October 14, 2009

Wednesday 091014

Rest Day

Gillian-F18-911-th.jpg

Enlarge image

Gillian Mounsey trains to benefit Hope for the Warriors - video [wmv] [mov]


Mobilizing the Hip Part 1 by Kelly Starrett, CrossFit Journal Preview - video [wmv] [mov]



"Media Moguls and Destruction"
by L Gordan Crovitz

Post thoughts to comments.

Posted by lauren at October 14, 2009 6:49 AM
Comments

AWESOME PIC!

Comment #1 - Posted by: Adrian Phan 6'0''/ 155 at October 13, 2009 6:48 PM

Why can't I get my deadlift higher than my backsquat??

Back Squat - 255
Press - 101
Deadlift - 255
Total - 611

Squat was easy, deadlift was hard. I don't get it.

Comment #2 - Posted by: AllisonNYC_24/5'2/127 at October 13, 2009 6:51 PM

I walked by that f-18 almost every day for about 8 months...one of those things you wont ever forget.

Comment #3 - Posted by: Brian Kuebler at October 13, 2009 6:53 PM

Comment #2
The issue usually means your back is not has strong compared to your leg strength.

Comment #4 - Posted by: Bud at October 13, 2009 7:03 PM

Allison,
You're a beast already based on your weight class. How is your DL form? Maybe you need to incorporate some DLs into your warm-ups. Keep it up.

Amazing photograph.

Comment #5 - Posted by: Doc Mock at October 13, 2009 7:04 PM

Seems to me that the internet, currently, provides a much needed democratization of information. If we still had the same old three networks today we had in the 70's--the last time the radicals had this much power--Obama's ratings would be sky high, they already would have passed their Federal take-over of healthcare, probably passed Cap and Tax, and be currently working on a Fairness Doctrine that defined "fair" as repeating what you were told without question.

The losers in this will be those who are not providing value. Fox has no worries. Glenn Beck has no worries. People want to watch what they are providing.

It's the increasingly irrelevant, formerly mainstream media that needs to be VERY worried. I read today Murdoch is looking at taking over NBC. That would be beautiful.

You can watch how they clean up things real time on Glenn Beck. One of Obama's current czars was a long time card carrying member of the Socialist International. Socialists in that sense are Communists, to be clear, for those of you still without programs. Yet all this has apparently been scrubbed from the internet, and dropped down a memory hole.

And ALL of these things can be propagated directly, virally, with NO need whatever for a newspaper, or news show.

Those who survive, ultimately, will be those who offer what people want. And, of course, those who are propped up by Communists desperate to keep control of the media.

You all do know, too, I hope, that another one of Obama's czars has said publicly that he admires Chavez, and that he thinks the policy of taxing private media outlets into bankrupcy makes political and moral sense?

Thank God for the internet: the propaganda busting alternative.

Comment #6 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 13, 2009 7:06 PM

#2: deadlift is all about emotion. If it's not do or die for you, you'll always lag a bit.

Comment #7 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 13, 2009 7:07 PM

That picture gives me goose bumps.

Perfect. Something bad happened in my knee earlier today while sprint swimming. I was praying for either a rest day or some glorious "situps, pushups, pullups, dips," workout. Anything without running or knee dominant lifting really.

Knee elevated. Icing.

Comment #8 - Posted by: clinton 25/m/71''/220# at October 13, 2009 7:20 PM

Alison: I wouldn't sweat it, but Rip (and others) have said that absent some very unusual levers, your DL should be a bit more than your BS. Makes sense if you think of the deadlift as more of a squat (going up then down, rather than down then up), started from a little higher (think of a trap bar "deadlift" where the weight is right below you - it's like coming up from the bottom of a squat, but you're not as deep in the hole.)

My guess is that it's your back OR your doing what I do, which is lifting your butt up first (and changing your back angle), even if you're maintaining your lordotic arch. I don't know w/o video, but your numbers are still very good, so don't beat yourself up over it.

Dale

Comment #9 - Posted by: Dale_Saran at October 13, 2009 7:23 PM

Barry, don't listen to the naysayers, I think what you are saying is spot on!

Comment #10 - Posted by: cr at October 13, 2009 7:31 PM

Gillian is going to do 100 Muscle Ups to raise money for Hope for the Warriors. The event, "Operation Pull for Hope" will be on November 14th in NYC.

This video was shot during a WOD she made up to train for the event.

For more information, check out her website at www.gillianmounsey.com/charities (or just click on her name)

Mac

This is truly an awesome cause and a noble goal!

Comment #11 - Posted by: Mac at October 13, 2009 7:35 PM

As cool as that 18 is--and it always motivated me--I can't say I miss walking past it every evening for 7 months... rahh

Comment #12 - Posted by: Tyler at October 13, 2009 7:36 PM

Hey Barry,
I like Che Guevara too! Sigue la revolucion!

Comment #13 - Posted by: Doc Mock at October 13, 2009 7:39 PM

Great Pic! I was on the USS Stennis on 9/11 for a CQ det. We had no jets aboard because the CQ period was done and they had all flown off. The next day a VMFA (I think it was 314) came aboard and helicoptors brought about a million pallets of sidewinders. They had been flying CAP over LA for about a week when I finally got a COD back to shore so I could go home and finish my training in Whidbey Island. I had no idea Marines were flying CAP over DC as well. Semper Fi VMFA brothers!

Comment #14 - Posted by: JPW at October 13, 2009 7:42 PM

Hey everyone quick question:
Angie: for those who posted below 12min. are you performing these exercises with a continuously running clock?

Comment #15 - Posted by: jake at October 13, 2009 7:43 PM

To be honest I was looking forward to working out tomorrow. I'm not sure why, I guess I could use the rest day. Not overly soar though..

I think I'm going to invest some serious time into my handstands tomorrow. Just started today, still very awkward and unbalanced-even against a wall.

Comment #16 - Posted by: aaronfit at October 13, 2009 7:44 PM

#8;

Sometimes the meds are the source of the problem, rather than the solution.

=)

Comment #17 - Posted by: Crow at October 13, 2009 7:53 PM

If you think 100 muscle-ups is impressive, you should try to sing the National Anthem! j/k :)

Operation Pull For Hope is going to be an amazing event to benefit a remarkable cause. Regardless of your political leanings, you've got to give props to the men and women who serve in our military.

See you on the 14th!

Comment #18 - Posted by: Staci at October 13, 2009 7:55 PM

As the President and co-founder of Hope For The Warriors, I want to say thank you. We are honored to be supported by the compassion that Gillian is showing using her god given physical and mental strengths to raise awareness and money for those whose strengths have secured the freedom of our nation.

She leads by example and is respected in that all of us have a way and responsibility to stand behind the men and women who stand in front.

Hope For The Warriors provides support for all branches of the armed services nationwide wounded in combat following the tragedies of 9/11. Our focus continues with the families of the wounded and the families of our heroes killed in action.

Gillian is paving a path for those of you who also want to join our team, one team , one fight!

Please go to http://www.hopeforthewarriors.org to learn more about how you can help.

With all my respect,
Robin Kelleher
President/CEO
Hope For The Warriors
robin@hopeforthewarriors.org

Comment #19 - Posted by: Robin at October 13, 2009 8:04 PM

As the President and co-founder of Hope For The Warriors, I want to say thank you. We are honored to be supported by the compassion that Gillian is showing using her god given physical and mental strengths to raise awareness and money for those whose strengths have secured the freedom of our nation.

She leads by example and is respected in that all of us have a way and responsibility to stand behind the men and women who stand in front.

Hope For The Warriors provides support for all branches of the armed services nationwide wounded in combat following the tragedies of 9/11. Our focus continues with the families of the wounded and the families of our heroes killed in action.

Gillian is paving a path for those of you who also want to join our team, one team , one fight!

Please go to http://www.hopeforthewarriors.org to learn more about how you can help.

With all my respect,
Robin Kelleher
President/CEO
Hope For The Warriors
robin@hopeforthewarriors.org

Comment #20 - Posted by: Robin Kelleher at October 13, 2009 8:06 PM

elizabeth
21- 15- 9
185lbs cleans
ring dips

25:23

Comment #21 - Posted by: ralph at October 13, 2009 8:18 PM

Barry - thanks for saving me from all that typing. You're right on.
I always thought news was supposed to report facts, not try to promote an agenda. I still pay attention to all of the major media sources and its amazing how they protect and promote the current administration.

Comment #22 - Posted by: Linwood Wright at October 13, 2009 8:23 PM

Where is the static display in the picture located? That's pretty gosh-darn cool.

Comment #23 - Posted by: J.T. at October 13, 2009 8:27 PM

I think that F/A-18 is at The Basic School, Camp Barrett, Quantico, VA.

Comment #24 - Posted by: DJ at October 13, 2009 8:31 PM

I worked on F-18's for almost 10 years as an airframes mech and then as a Non-destructive Inspector. Love them birds! Work on C-130's, HU-25's, and Helicopters now and it is not the same....

Comment #25 - Posted by: neil at October 13, 2009 8:43 PM

Elizabeth, #75 squat cleans/ small band ring dips 21/15/9 8:46. Jeeezus its a gasser!! Some came cleans were in singles but i got er done! Happy rest day everyone!

Comment #26 - Posted by: Cookie at October 13, 2009 8:48 PM

Gillian...loved the workout, great programming, you rock...and Kelly, well you know you are my favorito!

Comment #27 - Posted by: Eva T. at October 13, 2009 8:50 PM

Have started doing crossfit on MWF and strength days on TTH.

did fran yesterday
pr'ed 2 mile run @ 12:29 this morning
pr'ed powercleans: 2 @ 215 this evening
elizabeth tomorrow

Good day for workouts!

side: Anybody alternate between crossfit and strength days? I'm trying to get my base numbers up; mainly squat and shoulder press.

Comment #28 - Posted by: matt - 20/6'3/203 - WA at October 13, 2009 9:05 PM

Just want to get an opinion from the group on my CF experience these past couple of weeks.

I've been doing a heavy weight workout prior to the WOD roughly 4 out of 6 work days (sometimes that workout would fall on a CF rest day).

I definitely felt myself sucking: lack of energy during the day, hard time waking up, eating a lot more than normal (really craving the carbs). I chalked it up to too much too soon so I'm eliminating that 4 day a week workout and just getting in a solid warm-up prior to the CF WOD.

Any thoughts other thoughts on solving the energy problem?

Comment #29 - Posted by: Lawrence R at October 13, 2009 9:38 PM

Jake #15-

Yep, there are people who are capable of doing Angie in under 12 minutes.

Comment #30 - Posted by: Eric at October 13, 2009 9:44 PM

#29
Go Paleo.

Comment #31 - Posted by: jakers at October 13, 2009 9:58 PM

Media Moguls

Capitalism is a creative destruction. Something has to be destroyed to create something we want more. You want a watch? we have to destroy a hunk of earth to get the steel to make it. Steam engines destroyed the sailing ships. Rail Roads destroyed the canals. Kerosene destroyed the whaling industry. Cars destroyed the horse carriage industry. Who wants to be a luddite and go back to horse drawn carriages?

>>>>>"Mr. Knee says. "Never has there been this much fundamental change across so many sectors in such a short period of time."

The rest of the article is well done but the above quote is complete hogwash. One example Ford started production in 1914. By 1930 cars were dominant and horses were an artifact.
Lets call the birth of the modern internet the introduction of Mosaic in 1993. It's been 16 freaking years. It always happens in 20 years. The main stream media has been providing subpar service for over 30 years. Go out of business already. it hasn't happened in such a short period of time.

Comment #32 - Posted by: jakers at October 13, 2009 10:22 PM

3-2-1-Rest!

Comment #33 - Posted by: J-Dizzle at October 13, 2009 11:46 PM

EERR TBS. Gotta love Camp Barrett. Semper Fi

Comment #34 - Posted by: Sykas m/25/5'9''/185 at October 14, 2009 1:28 AM

Mr. Cooper (#6),

Sadly, you are absolutely right that the media sources that are having no trouble are the ones who are offering the people what they want. And what a significant portion of the population wants is not accurate information about current events, but rather affirmation of their own beliefs. It is for this reason that the bile-spewers on the left (Keith Olberman, Daily Kos, etc.) are enjoying the same level of success as the bile-spewers on the right (Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and your Dear Leader Glenn Beck). Followers of all of these windbags, both left and right, share the same delusion that their chosen media sources indulge: the belief that their unhappiness and failures can be blamed on some vast, intangible conspiracy against them, and not on their own shortcomings. They can continue in this belief without fear of reproach by dismissing as propaganda any information that contradicts their world view.
Thus the internet, for all of its democratization of information, also provides an easy escape for any fearful soul who cannot adjust to any facts or opinions that are not filtered to fit his own attitudes.

Comment #35 - Posted by: Josh Dailey at October 14, 2009 4:52 AM

Rhabdo

Here it is, I finally couldn't take the training anymore. Too many ups and a lot of downs. I quit Crossfit!!!

http://www.guerrillafitness.net/_blog/Rhabdo's_Revenge

Comment #36 - Posted by: RhabdoGFCM at October 14, 2009 4:58 AM

#29...i would ask what is your reason for doing a 'heavy weight workout' prior to doing the posted WOD?

if you are into 'bodybuilding'/muscle atrophy then you are missing the point of CF...that said, purely doing the WODs WILL build you an impressive physique as a by-product...whilst increasing all other areas of your fitness...if you are wanting to gain lean muscle and lose body fat then you should investigate the zone diet regularly mentioned on the site...

personally, once i committed to the daily WODs (and rest days!) and didnt just cherry pick the ones i liked, i made solid gains, along with the diet change...

