January 23, 2010
Camp Victory, Baghdad, Iraq.
"You Are CrossFit" with Greg Glassman, a CrossFit Journal preview video [wmv] [mov]
The New Facility at CrossFit Milford - video [wmv] [mov]
Watch Thomas Sowell: Intellectuals and Society with Peter Robinson from the Hoover Institution's Uncommon Knowledge.
Consider and post January 27, the next rest day.
Posted by lauren at January 23, 2010 5:00 PM
Quick question, does anyone know about tennis elbow? My elbow has been hurting lately, I think due to push ups but not sure. If anyone has any info it would be much appreciated.
How does crossfit feel about yoga? Whats the best way to incorporate it into my crossfit schedule?
Any recommendations on yoga styles??
Shane @ #2,
I have some problems with my elbows too, often when doing push-ups. Try watching Kelly Starett's Journal videos about massage with a raquetteball. A bit hard to explain, but you can lay your arm down on the ball and roll around on it or flex and extend your elbow with the ball in a tender spot. Another thing he recommends is massage with a hunk of ice, which you can make by freezing a Dixie cup of water and peeling off the cup. He says five minutes of massage with ice equals an infinite amount of time with a static ice pack.
I've tried both of these and they both seem to help. Just get your chunk of ice, lean over the sink, and go sick.
try warming up your elbow before you start the cfwu. get your triceps active, tendons warm and stretched before you start the dips in the cfwu.
Comment #3 - Posted by: richi
I do CF on Mon, Tues, Thurs, Fri, and try to do one WOD on the weekend. I incorporate a basic, 1hr Hatha yoga session on my rest day (Wed night) and occasionally a Vinyasa session on Sat mornings. My work schedule prevents it, but I bet yoga 3 times a week in the mornings and CF at night would be awesome.
Hey thanks guys for the info, but I was just wondering if it is tennis elbow or tendonitis, in which case I am going to get it checked out regaurdless just to stay on the safe side. But I thank you for the advice I think I'll still try the ice though, sounds good.
Nice work Brother Jay.. Kill it this weekend!
#3 - I CF M/T/W/F morning and Saturday if work permits. I do hot yoga on M/W nights and once on the weekend. I find they are very beneficial to each other. With another sport on T/T nights I am pretty active but they are all very different so I am not overworked. When I want/need a day I don't worry about it due to the balance
@ Comment #3 - Posted by: richi
Maybe start with the rest day and then add a day on the weekend, my favorite days are Wed and Sun.
I try and see how the workouts go, sometimes I'm to sore or tight the day after. :S
As for styles I'm not sure, I used to do p90x, so its either yogaX or the Xstretch workout for me.
Love the pic ........ Hardcore
What is the "rest day"? Its not on the exercise demo? Is it timed? How much weight should I start with? Sounds like a twisted similiarity to taking a day off! Haha
Thanks for the quick reply guys. Just starting yoga and I try and make 3 or 4 yoga classes in a week. I get in the WOD early morning and wait at least 3 hours before yoga. Like it suggests on the crossfit endurance website for the endurance workouts.
I never really appriciated rest days until I started doing crossfit last summer. But for some reason I always end up going to the gym to do pullup ladders. Armstrong pullup program has been working great! Thanks to all my fellow crossfitters who told me about it! I am almost to my goal of 20 reps!
Great job Jason, Joceylyn, and the whole CF Milford Community!
RE to Comment #12:
LOL! Until your comment, I hadn't noticed the utter lack of canvas, cots, and dirt! Oh well, might as well enjoy good things when we can, 'cause you never know what the next month, day, hour, or minute will bring...
"Nasty Girls" sub 7 aptempt FAILED!!!
7:16...last round got me...
Big hugs and bad english for all...props to the FRAT
JAY MAKING IT ON THE MAIN PAGE!!! WOO HOO...the crossfit gym that got me hooked..CFM BABY!!
TAKING 2 WEEKS OFF FROM WODs,
D-11 (HAVE TO RESET THE BODY) last night did a light upper body workout from the ring training it is called the 100 ring push-up workout (I'll reccomend it to everyone, it will open your eyes as far as the power that you can get from Gymnastics rings) also practice about 40 or 50 assisted muscle ups, sole focus was on the false grip. HAVE A NICE REST DAY EVERYONE.
rest days are the worst. guess ill be scrounging around old wods
Richi, I have been doing yoga for over 6 years. I started crossfit 7 months ago. I think the workouts totally complement each other because of the importance of flexability in crossfit. Yoga is a great addition for you. Good luck!
YOGA IS PHENOMENAL. I DO A COMBO OF BUDOKON AND POWER YOGA BY RODNEY YEE. EITHER OF THESE DVD'S IS GOOD. OVER THE YEARS I'VE MEMORIZED A ROUTINE THAT TAKES PARTS OF EACH AND BLENDS THEM NICELY. YOGA IS A GOOD COMPLEMENT TO ANY RESISTANCE TRAINING REGIMEN, AND I'VE FOUND BETTER OVERALL POWER, FLEXIBILITY, AND CORE STRENGTH FROM THE ACCOMPANIMENT OF YOGA INTO MY CROSSFITTING. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
I like the workout ideas I get from this blog. Can't quite keep up.... Anyway, I don't usually comment but I've noticed the occasional political agenda being pushed.... In this case I had to point out the fact that Sowell is himself a public intellectual. So, LOL.
