no memorial day wod...its alright..il do one for all our brothers downrange

Awesome pic. Been there never done that. Now I got to go back.

love the videos~keep 'em coming.

Keep at it Gillian~you have such a passionate spirit!

Can anyone explain why the Games video refers to Mikko Salo as the "Unofficial" 2009 CrossFit Games Champion?

NEED SOME ASSISTANCE....

I'm going to be in McAllen TX area for the next month, does anyone know of an X-Fit facility there? I'm not familiar with the area. If so please shoot me an email.

Thanks,

Joe

One of the coolest pictures I've ever seen.

Self Rx'd today - more CFE style - I did 3 intervals on the treadmill at 12, 11 and 10 MPH respectively holding the pace for as long as possible (distance/time).

Results:
12MPH - .5 mile - 2:32
11MPH - .39 mile - 2:14
10MPH - .36 mile - 2:15

Times of course included acceleration. Total: 1.25 mi in 7:01.

Rest time was just until my heart rate dropped down to the same rate it was after my warm-up (approx. 140).

I was on a 4 day drill weekend which didn't afford me much time for PT - but every time I went to the shoppette, I did box-jumps on the 30-36" cement blocks lining the side of the road - and every time I passed some place with chin-up bars I made sure to stop and do some. Lastly, did skill work on handstand push-ups.

Gillian,

Great job! For anyone interested, Gillian will be doing a live webcast of Operation Pull for Hope on Saturday from her website. This is a great cause, show your support for our troops and thoer families.

Mac

Hey Ted,

The video is a clip form a larger project. And at that point in the project, it is not announced that Mikko has WON. Please Don't tell anybody. I don't want the surprise to be ruined.

thanks
sevan

Zion National Park = Most beautiful place on earth. I love Southern Utah.

Type-o... Mikko, not Mikki.

Whoa.

6k row in lieu of 5k run....30:02
Not fun when you have to pause to wipe your nose!

Thank you to all of the veterans who have proudly served our country, especially mi papa&abuelo

Today is Veteran's Day in the United States. Below are my thoughts written for Memorial Day, just as pertinent today.

Of Google, Heroes, and Crossfit http://skyvisioncenters.com/blog/?p=52

With humble thanks to every Vet, especially the Veterans who were my patients at the Manhattan VA Medical Center 1987-90, and to Richard E (Dick) White, Sgt. US Army (retired), my Dad.

--bingo

Can we get an official word on what the 'larger project' is that 'Complete Games Coming Soon' alludes to? Hey - I'll even take an unofficial word if anyone's got one. Are we looking at an 'Every Second Counts' style doco. Tentative release date?

Veteran's Day post in the filter...

I want to give a word of thanks to all of the veterans and current soldiers serving our country. We are in great debt to you for your service. No one should take the freedom that we have for granted. THANK YOU!

Interesting article, particularly the first half befoe the tiresome descent into party political/ideological dogma.

Obama isn't my cup of tea but to blame him and his policies for the less than ideal alliance with Pakistan seems a little extreme.

He inherited a 7 year old US/Pakistan relationship in January 09 that was already based on falsehood & bribery underpinned by an uncertain military strategy and objectives.

At Husky CrossFit, we'll be doing the Murph in honor of our veterans tomorrow. 20lb vest and all.

Didn't Bush play a big role in arming the Pakistani's last dictatorship to the teeth? And that was after AQ Khan. There's plenty of blame to go around before we get into the who Obama is Hitler stuff.

What about the surge in Afghanistan? Isn't that a step towards stabilizing that part of the world?

Check comment #10 by "whiskey" in the article. We're not advocating this type of action are we?

Thanks to all the vets. Come home safe. Come home soon.

God bless the troops, and thank God for our Veterans. I salute you all!

Back to Washing the posts of people that disagree... Thanks for the videos but the rest of this site is a joke.

I'm dying here.... I've got to know..... When does The Complete Games come out???????

Man, throw a guy a bone here.....

God bless our troops!

The Land of the Free, because of the Brave!... Shake the hand of a Vet, look them in the eyes & say thank you... God Bless America! Stay safe brothers, & Gods speed.

Get some, Go again!

Regarding the highly biased article, Reagan felt a moral duty? He sold weapons to Iran 2 years after they killed 240 Marines in Beirut. "Moral duty" and Reagan don't belong in the same sentence, not on Veterans day. He didn't serve in WW II, he created Bin Laden, funded Saddam in a war by proxy against an enemy he later sold weapons to. Now he gets credit for ending the cold war when it was the falling price of oil that led to the demise of the USSR.

Enough with the propaganda, let's get real!

Is this writer today making political hay of the fact that not all Europeans view American foreign policy or American Euro-policy in the same way; that not all Europeans are ready to cut the Bretton-Woods/NATO umbilical cord, when yesterday he complained that Europe was unanimous in its ungrateful, adolescent anti-Americanism, and that it and its United Nations Treehouse Club should be left to flounder on their own while the US pursued its interests around the globe in ways that made sense in the 21st C?

The mishmash quote with which this Belmont Club piece ends gives the impression that the author laments the passing of the Cold War. Why on earth would the current President of the United States (and congress) invest as much time and money in Europe today when there is no cold war, as did Kennedy or Reagan (and congresses) when the Cold War was on? This just doesn't make sense. The author could have said more clearly that he thinks the Obama administration is making a strategic mistake by leaving Europe to protect itself against ????? Russia?. But instead the author suggested that Obama (or presumably McCain if he had won) should be conducting foreign policy in Europe as though it is 1962, or 1985 - really the message is that John Wayne has left the building, and we'll have to wait 'till at least 2012 for him to return. This is a silly message that surely must be directed at rallying the unemployed neocons around a new cause - Cold War 2.0 - rather than providing the starting point for a serious critique of US foreign policy in Europe.

It could be worse - from an ideological point of view, though not from a stylistic one - we could have been reading Robert Kagan today.

Restday suuucks.

Greetings fellow veterans.

No RestDay for me today. Here in Australia, today, the 11th November, is our Rememberance Day, for remembering those soldiers who went to war and never returned. Lest we Forget.

Tonight, I'll be in the backyard doing four rounds of hero WOD "Hansen". Thanks to all the men and women, young and old, standing out there in the scary darkness, helping keep the world on track. And RIP to those who haven't returned home again.

Ben

Completed Mary today

4 rounds

Handstand pushups are tough, especially coupled with pullups

Completed Mary today

4 rounds

Handstand pushups are tough, especially coupled with pullups

Rememberance Day. Thank a vet. Nothing else should really matter today.

Shake our hands and thank us for what we do, but we gladly serve our country to keep our family and friends safe back home. Enjoy your freedom today, and thank you my brothers for your sacrifice. Only we will know what it is like...

So when Orlando does Mean Girls people are all over him about his ROM but these people dont get called out at all? All of thos MU's except for the ones done by Gillian were lacking full ROM hardcore. And who does the Iceland guy think he is? 20 rounds?!?! Get out of here....

Thanks Guys...

1. I'd rather do 5 Murphs in a row (or get sick trying) than read another rest day article from a right-wing think tank.
2. Couldn't CF have chosen a piece today that honors veterans, instead of promoting a divisive, reactionary agenda?

#32

The purpose of the video was not to show case individual athletes, but rather to capture the coming together of a spectrum of CrossFit athletes to support a great cause regardless of ability.

Ari's humor was lost in the video, he never imagined getting 20+ rounds - that was banter between the two of us. Ari worked hard for the entire 20 minutes.

That being said he volunteered to put himself on video to support Operation Pull for Hope and Hope for the Warriors, doing a workout he had never done before, and proved to be extremely difficult.

FWIW, every athlete completely underestimated the difficulty of the workout - including Gillian who planned on getting 1,000,000 rounds or something.

Mac

Comment #32 No ROM: The two different videos you mentioned in your comment are posted for two separate and distinct reasons, hence the difference in feedback from the users of this forum.

Thanks to all the Veterans out there. You are greatly appreciated!

Thank you, veterans.

"Freedom is not free".....thank you fellow vets, brothers and sisters. God bless America!

Don't post much anymore, but today I need to thank all the vets out there for preserving my right to be whatever "wing" I want. THANK YOU!!! You are my heroes/heroines.

p.s. maybe on rest days we could read articles on stuff pertaining to exercise rather than political ideas that polarize people to the point of vitriolic disdain and/or hate....(?) just a thought

I'm again upset no "Hero" WOD to honor a date significant to our Warriors. I know today is a rest day but what about yesterday ? No "Hero" WOD on Memorial Day or 9-11 either. I've expressed this concern to Coach via email and honestly, the only email responses I ever get from him are nasty and immature for being in disagreement with him. I'll protest with my wallet...no more Journal, merchandise or Certs from me.

Thank you to all of our soldiers, past and present. It is because of you I sleep soundly at night.