Comment #37 - Posted by: CHARLIE'S CROSSFIT GYM at October 14, 2009 5:05 AM

Hello crossfit,

I haven't posted on here in a long time. I follow the Crossfit Brisbane Site and going strong. I do have a question that seems up for debate right now. The Crossfit Endurance site has a Strength and conditioning WOD, optional to compliment the Endruance WOD. Is good for an endurance Athlete, vice doing the Main Site WOD. If so, like my wife for instance, I think would like this so much better, but I don't want to lose a fitness level. For her, the challenge is programming that will provide the wieght loss for lean muscle. She is Latin, and has to work constantly for her results. Also, it is an issue for standards of the Marine Corps. She is fit, but has to be at a weight she is not stressing over every time she turns around. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cody

Comment #38 - Posted by: Cody at October 14, 2009 5:24 AM

Thanks Coach for a great cycle.
Got all kinds of PR's this week, and I totally attribute it to Coach Burgener and his 8 week supplemental program for crossfitters. The intensive focus on technique and the exposure to the snatch has given me 15 pounds on my BS and broken a long slump on my DL, and gotten me a few pounds closer to 1.5 BW DL. Thank you Crossfit.
Fran: 4:44 last time8:45
ELizabeth 9:45 last time 12:50
CFT: press 90
squat 230 PR by 15
DL 290 for a 610.
I also want to thank Natalie Wolfolk for her perfect technique and being the running video in my head everytime I step to the bar! She and Sage are awesome visual aids to learning the snatch.

Also a big thank you to Gillian who moves beautifully. Talk about smooth! Those muscle ups were like butter! good luck on the quest for 100.
Now if I could just dial in my diet and lose the 15 pounds of body fat I am carrying, maybe I could finally get all the chinks in my armor....like muscle ups and HSPU's and consecutive ring dips.

Comment #39 - Posted by: Julie Parisien 38/164/68" at October 14, 2009 5:31 AM

#35: I have tried really, really, really hard, over a period of many years, to try to find a leftist able to defend their views in depth, or critique my own views with something other than decontextualized platitudes which invariably amount to the intellectual version of moral equivalance (you have your side; I have mine). I have failed. Those people, very simply, do not exist.

I don't "follow" Glenn Beck. I get emailed summaries of his program, and damn near every day he offers up documented FACTS, which ought to be important to every American, that are simply ignored by the formerly relevant mainstream media.

FACTS are the basis from which logical deductions are made, in rational, liberal (old school liberal, which values freedom) discourse.

You, there, have not offered any facts. You have merely asserted an opinion that the spokespeople for both sides which the market has appointed are equivalent. BS. That's not true.

Glenn Beck offers up a case that, for example, one of Obama's czars has spoken often and vehemently against "heteronormality". He disagrees in principle with teaching kids that male-female relationships are the norm, which for him leads logically to the conclusion that Romeo and Juliet is propaganda. His own curriculum, he doesn't view as propaganda, for the simple reason that he is right.

Now, how do people respond to things like this? You know what they do? Leftists have three options: they can shut up; they can change the topic; or they can insult the messenger. They are working on a fourth: shutting down criticism. This was and is a universal feature of Communist regimes, and the same basic thought pattern is on clear display with respect to Obama's Media Czar.

When you see something 300-400-500 times, you begin to see patterns. You are apparently new to engaging with intelligent people able to argue a viewpoint you don't already hold. That is common: the internet has facilitated intellectual ghettoes, and our universities shut off the energy of authentic ideological diversity at least 25 years ago.

What exists now, though, that did not exist when the Left openly supported our enemy in a war where 65,000 Americans died, is the possibility of viral networks that are spontaneous, free, and open to genuine diversity. As I see it, this is the future, if Obama does not shut off free speech on the internet. But if he does that, the scales will fall off millions of more eyes, and he will lose the youth of America, upon whom he has rested so substantial a portion of his agenda.

Comment #40 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 14, 2009 6:21 AM

I know its nothing new but I just want to say how awesome Crossfit has been for me! I was able to lose just over 100 pounds from running then decided I wanted to put on muscle so I started powerlifting. I never could find the balance between keeping weight off and maintaining muscle mass until I found Crossfit. It really is the perfect hybrid of fitness, combining strength, endurance and overall health. My joints, which I've always had problems with, are more stable than ever, my body is much more balanced from the variety and I feel fantastic! I'm certainly not the first and won't be the last to feel this way but I just wanted to say thanks to Crossfit for getting it right and everyone on the boards for posting. Keep it up!

Comment #41 - Posted by: Jcook at October 14, 2009 6:46 AM

Ugh, WHY oh why does an article about "media" become an article about "the media" (politics) as soon as it's unleashed?

Whatever, here's what I got from it:

Globo's are OLD media. Incumbent. Old tactics, pipelines, etc.

Crossfit is NEW media. Low barrier to entry. Instantly wide distribution. Flexible, open source, modular.

In my industry (as digital as you can get) we have been seeing this for several years already. Now it is spreading outward, to literally every business. Embrace it, be prepared to flip your business on its head, or get out of the way.

I might go all the way to say this is aimed at Greyskull?

Comment #42 - Posted by: ddm at October 14, 2009 7:16 AM

Operation Pull For Hope is going to be an amazing event to benefit a remarkable cause. Please come give props to the men and women who serve in our military and donate to the cause.

I am honored to support this cause and Gilly with this event. Lets get behind this event folks - if you go to the web site you can read on how to donate and or be a part of the event in your box to raise funds. Every muscle up counts, scaled, kipping, and strict... get your boxes behind it folks.

Lets us all show the nation that CrossFit is about changing lives. www.gillianmounsey.com/charities

Gillian and company I will see you on the 14th at CrossFit Long Island City!

tuck

Comment #43 - Posted by: tucker at October 14, 2009 7:23 AM

You are exactly right Barry Cooper. Ditto.

Comment #44 - Posted by: julie parisien 5'8"/163/38 at October 14, 2009 7:34 AM

West Palm Beach end of the month, level 1 cert. I can't wait! Been a crossfitter since 3/08. I really think it saved my life!
There's not enough time in the day for me to thank Coach for everything! Anyway, THANK YOU!!!!!

3 rounds
10 pullups
10 155 lb front squat
10 burpess
9'30"

Comment #45 - Posted by: OLDDOG at October 14, 2009 8:02 AM

DDM @ 7:16AM

I fail to see the connection to Greyskull.

Could you break it down for me?

Comment #46 - Posted by: jakers at October 14, 2009 8:11 AM

It was really motivating to walk into the gym yesterday and see Gillian. Thanks for the encouragement! It was just what I needed to get really get back into crossfit! I have a new goal to get one muscle up by the time you do 100 on 14 November....what an awesome cause.

Lauren

Comment #47 - Posted by: Lauren at October 14, 2009 8:18 AM

Although I've been very close to puking quite a few times during WOD's, I am usually much closer to pukie when reading some of the comments on rest days.
Glad that I do this stuff in my garage away from all the frats and politics.

"Politics is applesauce." -Will Rogers

Crossfit: "Forging Elite Ego's" ;)

Comment #48 - Posted by: Lone Wolf at October 14, 2009 8:21 AM

Bring on the creative destruction! And let me be the first to wish that its next victim be the corporatist, soft-statist WSJ! Mr. Crovitz is, unsurprisingly, wrong. Numerous online media sources have found business models that are sustainable and quite profitable, while providing vastly superior value to their customers. Crossfit is a prime example!

Comment #49 - Posted by: Rs at October 14, 2009 8:37 AM

I've been into CrossFit WODs for a couple of months. ELIZABETH today was my 24th WOD, and I scale most of them...

I've been very disappointed the last couple of days with my FRAN and now my modified ELIZABETH.

(modified) ELIZABETH time 23:55:13
Full Squat Cleans at 95#
Regular Bar Dips at 2:1 (42, 30, 18)

I don't find that I have the energy to get through any faster.. I also feel like my strength level has maybe decreased, though it is likely only due to the intensity of the WOD compared to what I was doing before (Muscle & Fitness type workouts).

I love the programming and I'm seeing positive changes in my body visually (lower body fat already, etc.), but man am I beat! I'm not even getting a full week in everyweek due to my work schedule, but getting at least 4 WODs per week..

I might have given up on it by now if not for reading your inspiring posts everyday!

Can one of you veteran crossfitter's tell me if this is normal when first on a steady diet of CrossFit WODs??

Comment #50 - Posted by: Doug from Aurora at October 14, 2009 8:43 AM

DDM @#42 - I echo your disgust. The problem is Barry. HE'S the political black hole. HE'S the one that can't, sometimes, no matter, how many, commas, he uses, see the forest for the trees. He beats the drum incessantly, which to be honest, is his right and I'm sure it helps him sleep at night.

You want a shut down of criticism? Talk to the "Amurrica: take it or leave it crowd." The same people that are convinced Obama is NOT American. The same people old media types that think it is proper political practice to scream "You Lie!" at the President of the United States. The same old media types that preach against homosexuality one hand and then bang the same sex office worker the next.

The same rudderless political party that relies nearly 100% of the time on news sources they completely agree with to tell them what to think. What, The US lost the chance to host the Olympics? Great! The President failed! Dance in the streets. That is the problem when the US has essentially told you that what you believe in (apparently water boarding, imperialism, nation-building, financial ruin, racism, killing the middle class, homophobia, moral bankruptcy, etc.) has no place in responsible society.

Meh, when they can't point fingers at themselves, they point a finger at the "media." Which is ironic, since in reality the media has a decided conservative slant.

I think you draw a good parallel between old media and the Globo.

Comment #51 - Posted by: Mr. Green Jeans at October 14, 2009 9:07 AM

Green Jeans,

Where are your facts? All you've done is reinforce Barry's description of leftists.

Comment #52 - Posted by: jakers at October 14, 2009 9:14 AM

Jakers - I am not a leftist. What facts do you require specifically? That the previous administration condoned waterboarding? Should we start with that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/20detain.html

Comment #53 - Posted by: Mr. Green Jeans at October 14, 2009 9:25 AM

#52 Jakers

Barry only offer his opinions on here. He frequently backs these up with more opinions that he feels are "facts" time and time again. They are facts to him, I guess. Keep defending him if you feel the need to.

Lots of folks on here go on and on about providing "facts" but seldom do we see any. Just right wing opinions backed by more of the same. Perception is reality I suppose.

Comment #54 - Posted by: larryh at October 14, 2009 9:26 AM

Mr Cooper,

In my opinion, your opening paragraph proves my point, but I will concern my rebuttal with two lone facts, on which you claim to place such a high value.

Obama’s “media czar” (his real title is “Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer,” a third-level advisory position in the FCC) has argued extensively for greater diversity of opinion in media. By stating that he wants to crush such diversity I assume you’re referring to the oft-cited (by Beck, Limbaugh, etc.) myth that he wishes to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which he has in fact explicitly opposed in several articles and interviews.

Obama’s other “czar” (his real title is “Director of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools,” a fourth-level advisory position in the Department of Education) was making the point that a depiction of a heterosexual relationship such as the one in Romeo and Juliet is not necessarily heterosexual propaganda, just as the depiction of a homosexual relationship is not necessarily homosexual propaganda.

I realize none of this will dissuade you, Mr. Cooper, and actually I’m a little bit embarrassed that I got involved in a political discussion here. Usually I reserve my comments on the main site for posting my WODs or congratulating others on theirs, but today I had some time to kill in the office, so oh well, shame on me, I guess.

Comment #55 - Posted by: Josh Dailey at October 14, 2009 9:29 AM

Allison NYC

Umm getting back to the original question on your frustration with your deadlift...
For me the biggest thing is form form FORM, I unfortunately long ago got into the "stronging it" rather than "forming it" and that can and does lead to injury and frustration or injury CAUSED by frustration. Few years ago I had quit the gym for a couple of years and having to get ready for another deployment went back and ended up frustrated with myself, the guy in the mirror, the other dudes in the gym etc. etc. So I started to 'push myself' THEN got frustrated with my progress (lack thereof)and 'pushed myself' some more forgetting and overlooking everything I knew and had trained myself (and others I might add) in the military over the years.

A friend took pity on me and my frustration and told me something:

"LEAVE YOUR SUPERMAN CAPE AT THE DOOR!!"

?? Seems stupid that he should say that and that I should have forgotten it.

Your max increases with FORM. Have someone stand there and really critique your form with weight you can HANDLE 50% (yeah - 50%) of what you THINK you can handle. When your form is PERFECT add 10# at a time until your form varies in the SLIGHTEST then STOP! That's your new max and start from there as a PR and work from there.

The truth it's not about anything other than your HEART and your HEAD after you get form down. It's not in the mirror or whoever or whatever you are competing with or even the pile of plates over there (like those damn addictive Doritos they WILL make more). It also helps me to think of shoving down with my heels thru the floor pushing the earth away but hey thats what worked for me.

Hope that helps. Mac

Comment #56 - Posted by: Mac Patrick at October 14, 2009 9:33 AM

Green Jeans
So What? So they condoned water boarding. Cheese cloth and water isn't torture. Torture involves blow torches, pliers and maybe a trenching tool. Thats torture.
First rule of being a leftist. Deny being a leftist.

Now you see what Josh did down there on post 55. That's good stuff. I may not agree with it and I may be able to find where said officials have made claims to the contrary but we've got something to work with there.
don't feel shame. That was a good post. But now I have to go look up some info to counter it. BRB

Comment #57 - Posted by: jakers at October 14, 2009 9:45 AM

I think this is from the CF Football sight- 2 athletes from our affiliate and my brother in law who owns his own affiliate told me to do this little ditty:

100 thrusters for time. At the top of each minute drop the bar and do 5 burpees, then continue on with thrusters until the top of the next minute when you do 5 more burpees, etc...until all 100 thrusters are done.

I am not sure if mens weight is 135# or 95#....I used 65#

WOW! Fun in a sick sort of way. TIME: 11:42

Some of our athletes took this one on that was put on the board by one of our CF trainers.