I like how challenging yoga can be if you push your self. It's the same thing that attracted me to crossfit.
Since I started yoga I've noticed better shoulder stability and flexibility. I get better lockouts on stuff like push press or push jerk and more stability in handstands. I think that's due lots of time spent in down dog lol. It's also opened up my hips and stretched out my hamstrings. Now I'm More comfortable in L-sits.
Thanks Jen. How has crossfit affected you yoga practice? Have you noticed any change in the last 7 months?
Tennis Elbow and tendonitis are one and the same. I've suffered off and on from this for years (note age). Typical excersises that cause TE are heavy curls (which we don't do in CF) but guess what the sub is for heavy curls? - PULLUPS! That nasty little tendon that is affected gets inflamed (in my experience) from high stress on the third finger on your hand.
Excersise that help:Put your arm straight out in front of you, palm down, then pull straight down on your hand with a slight outward twist. Hold that stretch for a 10 count.
Ball rolls. Someone mentioned rolling a tennis ball on your forearm on the outside just below your elbow.
Then there are the old standby's: Ice, rest and ibuprophen. If all else fails rest or do work arounds. A great work around for pullups if you have this problem is to use those hanging ab straps. Put your arms in above the elbows and use just your upper arm to do the pullup. It really concentrates on the lats but not so much on the bicep and forearm.
I really feel for you. People that have never experienced severe TE have no idea what a "pain" it is.
I hope this helps!
245 x 3
275 x 3
295 x 3
305 x 3
305 x 3
seems like everyone skips the rest day, though the 3/1 cycle was quite important even if you feel energized on the rest day?
Seems like a lot of people skip the rest day. Though the 3/1 setup was quite important even if you feel energized on the actual rest day?
Main Site Rest Day. CFE Tempo Run 45 minutes at 85-90% RPE (U Course)
Bangkok: Ran from Apartment to Lumpini Park, 2x2.5k loops, returned. Total distance 5.51 miles, 42:13; absolutely horrific effort- called it early and jogged back. RPE nowhere near 85%...paid for last night's festivities (stupid, stupid, stupid).
Jake #28 & 29... rest varies based on programming. Some follow a few days (or weeks in my case) behind to facilitate WODs with CFE intervals and tempo runs, typically running the tempo runs (the harder of the two types of workouts) on Main Site rest days. Some folks work skills or play sports on rest days, too. All said, there's nothing wrong with doing like brother Santi and taking time off to recharge when your body tells you to. As Bingo has so aptly put it numerous times, "Ultimately, it's you against you."
Cheers from Thailand,
The lead article in the posted Cato issue argues in favour of the proposition that "[t]he level of economic inequality is an unreliable indicator of a society’s justice or injustice." Even if this is true, it does not mean that income inequality is never a good indicator of a society's justice or injustice, or even that it is not a good indicator more often than not. If income inequality is a good indicator of society's justice or injustice in 10% of policy contexts then it is a useful measure (these conservative types always seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water - seems to me this is guided by rhetorical strategy rather than sound analysis). Viewing inequality of income as a source of injustice does not logically require one to advocate a univeral income of $X.
I think that in circumstances where income inequality results in serious inequality of opportunity can result in injustice. Income inequality may not only be a symptom of inequalities of opportunity, it may also be a cause.
Too much income equality is bad (some income inequality is good) because it can result in the dependency of the relatively poorer on the relatively more wealthy. This dependency tends to corrupt the dependent, the person on whom she is dependent, and the republic in which each lives.
Another reason to be concerned about income inequalities is that historically, societies with large middle-classes are freer, wealthier and more powerful than those without. Where growing income inequalities threaten the size and stability of the middle class, they threaten the virtue of the modern commercial republic.
"Too much income equality is bad (some income inequality is good) . . ."
Logically, this implies there is an optimal level of inequality. Suppose we were to get to exactly this level, whatever it might be. Then suppose that, say, ten percent of the population figured out how to earn more money, perhaps by working harder, longer, or smarter. As a result, the optimal level of inequality is disturbed. Should government then act to reestablish the prior equilibrium? If so, how and why? If not, would this increase the level of injustice?
DU's and back ext.
Mix of DU's and single jumps.
Knees not real happy w/ me right now.
worked on some weighted pull ups in the form of going up and down the ladder, balancing the paint, roller and brush. Then shoulder work in the form of painting ceilings and walls.
And it continues today.
Great looking place Jay! We'll see you guys in March for the sectionals. Way to represent Milford - Andy
I usually like doing a few minutes on the bike as a cooldown exercise, especially on a metcon day when my legs feel like jello afterwards. On days that are mostly upper body metcon (like the burpee PUs a few days ago) what's a good cooldown I can do for my arms/shoulders?
I don't think I can answer the questions you pose at the end of your post, because I think the premise on which they are based is unsound.
Why does the statement "too much inequality is bad, some inequality is good" logically imply there is an optimal level of inequality?
Optimal with respect to which values? and in what context? If circumstances or values change would what counts as optimal also change (GDP growth of 15%?, widespread famine)?
I don't think the world simple enough for an "optimal" income level could to ever be achieved, and for that reason I don't think one should ever be planned for (leave that to the totalitarian utopians). I like "workable" solutions, not "optimal" solutions (my upbringing in a parliamentary democracy).