"To the American soldier: who fought the fight, climbed the hill, paid the price, and never let us down!"
-Thoedore Roosevelt

"To those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know..."

Happy Veterans Day to the sheepdogs who protect this great country. It takes a special person to move toward the sound of gunfire....God Bless you and America!

Fukuyama's "End of History" was catchy. but I never understood then--and even less now--how he could say something like that when we have a billion Chinese saluting a Communist flag, a Communist nation a short boatride (not short enough for many) from our shore, and a nuclear armed concentration camp--which is bankrupt--in North Korea.

And what is the grand strategy of our best thinkers for reconciling differences in a shrinking world? Simple: surrendering our identity, then watching what happens. Whatever it is, they intend to step back to make sure we aren't "misunderstood" by expressing an opinion as they erect a global government, which is the only alternative to an actually coherent moral philosophy. Since they abandoned that 50 years ago, some form of global totalitarianism is the best they can come up with, presumably with China in the lead.

As far as Pakistan, all our options are bad. We do need to understand, though, that they are balanced regionally by India, who will presumably not hesitate to use what force they believe need to protect themselves. It's not us versus Pakistani radicals. We do have potential allies and options.

Happy Veterans Day to all the honorable, salty Vets! Semper Fi

Remembrance Day in Canada

"In Flanders fields the poppies grow,
upon crosses, row on row."

We will never forget the sacrifices made by the greatest generations. Thinking of my Grandfathers today and always thankful. Canada is free because of people like them and all others currently serving.

Thank You all.

Rest day, pah.

Smashed out a run around the edge of Hyde Park

Time = 30 minutes

Rest day - pah

Smashed out a run around the outer edge of Hyde Park going counter clockwise

time = 30 minutes

Did Murph w/o body armor over here in Iraq.
42:07
Thanks to all my brothers in arms. Especially those who paid the ultamite sacrifice for their country/communities.

Rest day, pah.

Smashed out a run around the outer edge of Hyde Park going counter clockwise.

Time = 30 minutes

Jack #24- Really bro, you are lost in the sauce and very bitter apparently. I suppose you think Jimmy Carter doesn't get enough credit either.

wow awesome picture!

Thanks to all the vets on board! My pops and Goat's too- GO NAVY :)

Whimpered thru 5K 33:00. Sigh. I'm terrible. Oh well. No where to go but up. :P

Did a quick one.

5 x 500m rowing. Times between 1:40 and 1:50.

50 sit ups, 50 knees to elbow.

Attempted a muscle up on the pull up bar and got it ! In fact, I was able to do 10 but not consecutive. Nice !

m/31/5,8/182

how do you have a rest day of Veteran's day? Mr. Joshua for our box today

"Murph"
Cindy Style

46:45

Never forget those who gave up part of their lives to defend this great nation.

God bless our troops, past and present.

I am very grateful for the amazingly selfless sacrifices of our troops. At the same time, I think we best honor their memories not by thinking of them a few times a year, but by working daily to ocntinue to deserve the system they created for us, and died to protect.

There was nothing inevitable about our success. If you look at our very beginnings, on the contrary, general disaster appeared certain, complete with the loss of the lives and fortunes of the smartest and best men we had. Ponder what it would be like surviving a winter in rags, underfed, and with poor shoes, or none at all. Put yourself in Washington's shoes, and allow a slow despair to fill you, which you then counter with stiff resolve, and a decision--quite literally--to do or die. That was the decision he made. That was the decision they all made.

Our soldiers defend us from foreign enemies. The rest of us defend our nation from the internal enemies of complacency, stupidity, laziness and arrogance. We are only as good as our average. The average is who elects the people who run this country.

In that regard, I like this quote, from the article (approximately): "Fundamentally this generation of Europeans and Americans lost their desire to pay for anything, whlle their appetite for everything remains unabated. The eventual result was Barack Obama."

Here is a fact: the Soviet Union fully intended to conquer the world, and did everything they could to make it happen. The primary reason they failed was the United States.

I see no way to argue that. You can debate the relative roles of Reagan or Kennedy, but not that overarching macroscopic FACT.

One other thing: why ISN'T Obama in Berlin, to commemorate victory in a half century war? We did so much to enable West Berlin to exist. Have people forgotten the Berlin airlift? Unless my memory is failing me, we had one under Truman, and another under Kennedy. We kept them democratic. We kept them from being submerged in grey bureaucratic tyranny.

Have people forgotten "Ick bin ein (yes, I know) Berliner"? Kennedy, irrespective of his many, many faults as a human being and politician, did love this country. The current crop of Democrats, I'm not so sure. They have an ideology based on compassion, but I think somewhere along the way they forgot that compassion needs to help people on balance, not hurt them. And if they feel the need to implement tyranny to support freedom, or to punish people in the name of compassion, this is functional lunacy.

It's not what you say you're trying to do that matters. What matters is what you actually do. On that, you can be judged. Persistent, long term, large scale failures can ONLY be wilful. That seems clear enough.

Of all the days in the entire year, this is the one day I do not want to rest! I think it's going to be a morning-noon-evening workout kind of day. I mean... can't be anything close to what most of our veteran's have endured in the slightest!

Hey Crossfit,
Why not post something else.. your right wing propaganda is nothing but a pathetic attempt at trying to brain wash these athletes on their rest day..

When you're put in a place of authority.. Like say.. running a multi million dollar fitness company.. and you have tons of people checking your website daily..
You should hold yourself to a hire standard than to this garbage you post.
Hating Obama is not going to get you anywhere..
Obama has been in office for 10 months.. and the mess we are in is somehow his?
Maybe you should educate yourself and your athletes on both sides of the gun..
Until then me and my gym are going to find a different workout program..

Ran for 30 minutes along the riverwalk beside the mighty Mississippi in New Orleans. Beautiful, sunny morning.

I don't need a hero WOD to remember Veterans' Day. [As an aside, this day is to remember all who served while Memorial Day is to remember those "who died in defense of their country."]

If you want to show support of those that served and/or died in service, then exercise the freedoms that have been defended. Vote, write your congressional reps, pay your taxes, go to the church of your choice, do whatever WOD you want, etc.

To my fellow vets, thanks for your service. To those in harm's way, keep safe and come home soon.

From the looks of the clips of the 2009 games movie it looks like only men are featured. I hope that is not the case. Every Second Counts was an interesting movie, but only told half the story. I hope that same mistake isn't made again this year.

Tycen-
You whine like a little girl... Whaaa me and my gym are gonna throw away a near perfect regime because I hate the posts... Whaaa! Shut up ad get out of this community then. You don't have to watch the videos, you have the FREEDOM not to given to you by those of us who serve... Maybe you should just quit at everything... Quit at life please because no one needs your whiney needy body taking up our time and opportunity... Enjoy being a piece of garbage and quitting on all who enjoy crossfit at your gym... Also enjoy it when they all leave you behind and get sick if you taking everything personally... Peace

Question. What time to the WOD typically come out?

Dear Crossfit,

Please stick to your excellent knowledge base: training athletes. Refrain from things you know little about: politics and foreign relations.

THX

no wod today gives me more time to think of, reflect upon, and thank the vets. Thanks to all our armed forces, current and former and future.

Also, idolizing soldiers comes awfully close to idolizing armies and war, which should really be avoided. No disrespect to those who fought in the World Wars for instance, but we should know better now, and go for a world where veterans are no more.

Barry wrote at 11:05:
"It's not what you say you're trying to do that matters. What matters is what you actually do. On that, you can be judged."
Like selling arms to Islamic fanatics and using the funds to underwrite proxy struggles?

God Bless the men and women who serve this great nation of ours.

God Bless America.

tucker

Booo tycen...bad show..crossfit is the best thing that's ever happened to the fitness community..try it..it'll kick your butt. Booo tycen!

Lest We Forget.

Husky CF
18/M/160/5'7"
The MMurph as Rx'd

W/O 20lb vest
Rory - 40:05
W/ 20lb vest
Dres - 39:28

Bad taste, Crossfit, posting an ugly political rant on a day that transcends petty political opinions.

Our vets didn't fight for an ideology, their sacrifice is bigger than that article. Honor them accordingly and refrain from the political banter.

I have gotten away from posting but wanted to just add my opinion to a few things.

First off, everyone complaining that there is no HERO wod today...Today is Veterans Day, a day of rememberance. For me there will be no WOD today. I will simply think about all that our fighting men and women have done for our country for hundreds of years. As a veteran of 4 combat deployments and currently ramping up for a 5th, I am fully aware of all that our Vets have to deal with day in and day out. With that being said I personally would rather have people simply take the time to say "thank you" to a Veteran. It means more than any WOD!I truely believe that Coach, his family and the entire Crossfit community have done far more than any other fitness communtity to show thier support of our Armed Forces! THANK YOU!!!

