts (for example, how do you dispute my arguments, specifically?), nor utilize logic. It is empty, period.

If we posit, as I think valid, that where dialogue ends propaganda begins, then your failure to engage in a context based dialouge constitutes prima facie evidence that your claim is shallow, reflexive, and hence propagandistic, in a formal sense.

#116: last I checked, we did not go to war based upon statements Cheney made. Our Congress authorized Bush to pursue war in Iraq, based upon a long checklist of reasons, including manifest Iraqi support for Palestinian suicide bombers, and his decision to provide safe haven to known terrorists. As we learned after the invasion, he was, even during the countdown to invasion, hosting terrorist "conferences", and covertly supporting terrorists in places like Kuwait.

When we arrested Hussein, he admitted openly that his goal was and remained until the moment we arrested him to develop a covert nuclear weapons program. If he didn't have them when we went in, he planned to make them as soon as the sanctions lifted. Moreover, top ranking officials in a position to know claim with categorical certainty that he transferred his research and technicians to Syria in the lead-up to the war.

#117: please be clear: do you consider, say, Al Queda to be a terrorist organization? Hezbollah? ETA? Was the IRA? How about Hamas? The Tamil Tigers?

What about the recent Chinese repressions in Xinjiang, or Tibet? Do they count?

Do you not see how absurdly one-sided and patently propagandistic such a judgement was, and how openly foolish you are for spouting it as if it had a shred of a grain of truth to it?

This is not a good place for propaganda. I and many others here know much too much.

Keep at it, though. It's good practice for me, and useful training for everyone else in both how to spot it, and, more importantly, how to DEAL with it.

Where facts and logic are present, debate is possible. Where they are not, you are dealing in propaganda.

Comment #120 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 5, 2009 3:55 PM

Fascinating article. The authors believe that the US financial system is doomed, calling quantitative easing and subsequent purchasing of bonds by the Fed "a Ponzi scheme" and using sub-headings like "Hopelessly in Debt", "Rats off a Sinking Ship", "Unattractive anyway" etc. Strong stuff from the neutral Swiss...

Ultimately, when you strip out the moral mud-slinging and the Ponzi-analysis, it is an appeal to self-interest. The authors are actually telling the IRS (or more accurately, they're speaking to those who control its policies) that the interests of the US would be better served by rowing back from an aggressive extra-territorial approach. I don't know enough to agree or disagree. But I am surprised at the aggressive tone and the almost threatening, subversive ideas expounded in the piece by an unlimited partnership of Swiss bankers. Is it pique? Or have they actually been pushed very far by something they hadn't expected and which to them, makes no sense at all, at any level?

Contrary to many posters on here, I do think taxation is a moral issue. Not in the sense that we should be volunteering money without a clear obligation - a taxation system can only work where there is no doubt as to our liability.

But as a citizen, I am offended by others who work on the black market and then give out about sh*tty health care. It annoys me to hear people boasting of "cash jobs" and "back pocket" work, when I'm bursting a gut and paying over 50% taxes - but I do think my beer tastes better on a Friday night. "Woody" boasting above about hiding his income from the Government, gets zero respect from me.

Evasion is just wrong. But don't think that avoidance (the legal type of minimising) is just fine. How can Bono call for cancellation of third world debt while U2 move their intellectual property to The Netherlands to minimise their tax bill? How is it that the top earners pay almost zero taxes? Is that legal? Perhaps. Is it moral? The answer from me is a resounding "no".

Peace.

Comment #121 - Posted by: J1 at September 5, 2009 3:56 PM

Barry - I agree with a lot that you have to say. Could you please list the other countries that have condemned by the World Court for international terrorism? Besides the United States, that is.

Thanks in advance.

-A Fan.

Comment #122 - Posted by: Shep at September 5, 2009 4:41 PM

I have to disagree with Barry Cooper here. He, as usual, diverts the topic. Confuse and obfuscate.

Nicaragua in the 1980s was subjected to violent assault by the U.S. Tens of thousands of people died. The country was substantially destroyed; it may never recover. The international terrorist attack was accompanied by a devastating economic war, which a small country isolated by a vengeful and cruel superpower could scarcely sustain ... The effects on the country are much more severe even than the tragedies in New York the other day. They didn't respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They went to the World Court, which ruled in their favor, ordering the U.S. to desist and pay substantial reparations. The U.S. dismissed the court judgment with contempt, responding with an immediate escalation of the attack. So Nicaragua then went to the Security Council, which considered a resolution calling on states to observe international law. The U.S. alone vetoed it. They went to the General Assembly, where they got a similar resolution that passed with the U.S. and Israel opposed two years in a row (joined once by El Salvador). That's the way a state should proceed. If Nicaragua had been powerful enough, it could have set up another criminal court. Those are the measures the U.S. could pursue ...

Comment #123 - Posted by: trevoe at September 5, 2009 4:44 PM

In the l990s, the U.S. provided 80 percent of the arms for Turkey's counterinsurgency campaign against Kurds in its southeast region, killing tens of thousands, driving 2-3 million out of their homes, leaving 3,500 villages destroyed (7 times Kosovo under NATO bombs), and with every imaginable atrocity. The arms flow had increased sharply in 1984 as Turkey launched its terrorist attack and began to decline to previous levels only in 1999, when the atrocities had achieved their goal. In 1999, Turkey fell from its position as the leading recipient of U.S. arms (Israel-Egypt aside), replaced by Colombia, the worst human rights violator in the hemisphere in the l990s and by far the leading recipient of U.S. arms and training following a consistent pattern.