Now, if I modify your premise so that it substitutes "workable" or "acceptable" for "optimal" my answers to your questions would be:
If 10% of the population people earn more money by working harder, longer and smarter resulting in increased inequality throughout society, the questions voters and their representatives might consider from a justice point of view are (1) what are the likely effects of this increased inequality? (2) is this inequality likely to increase or decrease justice? (3) if it is likely to increase injustice, is this increase beyond what is acceptable? (4) if so, how can this income inequality be mitigated to minimize its negative impact on justice using the smallest possible amount of government intervention?
What is "acceptable" is a matter of public deliberation, debate, contest, rivalry and struggle. Ready, set, go!
took yesterday off. made up for it today with Helen.
wow...its one thing to have an M16, but it doesn't even have a rail system...interesting...
Prole/Hari - Perhaps you could define income equality for me. Are you talking about everybody gets the same pay? And everybody works the exact same amount? If that is the case, I don't want equality.
I don't think that is the definition of equality. Thus, the opposite of that is not the definition of inequality.
Ischuros - I think your question highlights a criticism of the previous arguments, namely that they discuss "income (in)equality" instead of "wealth (in)equality" (commonly referred to as the "wealth gap"). This is an understandable mental hiccup in debating this topic, as about 90% of the worlds population earns the vast majority of their income via labor-for-wages exchanges. However, the wealthiest 10% tend to have a much more complicated financial picture - when you have the vast fiscal resources and influence of these individuals, the lines between income and wealth blurs significantly. This short (3:39) video does a great job of exploring the issue:
Elizabeth Anderson's piece "How Does Inequality Matter?" does a wonderful job of tracing how, despite these analytical shortcomings, a socio-economic accounting of income inequality can yield insights into the development of less-than-ideal socio-political institutions.
Congratulations Jay and Joclyn!
Wish I was closer to you...I'd LOVE to see you on a regular basis for some CF "Beatings"!
The article states:
"An individual’s or household’s standard of living is determined rather more directly by the level of CONSUMPTION than by the level of INCOME. Current income does finance current consumption, but so [does] CREDIT........the familiar story of income inequality is rather misleading.....trends in consumption inequality are considerably less dramatic." (My emphasis).
The US is just emerging from the biggest cheap credit binge in the history of the planet. The credit has dried up. It's hangover time. Credit advanced with reckless abandon to those at the lower end of our socio-eonomic spectrum has undoubtedly skewed consumption figures over the last decade. I suspect income has already reverted to being a truer indicator of standard of living - in quite a cruel manner.
More generally, the "new" CF Rest Days continues down the same old road of featuring articles which at heart constitute an argument for small government and individual liberty. What about a t-shirt saying, "CrossFit - I'm alright, Jack"? Again we see direction, steering and opinion-influencing going on in a manner not made explicit and dressed up as "mental fitness". Mills wrote:
"Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own."
Up with dissent.
DU/Back Ext WOD, details there.
You wrote that some inequality is good, but that too much is bad. So if there does not exist an optimal level of inequality than surely you believe there exists a prefered level of inequality. To argue otherwise is to say that while A is preferable to B and B is preferable to C, A is not preferable to C. So my question still stands. If the level of inequality is on the high range of what you consider to be good, what should the government do if some hard or smart people cause the level of inequality to increase further out of the range you consider good and into the range you consider bad.
Prole, Hari, nice conversation.
Income inequality measured without any qualification is used as an absolute proxy for economic inequality by most writers. A better question IMO is whether any measure of income inequality is a proxy for a "just society measurement". In the case of the most simplistic measurements of income inequality I would hold that it is not.
Firstly, income inequality is presently suffering from a dramatic effect on the inequality between the top 1% of earners and the top 2% or earners, and even more so the inequality between the top 1% and the rest of the top 5%. With regard to any definition of a "just society" the difference between the top 1, 2, or 5% and the bottom 5% is irrelevant. IMO what matters is the difference between the bottom 5% and whatever constitutes the "middle class" (here I think the author, Prole, and I might agree), for is is the opportunity to become a part of a vibrant middle class that defines "just". Does the inequality between the top 1% and the bottom 5%, or even between the top 1 or 5% and the "middle class" affect the possibility of one making economic strides by entering the middle class? Doesn't seem so to me.
The concept of consumption inequality as a proxy measure for "just" is interesting. What constitutes a "just society"? Reasonable people will disagree about this. At a minimum a "just society" erects the fewest number of barriers to economic advancement. A "just society" either erects no barriers to, or provides for the achievement of and attainment of basic needs. Shelter, clothing, food, security. It's an interesting observation, isn't it, that the decrease in costs associated with necessities purchased at Walmart, for example, have allowed for an increase in consumption per relative income at the bottom of the scale. Rents have not gone up in large swaths of the country; housing prices have plummeted in large swaths of the country. What is the significance of this phenomenon vis a vie the continued explosion of the cost of housing in the market space occupied by top 1-2% earners? Housing "consumed" by the lowest 5, 10, or 20% of income earners has a net appreciation over the last 15 years of, what, 1 or 2% per year? And yet housing "consumed" (as determined quite sloppily by looking at sale prices for ridiculous real estate in NY, CA, the beach or mountains!), has increased 10-15X?
Must a "just society" concern itself with ANYTHING in excess of need? Does anything define the difference between discretionary and non-discretionary than the difference between a 1000 sq. ft. bungalow for $64,000 and a $2.4 Million house on the water?
