October 14, 2010

Thursday 101014

Rest Day


Enlarge image
Enlarge Poster

Worldwide People Overhead.

"Rope-Climbing Techniques: The Spanish Wrap" by Adrian Bozman with Carl Paoli and Kim Bozman, CrossFit Journal preview video [wmv] [mov]

Interview with Coach Mike Burgener at the CrossFit/USAW Weightlifting Open by Again Faster Equipment - video [wmv] [mov]

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Symphony No. 39 Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Constantine P. Cavafy - Ithaka

"My Resignation From The American Physical Society" by Hal Lewis.

Post thoughts to comments.

Posted by lauren at October 14, 2010 5:00 PM

Love these pics. Keep it up, everyone

Comment #1 - Posted by: ARex at October 13, 2010 5:07 PM

Just when you thought it was "safe" to do Rest Day!

Global Climate Change...bwah, ha ha ha...

I'll be back.

Comment #2 - Posted by: bingo at October 13, 2010 5:17 PM

It's clear Boz. ;-)

Comment #3 - Posted by: Vincent from Amsterdam at October 13, 2010 5:29 PM

Brandon, great picture. Stay safe Brother

Brian Keyes

Comment #4 - Posted by: brian keyes at October 13, 2010 5:40 PM

Lighten up J.T. Live a little. sheesh.

Comment #5 - Posted by: Hax at October 13, 2010 6:45 PM

Ohhh I'm gonna PR this one....

Comment #6 - Posted by: PVB at October 13, 2010 6:48 PM

Thats Hub City CrossFit holding it down in Disney World!!!

Comment #7 - Posted by: Cody Settle at October 13, 2010 6:48 PM

To act like Dwight D. Eisenhower was warning against the funding of scientific research in his "military industrial complex" is funny.

The science behind crossfit was partially funded by (I'm just guessing) a third party with (I'm just guessing) money. So therefore Dwight D. Eisenhower was indirectly warning people not to do crossfit in his speech right?

Crossfit is an international scam! The environmentalists use pictures of polar bears to fool people but crossfit uses Miranda Oldroyd videos the same way, to get liberal fools like you and me to do wallballs!

God am I a sucker!

Comment #8 - Posted by: Mike Kelly at October 13, 2010 6:57 PM


Comment #9 - Posted by: Dusty Dale Settle at October 13, 2010 6:59 PM

Nice call on Mozart's 39th. Definitely his best symphony.

Comment #10 - Posted by: aross at October 13, 2010 7:20 PM

Way to go Cody and Tiffani! Where better to squat another human being than Disney World - great pic guys! Making your HubCity Crossfit friends proud!! :)

Comment #11 - Posted by: Shawna Gallegos at October 13, 2010 7:57 PM

Thank you Dr. Lewis for your courageous stand for truth. I appreciate you.

Comment #12 - Posted by: sarge712 at October 13, 2010 8:12 PM

Thanks for the workouts, the exercise videos, the tips from pros, and the beautiful music!

However, I don't think that the Hal Lewis article is appropriate - not only is it nonsensical drivel from a sour climate-change denier, it's completely irrelevant!

Comment #13 - Posted by: James at October 13, 2010 8:17 PM

James, how is climate change irrelevant, but Mozart not? Mr. Lewis has a point - he never specifically denied climate change. He said there's so much money at stake that the scientific community is afraid to discuss it.

Comment #14 - Posted by: Turbo at October 13, 2010 8:31 PM

In regard to yesterday's WOD and the ongoing debate about what is and isn't a muscle up...shut the f**k up and just do the work. Nobody gives a s**t what you think and it is irrelevant.

Comment #15 - Posted by: B. Rhaly at October 13, 2010 8:36 PM

What a cool pic! I hope to have our wedding pic in there one day!

Comment #16 - Posted by: Cookie 43/5'6"/mom of 3 at October 13, 2010 8:39 PM

APS response to Lewis' letter here: http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

I appreciate Cavafy's hopeful and kindly sentiment but would have rather he had written: "Hope you never find such on your path, therefore, do not bring them with you in your spirit..." There are enough cyclops and Poseidons out there that we do not need to populate our lives with them through our own mental preoccupations.

Comment #17 - Posted by: Prolix at October 13, 2010 8:42 PM

@Turbo - I agree, the music is a bit irrelevant too, but it's is usually a display of achievement and skill (in composition, or performance, or both), so I can see the point.

The Hal Lewis article is not only ridiculous (especially the gambit about those greedy rich climate scientists!!), the topic has no relationship to crossfit, exercise, self-improvement, striving for excellence, determination, or even fun.