Comment #124 - Posted by: fern at September 5, 2009 4:53 PM

Wait, Barry, wait. Hold up on the propaganda-horse there. What AliceKerny said at 3:34 was more or less correct: the US interfered in Nicaraguan sovereignty, interrupted peaceful maritime commerce, used force in violation of international law, and encouraged acts contrary to general humanitarian law (note that even the US judge on the ICJ panel agreed with this last point) (see Nicaragua v. United States). This does not excuse the actions of others that you bring up - though if you'll notice, several of those are nonstate actors - and while I agree that those should be condemned, to attempt to excuse US actions by pointing out the actions of others is little more than propaganda itself.

Comment #125 - Posted by: Nick at September 5, 2009 4:54 PM

Sorry Barry, you must have confused Nicaragua with, with, well, I have no idea.

The covert war was launched after the Sandinista revolution took control in Nicaragua. Washington's professed fear was that a second Cuba might develop in this Central American nation. In Honduras, proconsul Negroponte's task was to supervise the bases where a terrorist mercenary army - the Contras - was trained, armed and sent to overthrow the Sandinistas.

In 1984, Nicaragua responded in a way appropriate to a law-abiding state by taking its case against the United States to the World Court in the Hague. The court ordered the United States to terminate the 'unlawful use of force' -- in lay terms, international terrorism -- against Nicaragua and to pay substantial reparations. But Washington ignored the court, then vetoed two UN Security Council resolutions affirming the judgment and calling on all states to observe international law.

US State Department legal adviser Abraham Sofaer explained the rationale. Since most of the world cannot be "counted on to share our view", we must "reserve to ourselves the power to determine" how we will act and which matters fall "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States, as determined by the United States" - in this case the actions in Nicaragua that the court condemned.

Comment #126 - Posted by: AliceKerny at September 5, 2009 5:09 PM

HELL YEAH!!! It's on. I can't tell you how long it's been since I got someone to bite. Here we have two.

I don't have time to do this right tonight, but for now, since we are going back to the 1980's, why don't you ask yourself how many nations there are on the planet? Is it Turkey, Nicaragua, and the US? Surely you're not that blind?

First step, pull out my Black Book of Communism, and brush up on the Sandinistas. Next step, contextualize Turkey with the Cold War. Third, see if we can't just mention, oh, I don't know, Cuban troops in Angola, Soviet troops dropping poison gas all over Afghanistan, and--hell, why not?--the regime of the Khmer Rouge, that was enabled by people like you.

Good times to come. See you tomorrow.

Comment #127 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 5, 2009 6:36 PM

I will add, that I watched the movie "Pearl Diver" with my kids tonight. It was decent, but short of profound. Nonetheless, it was remarkable since it had a character who was a victim of Stalin. In every other movie I've ever seen, that would have been a Holocaust victim.

I'm curious: how many of you can name me any movies which place Communist atrocities in anything approaching the Fascist light they warrant?

The Killing Fields, the Polish movie Katyn (not available in the US, as far as I can tell), and my personal list ends after that.

Communists killed 100 million people in the 20th Century. The Chinese are STILL slaughtering people, and undoubtedly continuing to maintain "reeducation"/concentration camps, complete with planned starvation, slogan chanting, 18 hour work days, and compelled confessions of fictitious crimes.

Increasingly, the propaganda field in which we have been surrounded roughly since Walter Cronkite fell prey to leftist disinformation is becoming silhouetted, both by Fox's willingness to speak truths that would otherwise have been passed over, and by the manifest malfeasance's of the Obama administration. The flares are up in the night, and we can see where these people are creeping in the dark.

I think I posted it, but this radio interview here, with Van Jones (Obama's "Green Jobs" Czar), says--in tandem both with Obama's apparent pre-vetting of him, and refusal to fire him now--all we need to know.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-czars-shock-admission-green-jobs-goal-is-complete-revolution-away-from-gray-capitalism/

We have literally given high office to a man personally commited to using the Environmental movement to overthrow our Constitution. He's presumably in the White House regularly.

Comment #128 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 5, 2009 7:10 PM

Barry,

Since you're too lazy to turn from Breitbart, Glenn Beck, and other wingnuts to Google, here's a list I quickly culled: The Red Danube, Ninotchka, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, The Killing Fields (as you mentioned), East-West, Before Night Falls, Doctor Zhivago. Sorry that you couldn't be bothered to do even minimal research before making broad assertions.
Re: Chinese atrocities: yes. Bad things, things about which we should be very, very concerned, things on which we should press them and not relent until they change - or until they threaten to call in our debt. I agree completely, but that's not actually germane to the topic at hand. Do their actions change the fact that the US violated international and domestic law?

Comment #129 - Posted by: Nick at September 5, 2009 7:49 PM

Nick,

You call Glenn Beck and Breitbart "wingnuts". On what basis? All I linked were videos of Jones speaking. No one denies that he's a high level White House advisor, or that he has been consistent over the years.