The anomalies in income distribution, namely the large (obscene?) difference between the top 1% and 2-5%, that attract so many headlines seem to be irrelevant to me. A better question is how significant is the income inequality in the lower 95%? Does this inequality in any way contribute negatively to the quest to enter the "middle class", the strength of which determines the health of a free people? Is THAT a useful proxy for a "Just Society" metric?
J1, re: political/philosophical "slant" of Rest Day.
I continue to fail to get it, don't I? I just don't get your objection, nor the objections of so many others about a perceived "slant" in chosen topics/links/articles. Indeed, I think you are incorrect with respect to the "new Rest Day", but that is immaterial. The topic is chosen by Coach and Lauren, but today's discussion is driven by Prole. Indeed, Prole and Dale Saran had a really interesting conversation 3 days ago, again driven by Prole's take on Hayak.
I asked a patient ystd what he was listening to in the office and he answered "Diane Reem" on NPR. Now "The Diane Reem Show" is decidedly left-leaning, both in terms of topics chosen, guest invited, and the host's viewpoint. And yet Ms. Reem is quite welcoming to commentary from the entire political and philosophical spectrum as long as it is offered politely and with respect. I listen to "Diane Reem" and I find that I learn quite a bit about views different from mine by following that conversation, even though the "lift-off" is quite left of my typical position. Is Diane Reem wrong, too? Her show is certainly in line with present orthodoxy in government; must I up my dissent there because of that?
When long-term posters like you bring it up I really try, out of respect, to understand. I'm sorry, I don't get it.
23 / M / 5'9" / 135lbs
Maybe should have done 210; form got a little dicey in the last set.
LOVED the pic of the guy on the Great Wall of China.
Go ahead and yell at me, but I"m seriously tired of all the handstands. I KNOW it's the bread and butter (so to speak) of +fit, but there is so much variety to the human body.
Yeah, there should be some income inequality, thats how the world works some people get ahead and some fall behind. Inequality drives people to work harder, it can create amazing economies, technologies and concepts.
If someone decides to do something more intelligently, efficiently, or works harder they should definitely be rewarded. If that makes things a little more unequal so be it.
But, if in an attempt to get a head, one man sacrifices his neighbors wellbeing, that is unacceptable. (e.g. Moving Jobs out of your own country so that you can make more money, while his fellow countrymen become unemployed.)
The line is not clear, but at a certain point when inequality is wide enough, the person thats ahead changes from being successful to being greedy. Greed is bad. Greed gets you ahead but at the cost of others. I feel like there is quite a bit of greed in this country.
A place where inequality become so big, and those on top let their greed hurt their fellow man, is not a society that I would dream up. Instead I would dream up a place where those ahead, help those that are behind, not sacrifice them or passive watch.
Sorry, I know that didn't really follow the article but it was something I wanted to touch upon, the difference between greed and inequality.
Hari, to use your example, would you tolerate a position where 10% of the population controlled 100% of the wealth and income? If not, why not? What level do you think is acceptable? Is it logical to state that if concentrating wealth in the hands of a small minority is a bad thing, then governments must always intervene to stop this? At what point is that immoral?
Those are really the same questions you're asking Prole. The answers are the same as well. They hinge on the facts that:
a) any system which produces injustice in sufficient quantities will foment riot, civil commotion and revolution. That system will be de-evolved, pretty quickly.
b) any system that tries to level off all income and wealth or close to it, will disincentivise industry and face subversion. Whilst it may not result in the same sort of open street riots, it will face its own attacks because its starting position is untenable. It won't last.
Arguing about what happens in the middle is a function of personal morality. It is not actually about some sort of dry econometric argument dressed up in intellectual clothing. It's really a function of how brilliant you think Ayn Rand is. Which is really a function of how brilliant you think you are yourself. Fancy yourself as a hard worker? An innovator? A self-starter? Someone who'll do ok in the current system? Then wealth / income levelling policies will sound like a bad idea.
Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about! Welcome aboard...
Bingo, CrossFit is a site I first visited because I was drawn by its promise to "Forge Elite Fitness". It posts up workouts, analysis of exercise science and proudly proclaims that it has uncovered the absolute best programme for general fitness, bar none. In the world.
It has no such claims to political or economic theory.
Within the structure of a fitness website and theory, it promotes "Rest Day discussion topics" in an apparently neutral manner, but uses them as a trojan horse for dissemination of several strongly biased political themes. There is no balance. I find none of them to my taste. I'm a crossfitter. It's open source. This is a problem with the system. I'm speaking up.
You don't think avid crossfitters are turned off by this? You don't think people get referred to this site but told "Ignore the right wing nonsense - the fitness side of it is great"? There are affiliates out there too, who've invested heavily in this enterprise, who don't seem to mind it at all. It's a drag on their business in my view. If there's something I "don't get", it's that more people don't question this.
I appreciate your courtesy and wish you well.
Thanks for your response.
I think the tenor of the links and articles is what it is. I think the tenor of the discussions did, indeed, pose a risk to the Affiliates and I think that is why we are seeing the new "consider and post thoughts to comments ON THE NEXT REST DAY" prompt. I see this as Coach putting his "mouth where he money is" and protecting his Affiliates, as well as protecting his "front door".
I think that you are the anomaly, the intelligent and inquisitive being who will look at the links even though they are not "on the program" today. My bid is that you have missed a very, VERY significant change, a movement in response to the very issues that you have raised and the very solutions you have proposed. These new Rest Days ARE different. It's not the same. Good, bad, or indifferent, I think Coach DID hear you and others, here and elsewhere.