Comment #18 - Posted by: James at October 13, 2010 9:05 PM

Read the physics article. Hope CrossFit stays pure! Money always corrupts.

Comment #19 - Posted by: jay at October 13, 2010 9:15 PM

How nice. My rest day coincides with CrossFit mainsite.
Thought I was gonna have to train tomorrow but derby took care of that.

Comment #20 - Posted by: Keith M at October 13, 2010 9:15 PM

Also, about corruption in physics.

Comment #21 - Posted by: jay at October 13, 2010 9:17 PM

Newbie here - I recently discovered CF, and it's changed my life.

Re global warming. The US imports about $1 billion in oil each DAY, mostly from places that don't like us too much. If we weaned ourselves from "foreign oil", and used American solar and wind energy instead, we could keep that cash. We spend about $5 billion each YEAR in energy R&D.


Comment #22 - Posted by: mcronin at October 13, 2010 9:30 PM

I drive a 2007 Jeep Wrangler, it gets about 150 gallons per tank, I need lots of oil to continue driving my Jeep.

Comment #23 - Posted by: Allan Jackman at October 13, 2010 10:56 PM

What's wrong with posting a little geo-political commentary? Certainly isn't unprecidented on this site....

Thoughts, cause you asked for them: Solar and wind are nowhere near able to replace fossil fuels because a) they simply don't generate enough to meet our needs, and b) cannot adjust to fluctuating energy demands nor can their excess energy be stored for future use because battery technology isn't there yet.

Chances are that what you've heard about wind and solar energy was greatly exagerated.

In simplest terms, our options are:

a) continue to rely on oil, coal and gas

b) Nuclear power

c) return to a 1800 style lifestyle

I'm still waiting for the hardcore enviro's to choose option c) for themselves, but won't hold my breath...

Exit question: Why aren't those who shout loudest about the doomsday global warming is going to bring living in caves? If you truly believe we're destroying our planet, put your money where your mouth is....

Wait a sec, where am I? Oh yeah Crossfit haha. Great insight by from the Coach at the USAW open. Keep it coming!

Comment #24 - Posted by: Junker at October 14, 2010 12:29 AM

The Hal Lewis letter is a little ridiculous. I don't think the jury is out on climate change. But Hal Lewis is not a climate scientist and knows very little about what he writes. If you want a good background read on Dr. Lewis go check out the blog Climate Progress (type 'climate progress' and 'hal lewis' into google). It would be nice to see both sides of the issue posted here.

(Junker,) Wind and solar are both very promising technologies and if we spent half as much in R&D in those as we do in fossil fuels there would be a LOT of progress made. Check out the google green project and what they are doing with wind right now.

Comment #25 - Posted by: sam_r at October 14, 2010 3:42 AM

I'm pretty sure that solar panels contribute to global warming.

Comment #26 - Posted by: Cincinnatus at October 14, 2010 4:05 AM

Bruce...looking good!

Comment #27 - Posted by: JB at October 14, 2010 4:45 AM

Bruce...looking good!

Comment #28 - Posted by: JB at October 14, 2010 4:46 AM


Comment #29 - Posted by: Kim Malz~Fit Mom in CT of CrossFit Persevere (F40/130/5'2") at October 14, 2010 5:11 AM

GREAT overhead people pics. Love it!!!

Comment #30 - Posted by: Ivette Carcas Vichot at October 14, 2010 5:48 AM

Why has the United States not made a determined effort to become energy independent? Why is it acceptable to give hundreds of billions of dollars every year to countries that hate us? Americans are an ingenious, resourceful people - why are we not investing in ourselves and in our own country? Why are we not putting our own people to work?

Comment #31 - Posted by: mcronin at October 14, 2010 5:50 AM

Regarding the APS response to Hal Lewis (Prolix, #17), it is interesting to note that they never specifically address the substance of his accusation (ignoring a properly submitted petition to convene a topic group), and instead focus on something he himself added to the end of his letter with the disclaimer that it was a conjecture: their financial interest in global warming.

Comment #32 - Posted by: Philbert at October 14, 2010 7:19 AM

The Hal Lewis article is entirely appropriate. Look past the climate change angle and look at it as someone questioning the status quo and asking for intelligent debate and it fits right in with CrossFit. For how long have people done 2 hrs of cardio and biceps curls because that's what most people believed was the way to become physically fit? Then the CrossFit gang comes in and asks what happens when we try this whole different approach... well, at first it was looked at with derision, but we all know that it is at the least a valid, if not altogether superior, process for achieving physical fitness.