21, 15, 9 OHS, pull ups, burpees

Comment #58 - Posted by: Fit Mom in CT of CrossFit Persevere (F38/125/5'2") at October 14, 2009 9:52 AM

Cody #38,

Great question! For the vast majority of folks seeking to improve or advance their fitness nothing more than the Main page WOD, scaled or unscaled, is necessary. Some folks find a need or desire for more strength work while still needing general fitness; for this group CF Strength Bias, CF Wichita, or Performance Menu programs seem to fit the bill. Still others wish for more pure endurance work. CF Endurance is a magnificent program for them.

CFE has just introduced an alternative for those people: do CFE on top of Main Page WOD's OR do the cherry-picked strengh-bias work-outs that BMack is adding to the CFE site chosen from a number of other sites (I saw one from OPT/Crossfit Calgary). What's better? Like always the answer depends on your goals. It looks like BMack is starting a little trial to see if there is a way to combine an endurance bias with a strength bias, vs. CF Main Page + CFE. From your post it still sounds like CFE + Main Page is best for your wife IMO.

On the Message Board there are scads of threads asking about CFE + "something" other than Main Page. BMack is offering his "something". Should be really cool to see what transpires. My prediction? If you are an endurance athlete who wishes greater overall fitness you will STILL see your best results from CFE + Main Page Crossfit.

Good post, good question.

Comment #59 - Posted by: bingo at October 14, 2009 9:59 AM

M/63/198- 2 rounds for time of:
Rope climb (single ascent)
50 situps
50 squats
9:19

Comment #60 - Posted by: peejay2 at October 14, 2009 10:21 AM

Doug from Aurora #50,

Take a break! Two cycles with no WOD's. Go for a walk. Smell some roses. Kiss babies and pet puppies. Take a nap. Get la__...you get the picture.

The intensity of CF workouts is really underappreciated, especially in the "is that all there is" group. For the majority of people, those older than 29 with jobs, kids, bills, and years away from competitive sports, the sheer intensity of CF WOD's is really quite a lot. Recovery is the hidden challenge in Crossfit; Coach has designed the 3 on/1 off program because of his results with his elite athletes; it may be too much to ask for 4 or 5 WOD's per week at your present level of fitness. But if you keep at it you will not only see body comp changes you will also see more PR's on WOD's.

Take a look at your diet. Could it be cleaned up a bit (less processed food, better eating schedule)? Are you roughly balancing macro=nutrients? What's the quality of your carbs? Fats? Trending Paleo, Zone, or both may make a difference, too.

Good luck. We're glad you are here and decided to stay.

Comment #61 - Posted by: bingo at October 14, 2009 10:26 AM

I really hate it when politics ruins a perfectly good comment board. That being said, here's to destruction!

Cable news is across the board just plain incompetent when it comes to providing actual news A big reason for this problem is that they are commercial entities. It's very difficult to report accurately when your motive is profit and not good reporting. In theory, the news outlet which provides the best news coverage should get the highest ratings but this is clearly not the case, in an effort to lure viewers, programming has become increasingly filled with op/ed shows, celebrity gossip and news cycles with the attention span of a goldfish with ADD. Despite what viewers claim, they clearly are much more interested in trash journalism than good reporting as evidenced by the huge ratings numbers put up by Fox news, now clearly the mainstream news source on cable. While the other networks are incompetent the majority of the time, Fox News appears to actually be intentionally divisive and unabashedly partisan. I find it mind boggling that any sane person could take a person such as Glenn Beck seriously. At best, the man appears to suffer from mild schizophrenia. One look at his "facts" offers ample proof of this. I'm looking right now at an ad for his book "Arguing With Idiots" in a costco catalog and it has a "fact" right there. Back's ad has graphic showing how the 2008 bailout money and Obama's stimulus plan compares to other major American spending projects including the Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal and WWII. According to Beck, these recent expenses are far greater than any project we've ever taken on in the history of the country with the bailout costing nearly 4 times as much as all of WWII. Wow... That's a lot of money. Glenn just forgot to do one thing, account for inflation. The irony of calling a book "Arguing With Idiots" and then putting a completely idiotic "fact" right in the ad is hopefully not lost (he also appears on the cover in something resembling a Russian military uniform which is just bizarre).
Anyways, I have no idea how this relates to the article (it doesn't really) but if you really want to be informed, don't listen to cable news, don't believe anything blogged on the internet (including me! Think for yourself!) and read a wide variety of newspapers from various parts of the country and news sites like the BBC.

Rest well!

Comment #62 - Posted by: Jesco at October 14, 2009 10:30 AM

Barry, et al.

While I'm relatively new to CrossFit (achieved Level 1 Cert in August), it's disapointing to see political commentary on this message board. 99% of the dialogue and feedback is about fitness, answering questions for each other, coaching each other, pushing folks you've never met past the point that they, themselves, ever thought possible. That's the part I love.

Can we keep the political commentary posted elsewhere?

Note: I'm an Independant. I would post the same thing if the original posting was pro-Obama.

Comment #63 - Posted by: Savas at October 14, 2009 10:32 AM

#55: before I go look up the quotes upon which I based those claims, can I assume that you are perfectly content that your descriptions of these people are accurate, complete, and that you approach the issue dispassionately?

For example, if they are, oh, I don't know, saying one thing to one group and another to another group, which persona counts? Is it only the official pronouncements to the formerly Mainstream Media that count?

Consider carefully before you answer. I'm not shooting in the dark.

Comment #64 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 14, 2009 10:39 AM

#63 Barry,

You wouldn't be referencing a comment like someone "clinging to their guns and religion" when they are in San Francisco and saying they didn't mean it when they are in PA are you?

Politicians, arab diplomats and bureaucrats never do that. NEVER!

Comment #65 - Posted by: jakers at October 14, 2009 10:54 AM

Interesting article on the physical capabilities of the modern man.

Modern man a wimp says anthropologist
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59D0BR20091014

Comment #66 - Posted by: Patrick at October 14, 2009 10:59 AM

Great video on mobilizing the hip. I don't belong to a box as I am trying to save money to buy a home right now. Would it be possible to go to a local affilate and get the same kind of evaluation?

Comment #67 - Posted by: thenine at October 14, 2009 11:20 AM

Mac (#56),

But doesn't the emphasis of form above all else somewhat contradict what's taught at a L1 certification? There I remember learning about the "shot group" example: the 1st shot group emphasizes technique at the expense of intensity, the 2nd is extremely intense but wildly sloppy on technique, the 3rd uses technique that is a bit rough but still mostly correct and achieves a high degree of intensity. Am I remembering the instruction wrong, or am I applying it incorrectly to strength training?
I'm meeting the same problem as Allison NYC (good gains on the deadlift, but I'm dissatisfied with my squat), so I'm curious about this.

Mr. Cooper (#63),

I'm fully aware of who Mark Lloyd and Kevin Jennings are, as well as their prior affiliations. Do fire away.

Josh

Comment #68 - Posted by: Josh Dailey at October 14, 2009 11:27 AM

Barry-
The best point that you made, in my opinion, is that the those on the left have such a proclivity to be critical of the messenger (ie. Beck, Fox News, etc) without refuting in any substantive manner the information or opinions that are presented by these sources. I find it to be the intellectual equivalent of when a 6 year old tells another child that his end of the debate is wrong because he is a "poopey head."

Comment #69 - Posted by: C_Wood at October 14, 2009 11:44 AM

Great Shot of Gillian at TBS. Many thanks to her for taking the time to help me and many other Marines with Crossfit while visiting Camp Barrett. Best of luck to her as she embarks on her "Hope for the Warriors" effort!

Comment #70 - Posted by: LtCol Jason Barrett at October 14, 2009 11:56 AM

Josh # 67

The Cert example you cite regards intense met-cons, not limit strength exercises. Proper form IN BOTH will result in superior results. However, under the stress of intensity in a full-out met-con, form will necessarily degrade to some degree if one pushes the intensity envelope. However, in limit strength exercise such as the CFT, the danger of poor form is added to the decrease in performance seen in sub-optimal form, and sub-optimal form is a result-limiting factor BEFORE the limit of strength is reached.

Allison has very good squat form if memory serves; while she undoubtedly has very good DL form as well (and has a very high level trainer, too) it is possible as Mac suggests that form tweaks may extend her DL beyond her squat.

Comment #71 - Posted by: bingo at October 14, 2009 11:57 AM

#61 BINGO
Thanks a million, Bingo!

Great advice (I assumed I'd receive great advice on here, because I read tons of it daily)!

I have been working hard on my diet, but have not been measuring, so to speak... Very difficult to move to a program like paleo with my wife, father-in-law and 4 kids not easily swayed from life-long habits. That said, I have printed tons of material and am reading as much as I can on it, as well as zone.

What I have been doing is loading for awhile is piling half my plate with vegetables, the rest with meat and a very small section of potatoes or pasta. Biggest thing is I have cut portion sizes pretty much in half and eat many smaller meals per day, with nothing before bed..

Really cannot get rid of skim milk from my diet. Does dairy really have a negative effect on the body?

Maybe I will continue to scale the weight until I perfect the movements and just be patient. Like I said, the results are definitely coming.

I may be frustrated because I am 6ft3, 228lbs and feel like I should be lifting more!

BTW - I could never leave CrossFit now! It would be like leaving Heaven and going to live in the arctic.. or something like that!

Thanks again to everyone on this forum!
Doug

Comment #72 - Posted by: Doug from Aurora at October 14, 2009 12:08 PM

Gillian deserves the support of all of CF Nation so pass it along donate what you can 3,2,1 GO Gillian

Comment #73 - Posted by: Russell Benedetto at October 14, 2009 12:50 PM

Swam 150-100-100-50m total work time 6:43. I am such a pathetic swimmer but I love it anyway. 8 rounds tabata swim after. 10 minute run each way to the pool and back.

Doug from Aurora - don't you practically live in the arctic already? :P Sounds like you are managing your diet much the same way I do, for similar reasons. I am happy with the results I'm getting that way, hope you will be too.

Comment #74 - Posted by: Kamper/M/45/74"/200 at October 14, 2009 12:54 PM

doug #70
your idea is rite on.
take it slow and work the techique first with
good weight.

keep up the great work, especially with the nutrition. just keep on dialing it in closer and closer.

we all on a great journey here, lets stay on this train!

Comment #75 - Posted by: dan lau at October 14, 2009 1:03 PM

M/32/5'9/190

BS-365
SP-210
DL-415
CF Total today = 990....bah 10 short....lets do bench....hah.

Comment #76 - Posted by: John Millen at October 14, 2009 1:24 PM

Doug #70-

If you're going to drink milk, drink whole milk, not skim milk....or drink raw, unpasteurized milk if possible.

And there's really no way to tell if it's having a negative effect on YOU other than to give it up for a few weeks and see what the results are. Lots of people say they feel better after cutting it out, but others aren't affected by it.

Comment #77 - Posted by: Eric at October 14, 2009 1:40 PM

Barry Cooper (#40),

Is there a way to sign up for the emailed summary of Beck's program that you mentioned? I also am not a 'follower', but some of his points are quite thought-provoking.

Comment #78 - Posted by: Endo at October 14, 2009 2:11 PM

Fair enough. You asked for it. Here is Glenn Beck on Mark Lloyd: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5X7nP5mDgk

For those who lack the patience to watch videos, the net is that he does not in fact favor the Fairness Doctrine. From a legalistic standpoint Josh is correct. However, that was not the claim that I made. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, and my interaction with Glenn Beck is reading his emails.

What is being proposed is a tax of 100% of the operating budget of small independent radio stations, to be used to fund National Public Radio and other "worthy" (politically correct) organs of the Party. If they go out of business--the goal--they cede their licences to minority run groups, who of course will also be vetted for ideological conformity. As I understand it, this is substantially what Hugo Chavez has done, and Mark Lloyd--who by the way is apparently no longer granting interviews--has spoken favorably of Chavez.

I will note, too, that in this video Beck also has an interview with Van Jones (the open Communist who resigned), saying his job was "community organizing within the Federal family".

It goes on and on. I get the message. I didn't watch the rest. The point is clear enough, once you see these connections dozens of times.

As far as Jennings, here is a quote: "First of all, we all know what’s really promoted in our schools: Heterosexuality is promoted in our schools. Every time kids read Romeo and Juliet or they’re encouraged to go to the prom or whatever is it is, kids are aggressively recruited to be heterosexual in this country."

There are a number of problems with this. First off, the job of schools is to propagate our common culture. It is to instill in students a knowledge and respect for our past, and the methods--critical rationality coupled with free speech--by which our system has been built, and upon which it rests.

He STARTS from the presumption that the job of schools is indoctrination. He STARTS from the idea that somehow male-female relationships are NOT the norm. They are. Some 10% of Americans are gay. The rest are straight, or occasionally bisexual.

Self evidently, through whatever paradigm you choose--religion and evolution being the primary choices--homosexuality is not the norm. It is common; it is reported in nearly all civilizations, and was presumably present in all of them. But it is not the norm. You can't procreate. It's that simple.

This guy has been placed in a position where he can implement policies by which public schools are used to teach a moral agenda that is at odds with a very large portion of our social order.

He is the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight education network, whose goal is to start the process of "saturation" as early as kindergarten in making homosexuality normative.

Here is the bottom line: most Americans have to send their kids to public schools. Most of us do not want those schools to be used to promote moral platforms at odds with our beliefs, and this is his own self identified, EXPLICIT mission.

He is the "Safe Schools" Czar simply because the link with bullying gives him a platform for an explicit agenda of undermining our Judeo-Christian heritage.

For myself, I could care less what homosexuals do.

But the overarching, ideological intent, very simply, is to eradicate through indoctrination of our children all blocks to the Federal Government taking over and running ALL aspects of our lives; and Christians in this country are one of their main roadblocks, since their values don't turn on a dime, which differentiates them from Leftists whose only core value is conformity to their Parties agenda.