Secondly, as for all the complaints about the article and Crossfits attemt to "brainwash" its athletes. As I see it Crossfit is a community and in any community there will be diffences of opinion. I dont think that anyone is saying that you HAVE to think this way. Its just an opinion. In my very simple opinion anyone that would walk away from the greatest workout and fitness program in the world over a difference in political opinion is a moron! But hey that's just my opinion.

Last and most important, I would like to say to all the men of 2/1 Infantry currently serving in Afghanistan, Be safe and Godspeed! You are all in my thoughts and prayers everyday. Come home safe brothers! To all of my Brothers that paid the Ultimate Sacrifice to defend our Great Nation and our way of life, You are TRUE HEROS! I will continue to live everyday of my life trying to Honor You, Your Families and your Sacrifice. Rest In Peace Brothers.

SSG. Robin L. Johnson U.S. Army Infantry

Wah wah wah; if it doesn't agree with me it's an "ugly political rant" or "you don't know what you are talking about" or "...propaganda" or "devisive/reactionary" or "bad taste...." Wah!

Talk about killing the messenger. It's just a topic to discuss. If you feel that strongly about it, offer up some INTELLIGENT discussion. Help these unenlightened "right-wingers" to understand why they are wrong on this particular topic. You owe it to them if you have a better way.

SOS!

Oh yeah- thanks Vets!!!!

Anyone have any experience with Costochondritis or Tietze syndrome?

Really limiting my activity, wondering if anyone has any experience with what works best (ie ice for shin splints, etc).

NO Workout on Remembrance Day? Lame - Hero Workout is more like it.

Lest We Forget

#77, I'm no doctor, but I think fish oil could help the inflammation. Also, maybe try hot-cold contrast therapy, switching between hot and cold water exposure. I read ice packs places on the inflamed area helps.
At Husky CrossFit, we did the Murph as RX'd, I did it with the 20lb vest as well.
Drew - 39:28
Rory - 40:05

Thank you, all the men and women who have served or are serving, thank you. We did this WOD for you guys.

A lot of political comments today and it sounds like a supper at the inlaws.

Did a worm up today and set up my new rope to climb.

Least we forget! Thanks

Cindy version, details there.

Remembrance post around #16 lost in purgatory.

Happy Veterans Day to my fellow CrossFit Veterans.

USN (5339) 1985-2000

I Cannot wait for Thursdays WOD.

Thanks Coach G!

#77
I had costochondritis, one word for you, TIME. Be patient it will heal, in the meantime just do things that don't cause pain. I did ice a bit in the begining.
Good luck.

I just love how people nearly half my age are so wise in the ways of politics and foreign relations. If only you knew half as much as you think you know...

Sorry, age just updated.

was going through Cindy like never befoe until pull up #4 in rd #16 when my home made portable pull up bar broke and I was flat on my back on the hotel parking lot concrete before I knew what was going on. God was watching me because miraculously, landed flat on back and did not hit my head at all or get hit in the face with what broke off of the bar! Got up uninjured with 20# of steel laying beside me and put my stuff away. Thank you God. 15 rds in 13 minutes before incident. Will try again when I get home to better equipment!

#69: like declaring war on poverty and creating multiple generations of individuals who consider the State their mother?

Do you really want to start with me? We have three days. This is the intro, me being nice. If you want to try and argue that case, by all means have at it.

Hint, hint: I consider Barry Goldwater to have been the last honest conservative to have won the Republican nomination.

Just to be clear, is it your view that Desert One was the way we should do things?

#79 I already do fish oil and gluco/chron/msm but keep spreadin that info around!

#84 That's what I was afraid of. Resting is something I have a big problem doing. It seems like any activity that involves any intensity seems to make it flare up. I'm thinking I just need a flat week or two off but I'll probably go nuts if it comes to that. Rugby season just ended this weekend so I guess I'm just being impatient.

Thanks

"Do you really want to start with me?"

Wow, Barry. No wonder there are so many who are getting sick of seeing your posts on this board. It's not your point of view that is the problem (you of all people should know 'Leftists' support all views, right?), but rather the tone of your posts.

And yes, that is a FACT.

Barry Cooper rocks. I am a fan.

Barry at 88,

Sure, I'll argue, since you want to. I'm not quite sure what we're actually arguing about, however. You said that actions are the best basis for judging success. I mentioned Iran-Contra, and left the reader to draw the conclusion.
If you get to disclaim anything since Goldwater, then I get to disclaim anything since some arbitrary date when the candidate that I liked best lost, too. Hooray for your purposeful use of a lack of clear standards on which to judge meaningful success as a way to twist any part of the later discussion that cuts against you and declare victory!

Actually, Barry, let me rephrase that. What you’re doing is placing your own record (and by you, I mean the ideological cause you advance) back far enough in time and sufficiently hypothetically that we effectively have no means by which to judge the (hypothetical) outcomes of your (again hypothetical) actions. “Goldwater would have done this.” How can we know how that would have worked out? Would he have actually done it in the first place? You can *posit* what would’ve happened had your favorite candidate been elected, but as Mario Cuomo said, “You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose.” In discussing national politics, you wrote that “"It's not what you say you're trying to do that matters. What matters is what you actually do”, and then cited someone who was never elected to national office.

That was intemperate. I apologize. Whiskey played a role.

My reaction was based on an anger that is reflexive, based on a spontaneous reaction to an ubiquitous pattern in Leftist discourse. This pattern--that of decontextualized point scoring--occurs among Conservatives too, but it is not the only possibility, as I will show now.

Example, out of a virtual infinity of political decisions made in the last half century, you choose one made by Reagan, which you know contradicted the image he possesses among conservatives today of standing tough.

He cut a deal. He did. The alternative was invading Iran. Frankly, I think that would have been a better option. We would not be worrying today about a nuclear armed Iran. The modern history of Lebanaon would have been greatly different, and several wars with Israel would have been avoided. We might have been able to avoid the rise of modern Islamic terrorism completely. It really was the spectacle of a superpower cringing in the face of a few hundred poorly armed radicals declaring de jure war against the United States, coupled with the de facto mujahideen victory over the Soviet Union--both superpowers--that put the wind in the sails of those who said that Islamic terrorism could be exported not just to the Jews, but to the Infidel generally.

So I won't defend that decision. But neither will I accept your conclusion, that Reagan played no role in ending the Cold War. Their victory in the Vietnam War greatly strengthened Soviet resolve, just as the Embassy fiasco strengthened the Islamofascists. (On the Vietnam War, to be clear, those divivions of tanks that rolled over the border were Soviet tanks, driven by men who had received Soviet training). They went on to foment wars around the globe, particularly in Africa and Latin America.

Throughout the 1980's, there were voices on the Left of appeasement. We still heard "better red than dead". Ted Kennedy, in an act that can only be labelled hubristic in the best light, and treasonous in the worst, made a trip to Russia without consulting Reagan, to in effect negotiate an arms reduction treaty which he, as a Senate leader, would put together, covertly. With Reagan in office, though, such subterfuge simply didn't work.

For their part, the Soviets worked the propaganda front constantly, by accusing us of war-mongering while they themselves were expending enormous financial and man-power resources to start wars around the world. Reagan saw through this, where many didn't.

And I don't know if the Soviet Union would have collapsed without Reagan's arms build up. Maybe the arguments that their system is simply too stupid to survive even in a vacuum are accurate. But what is clear is that if we had failed to stand up to them, if we had signed treaty after treaty after treaty--as many wanted us to do--giving up control of this, that and the other (most notably our nuclear weapons), they would have been in a position, sooner or later, to impose their will.

We could have lost a battle of nerve to a decrepit but clever old man, dying of cancer. Reagan made sure this didn't happen. I have no confidence at all that we would have enjoyed the explosions of democracy in the 80's and 90's that we did, if Jimmy Carter had been elected to a second term. In fact, I think things would have gone quite badly. How bad, is hard to say. The same deficits--likely worse--would have been there, no pro-business reforms would have seen the light of day, and our foreign policy would have been one of appeasement and retreat.

So, in sum, your little point, placed in context, loses most of its validity. Carter had nearly a year to do something. He did something close to nothing. What was needed was a Naval fleet in the Persian Gulf, and a declaration of war if the hostages were not freed.

And if they had been killed? We lost some 3,000 on 9/11. We lost hundreds of Marines in Lebanon. Sometimes you endure small losses in the short run to avoid larger losses in the long run.

This is how you debate. I could do this basic thing on any of a hundred topics. Reagan was no saint, but Jimmy Carter was a buffoon, and Obama combines simple mindedness with radicalism in a way which has never been seen before in the White House. He is not smart, but he's obedient. I find this very problematic. Only constant pressure by the opposition will get us through his reign.

There. Now you see why I am a fan of Barry.