So Hal Lewis is NOT denying climate change. He is simply asking for more debate and inquiry into the science behind it and is upset that opposing viewpoints are being suppressed in the quest for funding. Any good scientist should WELCOME opposing viewpoints as a way to test the validity of his work, rather than pushing it away. As a fellow physicist who has been ridiculed and harassed for my similar viewpoint on the topic of climate change, his letter really strikes a chord with me. I'm disappointed in general with the scientific research world lately that has shunned skepticism and doubt, as the primary effort now is to obtain money rather than produce good science.

Comment #33 - Posted by: physguy at October 14, 2010 7:25 AM


I agree the APS response doesn't address the petition issue, however, the beggining of Lewis' letter sets a context suggesting that trillion dollar interests are driving the APS (and likely other physicst institutions) and then his letter makes the pointed conjecture that APS is beholded to these money interests. If you remove the stuff suggesting the improper money-interests of the APS you are left with an account of a dispute about the procedural operation of the APS that (although significant to its members) might not be of interest to the wider community.

I have no knowledge of what went on at the APS and would not presume to defend them. I simply think the money is the theme - the petition is just a matter of plot.

Comment #34 - Posted by: Prolix at October 14, 2010 8:35 AM

The Hal Lewis statement is so blatantly disingenuous. A physicist resigning from the APS over a disagreement with current climate change research would be akin to a doctor resigning from the AMA due to the legality of abortion. It makes no sense at all except when viewed as the political grandstanding it really is.

Comment #35 - Posted by: toddamn at October 14, 2010 8:56 AM

The point of alternative sources of energy is not to completely replace fossil fuels, but to supplement it.

Oh and to Junker: actually the battery potential IS here. Thats why they have developed battery powered cars. The problem is that the infrastructure isn't here yet.

Forget about the whole liberal planet loving thing for a minute if thats your problem. Can you imagine the economical powerhouse the U.S. would become if we didn't rely on anyone for energy? I don't know if anyone has noticed, but we're kinda failing at the moment.

Comment #36 - Posted by: dt at October 14, 2010 9:04 AM

That's my hubby and I in the bottom far right corner!!! Thanks for posting our pic today guys!!

Comment #37 - Posted by: Marty White in Dahlonega, GA at October 14, 2010 9:18 AM

Over the summer, I did very limited Crossfit because I was concentrating on my golf game (the shame). I haven't been checking in at the website either on a regular basis except to do the odd workout, but I did notice the additions to the content, like WOD demos and more links. However, I checked out everything on today's main page, and I have to say it has made me realize how consistently interesting and valuable the site is. I don't think that there is any blog site around that can match crossfit.com. Congratulations. And F the begrudgers.

Comment #38 - Posted by: blades at October 14, 2010 9:54 AM

I think I need an example of an elite athlete on how to perform a proper rest day workout, I don't understand this one :p

Comment #39 - Posted by: Ian 25/6'4"/180 at October 14, 2010 10:19 AM

An oak tree isn't anything but an acorn that stood its ground.

Comment #40 - Posted by: LP m/22/6'2"/235 at October 14, 2010 10:48 AM

as rxd

24 hours

#40 LP - a diamond isn't anything but a lump of coal that stuck to its job

The resignation letter and its backstory bears an almost eerie resemblance to one storyline on "Atlas Shrugged", fwiw

Comment #41 - Posted by: Pete - Decatur at October 14, 2010 11:44 AM

@Climate Alarmists

A response to the APS response to the Hal Lewis resignation letter has been posted:

"APS responds! – Deconstructing the APS response to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation" is here ...

Some may be fascinated to learn there never was a 'consensus' on global warming (aka climate change).

Those Crossfitters interested in MEASUREMENT might get a kick out how screwed up 'official' climate temperature measurement is. This website (http://surfacestations.org/) documents that ~69% of the official US Gov't Climate Temperature sensors skew temperature > 2-degC higher than actual (global warming caused by misplaced temperature sensors - ooops!). Crazy to see official US Gov't temp sensors at the exhaust port of a roof-top HVAC unit.

Comment #42 - Posted by: RM3 Frisker FTN at October 14, 2010 11:56 AM

Got some coaching on snatching today. Went well, I found where I make a lot of mistakes. Hopefully a few more will do the trick.

I could have sworn that earth goes through natural cycles that change it's weather. I could be wrong but I don't think the massive body of water that is now the Sahara desert was drank by the locals. Or the glaciers that once resided over north america, etc.