One of my rules to live by: EVOLUTION is almost always better than revolution. Coach keeps his own counsel; he listens to a very small...veeerrrry small number of folks (only very occasionally including yours truly). I think he heard you, and Rest Day has evolved.
Relax. Have a beer. Give yourself a pat on the back.
It is important to remember that we are talking about balance in a just society. The debate reminds me of "A Tale of Two Cities". It was the best of times it was the worst of times", comparing France where income equality was the goal by extremely violent means to London where income inequality was part of the system. Clearly the best includes some inequality.
It is important to remember inequality is created by those that take risks and are willing to put their stake on the line, at times they end up on the lower end of the spectrum as a result and often on the higher end of the spectrum for the bet. A society needs to be careful in quelling the reward for taking risks as taking risk creates many of the industries that propel a society forward, including the creation of jobs and opportunities for the risk adverse.
A rest day for the body with exercise for the mind.
I think if you poll most people you will find that they lean decidedly towards the middle. There is room for state involvement and it creates an environment that keeps the ship moving forward. DARPA is a state agency that works with the private sector to innovate.
Nicodame's (Aristotle's student), dissertations on philosophy has society striving for the golden mean, an argument that works for neither the far left or the far right.
I admit I am one of those who rather sloppily equate "income inequality" with "economic equality" (perhaps that reflects that I am the son of a bus-driver whose sole source of economic power or wealth was his hourly wage). I agree that the inequalities between the top 1-2 percent and the middle 95 are not necessarily a problem - though, given the right context they could be. The fact that a CEO makes 20 million (or that a baseball player/actor makes 15 million) gives me a sickening feeling (especially with respect to the baseball player/actor), but I don't think these things are necessarily unacceptable outcomes for our society. What matters is how low in absolute terms is the bottom 1 percent. If the bottom 1 percent lives well, then my other concern is whether the top ? percent has so much that it is able to have an unacceptably corrupting influence on the politics and constitution (balance of power) of a society.
When I responded to Hari previously, I hastily put down 4 questions I thought might guide an analysis of what to do about economic inequality that amounts to injustice of a level that is unacceptable.
"(1) what are the likely effects of this increased inequality? (2) is this inequality likely to increase or decrease justice? (3) if it is likely to increase injustice, is this increase beyond what is acceptable? (4) if so, how can this income inequality be mitigated to minimize its negative impact on justice using the smallest possible amount of government intervention?"
I think Hari, you are trying to get me to be more specific so that my answer to you isn't simply: "The preferred level of inequality is the one that it is acceptable." This is understandable. But, alas without more specific in the questions, that must be my answer. If the level of economic equality moves out of the acceptable range (however we define acceptable) it is impossible to know what the government should do (if anything) in response without knowing the mischief that has/is/will result from the economic inequality. Income inequality is not an evil in and of itself - some effects of some types/levels of income equality are bad. It is the bad effects governments should combat (when appropriate).
I am worried about the effects of income inequality on three main areas: (1) satisfying basic physical needs, (2) providing sufficient equality of opportunity and (3) avoiding the political corruption resulting from too much concentration of political power or influence. So, if the effects of income inequality are simply that one person can buy a better car than another, or that one person rents an apartment while the other owns a house, then this type of inequality would likely be "acceptable" to me. The same would be the case if one person is able to maintain a personal jet and another person is unable to afford a car. These inequalities by themselves aren't on my income inequality radar - they are screened out at the first step of my analysis.
If income equality results, for example, in more homelessness, rising infant mortality rates, less basic education, or greater racial/sex/religious barriers to participation in the economic and political mainstream, or a relatively small number of people being able to drive the political agenda of the nation/states/municipalities, then these effects might justify government action. But, that action might not be income redistribution. The key is to ameliorate the negative effects of economic inequality, not economic inequality per se (I think this overlaps with JI's point at (a) in post #50) . Where income inequality is neutral with respect to the 3 concerns I mentioned (of course there are others), or actually furthers them, then the government should do nothing.
For instance, if the concentration of economic power in a company like the Standard Oil Company (1) pushes equality of opportunity out of the acceptable range, and (2) threatens to corrupt local and state legislatures, the government does not need to take money from Standard Oil and redistribute it to the Pure Oil Company. The government can prosecute SOCONY for being in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act in order to address the negative effect of this particular type of economic inequality. If wages are so low that school age children must leave school in order to support their families, the government can redistribute income from capitalists to workers in the form of higher wages in order to address the negative effect of this particular type of economic inequality (or it can simply pass laws supporting the proposition that them constitutional right to freedom of association means that individuals have the freedom to associate for the purposes of organizing labour unions).
So as far as your question about what the government should do if some smart hardworking people cause the level of inequality to move outside the acceptable range, my answer takes the form of a question: "what is it about this inequality that makes it unacceptable?" The answer to that question will help the government understand what its goal should be if it decides to do anything. What the government actually decides to do to achieve that goal could be one of many alternatives not limited to income redistribution.
Amusing crossing of posts there - sorry to disappoint with my second ;)
It seems obvious to me that Rest Day article selection policy is unaffected by the new format change. Let's take the last three:
1. The mission statement for the Hoover Institution reads, "...Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social or economic action, except where local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves...." Libertarian.
2. Cato Unbound is a "libertarian think-tank" according to Wikipedia. The January edition's lead article is about Ayn Rand.