There's another quote somewhere where he says this explicitly. I can't find it at the moment.

How many radicals need to be exposed in this administration for people to say, hmmm, maybe where there's smoke there's fire?

We have quite literally transferred the worst of our intellectually corrupted higher indoctrination (still called education by some) system into the White House.

None of these people were confirmed by the Senate. None of them were questioned. We don't even know what their exact powers, budgets and responsbilities are. They are just there, and most of them aren't talking to the media.

Comment #79 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 14, 2009 2:18 PM

One in the hopper. Should come out about #75 or so.

Comment #80 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 14, 2009 2:23 PM

Eric #75

I am pleased with my diet as of now and includes skim milk. I was intrigued by your comment saying to drink only whole or raw unpasteurized milk as opposed to skim. What is the reasoning for that? What's the problem with milk? I see it as a good source of protein. Is it the sugar content? Is it just dairy in general? My diet works for me as I'm at about 10% body fat and about 154#. Just curious...

Comment #81 - Posted by: Ransom at October 14, 2009 2:24 PM

Go to glennbeck.com . There's a signup window in the upper right corner.

I have yet to see a critic of his that is actually familiar with his show.

He does ramble, and is often off-topic, but the arguments he makes normally rest entirely on the words of the people in question. His critics don't attack his arguments (other than an occasional off-the-cuff claim that is slightly off), but rather attack HIM.

This is Alinskyism (aka Leninism) 101. Why debate someone when you can beat them over the head? The goal is not to reach a reasoned consensus after careful and dispassionate--or even passionate--debate. Rather, the conclusion is known in advance, since it comes from the Party, and the task is simply to eliminate resistance by any means necessary.

Comment #82 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 14, 2009 2:32 PM

I am also interested in the milk question. What's the reasoning for whole milk as opposed to non-fat or skim?

Comment #83 - Posted by: PT at October 14, 2009 2:34 PM

My goats:
800m or longer
double unders
muscle ups
pistols
snatch

Comment #84 - Posted by: Deano at October 14, 2009 2:36 PM

Fox News found a smart way to keep people passive and obedient, which is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there\'s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

It appears that many of Mr. Beck\'s advertisers are tired of his hated-filled \'debate\' as well.

Your appeal to pity is beneath you.

Comment #85 - Posted by: kurt_s at October 14, 2009 2:53 PM

#67 Josh

I ABSOLUTELY can get max intensity without surrendering form that can hurt me or my gains. I am NOT here to disagree with the teachings of others.

Yes I too have heard varying theories on technique and I can only say what has worked for me (and NOT worked). I'm relatively new to Crossfit and I had to unlearn that lesson here again, about my damn cape.

Yes, I can move things and travel at speed, sometimes faster and more and sometimes slower and less than others in the various gyms and studios I have had the privilege to work out in and whatever I THOUGHT was my Max. And Yes, it had to be pounded into me (in a very gentle and subtle manner by posting it on a board in Maryland) when I DON'T achieve full ROM because I was focused on reps/weight and time not muscle atrophy brought on by working my body NOT the committee in my head.

Hmmm, dammit why can't I get faster and more weight not doing something 'correctly' with my body when I muscled it to the right position (almost LOL) eventually? My body is designed to work in a certain way and the anatomy and physiology of all of us is similar but unique to degrees.

That said WHAT WORKS FOR ME is to stay really strict on form when going hard against the plates, sometimes I get to a weight (375# or so) when I start to slide my pelvis under and lose that good spinal curve and just drag up then roll my shoulders back and slap on another 20#. Do I get it? YES! I have intensity to spare, but only one vessel to pour it into. Next morning in the shower I ask myself if my PR can wait another week, then I ask myself where my deadlift was in Oct 08 (don't ask). It's not a sprint for me it's becoming a way of life without a lot of effort (OK a sh*tload but you take my meaning I'm sure) on my part.

I too see people that put up numbers I have in my future, I also (in my other life) have seen the results of extended rehab. For me if I'm not in the gym for WHATEVER reason then I know my PR will fade instead of become another stepping stone instead of a goal when I find myself going, "Damn wonder what that feels like 20# from now or 2 minutes faster?" Then I go do that next.

Tough for me to find the line between hurt and injured, unfortunately I DO know the difference thru painful experience and I never know what tomorrow brings so being sidelined because I hurt MYSELF makes me very umm, irritable.

Just one dudes opinion and no politics.

Comment #86 - Posted by: Mac Patrick at October 14, 2009 3:00 PM

A link to a rebuttal to the greyskull blog. Interesting reading and comments for those interested in this "debate":

http://evolveyourfitness.blogspot.com/2009/10/response-to-john-sheaffer.html

"Murph": anyone else looking forward to seeing this WOD come up soon? (hint, hint)

Comment #87 - Posted by: Ronnieboy at October 14, 2009 3:01 PM

f/40/173/5'11"

The highschool I'm working at has a squat rack so I got to do the crossfit total with backsquats for a change. I did, however to frontsquats to compare with previous scores. I got to do heavier front squats... nice!

press 100# (pb by 10#)
front squat 195# (nice and deep... love'em)
back squat 215# (don't do tthem that often... awkward)
dead lift 225#

total: 520 with front squat. 540 with back squat.

Comment #88 - Posted by: JuliePlatt at October 14, 2009 3:16 PM

#51

I was highly amused by your comment about Barry and his commas.

Comment #89 - Posted by: Kevin at October 14, 2009 3:23 PM

Given your view of the inequality of gay people Barry, it must chap your hide (wink) to hear that the President is repealling that idiotic 'don't ask don't tell' rule in the military?

Comment #90 - Posted by: Gay_Cfer at October 14, 2009 3:27 PM

Great video Gillian! I especially enjoyed watching you grind it out in bad A$$ fashion after my cheat meal of mac & Cheese, ice cream, and cookies!

Comment #91 - Posted by: Fit Mom in CT of CrossFit Persevere (F38/125/5'2") at October 14, 2009 3:39 PM

Barry,

Here's the rest of the Jennings Romeo and Juliet quote: "The reality is, is that if schools could affect your sexual orientation, there would have been no gay people in the first place. But there are still people out there who believe that myth, because you know what? It's easy to panic people if you make them think that they're after your kids."

So, your quote is completely out of context. He was speaking about how schools CAN'T influence the sexual orientation of students. Which make sense because you can't be made gay or bisexual.

From what I've been able to find of other things he's said, he's in favor of having a program in place to have students respect people unlike themselves. Don't really see why that's bad.

"Our curriculum at kindergarten, and first grade, and second grade and every grade until students have graduated school should be that you must respect every human being regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of gender identity, regardless of race or religion or any of the arbitrary distinctions we make among people."

I don't see why you can't respect someone while still disagreeing with their own life decisions. You know, homosexuality is "normal" and isn't something to be feared or visit violence upon.

Also, I'm pretty sure a school's job isn't to promote Judeo-Christian beliefs, just as it isn't its purpose to promote any particular religious beliefs--there's that whole separation of church and state thing.

Comment #92 - Posted by: Guy Thompson at October 14, 2009 3:44 PM

#15~yes, it's a continuous running clock..not Angie if it stops between exercises.

Comment #93 - Posted by: Fit Mom in CT of CrossFit Persevere (F38/125/5'2") at October 14, 2009 3:49 PM

RE MILK COMMENTS:
Read The China Study by T Colin Campbell. Just like Crossfit, it doesn't have all the answers... some things are probably flat wrong (like all science), but put it this way: I spent my life drinking tall glasses of Milk because it was 'good for me' (and tastes great). After all, it's the calcium that's good for the bones right? Well, you would think we as a culture have less osteoporosis than cultures that consume no milk and less calcium, but we have more... by a long shot. Lots of evidence that the way our bodies metabolize different proteins can have an effect that promotes 'Western' diseases. Bottom line? I no longer consume any animal protein, and especially stay away from milk. I'm very carefull with my diet though, and I'm getting stronger and feel better every day (almost five months into it). I'm sure this will promote controversy since it is at odds with the Zone, and lots of people are successful with that. I have no problem with that, just suggest that if you're an open minded person (wrt diet at least) then give it a read and make up your own mind.

Comment #94 - Posted by: Jason at October 14, 2009 4:03 PM

Re: Barry Cooper

Please pardon my extensive use of in-line quotes.

"As far as Jennings, here is a quote: 'First of all, we all know what’s really promoted in our schools: Heterosexuality is promoted in our schools. Every time kids read Romeo and Juliet or they’re encouraged to go to the prom or whatever is it is, kids are aggressively recruited to be heterosexual in this country.' "
Are you saying this is untrue? Though it is lessening, there is huge social pressure to conform to the heterosexual mode. I use the word mode in the statistical sense because the majority of humans are heterosexual. That doesn't make it abnormal for someone to be homosexual; it is, in fact, quite normal. Homosexuals just aren't in the majority. If there were not some species-wide selective advantage to such a large portion of a species being homosexual (and it is common in nature, as you admit), the trait would have died out millions of years ago. The queers are still here. And, yes, I am one of them.

You say, "First off, the job of schools is to propagate our common culture." Note how propogate and propoganda share a root...

You claim, "He STARTS from the presumption that the job of schools is indoctrination." How does that differ from your statement? I disagree with you, however. The point of school is to educate our children and propogate the knowledge gained and retained by our species over the last few thousand years.

You claim, "He STARTS from the idea that somehow male-female relationships are NOT the norm." Assuming that you mean “norm” as “mode”, where did he say that? Facts, man.

"You can't procreate. It's that simple."
First of all, that is untrue. I am fertile and have procreated. Even if it were true, so what? What bearing does that have on anything being discussed?

"This guy has been placed in a position where he can implement policies by which public schools are used to teach a moral agenda that is at odds with a very large portion of our social order."
No, he hasn't. (See later bit about powers.) His moral agenda is tolerance and understanding. Oh my... how horrible.

"He is the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight education network, whose goal is to start the process of "saturation" as early as kindergarten in making homosexuality normative."
The goal is not to make kids gay. That is not possible. The goal is to spread the understanding that it isn't unnatural or demeaning to be non-straight any more than it is unnatural or demeaning to be non-male or non-white.

"For myself, I could care less what homosexuals do."
Then why all the fuss? You protest too much for something you clain not to care about.

"None of these people were confirmed by the Senate. None of them were questioned. We don't even know what their exact powers, budgets and responsbilities are. They are just there, and most of them aren't talking to the media."
There is a reason these people weren't questioned or confirmed by the senate. The reason the same for Obama's czars as it was for Reagan's and Bush's czars and others dating back to the 1940s: they have no powers. They are enlisted as advisors. They have no power to create, enforce, or interpret law, and have little or no budget. They can only suggest. To say they are powerless would be naive, as they have the ears of powerful people, but so do drug companies, oil companies, tobacco companies, and anyone else with enough money to afford a good lobbyist. You didn't elect those people either, nor did anyone question them, nor did the senate confirm them. At least the person who appointed the czars was elected by a vote of his constituency. If you'd bothered to consult any history on the use of czars by our government, you could have come by this information on your own, but like your savior, Glenn Beck, you'd rather take advantage of ignorance to fuel your divisive rhetoric.

Comment #95 - Posted by: ether at October 14, 2009 4:07 PM

re: #87

I too, am thinking about the next WOD.

I was hoping for FGB, but Murph would be great, too.

Comment #96 - Posted by: tim p at October 14, 2009 4:16 PM

Here is a great link about the use of the word Czar - sounds scary doesn\'t it?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/

Comment #97 - Posted by: Czar_sounds_communist at October 14, 2009 4:17 PM

#67- Thenine

It should be that way. Every affiliate should have someone who can do movement analysis, injury prevention, etc. Unfortunately not all do. Where do you live? Call around to see if any local affiliates do movement analysis. If you're in Pennsylvania, email me, our box does it.
Jenny

Comment #98 - Posted by: jbutt at October 14, 2009 4:34 PM

Hi Every sunday when I read the paper. I go first to the section Make A difference. I read about people who do things for others to improve the quality of life. My daughter is making a difference. I am so proud of her , she is taking time out of her busy life to help others. Thank you Gillian . I love you love mom. P.S we can all make a difference by making a donation today to hope for the warriors............

Comment #99 - Posted by: Sandy at October 14, 2009 4:37 PM

Just did my first Fran today.
I'm a teenager female and have been doing CF for a month now...I must say... I both hate and love Fran, I did an extremely easier version of it cuz I'm not too strong yet, and I just learned thrusters right before my workout... I did:

21.15.9

33lb thrusters
ring pulls/ ring rows

...my time sucked: 15.42, Fran has crushed my ego but the pain feels great!...'pain is weakness leaving the body!' and I can only get better next time, nothin to lose!

Comment #100 - Posted by: Kiedis at October 14, 2009 4:39 PM

OPT Post from 2 days ago:
Double Under ladder
"Flight Simulator"
9:17

2 Rounds:
20 HSPU
25 GHD Sit Ups
20 Dips (subbed for ring dips)
25 GHD Sit Ups
20 Push Ups
25 GHD Sit Ups
16:10

Fantastic wods OPT:)

Comment #101 - Posted by: Julie D F32/115 at October 14, 2009 4:53 PM

Caught up with version of "Elizabeth", not as Rx'd. Details there.

15:20 (PR for this version by ~2:00)

Comment #102 - Posted by: bingo at October 14, 2009 4:57 PM

Thank you for the input, guys. It must be my back or midline strength that's getting in the way.. although I don't totally understand that since my midline is strong enough to support the same load when it's on my back and very heavy loads overhead fairly easily.

Mac - Don't worry - I'm a complete form maniac with the members in my gym and with my own training. I'm with you completely.