Comment #43 - Posted by: WJC at October 14, 2010 12:19 PM

I agree that climate change is a hoax but so is Darwin's theory of evolution. There is more science to discredit Darwin than climate change and that's a fact. Why does Crossfit ignore this? The paleo diet is pseudo science yet many have adopted it to their detriment and crossit remains silence.

Please post links attacking evolution as well. This issue needs to be addressed. The evolution industry is more than a trillion dollar industry. Evolution is a scam!

Comment #44 - Posted by: Job at October 14, 2010 12:47 PM

Dr. Lewis's resignation was not at all substantive, but about process – the failure of the American Physical Society to respect its obligations as a scientific body. Those same complaints can be raised against the IPCC and other bodies, such as the University of East Anglia and its Climate Research Unit, and the University of Pennsylvania, who rose to the defense of Drs. Jones and Mann, respectively.

How Dr. Lewis concluded that AGW was a fraud is not revealed.

Now APS's response compounds their shame. They answer unscientifically to reaffirm some of the most flagrant substantive errors in the AGW model.

"APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following … ". This comes from a model for science in which the predictive power of scientific models is replaced with a voting mechanism. To make matters worse, that vote has never been taken, and substantial evidence from hundreds and perhaps thousands of scientists weighs against that presumed, irrelevant consensus. This model for science comes from a cabal of disreputable academics who have conspired to assure that only their scientific reports are published. They define a journal that might publish a paper critical of any part of AGW as no longer being peer reviewed, hiding behind the shield that science is somehow decided by consensus and peer review. They further define as reputable those scientists who endorse their dogma, and APS has identified itself as a participant in this fraud.

APS asserts as settled science that "Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity". That is false. According to the AGW concept, manmade CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere because the ocean has a buffer against CO2 absorption, a buffer that derives its resistance from the surface layer of the ocean being in thermodynamic equilibrium. That the surface layer might be in any kind of equilibrium, mechanical, thermal, or chemical, and all three are required, is laughable. CO2 is increasing because the climate is warming. It comes from the ocean. This is in accord with Henry's Law, one of the several laws of physics IPCC never broaches. Man adds to that by about 6%. Furthermore, that that buffer works against only manmade CO2 and not natural CO2, which is flows at 15 times the rate of manmade CO2, is bizarre because it is unsupported by any physics.

APS asserts as settled science that "Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming". First, that contribution is on the margin too small to be measurable. Secondly, the notion that increasing CO2 causes increased radiation absorption is false, and a violation of the Beer Lambert Law, another law of physics abused by IPCC. Radiation absorption does not increase without limit according to the logarithm of the gas concentration as IPCC claims. Instead, it saturates, and IPCC has never made the necessary computation of where the atmosphere resides on the saturation curve, and instead lazily relies on its false science to have CO2 as well as the other greenhouse gases warm without limit.

APS asserts as settled science that "The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years." The man behind this conjecture, Dr. David Archer, a prominent author of much of IPCC's nonsense, actually puts this number in the range of thousands of years. IPCC's own formula for the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere puts the number in the range of one and a fraction years to about 5 years. Application of the solubility relationships, expressed in part by Henry's Law, makes the absorption of CO2 by the ocean essentially instantaneous on climate scales. Sea water discharges to a minimum dissolved CO2 content when the thermohaline circulation surfaces. This occurs principally by the Eckart Effect that suctions CO2 rich water from the deep ocean up to the Equator. That water then slows circulates, albeit circuitously, poleward, cooling, and recharging with CO2 according to Henry's Law. When that water is at its maximum weight because its density increased due to cooling and absorbing CO2, it descends to feed the bottom waters of the ocean, requiring about a millennium to resurface. That absorption over the surface, though, takes about one year, the time it would take a bottle to float from the Equator to the poles.

APS's reputable scientists are ignorant – fictitious, but nonetheless misinformed. APS's response to Dr. Lewis is incompetent.

Comment #45 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at October 14, 2010 1:01 PM

No ones complained yet!! Allow me... 'Ahem'

"I'm disappointed with the form I saw on the rest day video. None of those people in that video got to full extension on their rest days. I thought CF was about virtuosity an yet HQ continues to post these videos of elite athletes showing bad form.

Whine whine, blah blah, it bothers me that Dave Lipson is so much stronger than me so I'm going to rag on his form even though mine is way worse. Yada yada, something mean about Austin Malleolo, just so ya'll know I'm personally appalled and offended."