3. Hayek is the mack-daddy of libertarians.
Changing the timetable hasn't changed the agenda. I don't see any cause to have a beer. It's business as usual.
Why do I care so much? For me, it's a travesty that a great fitness site is pushing these kinds of ideas in this fake-neutral manner. Even today, Larry B. above says, "A rest day for the body with exercise for the mind". Eh....no, Larry. It's a rest day for the body, and time to be steered once more towards a particular world view. If there was balance, or a clear statement about the steering and pushing of ideas, I'd have less of a problem. But fact is, this is actually deceptive influencing and propogation of ideas.
I fundamentally disagree with most of what is passed off here as harmless, neutral op-ed. For example:
1. Global warming: being skeptical about this threat to our entire species might be trendy and sound clever, but it's playing with fire. We've seen this pushed time and again here, with no balance in article selection policy. Non-experts who eat eggs and avocado and stay thin, are thereby empowered to doubt this? On what basis? A cursory review and even more cursory understanding of a cynic's article about one or two aspects? This is insanity.
2. Libertarianism: I live in a country where economic laissez faire policy directly contributed to 2 million deaths during a famine in the 1840s. Back then, they called this "Liberalism". Same thing. We're ALL living on a planet right now, where the old and tired "market forces" analysis is being pushed while 50% of the adult population of the planet control less than 1% of the wealth. Those misfortunate to be at the bottom of our current pile, are dying of hunger, malnutrition and for a lack of clean water. Dry, be-spectacled arguments about von Mises, Hayek and the "folly of intervention" is grossly immoral in this current context. It is arrogant to think that we have plenty for any reason other than the fact that in the lottery of life, we got lucky. Hard work will get you so far. Without the accident of birth which put us in First World positions, we'd be scrabbling around in the dust ourselves. Libertarianism represents, for me, an intellectual charter for doing as little as possible to remedy what most needs to be tackled in our societies and our planet.
3. "Hard line" on terrorism: There is no debate anywhere about why terrorists are attacking the US. None. There is a complete denial of the proposition that perceived injustices might actually matter. To even say this inspires cries of "hater" or someone who "doesn't get" how extreme and fanatical those terrorists are. This is reckless and wrong - on all counts. As someone who has deeply admired and continues to admire the US, it makes me weep to see what has gone on with rendition, Gitmo, Iraq and other "policy initiatives", with no real debate on how to turn this around, look meaningfully at the middle-east and try to work out how to move forward.
Knowing that this site will attract people from many different walks of life, all ages and all persuasions, it frustrates and disturbs me to see what has been going on.
As for me being "intelligent and inquisitive", I'm doubting my own intelligence for banging my head against a brick wall for nearly 2 years now. My conduct would in fact lead rationally to a conclusion that I lack intelligence in trying the same stuff all the time, expecting a different result.
My post responding to your hypothetical is in the filter.
You are absolutely right. Over the four years I've been looking at this site there has been a massive proponderance of "right" leaning articles. One bonus of having the a democrat in the whitehouse is that the Crossfit articles have gone from drum-thumping neo-conservative executive-driven imperialism to a libertarian doctrinaire critique of big government - I think this suggests that the US constitution is always the friend of those out power and a hindrance to those in power (since D-day conservatives have tended to favour big-govt when in power, and small gov't when outside of power).
Being asked to critique articles by Hayek and Friedman in successive weeks without being asked to critique someone like Kant, or Rawls, or Dewey or Marx or Proudhon, or Milton at any time in four years is something you might be asked to do at a second-rate private conservative college. But at least with Hayek and Friedman we're in college and out of a "Think-Tank" like Cato.
Anyway, J1, I think you get a fair hearing here (as do I) and over time you may bring someone toward the centre on a given issue, and you may encourage more people with your point of view to post. If it gets tedious running over the same ground (libertarianism as authentic Americanism) then take a break. I remember when people around here argued that torture and rendition for America was justifiably American.
I'm with you on this as well J1. The articles are very one sided, and a little more balance would be nice to see.
But, if I ran a webpage I'm not sure how much more balanced I would be, I know I would probably not post articles that disagreed with my own opinions.
This site encourages variety for exercise, hopefully the articles will take on more variety as well.
You know what an interesting format would be? Two rest days articles posted side by side of opposing views on the same topic. (Both by equally credible authors of course.) e.g one article saying GW is real, another saying it isn't. Then, there would be true exercise of the brain.
J1 - I disagree with a lot of your premises and politics, particularly that I ought to feel privileged by the "accident of my birth". I've said this before and I'll say it again - I'm the 2nd person in my family - my extended family - mom, dad, grandparents, cousins, uncles, you name it, to get a bachelor's. My older sister was the first. Our family lineage migrated here intentionally, not accidentally, and traded wages for hours so that someday my "accident" could occur. Many, many families where I grew up, impoverished in or next to the projects and on welfare, did the same thing.
I have empathy for others less fortunate and I've got a LOT of time, blood, and friends, in places where it isn't even third world yet. I don't have the same sense of guilt you do over it and I won't apologize for someone posting THEIR political posts on THEIR site because somehow it doesn't meet YOUR standards of noblesse oblige. Talk about arrogance? Wow.
Because Coach doubts AGW (and hunh, who does it look like turned out to be right about that on the faked data emails?) or believes the "government that governs least governs best" he is to be castigated because he's not doing what? Giving enough? You know how much CF has given in charitable endeavors? How much have YOU given?