Barry,

I did choose a decision where Reagan betrayed his principles. But this does not mean that I conclude "that Reagan played no role in ending the Cold War", and it is a pathetic strawman argument to suggest that I am doing so. If that's how you choose to debate, you're little more than a demagogue.
Communism fell for several reasons, including: 1) it's a system that doesn't work in the real world, even in the purest of states, 2) its implementation in the Soviet Union was bumbling (in a mass slaughter by Stalin kind of way), 3) people wanted the consumer goods, et al. they heard of in the West, and 4) we pushed them to it by expanding economically in so many directions (including the military) that they couldn't compete. You're correct that this probably wasn't a deciding factor by itself, but it likely did hasten the end.
So again, your assumption about my point is wholly specious. Reagan played a role in ending the Cold War; I never argued that he didn't, and it's silly of you to suggest that I did.
Net, net: your little "debate", placed in context, is nothing more than ignorant assumptions following logical flaws and leading to unfounded conclusions (Obama is a radical!) that don't match your premises (Reagan had a role in ending the Cold War!). That's not debate, Barry. That's demagoguery.
Also, you write that "We could have lost a battle of nerve to a decrepit but clever old man, dying of cancer. Reagan made sure this didn't happen." Well, thank GOODNESS we just sold him weapons instead!

Each day I remember, each day I am thankful, for Americans, Canadians, Australians, Israelis, Irishmen, Scots, French, Dutch, and Brits who have stood in the gap and on the wall for Liberty, hard won ... and some will not return. I know this, my family, my children know this.

"Fair winds and following seas..."

Nick,

So you agree that at a minimum Reagan didn't LOSE the Cold War, as Carter might well have? You further agree, then, that a policy of engagement based on the potential use of power is superior to that based upon appeasement?

If you agree with those ideas, then we're on the same page. What then, were you trying to imply about Reagan? That the tactic he used to accomplish something Carter couldn't was contrary to his principles? We agree there, too. We further agree that that is fully irrelevant to an understanding of Reagan in a larger context as well, correct?

As far as Obama, I simply asserted that. I have made my case many, many times here already. Just for you, I'll do it again.

Data points. Obama's father, about whom the book "Dreams from my father" was written, was a Communist. Contrary to his campaign claim that he was "just a guy in the neighborhood", it now appears, based on credible evidence, that Bill Ayers was not only a good friend of Obama's, but that he actually ghost wrote the book. We can dilate on that point to the extent you want to.

His book is the primary case for his supposed intelligence. Otherwise, what we see--over and over, most recently in his first public response to the Fort Hood shootings--is someone who is utterly helpless without softball questions, and a teleprompter. I have seen NO evidence, anywhere, of someone capable of original, cogent thinking. He reads well. He is the Fab Morvan or Rob Pilatus of politicians. Like Milli Vanilli, his act was good enough to get him an award, in this case the Presidency of the United States.

His favorite political philosopher, to use a current phrase, was and is Saul Alinsky. Alinsky was a Communist, dedicated to the overthrow of the American Constitutional Republic in favor of a purported "workers utopia".

His minister, Jerry Wright, has now come out more or less openly as a Marxist, who view the entirety of the American system through the prism of a black man with a chip on his shoulder, and who believes he is owed something for which neither he nor those for whom he presumes to speak are willing to work.

His mother spent her whole life in Indonesia, except for coming back to Hawaii to die.

An influence he lists as important as a young man, Frank Davis, was actually a member of the Communist Party.

He tells us he sought out, eagerly, all the radicals on every campus he went to. His record for his college years is off record, so we know neither his grades--presumably poor, if my guess is correct--nor the classes he took. Presumably they were with radicals. If he wants to argue otherwise, he can authorize the release of those records like every other President has, to the extent of my knowledge.

And as President he is putting open Communists into positions of influence and power.

The onus is not on me to make the case. It is right there. It is on you to give me some reason to believe that he is a moderate. Nothing in his past, or his performance as President to date gives me any reason to believe anything other than he is what any rational person would expect him to be: a committed member of the hard left.

Oh, and by the way, the old man in my example--as I thought obvious, apparently in error--was the Soviet Union. To the extent of my knowledge, we didn't sell them any weapons.

Actually, one more point of protocol: the tactic of Demagogues is to appeal to the baser instincts of men and women through emotional and sensationalistic rhetoric. That's not what I'm doing. I am making simple cases, using ordinary language, for which I am providing facts as needed.

As I have said often--and apparently need to repeat here--there are really only three tactics open to run of the mill Leftists, when they run into someone able to actually debate: silence, insult, and changing the topic.

"Demagogue" is marginally better than fascist--although for me it actually calls to mind Huey Long--but the manifest intent in using ad hominem--as always--is to score points without recourse to actual logic or fact based argumentation. You can count on my always pointing that out.

Barry,

I'm in class, so this will have to be quick. More later.
As to your post at #100, I misunderstood you - I'd believed you were referring to the Ayatollah. Given the reference to the Ottomans, I should've seen what you were thrusting at. My mistake.
My point with the Reagan bit is that he was willing to sacrifice his principles in a tight spot, and/or failed to maintain a minimal level of control over his administration. I'm not saying that he was "the worst president ever" or something silly like that, but yes, it is relevant within the larger context of the Cold War, particularly since he's so often lionized in the American story of it.
Yes, "demagogue" is a bit of an ad hominem. That doesn't make it any less true, or any less relevant. You're a bit of a sensationalist in your rhetoric, Barry, and I think the title fits. Logically, that doesn't score any points. In the real world, where time is short and resources scarce, it does.

Examples just from what I could see on the front page:
"That liver transplant? It will be available five months after you're dead. Chemotherapy--much better: only two months after you're dead."
"Obviously, she seems to believe, the larger danger is white, Christian Americans, not radicalized, integrated Muslims."
"Private industry will be decimated, bankruptcies will soar in a sour economy, and NOTHING GOOD WILL EVEN HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED."

#95

I can speak to one thing I know: becoming president of the Harvard Law Review cannot be accomplished by somebody "not smart."

That is all.

#103: Why? He had all the attributes needed at Harvard: he was black, had radical parents, and had roots overseas. His first book contract was awarded solely on the basis of his being the first black president of the Law Review. This is a political position, which involves no particular skill in writing.

#102: pick one of those statements, any of them, and we can discuss. I am perfectly happy to defend any of them at length.

As far as Reagan, can we agree that he was INFINITELY better than Carter was--when he was President--and than he would have been, had he been reelected?

Can we further agree that regardless of whatever distractions you might want to throw out there, that he was absolutely firm in his dealings with the Soviet Union, that he mobilized a strong anti-Soviet coalition in Europe, and that his refusal to grant the Soviets ANY wiggle room ensured that their efforts to take over the world were very effectively blocked?

Shall we compare him to, oh, I don't know, Barack Obama? After having accused me of not making my case, you ignored what I had to say when I did make that case.

Actually, I think I need to deploy a new term: false alternative of choice. This is the "Reagan as ex- or current wife beater argument."

Either I defend person or policy X as perfect in all places and times, or I admit that it is wrong. This is quite effective at silencing honest people, and is for that reason normally deployed by dishonest people, for whom victory is more important than rational exploration. This is the logical outcome of Alinsky's "Make them live up to their own rules".

I don't have to say Reagan was perfect in order to consider him to have been a very good--and necessary--President. We needed him. Relentless, false, propagandistic criticisms of America throughout the late 60's and 1970's left many feeling a strong sense of patriotism, but no means by which to express it. We were adrift, and would have continued to drift if not for Reagan.

He did many things I didn't agree with. But his legacy is that of having stood up to the Soviet Union, rationalized our tax code, and stood as a leader in a time of disunion.

What has happened since is that many of the radicals of the 70's have become professors, and have now taught a generation of students to march in unthinking lock-step while considering themselves the intellectual superiors of conservatives.

Conservatism is the only serious intellectual political position. Leftism is very simply the advocacy of moral abdication, of conformity, and of the rejection of personal freedom and responsibility. As such, it is fundamentally a moral position, not a political position. Conservatism presumes a moral position, but does not dictate it.

This has turned into the Barry Cooper comedy blog. I for one am tickled to read things like: "He had all the attributes needed at Harvard: he was black, had radical parents, and had roots overseas."

Brendan too. It's so gosh darn funny to read things like "Whine like a little girl."

Am I wrong? If you want to argue that, then tell me why. His father went to Harvard, which made him a legacy, correct?

What was his GPA at Columbia? Do we have the faintest clue? I don't. Do you?