If there's a wingnut, it's him, and anyone unable to grasp the significance both of what he's saying, and what it implies, strongly, about Obama.

A word on propaganda. Jacques Ellul offers up the notion that there are two basic types: agitation propaganda, and integration propaganda.

Agitation propaganda is intended to spur action. It is intended to get people in the streets. As such, it is intended for a mass audience, but carefully crafted to appear to appeal to each individual on their own. They are to be simultaneously duped, and think they have made their own decision. Given this, debate is unthinkable. There is too much uncertainty and complexity involved.

Rather, what one needs are very generic ideas, grafted onto strong unconscious impulses, and harnessed by an organizational machine.

In that regard, Obama led a TEXTBOOK campaign, which consisted nearly entirely of agitation propaganda. Hope and Change appeal to everyone. Everyone can insert their own hopes and dreams. They have powerful affective resonance.

Yet, as we all noticed, none of the drones wandering around chanting "Yes, we can" were able to defend his ideas in depth, then or now. That was not the intent. The intent was to create an army of people, marching in the streets with petitions and monomaniacal focus on getting him elected.

Integration propaganda is intended to make people adjust themselves to "desired patterns". Specifically, it is intended, in this country, to make people ignore "the man behind the curtain": radical infiltration and saturation not just of our universities, but of our mass media.

We have a high level White House advisor who just last year was saying openly that his goal was to use the environmental movement to achieve, in his words, "revolution", and "massive redistribution of wealth", aka COMMUNISM. Prior to that, he CALLED himself a Maoist Communist for many years, and led Marxist-Leninst study groups.

Yet, ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times and the Washington Post have ignored this entirely.

What else aren't we being told? For my part, I would suggest a boycott of all progamming of all of those stations, on grounds of principle: they have none.

The large story is that we are being lied to. The convenient fiction has been sold, through an unconscionable and massive ommission--through a "memory hole", as Orwell called them--of the actual historical record.

Communism was THE story of the twentieth century. Most of the wars fought were between Liberal Democracy, and their form of Fascism. Hitler killed six million. Mao killed at least 50 million, yet I don't see one movie about him.

Communism has been in actual IMPLEMENTATION since 1917. That is nearly a century. We lost 56,000 or so dead in a war with it in Vietnam. The South Vietnamese lost many times that. We lost some 35,000 dead (I see different numbers) in Korea. The Koreans and Red Chinese lost many times that.

Our global preoccupation from 1946 (when Churchill made Truman mad by telling an unwanted truth, as he did many times in his career), to the 1989 at least, was Communism. They said they wanted to take over the world, and they made long term and well funded, sincere efforts to do it. We risked nuclear war with them several times, sparking the "better Red than dead" cowardice that haunts us to this day.

Yet, we have, what? Less than a dozen movies made about something that left some 100,000 American boys dead?

And I can cite pro-Communist propaganda with ease. What about Reds? The motorcycle diaries? Che? The postman? All of those were made with major actors, or received rave reviews. I see them on the shelf at my video store.

The Obama White House has seen fit to allow the Red Chinese to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the death of democracy and any shred of human decency in China by erecting their flag at the White House.

This world we live in, is insane. The cultish propagandization of our masses has left us bereft, in far too many cases, of the simple mechanisms of common sense.

Propaganda ends where debate begins. That's what we do here. Let me turn to our foreign policy.

Comment #130 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 6, 2009 5:07 AM

Now, before anything else, we have to understand the literal "Rules for Radicals". Here is the link, again: http://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/barnhill/ES_375/alinsky_rules_power_tactics.html

Number four states: "Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules."

The World Court was founded in 1945, as a part of the UN. The convention that founded the UN was chaired by a Communist agent, Alger Hiss. The form which was created provided a very good propaganda platform for the Soviets and, eventually, the Red Chinese.

Now, in the 64 some odd years since it was founded, they apparently only found fit to label one nation, us, a "terror state". What did they leave out? How about the Soviet occupations and "gulag-ization" of Eastern Europe? How about the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslavakia? What about Soviet support for Geoge Habash and the PFLP?

What about the mass atrocities commited, as a matter of high level state policy, by the NVA regulars against South Vietnamese civilian? The extrajudicial murders, the use of children as suicide bombers? The extortion of food, and use of civilian bases for military operations they knew would draw fire?

My God, the list is nearly endless. What about the 50 million Mao killed? What about the "reeducation camps?" What about the atrocities the North Koreans commited against the South prior to their invasion?

What did we do to warrant this unique charge? We mined harbors, so Soviet ships could not bring needed supplies to a fellow Marxist regime. If we had kept our mines in the North Vietnamese Haiphong Harbor, we might just have yet won the war. Did we serve the cause of justice by delivering up many millions of unwilling South Vietnamese to Communist vampires, who promptly executed in cold blood 65,000 of them? Did we?

If you want to argue that, then what the hell does the word justice mean anyway? It is an empty concept, or a synonym for simple evil.

Comment #131 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 6, 2009 5:25 AM

Now, the Sandinistas. First off, they were openly pro-Cuban. Cuban advisors were everywhere. Daniel Ortega and his minions, during the battle with Somoza, talked about democracy and increasing human rights.

Once they took power, they quickly began nationalizing the economy, shutting down opposition presses, and formed a secret police force.