Happy rest day. And oh, I totally agree with Jeff and Lewis. Global climate change is a money grab. Especially cause you can keep you're ol' beater car for the next 25 years and not put as much 'green house gasses' into the air as it takes a factory to make only one of those shiny new entirely plastic hybrids. But hey! We can slap an environmentally friendly or green sticker on there an sell it for twice as much! As Flight of the Concords so wisely said... think about, think think about it.

Comment #46 - Posted by: Jordan D. at October 14, 2010 1:37 PM

Very clear. Cool vid. Explains everything. Cheers guys. Now I have to give it a go.

Comment #47 - Posted by: Adam B at October 14, 2010 1:41 PM

I understand what Boz is saying about climbing... BUT, I was under the impression the whole point of rope climbing was to work the upper body "pull" muscles. Hence: 1) towel pullups (not squats or jumping pullups) are the substitute and 2) on the levels of crossfit grid it shows one of the test of upper body pull strength as rope climbing. If you are gonna be in the games or something then I can see the benefit of using the legs to walk up the rope. But for normal WOD's, I have to believe the intent of rope climbing is to do so with as little assistance from the feet and legs as possible. ???

Comment #48 - Posted by: ANC at October 14, 2010 1:44 PM

I agree that climate change is a hoax but so is Darwin's theory of evolution. There is more science to discredit Darwin than climate change and that's a fact. Why does Crossfit ignore this? The paleo diet is pseudo science yet many have adopted it to their detriment and crossit remains silence.

Please post links attacking evolution as well. This issue needs to be addressed. The evolution industry is more than a trillion dollar industry. Evolution is a scam!

Comment #44 - Posted by: Job at October 14, 2010 12:47 PM

well said! +1

Comment #49 - Posted by: AC at October 14, 2010 1:55 PM

101013 as Rx'ed


previous 13:38

Comment #50 - Posted by: Quinn McCutchen M/41/150/5'10" at October 14, 2010 2:38 PM

#33 makes a great point.

In addition: How many of you out there are paleo eaters? Of that number how many of you get told by others that you're crazy, that grains are in important part of the diet, and that you are wrong for not going with the status quo.

I think that as CrossFitters we have all got a little Hal Lewis. Sometime ago we all sent our own resignation letters to our big boxes, our fitness magazines, and for some of us to our grocers and we all took a different path and approach to fitness.

Comment #51 - Posted by: Lawrence at October 14, 2010 2:58 PM

"Tabata This", details there.

A hearty welcome back to Jeff Glassman, our resident rocket scientist. I'm not being the least bit facetious when I say I miss Jeff and Barry and the Rest Day discourse or yore...

Comment #52 - Posted by: bingo at October 14, 2010 3:21 PM

"Tabata This", details there...

Comment #53 - Posted by: bingo at October 14, 2010 3:21 PM

Did Tabata This WOD from Monday 20101011 (see details there)

Comment #54 - Posted by: toddamn m/36/5'8"/155 at October 14, 2010 4:17 PM

Hey Boz, IT'S CLEAR!

Comment #55 - Posted by: james.patrick [M/48/66"/135] at October 14, 2010 4:33 PM

Jeff, spreading an incorrect definition of science seems like regrettable thing to do on a public forum. A critical aspect of the scientific method is that results must be accepted by the scientific community. I understand that there are drawbacks to this element of the method, but it is a non-negotiable step which is required to manage the bias that an individual researcher casts upon their data. Scientists as a group have accepted exposing their data to the bias of the group rather than the bias of the individual purposefully. A trained scientist exposes all of their data to the group and encourages them to disprove its contents so that the scientist's bias will be revealed if present and the results can be discarded or reenforced through repetition and analysis. It is incorrect to claim that the group acceptance aspect of the scientific method is unscientific or an incorrect procedure for scientific analysis just because you disagree with that portion of the method. It is part of the method as it currently and pretty successfully operates, and in order to change the current method you will have to propose your new method and use the current method to substantiate the validity of the new method. Ironically, in order to institute your understanding of the method, you will have to gain the acceptance of the scientific community.

Comment #56 - Posted by: Ben Edelen at October 14, 2010 11:18 PM

Dom Rep chick in the middle left is HOT!!

Comment #57 - Posted by: Steve at October 15, 2010 9:01 AM

I am amused that a website which directs people to one side only of the climate change "debate" now reproduces an outraged letter of resignation from someone, disgusted that the APS no longer "encourages discussion of important issues". LOL.