I know I could stand up more weight but I just can't and won't lift with a really round back. So It looks like I'll need to deadlift more often.. Maybe I'll put them in my warm up.

BUT... I still would never have imagined being able to lift even anywhere near 255. Or squat it or do any of the things I can do now. It's all thanks to CrossFit.

Comment #103 - Posted by: AllisonNYC_CrossFit Obsession at October 14, 2009 5:02 PM

Julie D #100

Where is OPT posting those workouts? Two days ago on CF Calgary was a different workout.

Thanks.

Comment #104 - Posted by: bingo at October 14, 2009 5:14 PM

Gillian, you ARE the HOT ROCK!

You GO Girl!!!

Comment #105 - Posted by: jpatrick at October 14, 2009 5:17 PM

Gillian, the pic and video are awesome. Both strong and graceful, as always! Can't want to see 100 muscle ups on November 14th. Hope for the Warriors should be honored to have someone as dedicated and determined as you to support them and help raise awareness and donations for such a worthwhile cause...and I think you are the ONLY person on the planet that can do 100 muscle ups in 1 hour :)

Comment #106 - Posted by: Alissa at October 14, 2009 5:22 PM

Never mind, Julie, I found it!

Comment #107 - Posted by: bingo at October 14, 2009 5:24 PM

Trying to get back into working out. Got hurt at work after a week of vacation.
50 pull downs 100lb
1/2 mile on eliptical
50 push ups
1/2 mile on eliptical
50 crunches
1/2 mile on eliptical
50 body squats
18:41:43
m/38/250/73"

Comment #108 - Posted by: TPDFISH at October 14, 2009 5:48 PM

Oh my god i hurt so much

Comment #109 - Posted by: haas at October 14, 2009 5:52 PM

Gillian,
Awesome work on Hope. I am looking forward to seeing you knock out 100 musle ups on the 14th. Thanks for all the instruction you are giving to Marines in Quantico. We appreciate you giving us so much of your personal time.
Semper Fi,
Whiskey 6

Comment #110 - Posted by: Maj T Powledge, USMC at October 14, 2009 6:29 PM

Allison NYC # 102

Hey no worries just saying what works for me. Every time I start to tie on The Cape there's a voice that says, "Where were you a year ago? How did you get here?" Its only Halloween once a year so I stick to Kent...Clark Kent lol.

And yes I'm with you there are times when I get done a WOD or workout on my own and rack then go...."damn who hell IS that guy?"

I'd hang around but the wading thru politico crap is draining my head and tomorrow is COMING! Enjoy the day

Mac

Comment #111 - Posted by: Mac Patrick at October 14, 2009 7:30 PM

#85: I debate, what do you do? Complain. One of us is not thinking.

#91: yes, you can make people bisexual. Have you been to college in the last 20 years? It's chic. Why? People like Jennings.

It's one thing to teach kids not to hate or bully homosexuals. Some of these kids are obvious in second grade. It's another entirely to pretend that heterosexuality has not been the default mode in virtually all human societies for all of history. Two men or two women can't have kids. What part of that is complicated?

The point of liberalism, the point of TRUE diversity education is tolerating difference. Difference includes both homosexuals AND people who believe homosexuality is wrong. Jennings wants our schools not to teach that homosexuals should be tolerated, as an integral part of the civil fabric of a liberal society, but rather that it is perfectly normal and moral. He wants, specifically, to flip the finger to any and all church-going sincere Christians, and do it in a PUBLIC school. The same schools that can't pray any more or say the Pledge of Allegiance. That is absolute BS.

To be clear, I have no tolerance for the abuse of ANYONE who is minding their own business. This includes a lack of tolerance for people like Jennings, who make no room for alternative viewpoints.

#94: The basic problem we have in this country is that the damn Federal government, through multiple generations of leftist activism, and judicial corruption, has inserted itself, UnConstitutionally, into every classroom in America. My viewpoint is that each State--really, each district--should determine what goes on in their classrooms without a peep from the idiots in Washington. That's not possible.

Therefore, we get these damn culture wars. In this particular case, I don't like Jennings because he is using the homosexual agenda to further eradicate all vestiges of our Judeo-Christian heritage, without ANY moral order to replace it, other than obedience to the State.

I'm fine with tolerance. I'm not fine with calculated assaults on our moral order.

How many of you knew Che Guevara was a homophobe? Take the shirts off, lest you idolize a man who did much more to hurt gays than the most hateful Christian in American history: http://www.washblade.com/2005/11-25/view/columns/che-cult.cfm

Comment #112 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 14, 2009 7:35 PM

I will add, that I trust my points on the Media Czar, Mark Lloyd, carried. His plan, if he can get it implemented, is to bankrupt alternative viewpoints, and put all the media eggs in the basket of a watchful Federal Government. I see no alternative understandings of his statements.

I will add, too, that WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE POWERS OF THE CZARS ARE. Obama will not submit them to Congressional scrutiny. So you simply can't infer from a title what the actual budget and decision making authority is for ANY of these people.

We know Van Jones planned to use Federal money for Community Organizing. We know he was not fired, but quit. We know he was popular. Why can we not infer that he was not the exception, but the rule? All the signs point that way.

Comment #113 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 14, 2009 7:40 PM

Ah yes, the F-18 at TBS. I just graduated earlier this year. Arctic Alpha Co.

Comment #114 - Posted by: Robert at October 14, 2009 8:00 PM

Barry,

Besides your own belief that people can be made bisexual, do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Yes I've been to college in the last 20yrs, actually in the last 10yr and I went in straight and came out straight.

Do I have friends that went in straight and came out straight, gay, or bisexual? Yep.

Do I think that it was because of some hidden desire to be popular? NOPE.

How do I distinguish the two?

Someone who hooks up with the same gender at a party (e.g. two girls making out) I would classify as someone who is trying to be cool (i.e. chic).

However, someone who engages in a relationship with someone of the same sex--that person is probably gay/bisexual.

- "Jennings wants our schools not to teach that homosexuals should be tolerated, as an integral part of the civil fabric of a liberal society, but rather that it is perfectly normal and moral"
- I agree on the normal comment in as much as it relates to the ability to tolerate homosexuality. However, where is there any mention of him trying to impose his own moral code?

- "It's another [thing] entirely to pretend that heterosexuality has not been the default mode in virtually all human societies for all of history"
- Can you give me a quote where he says heterosexuality is not the default mode? Or that he "pretends" that it's not?

And yes, I get that two men together or two women together can't procreate by themselves. Nothing's hard about that. However, in modern society there alternatives. But, that has nothing to do with teaching kids that homosexuality is normal.

Schools shouldn't be able to pray because they're PUBLIC schools.

Comment #115 - Posted by: Guy Thompson at October 14, 2009 8:28 PM

That's awesome Gillian is helping in so many ways. I just graduated from The Basic School where the video was recorded, so it was kind of funny to reminisce. I wish I'd of seen Gillian walking around or doing crazy gymnast moves on Camp Barrett haha. God Bless everyone.

Lt. Roberts
Semper Fi

Comment #116 - Posted by: Josh Roberts at October 15, 2009 5:02 AM

Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong.

Jennings (and most leftists) believes that it is perfectly acceptable.

Which of them is right and why?

And, more importantly, who is empowered to share that answer with our children, and why?

Comment #117 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 15, 2009 5:32 AM

Barry Cooper: "For myself, I could care less what homosexuals do."


So Barry, in fact you do care about what homosexuals do?

Comment #118 - Posted by: sam at October 15, 2009 7:10 AM

#112,117

"And, more importantly, who is empowered to share that answer with our children, and why?"

Answer is obvious: NObelama's top secret Homo-Czar, duh.

Comment #119 - Posted by: ddm at October 15, 2009 7:16 AM

#111

Barry Cooper, I honestly can't believe i'm reading your comments sometimes. Do you believe everything you hear from the right wing nut-jobs?

Do you ever check any facts? Do you ever check your sources? NO, Glenn Beck does not count as a reliable source.

My major complaint is that you can "make people bisexual". Huh? What? Are you tripping right now? For someone as openly homophobic as yourself, it surprises me that somehow you think you understand anything about sexuality.

Yes I went to college, i'm heterosexual but I knew and know plenty of homosexual and bisexual people and they weren't "turned gay". It's just what they want naturally. The gay people I know couldn't give a crap about having kids, in fact I know plenty of straight people who don't want kids either? Who cares?

Really, I don't know why people just can't drop this whole idiotic debate. If people are happy and not hurting others then LEAVE THEM ALONE. Why are you so bothered if two guys are together? It really doesn't matter and isn't worthy of the time given to debate it. Mainly because there's nothing to debate. Bisexuality and homosexuality have been around since the dawn of time and they always will be. Live with it.

What we should be focusing on is the 45000 Americans who die every year because they have no health insurance.

Comment #120 - Posted by: sam at October 15, 2009 7:20 AM

#67 - jbutt

Thanks for the info. I just moved to San Diego so I will start calling the local affiliates around here. If I was in Penn. I would absolutely take you up on the offer.

Comment #121 - Posted by: thenine at October 15, 2009 9:11 AM

Well, as I see it, where the debate stands is that we have established that Obama's Media Czar wants to work to silence dissent, that his "safe schools" Czar wants to silence Christian objections to the gay lifestyle, and anyone who objects is some form of bigot. Am I missing anything?

I asked what I thought were some very simple questions. They have not been answered for the simple reason that doing so would force you to tip your hand. The simple reality is that most homosexual activists--and this falls in a continuum, which I recognize--simultaneously oppose Christians in general and on principle.

Put more simply, they are anti-religious bigots, whose hatred is concealed by compulsive references to tolerance, which they only practice with respect to people with whom they already agree.

The POINT of Liberalism, to repeat, is not the marginalization of difference, but the acceptance and negotiation of difference. It is one thing to ask Christians to avoid hate speech as far as homosexuals. That I fully agree with. It is reasonable to expect all members of our civil society to treat all other members with respect.

It is another entirely to teach moral values that run contrary to the beliefs of most of our nation. This is intolerant and insensitive. This isn't noticed, since leftists very simply DON'T CARE about the values of people who are not in their camp. Those people are to be marginalized, disrupted, and eventually destroyed. That is the point and purpose of indoctrinating propaganda.

I'm not the least bit homophobic. I have worked with and counted as friends any number of open homosexuals. I look at them the same way I do Pentacostalists: I don't understand why they do what they do, but as long as they're not bothering me, it's their own business. That's not the question, though.

I am being very clear in terms of my reasons for my beliefs. Is anyone not following me? Are you so brainwashed that you literally cannot form a new category for "genuine and principled dissent from the Leftist agenda"?

I get told I'm brainwashed all the time--including several instances on this thread. The people who do so use the same language, use the same images, reference the same stereotypes, and invariably fail to offer any new facts, logical analysis, or even signs they've read my posts.

Who are the people who are brainwashed? It's sure as hell not me. I fight for every opinion I have. You just can't recognize that, many of you, since your opinions are prepackaged, and all you can see as far as me is that I'm a dissident. That's ALL you need to know to start the verbal tirades.

It's pathetic. Most of you should be ashamed. Guy and a few others are at least trying to make valid points, to which I am trying to respond substantively. If I've failed to do so, point out where.

Comment #122 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 15, 2009 9:34 AM

I will add that www.drudgereport.com is a good website too. By and large, it is simply links to stories published on other sites, that I find interesting.

Comment #123 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 15, 2009 9:52 AM

"It is reasonable to expect all members of our civil society to treat all other members with respect."

We are in agreement here. I think where we disagree is that I don't see teaching children that homosexuality is normal (not the majority, not the default, just that some people are straight, some people are gay) as being inherently anti-Christian.

Obviously once you start saying things are right and wrong morality starts to become a question.

"It is one thing to ask [people] to avoid hate speech [and hateful acts] as far as homosexuals are concerned. That I fully agree with. It is reasonable to expect all members of our civil society to treat all other members with respect." My words in brackets. This is a mild extension of your quote. Is this still reasonable for you?

Can we agree that if what was being taught complied with the idea that homosexuality is normal, that there was no mention of relgion, and no mention as to whether it is right or wrong, that you would be accepting of its teaching in schools?

I disagree that the Jennison is trying to silence Christian objection rather than just trying to provide children with a tolerance for homosexuality. Can you provide some evidence to support that?

I have a few problems with your question on its face:
- Not all Christians believe homosexuality is wrong.
- There are conservatives that accept homosexuality (not just your leftists)

I know this because I know people that fall into both camps. I wouldn't assume that they are in the majority, or even near to it. However, your assumption is wrong.

Jennison seems to just be trying to teach homosexuality is acceptable as far as the respecting someone as a person. Which you yourself have stated you believe is correct. I haven't come across any evidence to the contrary yet.

Currently the DoE is empowered to make the decision as to what is taught in schools. To what degree, I am unfamiliar with, but that is currently the state of things.

I know the answers are overly simplified, but that's what I've got.

Can you offer any evidence in response to the questions I posed in my previous post?

Comment #124 - Posted by: Guy Thompson at October 15, 2009 10:07 AM

Barry... I'm with you. I try to watch a variety of 'news'. Read the internet etc. I even go to AlJazeera to get their point of view. There is no doubt that most of us, even those who try to be open minded, enter a debate with preconcieved opinions, and it's difficult to really see the other side.

I would like to think I'm at least somewhat open minded. I'm definitely not a bigot... case in point: I'm a fiscal conservative (hated the Bush bailout, hate the Obama stimulus, hate taxing the 'rich' unfairly etc). I believe we need to recognize Jihadism for what it is: Not a few radicals, but Islam against the West (I have muslim friends that agree). I believe in environmental protection. We should stop cutting the Redwood, stop factory farming, and stop polluting. I believe in Capitalism, but also believe that some big corps are greedy and will destroy the planet (and harm humans workers/customers) in order to make huge profits. I'm a Vegan Republican living in the Northwest on an Island for christsakes!