Barry,

No, Reagan wasn't perfect. He admitted so himself. I'm not expecting you to justify his failures, and again, you're missing my point and presenting a strawman argument.
"I don't have to say Reagan was perfect in order to consider him to have been a very good ... President."
Right. No president has been perfect.
"We needed him [for his firmness against the Soviet Union]", and "he was absolutely firm in his dealings with the Soviet Union ... and ... his refusal to grant the Soviets ANY wiggle room ensured that their efforts to take over the world were very effectively blocked".
Debatable. After Iran-Contra, Reagan did some house cleaning. Secretary of State George Shultz gained the upper hand, and he and Reagan moved toward working with Gorbachev. See, e.g., the NF Treaty of 1987. This movement toward a willingness to talk, rather than taking immediate hard-line stances, coupled with Reagan's still pushing toward resolution, gave Gorbachev the room to work within the Politburo and the push necessary for him to keep moving on reform of a system that had been collapsing since the '70s.
Was Reagan better than Carter? Probably, looking back at what happened. Did he "[stand] as a leader in a time of disunion"? Depends on what you mean. Domestically, he wasn't always so popular. Iran-Contra didn't do too much for his popularity, his use of the Christian Right saddled the Republican Party with baggage the capital-C Conservatives in the party are still trying to divest to this day, and Bork, while a brilliant man, would ultimately have made a poor Supreme Court justice.
Oh, and finally, you wrote that being President of the Harvard Law Review "is a political position, which involves no particular skill in writing." Not only is this a laughable proposition, the current Harvard Law Review selects, and I quote from their website, "second- and third-year law students ... on the basis of their performance on an annual writing competition." It certainly sounds like "particular skill in writing" is a PRECONDITION of membership to the Law Review in general.

If you want to allege that Obama got into Harvard law school because he was black you need to more than to argue:

Obama was black.
Obama got into Harvard.
Obama got into Harvard was because he was black.

The onus is on you. What a thankless task you have - to prove you have an affirmative action President. Get a life.

How did he get into Columbia?

As you say, judge the man on his actions (or if you prefer, judge the man by his colour, you wouldn't be alone if you did).

#105:

HA! Barry, you know NOTHING about law review or what it takes to get on a legal journal. There's a reason why legal employers value law review experience: it's a STRONG indication of (1) smarts, (2) writing skills, and (3) work ethic.

Are you a lawyer, have you been to law school? Do you know what it takes to get on law review (let alone the Harvard Law Review)? Do you know what it takes to become the president of a law review (let alone the President of the Harvard Law Review)?

Clearly not. It has nothing to do with undergraduate GPA, like you suggest. For the vast majority of law schools, including Harvard, becoming a mere member of the law review requires (1) an excellent first-year GPA, and/or (2) an excellent writing competition. After you're on law review, then you have to compete against every other member for a management position. It is EXTREMELY competitive.

Simply put, you have to be EFFING smart to make law review, and you have to be REALLY EFFING smart to become the president of a law review. Trust me, the fact that Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review means he is REALLY EFFING SMART.

Foreign policy is not my expertise, but your ignorance and misrepresentations on this matter do not help your credibility.

Just sayin'

to Barry's point though, why aren't American citizens allowed to view a President's academic record and transcripts? (or is it just Obama's which are off record?)

if Supreme Court Judges have to have pretty much every piece of written material bar their weekly shopping lists analysed pre ratifcation, why should the President & Commander in Chief not be subject to similar levels of scrutiny? (btw, I realise it isn't a perfect analogy)

I realise that often university and grad school are 20+ years prior to nomination and that a politician's body of work as a public servant should be given more weight in decision making.

But particularly with a politican such as Obama, whose reputation is so heavily built on the foundation of his supposedly brilliant academics, it seems unnecessarily protective to keep his results and work off record.

Nick,

I can't figure out what you are trying to say. The Cold War ended right at the end of Reagan's two terms. He was a better President than Carter would have been, hands down. There is simply no debate on this issue. Carter, as he has made embarassingly clear on a regular basis for some years now, is an idiot who is utterly lacking in common sense, moral compass, and the capacity to lead.

Reagan was correct to support the contras, who helped prevent another Communist dictatorship in Latin America. His subterfuge was made necessary by Democratic idiots in Congress who-then as now--were utterly unable to connect the dots. He should not have authorized the sale of weapons to Iran. I have already agreed on that.

But what you seem to be trying to do is simply throw up Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Reagan did not lose the Cold War. He provided a reassuring voice for many, many Americans, and was HUGELY popular for much of his tenure. Have you forgotten the 1984 election?

And OBVIOUSLY, the task of all Leftists is to demonize their opponents. They tried to do this continually with Reagan for his whole tenure. They are trying, even now--as you are showing--to demonize his memory.

He ran huge deficits. This was because the Democratic Congress with which he was saddled continually raised social spending, while he was showing the Soviet Union that we were actually serious about winning the Cold War, after showing early signs of folding.

You are simply picking and choosing selective negatives, while ignoring positives. This is not thinking--it is advocacy. They are two different things.

As far as the Harvard Law Review, let me submit that Barack Obama was also elected President. One would assume that, too, requires brains.

And yet, what is your evidence? "Dreams from my father?" It appears to have been ghost written. His academic record? It is sealed. His record as a Senator? It is left-wing, and unexceptional. His public speaking ability? He seems to put his foot in his mouth when he lacks a teleprompter and/or a sympathetic interviewer.

Thus, I would submit that if you can get elected the first black President without proving your ability at anything but reading other people's speeches, surely you can get elected President of the Law Review the same way.

If you want to argue otherwise, it would help your case greatly if some part of his academic record were in the public domain. He has not provided us enough evidence to apply to Graduate School. As far as the rest of his record, he has not submitted enough evidence to get a drivers license, much less a job at the Post Office.

And he has access to all of our secrets.

Barry,

The evidence is under your nose. The fact that he was the President of the Harvard Law Review NECESSARILY REQUIRES him to have excellent academic credentials.

Eat it.

Barry @ #113 wrote:

As far as the Harvard Law Review, let me submit that Barack Obama was also elected President. One would assume that, too, requires brains.

GHWBush was one of the dumbest people on earth. QED

During the last election, rumors flew about saying that former radical and education activist Bill Ayers wrote all or part of Barack Obama’s book Dreams from My Father. This rumor morphed into a small cottage industry of analysis trying to prove Ayer’s involvement in the book including a series of articles by WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill.

These allegations have been repeated in a number of right wing web sites such as The American Thinker and The Free Republic. Now WorldNetDaily has a new article, Author confirms Bill Ayers helped Obama write ‘Dreams’.

Of course, the “author” WND talks about is not the author of Obama’s book, but that of a new book, Barack and Michelle: An American Marriage by Christopher Andersen. Andersen should know because he had access to unnamed sources close to Obama. I should say that Cashill claims Andersen supports his view (in fact I have no confirmation of this).

The scenario alleged is in the typical nobama style. It alleges a fact (Obama was facing a deadline) that no one can easily verify but might accept because it it plausibled, it alleges another fact (Ayers lived nearby) that is non-trivial to verify and then it offers another allegation (the neighbors knew…) that no one can easily verify, but might accept because it is plausible and asserted. It is a good example of substitution of speculation for evidence made in the form of an argument. But this claim has no more substance to it than the travel ban to Pakistan argument, the born in Kenya argument and the Indonesian adoption argument: none.

So did Bill Ayers write Dreams from My Father? There is nothing in the WND article that would lead a rationally thinking person to jump to any conclusion.

Barry,

I'm in class again, so my reply will have to wait. Let me say, though, that again, you're missing my point and instead making baseless assumptions that allow you to claim that I'm "demonizing" Reagan. Demagoguery? Q.E.D.

Eat what? What you are dishing up? I spend enough time picking up my dogs crap.

Fact: the decision to make someone President of the Law Review is made by human beings.

Fact: Two is company; three is politics. More than two people were involved in the decision.

Fact: Obama was the first BLACK President of the Law Review.

Fact: the decision was political.

Fact: Harvard has been a comfortable next for political correctness for quite some time, and is the current home of Cornell West and Henry Gates. It was the former home of Alger Hiss and Al Gore.

Conclusion: my case is credible. I am not claiming it is proven, or provable. We lack the evidence for anything but inferential conclusions. This, in itself, constitutes evidence in my favor, in my view.

Actually, here is a good link: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/

What you will note is political skill, which I have never denied.

And consider this: "In the fall of 1989, when Obama returned to campus for his second year, students were protesting the lack of minority law school faculty. They staged sit-ins in the law library, camped outside the office of Dean Robert C. Clark, and carried signs that read "Diversity Now" and "Homogeneity Feeds Hatred." The tensions continued the following spring, reaching a high when Derrick A. Bell Jr., the first tenured black professor at the school, resigned in protest. Obama was a member of the Black Law Students Association, which organized many demonstrations that spring. But he was less confrontational than some of his peers."

Can anyone claim that electing the first black President of the Review in that atmosphere was other than politically congenial? There may not be an if-then statement here, but clearly the flow of opinion made this sort of decision somewhat obvious, given someone who clearly possessed political talent.

He gets along with people. So did George Bush, who was also often at the center of things.