You always see secret police with these people. Their systems don't work, so their only options are to admit it, or silence those who point it out openely.

They formed neighborhood watches, called Comite de Defensa Sandinista, which--as in Cuba then AND NOW--acted to make sure nobody did anything unusual, said anything against the government, or acted in any way other than a volitionless clone of the State.

They immediately began fomenting revolution in El Salvador. They were exporting civil war.

They began to attack and on occasion massacre coastal INdians who didn't like them, and wanted to keep their own ways and language. On December 23, 1981, they killed 75 miners whose crime was demanding back pay. Next day, 35 more.

Yet that wasn't considered terrorism. You have to remember, that Communism is not about the workers. The workers are a dime a dozen, and you can shoot, jail, torture and/or murder them whenever you want. Communism is about the Communists. They get whatever they want.

Their policies against the Indians were called by one anthropologist "a politics of ethnocide".

Former FSLN guerrilla Eden Pastora, who had been tortured by Somoza's forces, said "even that tyrant Somoza left them alone! He might have exploited them a bit, but you want to turn them into proletarians by force". The reply was "the revolution can tolerate no exceptions".

The forces working to end the Sandinista regime, then, were actually more pro-freedom than the Communists, by a large margin. Eden Pastora was one of these moderate revolutionaries who actually believe his rhetoric. He hated Somoza, but he hated the Sandinistas worse.

And what did we do? We launched what amounted to economic warfare--physical "sanctions"--in the form of blocked harbors.

To that, we are to compare the physical murder of MILLIONS, and the invasions, for the purpose of repression, whole NATIONS?

And some of you wonder why I think Leftists are lunatics?

Comment #132 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 6, 2009 5:37 AM

I forgot to point finish the point on the World Court. We Americans value the rule of law. That is why telling us something is illegal matters.

It does not matter to Communists. Truth, for a Communist, is whatever furthers the cause. They have eliminated objective "truth" as a concept, in both principle and practice.

Thus, propaganda affects us more than it affects them. Stacking a World Court to say something like that, is EXCELLENT propaganda. They meant none of it, of course, as I have shown clearly.

They ignored HUNDREDS of state sponsored crimes that were much worse, and ignored even the crimes of the Sandinistas themselves, that were also worse. Outright murder and tyrannical oppression are both worse than blockade.

Comment #133 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 6, 2009 5:42 AM

Looks like Jones was reassigned within the Administration. His new job will be less in the public eye. This could be worse.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090906/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_adviser_resigns

We won nothing. Look at this article. NOWHERE in there does it mention the MAOIST group he founded, STORM, nor his OPEN call for revolution LAST YEAR.

This is one raindrop in a thunderstorm. We need to keep pushing until these numbnuts SFB sacks of excrement in the press start telling the TRUTH.

Any press members reading this: look in the mirror. You should be ASHAMED. You were given a good world, and tasked with making it better. What you are actually doing, most of you, is lay the groundwork for the largest, most horrible fall in the history of mankind.

With modern technology, a counterrevolution in an autocratic state is almost unthinkable. They have cameras in all public places in China, coupled with computer technology to set off alarms if anything approaching an organized crowd forms.

And of course they know what to do with protesters. They disappear, and if they are seen again, they are broken.

Keep pushing, America. This barely warrants a sideways glance.

Comment #134 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 6, 2009 6:11 AM

Barry - I agree with a lot that you have to say. Could you please list the other countries that have condemned by the World Court for international terrorism? Besides the United States, that is.

Thanks in advance.

-A Fan.

Comment #135 - Posted by: shep at September 6, 2009 7:17 AM

Sorry Barry, you lost. You should really, in the future anyway, work on keeping your answers more succinct. Pick a point and answer it - quickly and without the whining. If this were a debtate, although there is no debate between my hammer and your nail, why then the clock would have buzzed you into silence long ago.

Can you link to other more highly moderated websites for political discussion that you frequent? I'd love to educate you further about Central America - well, that is where your reeducation will begin anyway.

Comment #136 - Posted by: AliceKerny at September 6, 2009 7:23 AM

Shep: None, as far as I know. Your point? Did the hammer or sickle hit you on the head, or did you read none of what I wrote?

AliceKerny: you know, my life would be much easier if I thought debating was where you said "I'm right and you're wrong". It would be like getting fit by THINKING about exercise.

Regrettably, my brain is much too small to fit into such a box, although no doubt you and your comrades would gladly place it in one, in the service of the Revolution.

How does it feel to be a de facto sociopath? Right, it doesn't feel like anything at all except amoral grandiosity and self righteous sanctimony.

Comment #137 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 6, 2009 7:30 AM

Barry - About those other websites? Surely, you engage in what you call discussion other places than on an exercise forum?

Where do you stretch you little legs and run? Surely, OTHER more politically savvy websites have the "honor" of your verbosity? Which ones are they?

I got under your thin skin - does the truth tickle?

Comment #138 - Posted by: AliceKernya at September 6, 2009 7:36 AM

Alinsky 5, how could I forget? "Ridicule is your most potent weapon".

Alice, help me out: where is your response? If you have one, why not deliver it here? I'll wait eagerly. We can debate. If it's not forthcoming, why should we infer anything is present here but Alinsky 5-ish propaganda?