Bottom line for me: Big Gov has rarely done anything well. Waste fraud and abuse come hand in hand with big gov. They need to fix the roads/infastructure, police, military, and education, and regulate where needed (Wall Street). Keep them out of my life and out of my kids lives as much as possible. Parents need to be more responsible with the education their kids get (and alot of other things), but I don't want or need them teaching anything about sex beyond the basic safety (abstinance/protection).

Healthcare is a huge nut to crack: As a fit person why should I pay taxes to heal someone who knowingly diseased themselves by not excercising, not eating right etc. If I'm going to pay I better know what's in your shopping cart. That's a slippery slope huh? Big Gov may not agree that I'm eating right since I'm a Vegan! Bottom line: We need Tort reform. We need real education as to what consistitutes a good diet (not the 'food pyramid' or any other information from biased sources like the Dept of Agriculture). We need to make it easier to become a doctor, or to become a Nurse Practitioner (supply vs demand). Lets stop going to the doc every time our kids have a stuffy nose, and lets get off this prescription drug crack we're on (just watch the adverts on TV). Insurance regulation is important so they don't screw you over when you finally need them after paying into their system your whole life, but please no gov option. Lastly everyone needs to read The China Study!

Comment #125 - Posted by: Jason at October 15, 2009 10:39 AM

Jason,

I can agree with most of that. An underlying issue here, as I've said, is the power of the Federal Government. All of us should value and practice diversity, and the State system was intended to be one of the primary means by which to do that. The fixes for slavery broke our Constitution on that score. They were needed then, but have been hurting us for the better part of 75 years. I don't have time to say more on that at the moment.

Guy,

Here is a summary of the issue on Jennings:http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF09F60.pdf

He was raised Southern Baptist, and now hates religion, and the Religious Right, on his own admission.

Personally, I don't find him nearly as objectionable as Lloyd, Sunstein, Holdren or others. I won't defend bullying of homosexuals because I oppose it. There is simply a line that needs to be respected, and he appears to cross it.

Frankly, I think Conservatives would spend their time better firing at other targets. We got onto this simply because I mentioned him in passing.

Our main issue is the people who are aiming at our structural freedoms, like freedom of speech, production and consumption.

Comment #126 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 15, 2009 11:17 AM

Barry's question at 117 (gotta give Barry props for stamina):

Let’s first assume we agree on what “homosexuality” is. I think it involves something like romantic love and/or a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex. I would prefer to talk about homosexual activities (I don’t think having sex with someone of the same sex makes a person a member of a natural class called “homosexual”, just has having sex with a person of a different sex does not make a person a member of a natural class called “heterosexual”).

I’ll leave out Jennings (don’t know him or his beliefs) and leave out “Christians” (for now) since many many Christians do not think homosexuality is wrong.

That leaves me with the following question:

Is homosexuality (are homosexual activities) morally wrong, or morally acceptable?

I think homosexual activities are morally indistinguishable from heterosexual activities. If you think homosexual activities qua homosexual activities are morally wrong, I think you are mistaken. What would make homosexual activities morally wrong is the absence of consent, but that applies also to heterosexual activities.

Next question: should the public education system teach one answer or the other to the children of America?

The answer is: “Yes.” And it should teach that homosexual activities are morally indistinguishable from heterosexual activities. The reason is not because it is good to engage in homosexual activities, or because it is bad to believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God or that the Qur’an was revealed to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel, but because teaching this counteracts the false belief that homosexuality is morally distinguishable from heterosexuality. The reason educators need to teach that that distinction is false, is because the belief that the distinction is true results (and has resulted) in prejudice and harm to people who engage in homosexual acts. The falseness of this distinction should be taught just as the falseness of moral distinctions between races is taught. The moral status of homosexuality should be “taught” as religions are taught in schools. Teachers in the public school system do not teach that Christianity is morally inferior or superior to Judaism or Islam or Hinduism etc. Classes on religion given by public schools approach various religions from a cosmopolitan point of view so that they are seen as alternative though related and potentially complimentary accounts of spiritual life, cosmology etc. Schools teach religion in this cosmopolitan way so that children grow up believing (hopefully) that the followers of the great religions of the world can live in dignity and peace with one another. This is how homosexuality should be treated by public schools. Schools should teach that homosexuality is morally indistinguishable from heterosexuality just as they teach that Baptists qua Baptists are morally indistinguishable from Anglicans qua Anglicans, or Sunnis qua Sunnis or Jews qua Jews, so that people who engage in homosexual activities can live in dignity and peace with people who engage in hetersexual activities.

Comment #127 - Posted by: Prole at October 15, 2009 11:36 AM

Re: Jason on healthcare

The problem with your stance is that not everybody who goes to a doctor is someone who "Knowingly diseased themselves by not exercising".

Example: Due to the economic meltdown I lose my job and my insurance that goes with it. Shortly after I slip on some ice and break my leg. Instantly i'm in a completely impossible situation with probably bills numbering in the many thousands of dollars which I can't pay.

Many people get cancer even though they live healthy lives. Many people every year will die of cancer who otherwise lived healthy lives because they cannot afford health insurance.

What happens if the worst happens and you lose your job, or your business starts failing and you can no longer afford insurance?

As tax payers we already pay for many things which go towards other people. Like Medicare for example? If you don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, why aren't you complaining about that? In addition, what about all the couples with no children? Should they be paying taxes which go to education and schools?

The American people have certain basic rights, the right for basic infrastructure (water, electricity, transport etc), safety, free speech, education and yes healthcare too. We pay for all those things regardless of whether we actually use them directly. That's just part of life.

I believe that America is failing if 45000 people die every year for lack of healthcare.

I also believe it's a canard that government is less well equipped to provide healthcare than private corporations. If this is the case, why does the UK, France and other countries with government provided healthcare have better healthcare systems and higher life expectancies?

Currently the USA does a terrible job of preventative healthcare, presumably because the insurance companies make money off sick people and therefore don't want to prevent illnesses and disease. Which is what you expect from a "for profit" organization. This is why you cannot let something let healthcare and profit mix together, it's like having schools which got bonuses for having stupider children. ie: does not make any sense.

I think it's Un-American to let good citizens of this country deep dying for lack of healthcare. If you think so too, but don't like the Democrats plan, you should state your own plan for saving these people.

Comment #128 - Posted by: sam Fold at October 15, 2009 12:05 PM

Barry,

To answer your question posed in #117: Homosexuality is acceptable. The reason you believe it isn't acceptable is that you believe that god (specifically the christian god) doesn't find it acceptable. In order for the will of your god to have any bearing on the lives of men, you must first establish that your god exists and that the bible is an accurate account of his will. You cannot. Any attempt at such will require that you you appeal to authority, appeal to tradition, or rely on personal experience.

Parents are responsible for their children. The person empowered to share is whomever the child listens to.

Care to tip your hand and answer your own question?

In post #113, you said:
"I will add, too, that WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE POWERS OF THE CZARS ARE. Obama will not submit them to Congressional scrutiny. So you simply can't infer from a title what the actual budget and decision making authority is for ANY of these people."

We can, in fact, infer their budget and decision making authority based on what I will assume is true in your statement: that Obama has not submitted them to congressional scrutiy. One of the powers of the legilature is control of government spending. All money spent by anyone in the federal government must be approved by congress, even congress must get approval from congress. Congress may choose to delegate budgetary autority to other goverment agencies and entities, but they can also revoke that authority. If czars had any decision making authority, they would have to be given them by law, and no law grants them power. If czars have any budgetary authority, it was granted to them directly by congress or delegated to them by someone who received that athority from congress. It is trackable, and their budget is a matter of public record, just as the entire government's budget for FY2010 is a matter of public record.

If congress wanted to review the spending of a czar, it is within their power, and if that czar or the president refused to submit to congressional authority (or anyone with authority to audit them), they would be in violation of federal law. It logically follows that czars have no authority. Do you really think that the republicans would stop at letting a few pundits whine about czars and their budgets if they actually had a valid reason to impeech the president?

In general, americans should pay more attention in 12th grade civics. A lot of talking head rhetoric would be useless hot air if the constituecy weren't so ignorant.

Comment #129 - Posted by: ether at October 15, 2009 12:14 PM

In response to your conservative lobbying group, here's a liberal one:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/03/kevin-jennings/

Comment #130 - Posted by: Guy Thompson at October 15, 2009 12:20 PM

Prole,

Well put. Thank you for sharing.

Comment #131 - Posted by: ether at October 15, 2009 12:39 PM

Sam,

I don't have time to delve into all your errors, but will simply submit a few facts. In roughly half the States in our country, you can buy health insurance directly from the insurance company. This possibility should be nationalized. That prevents your scenario.

No insurance carrier can sell in all 50 States the same way. All of the States have varying restrictions, designed in most cases to keep competition OUT. If Obama wants competition--and he doesn't, he wants single payer care--but if he did, he would break down these barriers. Congress has the power to regulate interstate trade.

If we make these two changes, we drop costs. If we make health insurance mandatory, we make it universal. The poor, as now, would be provided for. If, in addition, we mandate high deductible, low cost policies, we IMPROVE (re-form technically just refers to morphological alteration; the positive aspect is by common usage) our system. Why won't the Democrats consider these options? Why, because they want Federal control of another big chunk of our economy, and because the unions in any event won't countenance cutting them out of the middle of the healthcare puzzle.

Prole,

That is a solid answer. The only issue is that, as you know, you are making normative statements. You are teaching values, that are not different in kind from the value that God made the world and sinners are going to hell. You just find one appealing, and the other between objectionable and heinous.

To tie that in with ethers misunderstanding of what I'm saying, the point of the First Amendment is to protect ALL beliefs, religious or otherwise, and ALL speech about said beliefs, religious or otherwise.

Patently, if I go into a school teaching that homosexuals should be killed, I am inciting violence, which is and should be against the law. If I teach that they are sinners who are bound for hell, I am not breaking any laws, but am violating good manners. BUT THAT WOULD BE MY RIGHT.

When it comes to schools, the money to fund them is taken from us by force. We have no choice in the matter. Therefore, it is very much in the spirit of democracy to CARE what the values of most of the parents in an area are, and respect them.

What our Founding Fathers intended was very wide lattitude in this. They never, ever, even implicitly, said that religion had no place in schools. Most of them, in fact, emphatically believed that it did, and that some form of religious belief was integral to the survival of our system.

Be that as it may, if we are going to indoctrinate students, then the least we can do is give parents a choice as to what form of indoctrination their kids get. Why not offer parents a voucher worth what they paid into the local coffers for the schooling system, that is valid for cash on demand at ANY schoo, public or private, in the area? People that think Jennings is a, uh, highly developed example of positive evolution, can send their kids to schools embracing the concept of "Queering Elementary Education"--a book for which he wrote the introduction; and Christians can send their schools which allow and even require prayer at regular intervals. Everyone is happy.

Why not do this? This would be perfectly conformable to the spirit and stated intent of our Founders. Why not? Because Leftists don't WANT diversity. They don't WANT alternatives. They want control, they want brainwashing, and they want revolution. Kevin Jennings is in the middle of all this. So was Van Jones. So is Mark Lloyd, etc.

As far as supervision, Congress appropriates funds, but the Executive spends them as they please. Yes, Congress COULD ask questions, but who controls both houses? Who chairs all the committees? Who is fixing to lose a LOT of seats in the next election? The people who shut down every effort to launch a formal inquiry into Obama's shadow government.

Comment #132 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 15, 2009 12:50 PM

Guy,

Read your link. The only part I found unconvincing was their whitewashing of the fact that a 16 year old boy admitted to him he was having anonymous sex with adults in a bus station.

The protocols in place dictated that this be reported--since he was technically the victim of statutory rape--but all Jennings said was "use a condom".

Since he is the Safe Schools Czar this constitutes pretty obvious hypocrisy.

More generally, it occurs to me some people do not understand how our system is constructed. You are free to do and believe whatever you want, provided it hurts no one else. You are specifically protected from being legally coerced into activities of a religious sort with which you disagree, and you are specifically ALLOWED to practice your religion wherever and whenever you please, subject to the regulations of the State within which you live.

The only time government has anything to say is when an issue affects heterogenous groups. In this case, government has the right and duty to protect homosexuals from physical and other abuse. What government does NOT have the right to do is insist that people accept that lifestyle or pattern of decisions IN PRINCIPLE. That is affecting the lives of a different group of people. It is violence to Christians.

The task is to find balance, and that does not consist in simply saying "I am right and you are wrong", which is the de facto tactic of the Thought Police.

I am striking a balance in the middle, for those with the eyes to see. I am a moderate.

Comment #133 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 15, 2009 1:18 PM

I'm not sure how many, if any, of you will follow this--or as far as that goes if this is just stupid--but I wonder if the case could be made that the enforcement of the Roe v. Wade ruling could be argued to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. It is a coercive narrative, based upon ONE understanding of the nature of life. If you look at the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they govern the fundamental mechanics and rules for the interactoin of coercive authority and individual citizens. They say nothing about moral issues, other than that what is not forbidden, is allowed. This would include, for the States, the ability both to allow and to ban whatever they see fit, that is not protected Federally.

That would be an interesting angle, if it hasn't been tried.

Comment #134 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 15, 2009 2:09 PM

Here is my fantasy. Tell me if this sounds Fascist. Somehow--let's say through a new Supreme Court ruling overturning the precedent of using the 14th Amendment to compel national compliance with parochial moral agendas--we turn the power to govern their morality, welfare systems, educational systems, and even regulatory systems back to the States. Each can do what it wants.

In Alabama, they put their 10 Commandments back up in a Yankee second. In San Franciscso, they legalize marijuana and most other drugs, public nudity, public acts of intercourse, prostitution, euthanasia, gay marriage, and whatever else floats their boat.