Obama clearly is not ruling as a centrist now, though.

#115: Nick,

Yes, I'm missing your point. I'm quite intelligent, so either it's incoherent in the linguistic phase, or in the pre-verbal cognitive phase. Either way, I'm more than happy to address any coherent statements you care to make

Do it this way: I assert X. The reason for this assertion is Y. The relevance of X is Z.

I can process something like that. Until then, you are going to sound like one of the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon to me.

Barry,

You stated "that [Reagan] was absolutely firm in his dealings with the Soviet Union, ... and ... his refusal to grant the Soviets ANY wiggle room ensured that their efforts to take over the world were very effectively blocked".
I attempted to point out, and obviously didn't do so with sufficient clarity for you, that this image - Reagan's unwillingness to bend and being the sole solid bulwark against a world crumbling into communism - was untrue. See, e.g., the INF Treaty of 1987, the movement toward START I, and his continuing SALT II even after its violation by the Soviets (which seems to me to be the very image of "wiggle room"). Also highly relevant to proving your image to be a false one were the innately unworkable nature of communism as a large-scale political system, the slow but accelerating collapse of the Soviet Union already in play (as evinced in part by their experience in Afghanistan), and the moves of Gorbachev toward openness within the USSR, among a number of other factors not mentioned here.
Taken together, these all suggest that the general hardline tack you propose - not giving an inch to the Commies, burning Iran to the ground and forget about the hostages, et al., have not been followed by world leaders in the past, and should not be in the future. Instead, your "charge ahead" proposals seem more reminiscent of the strategies that almost brought us a wave of nuclear fire in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Thank goodness cooler heads prevailed there, and may it be so in the future.

Oh, I see now: you want to pretend that I am so stupid that I reject all treaties, and since Reagan pursued treaties, you have thereby falsified a position I never advocated. Truly clever.

Self evidently, negotiation is better than war. But the strength of any negotiating position is what the professionals called BATNA--Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. For example, Chamberlain had a very good BATNA in the Munich Negotiation--military superiority coupled with the rule of international law, which Hitler had already broken repeatedly.

We had a very good BATNA with the Iranians--patent, overwhelming military superiority, coupled with the fact that the Iranians had violated international law. We had a very weak BATNA with the Soviets, pre-Reagan. After he recommitted to winning the Cold War, it created the possibililty for meaningful negotiations.

You see, if you consider your opponent a coward--and Hitler, the Iranians, and the Soviets had good reasons to, and were validated by history--then you can ignore them, and impose terms even from a position of weakness.

The BATNA for people like you is--drum roll please--MORE negotiations. There has to be a point where the option of force enters the equation. If thre is NO credible threat of the use of force, it literally doesn't matter what your potential capability is.

Reagan would have used force, if need be. His Stategic Defense Initiative was simply more than the Soviets could counter. He negotiated from a position of strength.

I keep seeing ignorant revisionists like you, trying to pretend that global dominance was not the goal of the Soviets--IS not the CURRENT goal of all Communists--and that their regime could not have lasted indefinitly, had they taken the resources of Western Europe through invasion.

The Soviets did collapse, and they collapsed as a result of changes Gorbachev initiated to try to get the Soviets on an economic footing where they could compete with the West. Gorbachev was a dedicated Communist. Let me repeat that: Gorbachev was a DEDICATED Communist. He took an economic gamble, and it failed. The same gamble has succeeded in China, which is why the Russians are copying them. It succeeded through relentless mass brainwashing, ubiquitous secret police, concentration camps, and effective propaganda operations.

But Chairman Mao is still a national hero.

And I read they are arresting dissidents ahead of Chairman Obama's visit, and creating "Oba-mao" t-shirts. One artist even created a sculpture in Obamas image, which is a copy of one he made of Chairman Mao.

Let me make this simple for you: virtually from the start of Lenin's reign, a Communist International was created, with the explicit goal of creating Fifth Columns in all democratic nations. Key targets were media and education.

They succeeded. They created de facto Communist supporters throughout our public sphere. Obviously, these people don't THINK they are Communists. They are merely what Lenin called "useful idiots". They support the Communist cause, without realizing it.

And that is what you are doing here. You are trying to pretend that millions of people did not die in the Cold War, and that if we had done nothing, it would have ended eventually anyway. This is BS. It represents an abysmal ignorance of history.

To take one concrete example, it was our deployment of Pershing Missiles in Europe which led to the treaty by which Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles were banned.

"The increased range and pinpoint accuracy of the PERSHING II were major factors influencing the Soviet Union's decision to seek the Treaty on Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces in which the United States and the USSR agreed to eliminate an entire class of nuclear missiles."

You can take your revisionism down the road. If you choose not to, I will simply tell you that my case is FAR FAR easier to make, since it is not counter-factual and propagandistic, as yours is.

But Chairman Mao is still a national hero.

And I read they are arresting dissidents ahead of Chairman Obama's visit, and creating "Oba-mao" t-shirts. One artist even created a sculpture in Obamas image, which is a copy of one he made of Chairman Mao.

Let me make this simple for you: virtually from the start of Lenin's reign, a Communist International was created, with the explicit goal of creating Fifth Columns in all democratic nations. Key targets were media and education.

They succeeded. They created de facto Communist supporters throughout our public sphere. Obviously, these people don't THINK they are Communists. They are merely what Lenin called "useful idiots". They support the Communist cause, without realizing it.

And that is what you are doing here. You are trying to pretend that millions of people did not die in the Cold War, and that if we had done nothing, it would have ended eventually anyway. This is ridiculous. It represents an abysmal ignorance of history.

Remainder of response in the hopper, for obscure reasons.

I have to add a bit more. It makes me mad when people just pretend that this world is necessarily a safe place, and that we can wander around like complacent idiots, shopping at our malls, watching sophomoric movies, living in front of our TV's and computers, consuming the ideas of others, and ENDURE.

We can't. We won't. All of the generations before us--with the exception in large part of the self satisfied and narcissisitic baby-boomers--sacrificed so we could enjoy the ease and comfort we have now. And don't get started whining about how hard ANYONE in this country has it now.

We lost some 50,000 men in Korea. We lost some 68,000 in Vietnam. We lost CIA men and Spec. Op troops around the world on missions we still don't know about. And I will be DAMNED if I will let someone pretend none of that mattered.

You simply WANT to believe the propaganda you are fed that the world is a nice place, and good things will happen if you do nothing. There is nothing in the historical record of humankind to support this position.

There is MUCH in the record, though, showing this attitude preceding disaster.

Barry, I see why you so ardently defend Reagan: racists need to stick together.

Bet you would have voted for Nixon too?

What was the Bush Doctrine? What did Nixon call black people? Who was ehrlichman? Was Trent Lott racist?

Are republicans racist?

#125: If you were to pick a party with an unambiguous, long term history of racism, why would you pick the one founded on Abolitionism, and not the one that created and enforced Jim Crow and the KKK?

Rubber mallet::kneecaps as rational argumentation::need for calling someone racist for a leftist.

Barry, so you don't deny that Reagan was a racist? Nice. Oh and BTW, Cornel West teaches at Princeton. I thought you'd appreciate being corrected again.

I like how some (Mr. Cooper) elevated Kim Munley to hero status, even claiming that the fact that she is a cf'er made her better equipped to take down the Ft Hood gunman.

How now brown cow? A black man took down Major Hasan after Munley was unable to do her job.

That, my, friends, is propaganda at its best!

Mr. Hand is not worth addressing, but I will make some more general comments.

Look at the comments from this Rest Day. Look at any other Rest Day. It's been going on for some 4 years, since December 2005, off and on, if memory serves. Literally, pick any of them.

Look at who is saying what. Look at the comments of the Conservatives and Libertarians. What you will see are stated ideas, backed by principles, and referencing commonly available facts within their proper context. This is not universally true, but in general what you see are mature efforts to make intelligent, useful contributions to discussions about matters of profound importance to all of us.

Then take the last two comments, #128 and #129. What you will see is, nothing. There is no there there. Reagan was not a racist. There is no evidence whatsoever in favor of this.

The effort is simply to throw chaff out there to confuse people. There is no effort to use PARAGRAPHS, the tool of even nominally competent thinkers, to EXPLORE.

The goal in this sort of discourse, very simply, is to piss me off, so I stop contributing. This doesn't work with me. What the goal is NOT is learning anything, or teaching anything, or even saying something intelligent, or--in most cases--even intelligible.

Take #129: "A black man took down Major Hasan after Munley was unable to do her job."

Consider this. Carefully consider this. What is being said?

1) That I consider black people inferior. This is the claim made by the left, in arguing them should have more rights than the rest of us. I just want people to be judged on the content of their character. This is insufferable for certain idiots.

2) That the four rounds Sgt. Munley put into Hassan is somehow irrelevant to his arrest. WTF? Grow up, little child, and take your juvenile nonsense back to the playground.