Comment #139 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 6, 2009 7:48 AM

Well, congratulations. Now I see why you like it here Barry. My last two responses have been censored. I guess the truth is outlawed here - particularly when it makes you look silly.

No wonder you don't need to post to any real political websites. This platform suits your purposes well.

Comment #140 - Posted by: AliceKerny at September 6, 2009 8:14 AM

You're worried, aren't you?

Trust me, if you were to offer substantive content, reaching any conclusion whatsoever, it would not be censored.

My best guess is you are just saying that, because you are otherwise at a standstill.

Mods, if there's anything from her in the filter, I'd love to see it.

Otherwise, I guess the question is who looks sillier: someone who is putting up facts and logic combined into a coherent narrative uncontradicted by his critics; or someone who keeps insisting, counterfactually, that they are "right" without providing any means of checking that claim?

Do you look in the mirror? How do you miss the glazed eyes?

People debate. Drones repeat. Which are you?

Comment #141 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 6, 2009 8:28 AM

Howard Dean--former Democratic Presidential candidate, and former Chairman of the Democratic Party--on Jones: "I think he was brought down," Dean told "FOX News Sunday," saying he just spoke to Jones. "I think it's a loss for the country."

They are saying that the problem was that Jones was a 9/11 "truther", and that he called Republicans "a-holes".

What they are omitting are his open call for revolution, and life-long pursuit of it. He himself said that if he had been born in the Third World he would have been a guerrilla. As it was, he went to an Ivy League Law school, THEN started fomenting revolution, using the liberties of association and free speech our Constitution protects, and which people like him would BAN, if they could.

Does anyone doubt for a second that Obama would shut down Fox in a heartbeat if he could?

They don't want democracy. They want government of the People, by the PARTY, for the PARTY. That's Communism.

Comment #142 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 6, 2009 8:49 AM

Well, Alice, I hope you keep posting. I'll miss you if you disappear. It's much easier to make my case when I can simply point to the previous post as an object lesson in why Leftists should not be allowed to drive large trucks or economies off cliffs.

Comment #143 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 6, 2009 9:55 AM

Shep:
I think Barry's point-- which was somewhat obfuscated by his long-winded posts-- is that the World Court's condemnation was unjust and therefore irrelevant to the discussion. The reason Barry's saying it was unjust is that there were many other things that were considerably worse going on and the World Court ignored them. It would be as if a murderer broke into your house, and started killing your family, only to have your neighbor take a baseball bat to his knee. The murderer then calls the cops and has your neighbor arrested and tried for assault with a deadly weapon. I wouldn't call that justice, and I wouldn't respect or support any system that did. Further, if your neighbor had the legal power to overturn his conviction in that case, nobody with any sense would fault him for it.
If you disagree with the facts that Barry has stated, or if you think there's something wrong with his moral compass in this case, please elaborate.

AliceKerny,
It's extremely rude to infer that we are uneducated, unintelligent or incapable of productive debate just because this is a fitness website. You suggest that the location of a debate has something to do with its substance. The location is irrelevant, only the facts produced matter.
Further, a question as to which other forums Barry participates in is as irrelevant to the discussion as where you get your hair done. As if posting on numerous prestigious websites makes you an expert? As if being an expert means that you are always right? Barry is making a point--a verbose one, as he is wont to do-- in which he states events that he claims as facts, then draws a logical conclusion from those facts. If you have similar facts to claim, please do so, or if you disagree that the claims presented are in deed factual, then please provide counterpoints. Feel free to cite your sources.

I'm not here to defend what Barry is saying, I haven't researched this particular event enough to bring any productive facts to the debate. However, I'm disappointed when people resort to argumentum ad hominem and ad verecundiam. If you're going to discuss hot topics in here, please have some understanding of the process of logical debate, otherwise people are going to think you are an idiot, no matter what school you may have graduated from.

Comment #144 - Posted by: Nick Wise - CrossFit Marin at September 6, 2009 10:33 AM

Thanks, Nick!!! I am glad to see we can agree that we all do too little debating.

It makes you long for those seemingly halcyon days of our Founding, when people articulated carefully thought out views well, listened to the responses, then reacted in on-goingly creative ways.

No doubt we've had our share of shouting and stupidity--the attack with a cane by one Senator on another being likely the worst--but by and large we often seem, in times of crisis, to manage.

What disrupts all of this, though, are carefully crafted efforts to short circuit debate. That is the point of sloganeering.

What happens there is people like me--and my equivalents on the moderate left--lose our tempers. The hard leftists start their shouting, people like me respond, and moderates take up the call, since what the Hard Left says is similar to their own views, with the difference that they mean it, and the Hard Left doesn't.

What would otherwise have been a useful debate is then turned into a simple point-scoring match, which then gets recycled by the Left into prima facie evidence that "right-wingers" don't want to debate. They can then swoop up moderate Democrats into their ranks, without actually sharing their views.

Since neither side is really debating the other, the Democrats can take a slight lead for the simple reason that their ideas SOUND better. They are more for human rights, the alleviation of human suffering, and the protection of working class Joes.

And the hollowness of these promises, when made by the Hard Left--which, to be clear, in my view controls the leadership of the contemporary Democratic Party--is obscured by the LACK of debate.

Net, net: if everything is turned into bullet points that are not subject to analysis, stupidity on all sides is inevitable, and stupidity benefits most those who best utilize and mobilize naked political power.