I'm sorry, J1, you seem like a nice fellow, but your suburban guilt about your "birth by accident" and your politics have gotten you way out of skew. Under your theory, CF should only post articles that help solve the world's problems in the way that you think. Nah, I don't think that's how it works in a free society. Not the one I've been laying my life down for 20 years.
We can disagree about where the line on economic inequality is and ask each other questions to sharpen our own position and probe where we really stand, but you call it "grossly immoral" because I believe I'm entitled to keep say, I don't know, maybe 75% of the money I earn and try to pass some of that on to MY children? What, I'm supposed to give it all away, as should my children their chance at success (such as it is) because somewhere there are "starving kids in Africa?"
Dude, when you've spent some time where I have, you can feel free to lecture me about the "bespectacled arguments" of vonMises and Hayek. And given that Rand survived the purges that followed the Russian Revolution, I'd guess she had a reason to feel as vehemently as she did about statism and the "brotherhood" of income redistribution.
Peace. (And I mean that sincerely, J1. Email me privately if you want, but you hit a nerve.)
At some level, the argument that Coach should present a more "balanced" viewpoint is not much different than the one that says we should redistribute Coach's income because he is successful and others are not.
The real rub is not that Coach posts articles with a particular viewpoint. Anyone with a blog can do that. The rub is that the site is wildly successful. The unstated premise is that Coach has an obligation to use his success to promote the views of those who have not been successful in the market place (e.g., Air America). Or, at the very least, he should keep his mouth shut.
Really, how serious can we take the argument that Coach is duping unsuspecting fitness fanatics into visiting the site in an elaborate "bait and switch" routine, leaving them with false or dangerous information that they are powerless to reject?
Coach has simply decided to to maximize his wealth (as he defines wealth, including not only money, but also the opportunity to say and do whatever he believes). When the president of Whole Foods tried that (writing an editorial in the Wall Street Journal that did not fall in line with the Left's view on healthcare reform) he paid a huge price in the form of media and consumer backlash. The president of Whole Foods isn't free. He took the money, and now he lives on a tight leash.
Here consumers have little to no influence beyond what Coach gives them. Honestly, if you're holding out for a letter from CrossFit Customer Cervice appologizing for your unpleasant experience with "Fran" or an offensive Rest Day article, you really need to give up. If it were possible to organize a boycott against CrossFit, Jesse Jackson would have done it by now.
Ironically, if only Coach would place a greater emphasis on profits, the Left would be much happier. Go figure.
On a charitable reading of JI's comments you might conclude that s/he feels that posting on this forum is a little like being a Flyers' fan and joining a hockey appreciation club, but the fanclub only watches Rangers' games, and because you like hockey, you'll watch them, but you would really like it if once in a while the fanclub would watch a Flyers' game. Or it's like being a receiver on a team that only runs or kicks. Your choice as the receiver is either to run what you feel to be your futile pattern and maybe throw a block here and there, or to try out for another team.
Simply put, a wider variety of perspectives in the rest day articles would improve the forum. That doesn't mean garbage, it means different.
It might be nice for instance, to read an article about a dispute among libertarian or conservative thinkers (surely these people aren't so mono-chromatic as to never disagree with one another).
I like the new format. It has improved the tone. In so doing it makes the discussion more enjoyable (though fewer participants - that may be a short-term adjustment). As Bingo suggests, these topics should be the kinds of things that intellegent curious (self-important) friends can discuss over some beers. However, the way these topics follow one upon the other seems to suggest that some of the friends are appreciated and encouraged, while others are simply tolerated. Of course if these others didn't show up to the pub you'd have a bible-study, not a debate.
Hari, for reasons best articulated by Prole above, I do think balance would be a welcome move for Rest Day discussion topic selection. What would be an alternative improvement would be a clear statement that gets rid of the sham-neutrality. But to suggest that my "unstated premise" consists of telling Coach to keep his mouth shut, is such an incorrect misstatement of my position as to be offensive.
Your post, taken in its entirety, is a very good rebuttal of the oft-cited description of Rest Day as "mental gymnastics" or "honing of rhetorical skills". For that, thank you. You very ably articulate that in fact, Coach is using his "wildly successful" fitness website, to promote a particular world view regardless of the consequences. This neatly brings us to the key paragraph in your post. Here, you get to the heart of the matter and attempt, with levity, to whistle past the graveyard. You say:
"Really, how serious [sic] can we take the argument that Coach is duping unsuspecting fitness fanatics into visiting the site in an elaborate "bait and switch" routine, leaving them with false or dangerous information that they are powerless to reject?"
The answer to that question, Hari, depends on how strongly you agree with Von Mises and Hayek, and Jeff Glassman and the National Review. And how seriously you take your politics.
For me, political ideas are very real. They influence lives, longevity, health and living standards, civil rights, decisions to go to war and survival. For example, we don't get much more serious than discussing ideas about whether the possible annihalation of our species through man-caused climate change is a conspiracy or a plausible theory.
Disseminating ideas which push one particular, political view, on a fitness website, in this sham-neutral manner, is NOT something to just accept. It's something to question. If the site changed to espousing different views tomorrow, which you found dangerous, you might feel differently about it yourself.