Cornell West, by the way, taught at Harvard for many years, and only left after an argument with Larry Summers, presumably over the incident where he suggested there might be some reason other than sexism why women are underrepresented in the sciences.

Everyone reading this can decide: do you want to be on the side of petulant whiny children, or the side of the rational, sober, principle oriented adults? Your call.

So, what have we thus far established?

--Reagan did not lose the Cold War, and there is no reason to believe that had Jimmy Carter been reelected that we would be free today. The Soviet Union had SS-20 missiles pointed at Eastern Europe, a long history of lying, and a profound ideological and actual commitment to world domination.

--No one can present me with any solid reasons either to believe that Barack Obama is particularly intelligent, or that he is not a leftist radical. On the contrary, I think I have made my case well, and NONE of my specific points--none, is that clear enough?--have been addressed, much less refuted. I have in fact provided stronger evidence than I had that his election to Harvard Law Review President was almost certainly political.

--The cold war was a shooting war, in which over 100,000 American soldiers died. It was a war for allies, influence, and corresponding military capacities.

--Bill Ayers is likely the author of "Dreams from my father". I would like to dilate on that since Bill Ayers quite literally conspired to murder American Law Enforcement Officers, and soldiers. If his bombs had gone off in Fort Dix, dozens would have been killed, certainly--and possibly hundreds.

His goal is the overthrow of the American system of government, which he said "makes him want to puke". He was a good friend of our President, and through his authorial voice, a substantial influence behind his election.

I will finish by noting that I see some of my rhetorical devices being used against me. Let me advise you: these are advanced implements that--used by the mentally deficient--will only embarass you.

One more note, actually: there is a vast difference in the amount of time, energy, and emotion needed to generate Leftist relative to rational discourse. Look at this: "Barry, so you don't deny that Reagan was a racist? Nice. Oh and BTW, Cornel West teaches at Princeton. I thought you'd appreciate being corrected again."

You have a couple sentences, very simple, which don't address ANYTHING substantive I've said. You get the racist accusation in there, make a pedantic correction that doesn't matter in the slightest, and you are done.

The goal is to create all these little pinpricks, small little sources of irritation, annoyance, and just general distaste for the discussion. Emotionally, they are intended to enable the poster to feel smart--temporarily--without actually contributing anything even remotely approaching the useful or smart. And they can keep that up all day and night. You could run 10-20 blogs a day that way, with no more than an hour expended. You don't have to read more than a paragraph or two; you don't have to think about it; and you don't even have to make sense. You just dilute the narrative enough to keep people from putting two and two together.

On my side, I have to think things through. I generate my positions based upon principles I have thought through, and take very seriously. It is work for me to do this.

In a long term contest, the energetic advantage will go to the Leftist approach, since it requires little effort, and appeals to the most superficial levels of analysis. Like all propaganda, it isn't so much designed to change minds, as to keep up the synchronizing narrative which was developed so carefully during the educational (indoctrination) process. You never want people off the farm, even for a moment.

This is called Horizontal propaganda. It is your "peers" pushing you to renew conclusions you were already taught to embrace without reservation, such as that Republicans are evil and Democrats are the fount of all that is normal, good, and just in the world.

I use my club on this particular tactic, since it renews my own energy, and discourages the more spectacular public repudiations of rational discourse we see so often on the internet.

You can debate on the internet. You just need to bring your big boy pants, and realize that if you are wrong--or at least can't defend your views--it will come out sooner or later.

Not to feed the pedants, but it appears West left Harvard because his ego and that of Larry Summers couldn't fit on the same campus.

West, by the way, is a Marxist, with the sole difference that he does not share the rejection of Religion.

This is quite common in the places where our President cut his academic teeth.

I don't envy those of you who want to debate by insulting. You get a point for a microsecond, but what happens is I get angry, and redouble my efforts. Since I'm posting content, and you aren't, that simply makes the gap separating us all the more obvious for all but the blind and obtuse.

I wanted to add a word on what I call the "operative pretext". The goal of Leftism, always, by definition, is complete political control by one group. They reject Enlightenment notions of universal principles; they reject religious principles in most cases--certainly, they subordinate them to their political principles; and when it comes time to decide right from wrong, they want, at the end of the day, to either be told what to do, or to be able to do whatever they want, and justify it simply because they are in charge, and you aren't.

But the enslavement of large sections of humanity by small sections of humanity requires a plan, time, ingenuity, and deceit. So you have to have a cloak by means of which to convince people to support you in your aims, until they are no longer needed. Lenin had something like a coalition for quite some time, then once he had power, he simply liquidated the Social Democrats along with everyone else.

So what you do is talk about justice. This is the tactic. Depending on where you are, and what the problem is, you alter what you mean by this. For colonized nations, justice was anti-imperialism. For nations with a lot of poverty, justice is wealth redistribution. For nations like the United States with a history of racism, justice is reverse racism, which amounts to punishing white people while privileging black people.

Their rhetoric is uniformly good. They understand mass persuasion. They are better at what they do than Madison Avenue, from whom they have presumably taken many tricks over the last half century.

But look at, for example, the black community in the United States. If you want to find the worst ghettoes in the country, look to find where Democrats have been in control the longest. What you find--40 years after the Great Society and "War on Poverty"--is that policies ostensibly intended to help poor African AMericans get ahead, have led to widespread dependence on public welfare programs, the destruction of the nuclear family, the promotion of crime as a means of getting ahead, a denigration of the work ethic, a denigration of being smart, and a pervasive sense of resentment directed at people who have done nothing but create programs supposedly to help them get ahead.

If you look at other nations, can anyone argue that workers are better off in China, now? Hint, hint: there is no universal healthcare. Are the workers better off under Castro than they were under Batista? Both were ruthless. Both had secret police and political assassinations. But only one confiscated all private property, and put people back on plantations they were told were good for them.

People want to argue the United States was an oppressive power in South Vietnam. If so, why did no one try to leave the South and go north, or launch themselves onto a boat where they were likely to drown? Why, then, did they do so when the Communists took over, led by Soviet tanks?

YOU HAVE TO DIFFERENTIATE TRUTH FROM FALSEHOOD. Leftists lie, and because they lie, they don't debate. This would be counterproductive. They can win their converts simply through slogans and the trickle effect of an educational process they themselves have dumbed down.

Another one in the hopper.

A few comments, some of them in support of Barry

- nowhere above that I can read, does he make any racist comments. He just puts forward the position that Obama's race may have had an impact on his election to the Harvard Law Review presidency and the US presidency. He supports the former position by citing a few examples of the prevailing sentiment at the time Obama was in Harvard. This is analysis not prejudice

Likewise, given the vote split along racial lines and particularly Obama's massive majority among black voters in the 2008 presidential election, that is also a legitimate point.

- reading through the above arguments becomes slightly disorienting, as both Barry and his combatants attempt to reframe this argument to their own purposes. The common themes are foreign policy (to some extent) and the Reagan era, but the direction of the arguments seemed focused on separate essay titles, if not exam subjects.

- Lastly Barry, your post #124 explains finally to me after many months of reading your posts, why you spend so much time on these boards and also why I am at odds with many of your opinions (I'm a headhunter - I like to understand what makes people tick).

You seem to be driven by a far more imminent sense of clear & present danger than most people. To your credit you attempt to make more people aware of it, albeit from a deeply conservative position that I find a little distateful.

A few points of contention. I think everybody will argee that the deaths of American (and Australian) servicemen and women (and their victims) in Vietnam and Iraq (ii) should be remembered and regretted.
Do you not think though, that in the case of Vietnam, it was a flawed and arrogant US foreign policy that was responsible for these deaths and in the case of the second Iraq invasion, that the world is a less safe place now than it would have been if Bush and Cheney had instead focused on the threat from the far east regions instead?

Nick,

Vietnam is pretty clear. Iraq less so.

Only two books, in my view, are needed to understand Vietnam: Michael Lind's "Vietnam: the necessary War", and Lewis Sorley's "A Better War".

The first places the Vietnam conflict within the context of the Cold War. In its essence, the Cold War was a war for influence that at times erupted into actual shooting wars, by proxy.

The Vietnam War was both a politically justifiable war, as well as a moral war, in which we were very literally protecting people from hopeless totalitarianism. Lind makes this case extremely well, pointing out among other things that Nguyan Ai Quoc became a member of the Communist International in the 1920's when he changed his name to Ho Chi Minh. The oft-cited failure to have elections in the mid-1950's had nothing to do with his purported swing to the left. On the contrary: he assassinated most of the actual nationalists in the 1940's, and conducted mass murders in the North in the 1950's when he took power. He executed, at a bare minimum, 10,000 people based solely on their class status.