If the national Executive Branch and Congress are not in a position to dictate their moral orders, then it matters MUCH less who is in national office. Do you see that? Roe v. Wade created the Religious Right. If you let each State make up its own mind, then you eliminate them as such a potent force (although in any event, they had little influence in the last election).

This is true Liberalism. The foundational contradiction at the heart of sincere moral relativism is what William James called the problem of the "One and the Many" (actually not his term, but I forget to whom he gave credit).

Is there One Truth, or many Truths? Can homosexuality be both acceptable and wrong at the same time? Yes, in a liberal society. No, in a dictatorial society. In that case, whoever is in charge IMPOSES their morality. If it's homosexuals, then the answer is yes. If it's socially conservative Christians (Jews, or Muslims), then the answer is no.

Do you see how well our system would work if we just got the overweening Executive out of the way? Do you see how well each little area could be conformed to the values of the people who live there?

We have this saying here "Keep Louisville Weird". I think it came from Austin or Portland or somewhere more hip than us. What it supports is the idea that when you buy from local businesses rather than national chains, you preserve the unique ideosyncrasies made possible by creative individuals who are not answerable to a board somewhere.

The same idea needs to be applied politically. How's this: "Vote our Government weird". You heard it here first.

The hipsters are missing the boat. On one hand they want localization, but then they, without thinking, favor centralizing initiatives like nationalized healthcare, Federal control of energy, and heavy handed restrictions on all other forms of commerce.

We should get rid of the FDA. Privatize it, and if people want to buy stuff that's not on the list, caveat emptor.

We need to can virtually every major Federal agency in Washington, ruthlessly, pay off our debt, then use the national government only to protect our borders, and resolve disputes between States.

That, to me, is freedom.

One other idea I had was offering Federal tax incentives to companies that only did business in one state. The idea is to shrink the global conglomerates.

Or--and this sounds awfully leftist, but I'm going to float it anyway--tax corporations that have more than say 100 employees progressively more the larger they are.

Small business is the heart and soul of economic and social stability. We need to feed it. Obama is not doing that.

Comment #135 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 15, 2009 6:00 PM

"let's say through a new Supreme Court ruling overturning the precedent of using the 14th Amendment to compel national compliance with parochial moral agendas"
So... let's overturn equal protection of the laws? Due process, both substantive and procedural? Incorporation of any part of the bill of rights against the states? You're willing to simply abandon those. That's what your hypothetical SCOTUS ruling is doing - overturning a valid amendment to the Constitution. Pretty sure I've seen you arguing on here in the past about legislative supremacy, but I suppose it's your twisted fantasy.
I see, you've already envisioned the abandonment of the Bill of Rights in your "Yankee second". Well, I guess the idea is that we treasure certain freedoms so dearly that we don't think anyone should be without them, or that anyone should be able to violate them. But hey, what does it matter, they're just freedoms. Why have those when we can have national border protection and telling a poor black woman from Mississippi that no, she can't go to another state to get an abortion?

Comment #136 - Posted by: Mark at October 15, 2009 11:12 PM

Barry,

The "one and the many" goes back to Parmenides and Zeno of Elea (perhaps James means something different?).

Homosexuals do not need to be in power before homosexual activities will be morally acceptable, all that is needed is that people who believe that homosexual activities are morally acceptable be in power - people like me and you (I take your statement that so long as people who engage homosexual activities do not bother you they can do as they please as a statement that what they do is morally acceptable).

It is perfectly legitimate to want states to have more legislative power, to bring the decision makers closer to those for whom they decide. One of the roles of a government (whether municipal, state or federal) is to protect minorities from persecution. The state government protects minorities within the state (located in various municipalities/counties) from persecution. The federal government has the same role with respect to the minorities accross the nation. By all means, make education a state matter, make anything else you like a state matter (provided doing so isn't rediculous). But the reason for assigning a subject matter to the legislative jurisdiction of the states should not be, cannot be, under your Constitution, to persecute minorities. Making education a state matter (in Canada it is a provincial matter) might work much better than your current arrangement, however, if the state uses its system to teach that homosexual acts or morally wrong this would likely result in discriminatory acts within and without the education system in that state, and, after not too long, would likely result in the passing of laws by the state legislature that plainly discriminate against the minority known as homosexuals.

The protection of minorities from persecution is as central to the US constitution and the idea of a liberal state as the protection of individual liberties.

Comment #137 - Posted by: Prole at October 16, 2009 4:08 AM

Mark,

I haven't been called "twisted" before. That's a new one. I have been misunderstood by intellectually intolerant and unintelligent people often, though. You are a case in point. You have not begun to grasp my argument, nor do you appear to be trying to do so.

Prole,

James, being a Pragmatist, does mean something different, although the Greek formulation of the problem is relevant. Let us take the original problem of the One and the Many. Is the Universe one thing, or many things? Which is it?

This framing of the problem (no doubt framed in richer complexity originally, and simplified here for explanatory purposes) posits two answers.

Someone who believes that there is One Truth, with a capital T, will say that the answer IS one or the other. Reality is what it is, and no amount of wishing will make it otherwise. Thus, you have, logically, one right answer, and one wrong answer. You have One Truth.

The problem is that people will not agree. Some will argue that the Universe is ONE thing, all connected, as for example the Hindus and other mystics have done. Some will argue it is many things, reducible to little bits we call atoms (or whatever bit makes up atoms, if we find it).

Now, both views were held simultaneously in Greece. This is the secret of Greek creativity: they tolerated multiple truths simultaneously.

Politically, this is our goal. It is not to impose one hegemonic truth, regardless of our confidence in its rightness. It is to tolerate and cultivate MANY opinions, and many versions of the same opinion. For example, I firmly believe that the objections raised by the ID proponents should be mentioned in most science classes. There are two components to their case: the problems with orthodox Darwinian explications of speciation--which are firmly scientific, and intended to falsify the dominant hypothesis as to the cause of evolution--and their explanation--God--which is patnetly unscientific, since it can't be tested.

As far as what rights need to be protected by the States, I will agree with the following: no one should be denied the right to vote based on any factor extrinsic to their status as a member of society; no one should be denied public office on the basis of anything irrelevant to the task at hand; no one should be denied access to education and other means of advancement for any reason other than lack of merit.

What I do not accept is preferential treatment for anyone. I do not accept Affirmative Action, for example.

As far as what is taught in the schools, I am fine with schools teaching that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and that it also teaches universal love and forgiveness. Homework assignment: would Christ, if he were here, act with hatred or malice towards anyone?

And I think my point made above is relevant, too: why not let the market decide what the schools teach? We can agree in advance that any policies that are designed to limit life, liberty, and the pursuit of personal virtue should be wrong.

We have made a deal with the Devil. To fix some real problems a 100 years ago, we have vitiated the soul of our Constitution, and the result may in the end literally be the fall of our Republic. We have many working on it right now.

Comment #138 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 16, 2009 5:36 AM

Relevant to the topic of formerly mainstream media, this series of articles is worth looking at: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/sright/2009/10/15/part-ii-search-and-ye-shall-find-left-wing-advocacy/

In particular, watch the 2 minute video halfway down. This is pure propaganda. It's nicer and fuzzier than Soviet propaganda, but it has the same purpose: keep the true believers on track.

No new content is introduced, and no actual debate is encouraged. You're just supposed to repeat the Administrations talking point that it is a "myth" that doing here what has been done overseas will lead to access rationing--even though it has, every time it's been tried.

They don't want you do debate. They don't want you to think. They want you to repeat, often.

And people who are used to doing that in congenial forums are uniformly incensed when they encounter genuine ideological diversity here. They get bent out of shape. I call it the "But mine goes to 11" syndrome.

One other story many of you likely missed, since it would likely not have been reported by the media: Obama has made it much easier to ship classified dual use missile and guidance technology to China. From what I gather, he is using a sleight of hand to evade a Republican law dictating that Congress be consulted every time such technology is sold, to make sure it does not damage our national interest.

I may have misunderstood the story, but that was my take-away. Certainly that's what I expect from him. I would assume as well that he has or is in the process of cancelling most of our advanced weapon research, which he promised to do on the campaign trail.

I will be much easier for China to catch up if we give them what we have, and stop developing new techologies.

I've asked this before, but does anyone really believe that the logistical challenge of donating $100 million in $20 contributions is insurmountable? You don't have to account for any of those contributions, and the Obama campaign refuses to open its books for scrutiny.

Comment #139 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 16, 2009 6:37 AM

Not surprised to see the crossfit community that I love so much tolerate Barry's homophobia, anti-semitism and hate rhetoric.

This is where he gets his "jollies."

Comment #140 - Posted by: Mr. Ehler at October 16, 2009 8:06 AM

I see a lot of hate rhetoric, Herr Ehler, but I'm not the one generating it.

If you have anything contructive to add, please do so. I'll wait with baited breath. The depth and sweep of Leftist thought is truly mindboggling.

I mean that in the sense that it is difficult to understand how some men are physically able to impregnate women.

Admittedly, I know what I'm doing casting the pearls before swine; it's just obvious to me that many, many Americans are not yet down with "the sickness". Many of us would rather die first, and it's not inconceivable we will get our chance.

Comment #141 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 16, 2009 8:30 AM

You know, I work hard to explain how I reach the conclusions I do. It's a systematic, demanding process of analyzing how all the parts interconnect, what the likely unintended consequences of a given policy are, and what exactly it is we are trying to accomplish.

I write this down. I record it. I offer facts--which are open to question--and logic--which is also open to question. Over and over and over I see people who apparently read just long enough to see they disagree with me, then IMMEDIATELY lump me into the category "Hated Other". My crime? Typically hating the "Other".

This is why leftists, in general, don't debate. I would go so far as to say that the willingness to engage sincerely is prima facie evidence of a genuinely liberal tendency.

There's nothing INTRINSICALLY wrong with a Welfare State, IF IT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT. Now, I would argue there are all sorts of negatives that tend to flow from it, but in principle if the people vote it, then they can have it, as long as they can pay for it.

What is objectionable is forcing people who want to govern their own lives to participate in a system they don't want, and wouldn't choose.

Genuine Liberals want genuine dialogue. Our President, on that score, is not a genuine Liberal. He doesn't want dialogue. He would shut Fox down tomorrow if he could. They are a massive thorn in his side, and that of his fellow travellers.

All of you who make BS, uncontextualized, stupid comments like Mr. Ehler made there--or the many preceding examples--are very simply not Liberal. You are would be autocrats whose leaders simply haven't amassed enough power yet to shut down opposition.

Comment #142 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 16, 2009 8:46 AM

That's funny: I just noticed I got accused of anti-Semitism too.

Come on, folks, this is where you show the stark gap between my analysis, and the unvarnished Truth, as it exists in the purity of innocent and penetrating minds.

Eeler is right about one thing: I do thrive on opposition. It would bore me to tears if everyone always agreed with me.

We need more of that, generally. We need more give and take. We need less blaming, and more thinking. We need less proselytizing, and more analyzing.

All of you, right and left: why do you believe what you believe? What evidence do you have that your position is the best solution? What is the problem for which your politics are the solution?

Open dialogue is like a radar or sonar that is constantly sweeping the skies or the waves so that we can map them. It takes into account instantly changes in conditions, and brings into relief the contours of problems with an alacrity not possible on a sustained basis in any other way.

Comment #143 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 16, 2009 11:11 AM

Barry,

You are inconsistent. Most people are inconsistent when they write multiple posts “for time” into a forum, but some inconsistencies are more than incidental, some are discouraging, frustrating and on occasion down-right obnoxious. You ask for open dialogue in your 23rd post, but you began your 2nd post with this:

“I have tried really, really, really hard, over a period of many years, to try to find a leftist able to defend their views in depth, or critique my own views with something other than decontextualized platitudes which invariably amount to the intellectual version of moral equivalance (you have your side; I have mine). I have failed. Those people, very simply, do not exist.”

This is preposterous and disingenuous. And it is evidence of nothing. Because this observation rings so falsely, it at best makes the rest of your observations seem untrustworthy, at worst it suggests vigorous, robust, and proud ignorance. Why on earth would someone who self-identifies as a “Leftist” or “Leftish” engage you in debate after you have said that? Why on earth would someone who knows very well that there are many fine arguments in support of “Leftish” opinions and that many of these fine arguments rest on solid empirical bases, engage you in debate after you have said that?

Perhaps that person has his own vanity to blame, probably so.

Comment #144 - Posted by: Prole at October 16, 2009 2:27 PM

Barry,

You are inconsistent. Most people are inconsistent when they write multiple posts “for time” into a forum, but some inconsistencies are more than incidental, some are discouraging, frustrating and on occasion down-right obnoxious. You ask for open dialogue in your 23rd post, but you began your 2nd post with this:

“I have tried really, really, really hard, over a period of many years, to try to find a leftist able to defend their views in depth, or critique my own views with something other than decontextualized platitudes which invariably amount to the intellectual version of moral equivalance (you have your side; I have mine). I have failed. Those people, very simply, do not exist.”

This is preposterous and disingenuous. And it is evidence of nothing. Because this observation rings so falsely, it at best makes the rest of your observations seem untrustworthy, at worst it suggests vigorous, robust, and proud ignorance. Why on earth would someone who self-identifies as a “Leftist” or “Leftish” engage you in debate after you have said that? Why on earth would someone who knows very well that there are many fine arguments in support of “Leftish” opinions and that many of these fine arguments rest on solid empirical bases, engage you in debate after you have said that?

Perhaps that person has his own vanity to blame, probably so.

Comment #145 - Posted by: Prole at October 16, 2009 2:27 PM

Prole,

We have covered this ground many times. You are speaking in abstractions. You are making the "intellectual equivalency" argument, the meat of which, expressed pragmatically, is that leftists believe they should be viewed as the intellectual equals of conservatives, simply because it "must be so".

In point of fact, you are with this very post suppporting, not undermining my point.