Comment #58 - Posted by: J1 at October 15, 2010 10:41 AM

Ben Edelen #57,

You judge my comments by a false standard, the scientific method as championed by academia, non-defense government laboratories, and professional journals. Further, the process you describe is high-sounding, but a fantasy.

What you describe comes from those who must "publish or perish". Science is about neither scoring publications nor academic honoraria. Your view is surely supported by a vast majority in those fields, but it is contrary to the practices of industrial science where secrecy and models that actually work are the rule, and where science proceeds at rates that blow away universities and government labs. You cannot rely on that academic consensus to support the model that science is decided by consensus seeking. That is a bootstrap, much like a self-referencing definition.

Your model revolves around peer review, specifically referring to bias in data. But reviewers do not check the validity of data, safely to say, ever.

You say, I "will have to gain the acceptance of the scientific community". Great contributions to modern science, that is, post the publish-or-perish craze, have intentionally avoided peer review. These include five seminal papers by Einstein circa 1905, and Watson & Crick's 1953 publication of the structure of DNA.

On the other hand, the failures of the peer review process are equally legend. Fleischmann and Pons on cold fusion (1989). Jan Hendrik Schön and his nanotransistor (2001).

The words of Richard Horton, MD, editor of Lancet cannot be stated too often:

>>The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed [jiggered, not repaired], often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

The capstone of academe's foolish scientific method has to be Anthropogenic Global Warming. This is a fraud on a massive scale, one that has carefully passed peer review, step by step, for more than half a century. That AGW is false and intentionally deceptive cannot be exposed by counter-publishing in a peer review journal, but by meticulously exposing the mistakes and distortions in public. McIntyre and McKitrick did this with devastating success on Mann's published Hockey Stick reduction, and McIntyre continues to expose IPCC and climatologists' errors on his blog. You might also want to read my blog on the subject at www.rocketscientistsjournal.com. There you will also find extensive discussions of the peer review process and the true scientific method.


Now J1 #59 freely joins the discussion to suggest that this website might be another "APS [that] no longer 'encourages discussion of important issues'". The very existence of his comment disproves his point.

Comment #59 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at October 15, 2010 7:13 PM

Concerning fossil fuel use and / or global warming.

There are actually two separate issues / questions surrounding our great country's use of oil: 1. do CO2 and other gasses generated by burning such fuels cause a green house effect in our atmosphere? and 2. is it a wise choice for the USA to continue to ignore the facts that a. oil is a finite resource and b. is concentrated in counties filled with people who doe not care for us?

Concerning number 1. If one chooses to ignore all thee recent evidence that burning these fuels has produced the the hottest years on record consider this: Mercury is 43.4 million miles from the sun and it's temperature ranges from -184 C to 427 C. Meanwhile Venus is 67.2 million miles from the sun (about 1.5 times further away) and yet it's temperature ranges from -45 C to 464 C. The only explanation we have for this is the difference in their atmospheres. Mercury's is made up of hydrogen, helium, and oxygen while the Venusian atmosphere is 97 % CO2. Hmm.

Concerning number 2. Does anyone who loves this country truly believe that it is in our best interest to continue to ignore that these finite resources are located in a part of the world very unfriendly to us? I don't think it is in our best interests to continue to waist our wealth (not only monetary but much more importantly our irreplaceable human wealth) in the fools errand of securing yet more oil for us to burn while ignoring the fact that it will run out sooner or later.

Solar and wind can't do it all to be sure, but they will be present as long as we are able to call Earth home. Nuclear has it's own issues as well. But does anyone really think it best to stick our heads in the sand and do nothing to reduce our dependence on oil? There is so much we could do but refuse to as a nation: solar hot water heaters, passive solar homes, better insulation in our homes, invest in more fuel efficiency in every mechanical device we make and expansion of bio-diesel. These are just of the few measures we could take to reduce this countries dependence on foreign oil (and please don't bring up off shelf drilling or Anwar...if you look at the amount of oil present in those areas vs what we consume those 'untapped' resources are a mere drop in the bucket...don't take my word for it or those on the other side, look it up and you'll be forced to agree).

With so many options at our disposal to reduce our dependence on oil and the gaping security vulnerability it creates why aren't we embracing these alternatives? Could it be that an economic juggernaut depends completely on our continued and unbridled addiction to black gold? Dr Lewis claims big money is the problem and he is correct in his assessment. Unfortunately, he erroneously points his finger at the smoke screen of rich environmentalists. Oil companies after-tax profits were over 650 billion during the two President GW Bush terms. Apparently Dr Lewis wants us to believe that some leftest tree hugers made more than that tidy sum over the same period of time and that the influence that kind of money wields in our political system has nothing to do with the dogged, nay saying, do nothing because the options we have aren't good enough attitude that permeates the 'global warming doesn't exist' side of the debate.