And in point of fact, we won the war. After the first Tet Offensive in 1968, it was generally realized in the South--especially with the mass murders commited in Hue of some 4,000 "class criminals"--that the victory of the Communists would be horrible for them, and after that they uniformly supported Thieu's regime, particularly after he pushed through land redistributions that largely ended their feudal system.

Creighton Abrams, commanding General from 1968 to roughly 1972, switched from Westmoreland's counterproductive policies to pacification. He wanted the villagers to feel safe enough to give him intel on what the Vietcong were up to. He got it. By 1972 the south was fully pacified. For that reason, further progress by the North was necessarily through the use of conventional military forces. The invasion of the South in 1972 had more tanks in it than Patton took into Germany in 1944-45.

It succeeded in 1975 because America--which was the best qualified nation in the world to fight that sort of battle, technologically--quit. We quit, because through propagandandistic infiltration of our media, universities, and political institutions, the lie had gained credence that we were unwanted imperialists, when in fact it was the North Vietnamese--and their Soviet mentors--who were the aggressors.

The received view of the Vietnam War is completely wrong, and purely propagandistic pap.

In the case of Iraq, if you go back to 2001, when people were thinking about moving to Australia or elsewhere, and buying Cipro by the box, getting guns and radiation counters, the threat of Saddam Hussein seemed quite real.

He had a long term interest in nukes. He was absolutely ruthless. He was a nearly daily pain in our sides, who constantly broke the treaty he signed with us. Contrary to the commitment he had made, he had kicked out the UN Weapons inspectors under Clinton, and it was only when Bush massed a credible army on his border that he relented and let them back in. But the logistics of hiding small programs in a country the size of California are not that daunting. Finding them is hard. So it was crucial that he cooperate in every detail, since there was every reason to suspect he was hiding something. Certainly, there was nothing in his moral makeup that would have precluded it.

To the precise extent that 9/11 was the almost inevitable result of the widespread perception of Americans as cowards, it was needed, more than ever, to react to Hussein's CONSTANT, FLAGRANT insults to America.

The less willing you are to go to war, the more likely it becomes. This is common sense. If you don't stand up to bullies, you get bullied. What holds on the playground, holds in international relations. The principle doesn't change simply because the stakes are higher.

And I fully believe that we did have strong intelligence that Hussein WAS trying to develop WMD's. He admitted, when arrested, that that was in fact his intention. And we have a senior Iraqi Army official telling us the material, people, and research were moved to Syria in the lead-up to war. This is not the slightest bit implausible.

Thus, the fundamental concern with both Iraqi WMD's and the global perception of our power both provided valid reasons to go to war. And our invasion in Iraq halted the Iranian nuclear program, blocked the Syrians in Lebanon, and put the scare in a lot of would-be hostile powers, who have started saber-rattling again almost immediately under Obama.

I personally believe our interests are served by creating a democracy in the Middle East. We have no need whatever to undermine Islam, but I don't think anyone who values their life here on Earth truly wants to live in the Middle Ages again, complete with kings, petty bureaucrats with the power over your life, and the vast, unbridgeable economic disparities that attend the aristocratic tradition popularly and historically associated with Islam.

Another one in the hopper, for eminently dubious reasons, on Iraq.

If you don't know about it Barry, many of the posts that disagree with you openly are not allowed to go through. No wonder you like posting in here - only a fraction of the resistance to your hate is allowed to post.

Only the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, can give man the victory over the lusts and grudges which unjust wars are driven by, from within home to between countries. And the means of warfare for the New Testament church was not carnal, but spiritual.

What hate?

I am very intelligent. I am even more imaginative. I can see things in levels of detail in my mind which are many times what I can perceive to be within the capacity of others.

And you know what I see? Pain. I see what happened in South Vietnam after we chose to fail. I can see the torture. I can see people living for years in little cages.

I can see people impaled on meat hooks in Hussein's Iraq, too, and hacked to pieces, and gassed, and paved into asphalt roads.

I see children crying from hunger, and despairing parents living lives filled with silent suffering.

You don't fix these things by adopting an ideology. You don't get to claim the mantle of caring, or love, by simply adopting a predetermined view, given to you by a hateful, evil person, and coated in comforting platitudes.

We unleashed hell on South Vietnam. Not when we came, but when we left. We would have unleashed hell in Iraq if we had left before we could get the violence under control.

And people like you have the temerity to pretend you care at all about the suffering of others. You're no Christian: you are wearing a mantle calculated to enable you to achieve a morally superior position without saying ANYTHING about what you believe or why.

Consider my hero the Christ going after the hypocrites at the temple with a whip. People like you.

What hate?

And as far as posts, I can't get half of mine through, either. It's really pissing me off.

I should moderate that. I understand the need for the filter, but I like to read what I wrote after I write it to make sure it makes sense, and that I didn't forget anything.

Do not assume, though, that my posts are not held indefinitely at times too.

And if posts are being held, that is disappointing. If you are demonstrating, though, the caliber of what you think should be making it through, I can why many of those posts might just disappear.

For what it's worth, I heard Michael Moore singing the praises of Christ as well. As far as I'm concerned, if combined with a cynical mocking tone, this is nothing other than a particularly disingenuous example of Alinsky's "make them live by their own rules".

Barry,

I know that you deplore the use of Alinsky's "make them live by their own rules" tactic. I assume - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that it's because you see it as part of a larger strategy and conspiracy to discredit rival ideologies. Does that seem fair?
What I'm not quite clear on, however, is why being held to one's own standard is such a bad thing. Even if it's your opponents pointing out your failures to achieve your own standards, and even if it's purely for their gain, shouldn't that cause a moment of self-reflection?

The problem is Alinskyans HAVE no standards, so it's strictly a one way street. Basically, it's a one way perceptual filter which allows in all negatives and no positives. This is the root of anti-Americanism on the Left: they literally only look at our failures, and ignore ENTIRELY all of our virtues, either with respect to our own stated ideals, or--more importantly--with respect to the practices of other nations.

We have implemented our ideals imperfectly, certainly, but a large part of the reason is that they were so much more ambitious than those of other nations. We refused monarchies, oligarchies (Communism), and rule by the Church (which does not mean that religious belief should play no role in politics; quite the contrary).

The Soviet Union did not protect ANY human rights, but carped at us constantly. China does not protect ANY human rights--even the right to private property is subject to rescension at the whim of the ruling elite--but has the audacity to criticize US for things like detaining obvious terrorists in a safe, secure, facility in which all their needs were met, even though they all--most of them, certainly--deserved summary death.

And Leftists repeat these criticisms, since they are primed only to hear one frequency. Criticism which does not aim to fix a problem is PART of the problem, period.

Sounds like sour grapes to me Barry. Surely, you, of, all, people, would, understand that the moral failures of the right stand out far more for all the preaching you do against immorality.

Google Reagan + Bob Jones University

But blocking out the criticism entirely, simply because of the person or party making it, is silly. Isn't that just a form of ad hominem?

What standards do male republican politicians have that preach about the sin of homosexuality and then get caught having secks with a man?

Nick, I'm sure the rebuttal will include such gems as:

- the left has no moral compass, therefore cannot criticize others.

- the left speaks others' words, thus not having their own opinions, thus making those opinions moot.

- the left speaks nothing but propaganda, thus making those words moot

- the left etc, etc, etc, etc,

Same tired old speil.

Barry,

Just so we're clear, it's a two step-process to become the President of the Harvard Law Review. First, you have to get on the law review after your first year of law school. Only after you are on the journal may you become a candidate for the President of the Law Review.

While Obama's election to the President of the Harvard Law Review may have been motivated by a need to increase "diversity," you still haven't addressed the first step: how Obama got on the Law Review in the first place.

In most schools, and this was probably true for Harvard in the day, it's a BLIND analysis of a person's grades and competition scores. As a member of the Law Review at my school who graded competitions for the journal, I can tell you that the selection was completely blind. We looked at GPA and/or the quality of the competitor's writing sample.

How is Obama NOT smart if he graded onto the Law Review and/or wrote an excellent competition?

"The end of history"

Santayana's line about the Cold War was never true.

The American Empire took its lead from the British in the twilight of the 19th century. But the total war tragedies of the 20th century gave America (and the West) a moralistic slant on their own brand of imperialism which needed the fascist/communist enemy to justify endless war-mongering.

This imperialism has led to the GWOT farce that threatens to bring America down by the same backwards, jerkwater of a country that brought down the Soviet Union. How ironic.

No one can be certain of what the 21st century will bring, but it won't be the end of history, as Santayana would have you believe. This illusion of peace can never be brought about by the state, for state needs the threat of an enemy--real or imagined--for its own survival.

Peace will occur when humanity can co-exist without the "ordering" function of the state.

Ernest 39/M/61"/165

My bad. It's Fukuyama, NOT SANTAYANA!

This is what happens when you bat out a comment at 4 AM.

Ernest 39/M/61"/165