Comment #145 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 6, 2009 12:01 PM

Fascinating article. The authors believe that the US financial system is doomed, calling quantitative easing and subsequent purchasing of bonds by the Fed "a Ponzi scheme" and using sub-headings like "Hopelessly in Debt", "Rats off a Sinking Ship", "Unattractive anyway" etc. Strong stuff from the neutral Swiss...

Ultimately, when you strip out the moral mud-slinging and the Ponzi-analysis, it is an appeal to self-interest. The authors are actually telling the IRS (or more accurately, they're speaking to those who control its policies) that the interests of the US would be better served by rowing back from an aggressive extra-territorial approach. I don't know enough to agree or disagree. But I am surprised at the aggressive tone and the almost threatening, subversive ideas expounded in the piece by an unlimited partnership of Swiss bankers. Is it pique? Or have they actually been pushed very far by something they hadn't expected and which to them, makes no sense at all, at any level?

Contrary to many posters on here, I do think taxation is a moral issue. Not in the sense that we should be volunteering money without a clear obligation - a taxation system can only work where there is no doubt as to our liability.

But as a citizen, I am offended by others who work on the black market and then give out about sh*tty health care. It annoys me to hear people boasting of "cash jobs" and "back pocket" work, when I'm bursting a gut and paying over 50% taxes - but I do think my beer tastes better on a Friday night. "Woody" boasting above about hiding his income from the Government, gets zero respect from me.

Evasion is just wrong. But don't think that avoidance (the legal type of minimising) is just fine. How can Bono call for cancellation of third world debt while U2 move their intellectual property to The Netherlands to minimise their tax bill? How is it that the top earners pay almost zero taxes? Is that legal? Perhaps. Is it moral? The answer from me is a resounding "no".

I'm not sure why the debate has turned into a discussion about Leftism - again. It's a pity that "AliceKerny" seems to have had posts held up.

Peace.

Comment #146 - Posted by: J1 at September 6, 2009 12:51 PM

test

Comment #147 - Posted by: J1 at September 6, 2009 12:52 PM

Fascinating article. The authors believe that the US financial system is doomed, calling quantitative easing and subsequent purchasing of bonds by the Fed "a Ponzi scheme" and using sub-headings like "Hopelessly in Debt", "Rats off a Sinking Ship", "Unattractive anyway" etc. Strong stuff from the neutral Swiss...

Ultimately, when you strip out the moral mud-slinging and the Ponzi-analysis, it is an appeal to self-interest. The authors are actually telling the IRS (or more accurately, they're speaking to those who control its policies) that the interests of the US would be better served by rowing back from an aggressive extra-territorial approach. I don't know enough to agree or disagree. But I am surprised at the aggressive tone and the almost threatening, subversive ideas expounded in the piece by an unlimited partnership of Swiss bankers. Is it pique? Or have they actually been pushed very far by something they hadn't expected and which to them, makes no sense at all, at any level?

Contrary to many posters on here, I do think taxation is a moral issue. Not in the sense that we should be volunteering money without a clear obligation - a taxation system can only work where there is no doubt as to our liability.

But as a citizen, I am offended by others who work on the black market and then give out about poor health care. It annoys me to hear people boasting of "cash jobs" and "back pocket" work, when I'm busting a gut and paying over 50% taxes - but I do think my beer tastes better on a Friday night. "Woody" boasting above about hiding his income from the Government, gets zero respect from me.

Evasion is just wrong. But don't think that avoidance (the legal type of minimising) is just fine. How can Bono call for cancellation of third world debt while U2 move their intellectual property to The Netherlands to minimise their tax bill? How is it that the top earners pay almost zero taxes? Is that legal? Perhaps. Is it moral? The answer from me is a resounding "no".

Peace.

Comment #148 - Posted by: J1 at September 6, 2009 12:53 PM

Barry,
While I know we don't agree about a lot, I think we're in complete agreement about debate, the consequences of people being unable to debate, and the lack of substantive debate in the political world. Maybe that's just a perception that is engendered by the media, though; they do a terrible job of actually discussing things. I think you analyzed the situation very well.

Personally, I don't buy into the Right vs Left thing for the same reason. There are many issues upon which I agree with one side, the other side, or neither side, and I suspect that the vast majority of Americans who think critically about the issues feel the same way. The labels "Right" and "Left" serve to do exactly the same thing that any other label does, exclude. This is my issue with other such labels as race, sexual preference, or religion. Labels hinder our ability to recognize individuality by stuffing everybody into a couple of well-defined boxes. It's nice to be able to talk about things in general terms, or to categorize certain things, but we need to keep the individuals in mind.

I suspect that's one of your major issues with Communism (I would call it Fascism, though): individuals are unimportant. I would apply this to corporate fascists, as well.

Comment #149 - Posted by: Nick Wise - CrossFit Marin at September 6, 2009 1:43 PM

My goodness, agreeing with Nick Wise and J1 on the same day. What is the world coming to?

I'm not one of these people who thinks the government needs, in effect, to be abolished. What is the point of a Constitution, then? Surely if we create a GOVERNMENT, it should have the power to tax, and the citizens who enjoy the rights created by the deal the government offers, should have an obligation to PAY that tax?