Again, from my point of view it doesn't matter if you believe in global warming/climate change or not. No one in their right mind can deny that oil is a finite resource. Given this fact, the only course a sane person or nation can make is to utilize current alternative to the fullest, hone their efficiencies and diligently search for new alternative energy sources.

Comment #60 - Posted by: blind eye at October 15, 2010 10:59 PM

Jeff....is oil a finite resource? It's a simple question with a simple answer. Any thoughtful person who has pondered this issue has come to the conclusion that after answering the above it does not matter what you believe concerning global warming.

Comment #61 - Posted by: blind eye at October 15, 2010 11:03 PM

blind eye #61,

After oil comes coal, then uranium, then hydrogen for fusion, then …

Under the Standard Cosmology, the universe is finite. Thus everything in the World is finite. Now, following blind eye's implied logic, everything should be controlled not by a free market but by an omnipotent, omniscient, central government. Hence, Marxism is optimum.

Comment #62 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at October 16, 2010 8:19 AM

Jeff, you are missing the point. It is not just the fact that oil is finite but that our rate of consumption of it and the cost (not just monetarily but more importantly the human costs) associated with it will continue to rise as peak oil is reached in the Middle East.

The nay-sayers denied it would happen in the US and now are again denying that it will occur in the world's last large pool of sweet light crude.

Please for a moment stop waving the flag the multibillion dollar oil corps want you to. While their profits will only go up as the price of oil increases the rest of our economy will falter.

Consider that nearly every business on the planet has a business model that assumes and is therfore dependent upon cheap gas (i.e. oil) for its success. We have already seen in the recent past what a small spike in that price did to both companies and consumers.

Also please don't pretend that the current energy system is an example of free market capitalism. Oil and gas producers obtain huge breaks from our government that other forms of energy do not (at equivalent levels). If you truly believe in the free market why aren't you railing against this obvious distortion of the system that made this country great.

Also please don't bring up logic in a comment that fallaciously suggests my postilion is Marxist.

I asked a simple question to which you must answer 'yes'. Instead of accepting the logical next step, that much more must be done to use existing renewable energy source and develop still other was to exploit them you chose to change the subeject and call me a Commnist.

Clearly if oil is finite and sequestered in countries who's people don't like the USA the only sane response to such a situation is to employ our vaunted collective ingenuity to improve our national security by decreasing our dependence on this form of energy.

Passive solar homes, solar hot water heaters, better fuel efficiency for all our gas and electrically powered devices are but a few of the measures that we should take to slack our collective thirst for oil.

By the way, though even solar and its creation on our planet wind are ultimately finite as well, I hope you aren't implying that 1. fossil fuels will out last them and 2. that the human race won't have much bigger issues to deal with when the sun gos nova than calling names instead of discussing the true issues at hand.

I must say I expected more from you.

Comment #63 - Posted by: blind eye at October 16, 2010 12:56 PM

Jeff, while I have to concede that acceptance by the community is only a test for the acceptability, not the validity of data, I and the community still think it is a critical element of the method. I have pointed out its benefits and you have highlighted some of its failures. Acceptability important, because that is how science stays honest. The community aspect of the method is not about getting more valid results, it is about making sure we are not creating monsters. I am surprised, therefore, that you allude to the speed and results of secretive, private labs as an example of how unpublished research may be superior. While it cannot be argued that such research has advanced humanity greatly, it has almost universally been at the expense of our humanity that we have generated such results. Such research is typified by Japanese Unit 731, Nazi research and US Operation Paperclip to acquire Nazi scientists, and our own involuntary experiments on US citizens. Here is where acceptance of the community really shines. Science that is not done in the light is always at risk of deciding that the ends justify the means. That is precisely how we find ourselves performing involuntary human experimentation. In my experience, people only want to do research without oversight and generate results which are utilized before peer review know that the work they are undertaking would be found unacceptable by their peers, because it is work that requires further discussion before being undertaken.

Comment #64 - Posted by: Ben Edelen at October 16, 2010 8:17 PM

Blind Eye - I'll bite. Okay, oil is finite. So what? So is space on this planet, so I assume under your view that we should start controlling the population now or get busy checking out Mars?