Let's take something concrete: our current President's biological father--about whom the book "Dreams from my Father" was written--was a Communist. We're not sure, but it looks like his mother was too. His grandfather had a friend who was a Communist, with whom he was sufficiently close that he allowed young Barry to spend a lot of unsupervised time with him.

On his own admission, on entering college, he sought out the companionship of socialists and radicals.

His records, for every university he ever attended, are closed. They could be opened, but he won't do it.

Upon graduating from Columbia University--closely associated with 70's radicalism, and to this day filled with radical professors--he sought out the tutelage of a man who had trained directly under Saul Alinsky, who was also a dedicated Communist who spoke positively of overthrowing the American government. Obama himself said that his training in Community Organizing was the best training he ever had.

Fast forward to the present: we have a host of people in the White House, who Obama has presumably personally approved, who are working on things like shutting down opposition media, normalizing the teaching of homosexuality as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality, implementing an aggressive cap and tax regime that will kill our economy, and using the Federal Government for "community organizing".

The people who point these things out get labeled haters, racists, dimwits, fascists, and a host of other things.

Yet, these are the facts. I am not making anything up. It could be worse: a recent biographer of Michelle and Barack claims not only that Obama and Bill Ayers were close friends, but that Billy Boy GHOST WROTE much of "Dreams from my Father", making Obama not just a liar on a number of accounts, but shameless in his claim over many years that he was the author.

These things need to be discussed. If this claim is patently false, then I would LOVE to see a libal suit filed against the author. But I don't expect that to happen, for the simple reason that the clowns running our "Fourth Estate" have been folded into the Second Estate, the "L'etat c'est nous" folks. They are open cheerleaders, for whom Truth is vastly secondary to advocacy. Thus, this story has disappeared, after a momentary blip on Fox.

So why bother, particuarly if the lawsuit would not turn out well, since the claim is accurate?

These are the things I worry about: concrete facts that I contextualize within a not inconsiderable historical knowledge, and capacity for logical deduction.

If you want to dispute any of the foregoing, please do so. Abstractions are irrelevant when you have context in front of you.

Comment #146 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 16, 2009 6:12 PM

Here is yet another confirmation of what I said above: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/32021/

The woman assigned to "battle" Fox News considers Chairman Mao her most important political influence. She says so, in her own words. He has the video, which is long enough to make the context clear.

The extent and scope of the failure of our media "watchdogs" is enough to make the most hardened cynic puke.

Comment #147 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 16, 2009 8:15 PM

Remember the Beatles "but if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow"?

Our President has put people who for all intents and purposes DO carry pictures of Chairman Mao, into positions which have direct influence over many aspects of our lives.

Van Jones is gone. The question remains: why was he--an avowed Maoist revolutionary who did nothing to hide his roots--put there in the first place?

Wake up, people. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. As far as I can tell, it's just as bad or worse than it looks. If we put a Chinese agent in the White House, do you think they could, over time, damage our national interests in ways which were not immediately obvious? I think I could. You just lock the door, and seal the records of who you are meeting with.

ANY American President has access to the entirety of our national secrets. He gets the Above Top Secret stuff, the Code Word stuff. He has direct access to stuff most people have to go through six months security checks for.

And this SOB won't even authorize the release of his birth certificate. Forget the probability it will reveal anything new: he should do it simply because to do otherwise is a blatant act of contempt for the sentiments and cares of the very people he was elected to protect.

One could easily make the case that we have become so sloppy, stupid, and lazy, that we no longer deserve our freedoms. I am half inclined to believe it myself. Yet, there are many good people left, so we need to continue the battle for sanity and common sense decency, both of which seem to have gone missing.

Comment #148 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 17, 2009 5:48 AM

My comment dealt with a concrete thing: you.

Comment #149 - Posted by: Prole at October 17, 2009 10:16 AM

Barry, Thanks for confirming your anti-semtic hate for the entire board to see. Ehler is of Jewish extraction - when my family was forced from Poland by the Nazis they changed their name. You adding "Herr" so innocently to my name is a disgusting insult.

Had you said that to me in person, you'd be spitting your teeth out.

I expect a full apology.

Comment #150 - Posted by: Mr. Ehler at October 17, 2009 10:18 AM

I have been defending Israel against her many critics for many years. You have not a SHRED of evidence--on this thread or any other--of anti-Semitism on my part, for the simple reason that I am not an anti-Semite. So why don't you apologize to me for impugning me without a shred of evidence?

Prole,

Precisely. If you can't discuss the topic, you discuss the person.

I've said this many times, but Leftists (defined as stridently opinionated and prejudiced people who are utterly unable to defend their ideas in depth) have only three options in an open debate, in my experience: shutting up, changing the topic, or attacking their opponent personally. You have chosen the third option.

QED.

As mentioned, the fourth option is preventing the emergence of that problem in the first place by making sure no criticism ever sees the light of the day.

Self evidently, that was the option chosen by the heroes of many members of the Obama inner circle.

Comment #151 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 17, 2009 10:29 AM

Barry,

You want logic? I'll give you logic you can understand.

Quote:

>> There's nothing INTRINSICALLY wrong with a Welfare State, IF IT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT. Now, I would argue there are all sorts of negatives that tend to flow from it, but in principle if the people vote it, then they can have it, as long as they can pay for it.

Here we are in agreement, in principle.

>> What is objectionable is forcing people who want to govern their own lives to participate in a system they don't want, and wouldn't choose.

Why not:

>> What is objectionable is forcing people who don't want to govern [certain aspects of] their own lives to participate in a system where they must do so; i.e. a system they wouldn't choose.

?

After all, as you said above, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with welfare systems, so long as they can be paid for; therefore this second choice is not intrinsically bad. The two situations are therefore morally equivalent: both involve implementing systems which are not bad, per se; and both would involve forcing people to participate in a system they would not choose. I say they are morally equivalent because, in the general characteristics by which one must make a moral decision, they seem to be the same.

But the two situations (a welfare system/no welfare system) are mutually exclusive, no? It follows from that that we must choose one or the other. And since the situations are morally equivalent, there will always be a group of people being wronged. You must show a genuine reason for this symmetry to be broken, by which I mean: why is it the case that, when there are those who would be forced to participate in a welfare system, it is wrong, but when there are those who would be forced to participate in a market system, it is not wrong. If you do not, then any reason that could be applied to the one situation could be applied equally to the other.

If you did manage to break the symmetry, you would be contradicting yourself; you would be saying that, in fact, there IS something wrong with a welfare system which necessitates a market system.

I chose this for criticism because, as I see it, it is representative of the fundamental questions that lie at the centre of just about any political discussion that takes place. To be explicit, the question we are trying to answer is, very simply: How should we live together?

Comment #152 - Posted by: Darije at October 17, 2009 11:59 AM

Barry, Attack me all you want. You're the anti-semite.

Comment #153 - Posted by: Mr. Ehler at October 17, 2009 1:59 PM

Eeliesan: You have not a shred of a trace of a hint of evidence in support of that accusation, because you are wrong.

Personally, I think you are a Sinophobe. You have an irrational hatred of East Asians. What is your problem? Why do you keep making Sinophobic statements? You need to stop right now.

Darije,

That is precisely my point: why do we have to have one answer? Logically, if we can have only one answer, then the people possessing it would be morally justified in taking over the world and imposing the "Truth", even on the reluctant.

I want to go the other way. There are some 300 million people in America. Why can't we have 50-200 separate districts of some sort, wherein people can localize their own moral beliefs? That's what I'm arguing for. Let people in Alabama do what they want, and people in Oregon do what they want. This is genuine Liberalism.

Comment #154 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 17, 2009 4:47 PM

You know, I think many people miss the radical nature of our system, simply because it works. Things that work are banal, because they don't generate excitement. They don't generate the smell of gunpowder and blood that was such an aphrodisiac for Che.

But if you confront it head-on, what you see is the clear political commitment to the idea that there is no One truth, but rather that there are many things that might be true, and people should be allowed to believe them. The government shall have no comment. It shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion OR ANY OTHER BELIEF SYSTEM.

Vulgar philosophical understandings of Science have led many to believe that all vexed questions--abortion, "social justice", drug use, assisted suicide--can be boiled down, in the end, to immutable answers, which are obtained scientifically.

Yet this is not how science works. It NEVER makes truth claims. It makes claims of provisional and unconflicted UTILITY. If x invariably follows y, you have a useful method of engineering reality.

But this basic mindset has infected our political bodies, our economic systems, and of course science. It is the essence of Constructivism. What is Communism, but the belief that one system of thought is the best, and all other wrong? It is, we are told by Marx, "scientific Socialism."

Very few of you will likely understand immediately what I'm saying, but try. It's important.

Comment #155 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 17, 2009 6:22 PM

Barry,

Thank you for the clarification. I believe I understand your point now.

Your words strike me as being very similar to my sentiments about the nature of democracy: nobody knows what the best way of doing things is, so let's let everyone have their go. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Certainly, this is better than tyranny, since there is the possibility for things which don't work to be discarded forever more.

More to the point, what works for one group or person will not work for another group or person; what works is in fact subjective, since, for the most part, what a person or group says for, "it works," depends upon that person's or group's own conception of (for lack of a better word) Utopia, and that in turn rests upon their value system. A value system, by nature, cannot be an objective absolute; we, as people, among ourselves, choose what our values are.

This is why you would like to see separate districts, each holding to their own value system. In this way, less people are forced into a system against their own free will, or, equivalently, more people live somewhere where their own values are instated.

Two potential problems I see:

Firstly, the argument I made before still stands for each district; the argument does not depend upon the scale of the population involved. There will be those who are wronged in each district. One may argue that they could simply move to another district where they are allowed to do whatever it is they are forbidden from doing in the district they currently reside in; but, practically speaking, this is probably quite often impossible.

Secondly, does such a system present the danger that, given that there will be vast differences in value systems between districts, any sense of national unity will be lost, and the entire country will simply devolve into 50-200 smaller ones? In another sense: what role does the government really play in such a system? What could they provide that each district could not provide for itself (e.g. roads, street-lighting, education, what have you) through levying taxes etc.?

On a related note, if national unity is not to be lost, then it seems to me that there has to be two separate value systems: a more detailed, local one; and a general one for the whole federation of districts. And it cannot be the case that the general one can simply be, "Let everyone have their own value systems," since that it tantamount to none at all.

There is a simply utility to this: if the districts are to remain in one federation, and a federal government is to be useful, there has to be a small, core set of values that all the districts can agree upon (albeit, everyone will probably have to make some concessions that they don't like).

Now, to get the obvious out of the way, the Constitution does indeed provide this. But, at the crux of the matter, as I see it, a society - here, the collection of districts - must be prepared for a re-valuation of values as times change. Ultimately, there needs to be a national dialogue about what values EVERYONE must adhere to, and what values individual districts can be allowed to choose for themselves.

Comment #156 - Posted by: Darije at October 18, 2009 5:12 AM

Darije: very perceptive. Yes, you do need a mutable sacred, which in its essence must allow the possibility of evolution of change.

I posit three core values: the rejection of self pity, perseverance, and perception. My own belief is that doing what is Good is a type of enlightened self interest. Thus, the more perception you have--the more people realize how they themselves "work", and how they interact most harmoniously with others--the better the social order will become.

In my own view, if we can defeat Scientism, and get scientists to start systematically puncturing holes in their own paradigms, rather than defending them tooth and nail, we can grow past the need for religions. The alternative is not atheism, but rather a scientifically and empirically anchored understanding of the universe, in which it is understood that our consciousness continues after biological death, that the universe has rules, and that we are all interconnected in ways which extend beyond the physical.

Comment #157 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 18, 2009 5:53 AM

Actually, particuarly since you took the time to actually read and digest what I said, let me offer one more following comment, to address what I didn't cover.

The national polity exists to protect the nation as a whole; negotitate treaties and conduct foreign affairs generally; regulate the relations between the States--which would in my view involve building public works projects, although now that I think about it, it might not be a bad idea to bill things back to the States benefitted, rather than taking from the general till; and protect the specific rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

The Federalist Papers largely covered this issue. I must confess that I have the book on my shelf, but have never read it in full, but the basic problem they were working to address was the one you mentioned. In a Confederation, you lack a strong central government. What our system was INTENDED to provide was the positives of a Confederation, without the negatives, which would include poor coordination as far as national defense, and lack of continuity as far as basic legal protections.

To be clear, I fully agree that the Federal Government was within its rights to free the slaves. That was a prima facie violation of the most basic doctrine of liberty. But the means by which that right was asserted legally--the 14th Amendment if memory serves, and one other in that vicinity--has provided a pretext for the on-going usurpation of other liberties.

The simple fact of the matter is that people are most happy when living with people who share their values. That does not make them right, but Muslims are happier with Muslims, Jews with Jews, African-Americans with African-Americans, and WASPs with WASPs. The research is clear on this. In conditions of profound diversity, overall levels of trust and contentment decline. You don't know what to expect.

Now, we do a very good job of managing this, but all too often we are told that tolerance is such an absolute value that we must give up our own beliefs in order to coexist. Yet, that takes all the savor out of living. It bleaches you. There are many ways to be Good, in my own formulation, but all of them are personal, and all of them can be balanced by emotionally and politically mature people with alternative views.

I will add as well, that OF COURSE not every person in a group of even minute diversity can agree with every decision the polity makes. You may like your group, but enjoy smoking weed. They ban it. Do you move, do you hide it, or do you stop? These are your choices.

The reason the Rejection of Self Pity is my first value, is that no matter how lucky you are, no matter how wonderful your place in life is, you WON'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT. Sometimes you just have to shut your mouth and deal with it.

What I am proposing, quite frankly, is as close to utopia as I think we can get on this Earth.

Comment #158 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at October 18, 2009 6:30 AM
Post a comment






Remember personal info?