This seems clear to me. The problem, as we can hopefully admit, is simply that the deal we are getting is not a good deal. Relative to what it SHOULD cost to get us what we get, we pay far, far too much.

The question, then, is how to fix this. That's a great question.

Nick: yes, that is precisely my problem with Communism. I value Individualism. I want as much genuine diversity as humanly possible. I have no problems with homosexuals, people that have tattoos on 90% of their bodies, Jesus freaks, hippies (until they get political), millenarians, gun nuts, polygamists (Mormons should have rights too), and others.

If some of them are hurting others, then yes they need to be stopped. But whatever people want to do, dammit I feel like they should be able to find a place to do it in this country. The States should decide. That was the POINT and the INTENT of the Constitution. We went wrong when a bunch of States decided that justified slavery.

And Nick, yes, I have been screwed over at nearly every job I've ever had. It's almost funny. At the same time, if we take away the rights of those people to run their businesses the way they see fit, they take away MY ability to start my OWN business, and run it how I want to run it. I don't want, to be clear, to screw people over; I just dont' want Uncle Sam (Joe) looking over my shoulder.

I'm not trying to defend what you can "corporate fascists", except to the extent that they are VASTLY preferable to Statist Fascists. Jumping out of the frying pan does not guarantee anyone future smooth sailing.

Comment #150 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 6, 2009 4:41 PM

Barry, you've hit on something which for me marks out a unique, but unarticulated feature of the American way of thinking. To my mind, there is a huge reluctance to limit the "possibility of self" in America. So Barry Cooper might get screwed over by businesses - many times over - but would rather tolerate that evil, instead of putting a limitation on his own individual potential, to one day run his own business as he sees fit. In Europe and elsewhere, there is far more of a focus on what is "here and now" rather than what is potential. A business is screwing me over? I want someone to do something about it now.

Americans tolerate a tax code and a political system where there is a phenomenal concentration of power and wealth, precisely because they aspire - and truly believe - that they can become part of that elite, even if the probability and hard numbers predict a very different outcome. This is "the American dream". It is both an engine of good and also very problematic.

Peace.

Comment #151 - Posted by: J1 at September 6, 2009 5:08 PM

You know, ironic as it might seem, I would like to quote Bono when he was on Oprah (my ex used to make me watch it with her):

"In America, they look at the house on the hill, and they say "someday I'm going to BE that guy". In Ireland, they look at that house, and say "someday I'm going to GET that guy."

Slightly off topic, but have you ever seen Kurosawa's "High and low"? I am a HUGE fan of Kurosawa.

Comment #152 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 6, 2009 5:42 PM

You know, I think a word is in order on my take on the Obama White House. I had a dream last night that people were hiding guns everywhere, and on awaking it seems reasonable to me to suppose this is the case.

In my view, Obama truly is a revolutionary, who wants to fundamentally subvert Capitalism, and what he likely views as a structurally racist status quo. These aims, which are well beyond the pale for normal Americans, are quite mundane and common in the academic realms where he has spent most of his life. They are the POINT, of course, in the Community Organizing (indoctrinating) groups where he spent the rest of his life.

They take a long view. It took from roughly 1965 to now to get a radical in the White House, although they thought they could get McGovern in in 1972.

After so much time, there is no need to risk their hand on any one play of cards. Jones was expendable in the long term service of the revolutionary cause.

The model is that of water eroding the foundations of a structure. There is no need to some sudden shock, or violent change of the sort Glenn Beck fears. I disagree with him on that particular point.

What we have is a system in which the mainstream media is under de facto Leftist control. So are our educational systems, from K-Grad School. Obama's efforts to reach out to grade school kids is therefore eminently reasonable from a strategic perspective. Those kids will be voters in 5-10 years.

In my view, the task for those who fundamentally believe in the value of our Liberal Constitution, and who oppose the de facto Statist Fascism that people like Obama want us, over time, to VOTE OURSELVES, under the influence of propaganda, is to continue to educate ourselves and others.

Our task is harder, since it involves debating and thinking. Indoctrinating people to support your quest for power is much easier.

Yet, if we simply launch a counter-propaganda campaign, then we heal no wounds, and simply substitute one evil for another.

This is a marvelous time to be awake. I don't think we need to fear secret police knocking down our doors. What we need to fear is a simple continuation of EVERY Administration, and EVERY Congress INCREASING the size of government. Sometimes it's fast, sometimes slow, but if it continues EVERY TIME, sooner or later our nation will no longer belong to the people, but rather to the abstract People, of the Party.

Step one is to put in a Congress that decreases the total size of government. That needs to be our primary task right now. When it's time, I would encourage all of you to take an active role in your local campaigns.

Comment #153 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 7, 2009 6:00 AM

"You know, I think a word is in order on my take on the Obama White House."

Thanks Barry! We were all wondering how you felt about it.

ROFL......

Comment #154 - Posted by: Lewis Dunn at September 7, 2009 7:47 AM

Well, I called our President a "commie" earlier. Nobody has commented on that, but I think that's because one side already believes that, and the other side has seemingly convinced itself that it doesn't matter.

Yet anxiety and even fear are, I think, warranted. Given the vast array of emotional and cognitive diversity out there, it is not inconceivable that someone might take it into their head that some level of illegal and direct violence is warranted--as seen, for example, in the Black Panthers who intimidated voters on Election Day.