Dale, nowhere do I argue that ".....CF should only post articles that help solve the world's problems in the way that [I] think." That attempted summary of my position couldn't be more wrong. I disagree with the politics of CrossFit. But I'm arguing for the exact opposite of "one side only" on the Rest Day discussions.
You state that when I answered my own question of "Why do I care so much?", my brief espousal of why I have a problem with the CrossFit view on the 3 dominant Rest Day themes "hit a nerve". Now ask yourself honestly how you would react if that political outlook drove every single Rest Day article? Would you still be a CrossFitter? Would you open an affiliate? Would you refer your friends to the site? Would you read Rest Day articles and join in every time notwithstanding the obvious, relentless, unarticulated bias? Might you suggest either balance, or some articulation of that inherent bias? Would you find it odd to have such a great fitness website pushing a strongly leftist agenda in this fake-neutral manner?
Your views are sincerely held, I'm sure. So are mine. I'm not going to get in to a contest on whose family faced the greater challenges nor is my aim to give offence to you or hit nerves. You and your family have my every good wish. (And as a ps, I don't know why you think I have a problem with you looking to pass on wealth to your children. I don't.)
I'll cite Fleck's addendum at this stage. Sweet dreams, all.
I wrote a reply but it has been held for approval.
As I read your comment, you are very much in favor of Coach's right to speak and are insulted that I would suggest otherwise. You would simply prefer that his message be more balanced. As I see it, this position (which may in fact not be your position) is rather disingenuous. You are simply claiming to be open minded by asking that others advance not only their own point of view, but also yours.
The net effect on a speaker of asking him to express multiple points of view is to effectively deny him the right to speak at all.
Is Coach speaking? Or is he facilitating speech? If he is speaking then why the request to “consider and post”. This is not a broadsheet pasted to a telephone pole, it is not even a blog that encourages comments, it is, on rest-days, a forum on a fitness website that facilitates discussion about ideas.
I don’t think JI or I are attempting to deprive Coach of his right to free speech by asking him to say everything thereby saying nothing. I’m saying, if he wants to increase the quality of the discussion he is facilitating (a noble aim, and one that he seems to have), then linking to well-articulated, well-reasoned content that expresses viewpoints that differ significantly from his own is all-but a necessity. I don’t assume Coach is a “Hayekian” or “Friedmanian”, but it seems fairly clear that his own views fall within or overlap with a cluster of ideas these thinkers share. How about we read some writers whose ideas overlap with this cluster a little less – if anything, doing that might bring the “Hayekian” ideas more clearly into focus, may even polish them up, might also tarnish them a little, but if that’s the case, we’d all be better for it, after all on the forum we’re thinking citizens not lobbyists or adjunct instructors looking for tenure from the orthodox department head.
This doesn’t mean linking to Adorno or Althusser, but it might mean linking to Benjamin Franklyn, or Thomas Jefferson, or Aristotle, or Mill, and to their writings dealing with subjects directly or indirectly related to political economy. I should note that not every linked article has a right-wing slant. There have been links to “favorite logical fallacies”, and other thoughtful, politically neutral content. So, I’m not suggesting that the baby should go out with the bath-water, or even that the tub be drained, just that that every once in a while some fresh hot (or cold) water be added to the tub.
The mental fitness benefit (the work) people get on rest days does not come from reading the linked material, it comes from thinking through (however perfunctory) and articulating a response to it. Further benefit comes from responding to other people’s responses et cetera. The debate is the workout. If the content is the same the benefit is the same i.e., limited. Variation? I’m not suggesting substituting Pick-up-sticks for Deadlifts, I’m suggesting substituting SDHPS for Swings, Burpees for Thrusters.
Of course I’m not asking for myself or JI or anyone else, I’m suggesting this for the quality of the programming. My ideological dead-lifts are pretty solid (so are Dale’s, and Bingo’s and Apollo’s and Hari’s and J1s, and Goat’s and Barry’s, well he could deadlift a dump-truck etc etc). But I think all of us might benefit from working on our cleans eh?
If you haven't read next day's rest topic yet you should, you'll find it to be a refreshing change. In case you need more encouragement I'll let you know that an Irish website entitled "Taking Hayek Seriously: The Home of the Friedrich Scholars' Page" (http://hayekcenter.org/?p=708) (I'm kidding it's not Irish) lists Thomas Sowell as the "Top Hayekian Public Intellectual in America." The site notes that Friedman introduced Sowell to Hayek at the University of Chicago. If you were trying to wrap up conservative excellence and with a little bow around it you couldn't do much better than that - I get tingles just thinking about the occasion, like Joe Dimaggio and Ted Wiliams chatting up Stan Musial after the '46 All-Star game.
My trainer has me doing cleans on Wednesday. Catch up with you next week.
If you haven't read next day's rest topic yet you should, you'll find it to be a refreshing change. In case you need more encouragement I'll let you know that an Irish website entitled "Taking Hayek Seriously: The Home of the Friedrich Scholars' Page" (I'm kidding it's not Irish) lists Thomas Sowell as the "Top Hayekian Public Intellectual in America." The site notes that Friedman introduced Sowell to Hayek at the University of Chicago. If you were trying to wrap up conservative excellence and with a little bow around it you couldn't do much better than that - I get tingles just thinking about the occasion, like Joe Dimaggio and Ted Wiliams chatting up Stan Musial after the '46 All-Star game.
My trainer has me doing cleans on Wednesday. Catch up with you next week.
run 400 m
25 ring dips
50 abmat situps (non anchored)