Our own beloved Dept. of Homeland Security has issued bulletins in which people who talk about or hand out the Constitution are to be regarded with suspicion as prospective domestic terrorists.

Given all this, I felt simple responsibility warranted explaining myself. I don't think violence is the answer. I think the answers can be found within the political mechanisms available to us.

I will add that self evidently you are still reading this. Do you think you are the only one?

If I'm the first to say this, please forgive me, but it's not all about you. It would be MORE about you, though, if you were to offer up something substantial in the way of commentary.

Comment #155 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 7, 2009 9:56 AM

"I will add that self evidently you are still reading this. Do you think you are the only one?"

No, I can't possibly be the only one who finds your Rest Day posts amusing.

"It would be MORE about you, though, if you were to offer up something substantial in the way of commentary."

Well, maybe I will when you do, Barry. But, honestly, probably not in this forum. I really do find Rest Days entertaining (in no small part due to your, uhh, offerings), but I prefer "substantial" debate and discussion in my life to take place face to face, as it does on a very regular basis over a beer or two with friends and acquaintances. The internet is many wonderful things, but one thing it is not is a good place to discuss complicated and nuanced issues of importance (this forum demonstrates that superbly every 4 days). It does, however, suit your purposes quite well.

Carry on!

Comment #156 - Posted by: Lewis Dunn at September 7, 2009 10:48 AM

Lewis,

If I am ridiculous or amusing, then someone as smart as you think yourself to be should have no trouble at all embarassing me. It would be like debating a sixth grader, right? Shooting fish in a barrel.

Maybe you are holding back out of a well intentioned desire not to shame me in public. If so, please let me assure you that I can take it.

Otherwise, the only reason I can see you would refuse, at this point, to engage substantively would be a lack of capacity to do so.

I will add that one of the latent benefits of these Rest Days is to lay out in clear relief the intellectual bankruptcy of the Left. Superficially, their cases hold. Under sustained close analysis, they collapse.

That is why, if you are a Leftist, your best play is to remain silent. To do otherwise, as they say, is to remove all doubt.

Comment #157 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 7, 2009 11:39 AM

I would like to offer as well the following proposition: positions which are defensible can be defended.

Hopefully that is clear enough.

Comment #158 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 7, 2009 2:15 PM

Clear as an opaque circle, Barry.

Comment #159 - Posted by: Nick at September 7, 2009 3:29 PM

Leave it to a Leftist to dispute the logical validity of the proposition A=A.

QED.

Comment #160 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 7, 2009 4:00 PM

Except that isn't what you said.
You said: if a position is defensible ("positions which are defensible"), then it "can be defended." If something has quality A, then it has quality A.
If A, then A.

Comment #161 - Posted by: Nick at September 7, 2009 4:38 PM

Nick,

I'm speechless.

Comment #162 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at September 7, 2009 5:15 PM

"I'm speechless."

Promises, promises.....

Comment #163 - Posted by: Lewis Dunn at September 7, 2009 5:28 PM

Spent 5 hours fishing on the Caney Fork River in Scotts Gulf, TN. Essentially a boulder hiking, rock balancing act for 5 hours. Great balance workout!

Comment #164 - Posted by: gregorioz at September 8, 2009 8:07 AM

Woody,

I would say 30% federal tax rate would be fair for you if your making more than 372k per year. Btw... there's no way you're paying more than that for federal taxes right now. http://taxes.about.com/od/2009taxes/qt/2009_tax_rates.htm

(note that it's progressive taxation, so you only get taxed at a higher rate for the money you made within that rate bracket... a lot of people leave that part out)

I would take it a step further though. Currently, the progressive taxation rate arbitrarily stops at ~373k. And perhaps a case could be made that 30% is too high for people in that ballpark. So why don't we tax people making 500k+ at 32% and maybe people making 1mm+ at 33%. And hell... 5mm+ at 35%. That would generate a lot of revenue to pay off our deficit, without causing much harm. (And no, people won't stop investing or creating jobs because they are making 3% less on money over 500k... and I haven't even touched on capital gains tax) At that point your labor value is definitely no longer defensible, and your just making easy money.

Once we cut the deficit to something maintainable, we should look at re-adjusting the tax rates for everyone.

I have no idea what state you're in, and state & local taxes vary wildly, and can be out of control in some states.

Comment #165 - Posted by: Jonathan at September 9, 2009 3:48 PM

Jonathan-
I live in New York. My wife and I are well compensated. That is all I have to say--not like I'm not going to be getting audited this year (again) or having the ACORN operatives knocking on my door for the census. No biggy...we're moving back to Nashville in a few months (no state or municipal income tax)

Comment #166 - Posted by: woody at September 9, 2009 7:17 PM

Last comment wasn't posted, bottom line:
Federal Income Tax 35%
NY State Income Tax 6.85%
NYC Income Tax 3.648%

Forget about the property taxes. Now do you understand why I use loopholes? I give away 45% if I don't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment #167 - Posted by: woody at September 9, 2009 8:01 PM

I dare some a**hole to explain to me how giving away 45 cents out of every dollar made is "fair"

Comment #168 - Posted by: woody at September 9, 2009 8:04 PM
Post a comment






Remember personal info?