APGW is a completely separate issue from whether or not the Earth has finite resources, but one is being used to further the other agenda. i.e. it's a scare tactic to promote an environmental political agenda. Hockey stick boy admitted as much when it was shown he faked the data - "it was for a noble cause." I'll have to find the exact quote, but dude got caught and admitted he lied about it, yet he continues to be the poster boy of the APGW clique because he had the nuts to flat-out "make it up" in service to "the cause."

I don't like the fact that the world's (not just ours, but the world's) most precious resource sits below a bunch of fundamentalist fruitbats, but guess what? That's how the cards got dealt.

Wait, didn't we invade Iraq to grab all of that oil? Isn't that the meme? So much for all that oil we stole from the Iraqis.

Bottom line, Blind Eye - so what? Oil is a finite resource. No one with an IQ over 100 could ever have assumed that anything on the Earth is infinite. Being good stewards of the environment almost goes without saying, but that's no reason to pervert science and simply lie, particularly where the consequences - in terms of money being spent and expenditures of resources - are on a global scale.

Comment #65 - Posted by: Dale_Saran at October 16, 2010 9:31 PM

One of the things that is difficult about discussing the issue of AGW it that it is very often cast in moral terms rather than scientific (I like Jeff's posts on AGW when they focus on the science – though I wish he would pretend he were addressing congress [less technical]).
Instead of determining the logically prior question of: "does AGW exist?”, people often move right into the question: "is it good to believe AGW exists?". Even more often the progression goes: "since it is good to believe AGW exists, do you believe, and are you therefore a good or a bad person?”

This bothers me from a logical perspective. But, I think it is understandable. "The Climate" (and what myriad of phenomona might be included under that term) is so big, various, complex and....beyond comprehension (to me at least) that in some respects it occupies the same conceptual territory as “God”. (I realize that since the climate is a physical process it is knowable, but I won’t be able to know it, and I am sceptical that any human alive knows it). From one perspective, it makes sense to debate the existence of God before debating what a belief in God means to the person or society who holds it. However, from another perspective, it makes great sense to dispense with debating the unknowable, and to get down to thinking about the “usefulness” or not, of believing in God....or AGW. As Blind Eye notes, there are many uses to behaving as though AGW is true – a shared belief in AGW (like a shared belief in a particular kind of God) helps a community to formulate responses to challenges. The community might form the same response even without the belief in AGW (or God – Jesus golden rule and Kant’s categorical imperative both get us to much the same place by very different routes), but this does not detract from the usefulness of a belief in AGW.

However, I am uncomfortable with someone telling me that I must believe AGW is true because a belief in it is good (or a denial of it is bad). I also don’t like treating a belief in AGW (and its concomitant moral imperatives) as a wager of the type made by Pascal. I say to Pascal, “I don’t need to make your wager because I have a reasoned belief which I am willing to stand behind that there is no afterlife, no eternal judgment”. Jeff, and others might say to the APS and others, “I don’t need to wager that AGW is true because I have a reasoned belief that it is not”. The reason the theory of AGW holds such a prominent place in the public arena is not because scientists say it’s true, it is because non-scientists want to change behaviour. There are many scientific theories held by scientists that go largely unnoticed and this is because they do not have (m)any implications for our behaviour. However, if AGW(and its supposed catastrophe) is true, and if our behaviour can limit/reverse it, then it seems reasonable to expect that we will adjust our behaviour accordingly.

So, for myself (as a scientific parishioner not priest), I would like each side of the debate to both dumb it down and smarten it up.

Comment #66 - Posted by: prolix at October 16, 2010 10:09 PM

One in the Dennis Hopper.

Comment #67 - Posted by: Prolix at October 16, 2010 10:12 PM

blind eye asked, "is oil a finite resource?", like the Geico commercials, a rhetorical ploy to introduce whatever he wants. He began: it is "a simple question with a simple answer. Any thoughtful person who has pondered this issue has come to the conclusion that after answering the above it does not matter what you believe concerning global warming." So if you disagree with his rhetoric, you are not thoughtful. As with APS, if you don't agree with the global warming dogma, you are not reputable.

When roasted over this half argument and its implied conclusion, blind eye claimed I was "missing the point", saying, "It is not just the fact that oil is finite but …". But that was his hypothesis, and the sole point of his proclaimed simple argument. There was nothing more to miss.

I concluded that blind eye's argument justified Marxism. He has now confirmed his leanings. He is not a Marxist, he just waves its flag. It's not just corporations, which everyone knows are evil, but that they are multibillion dollar operations, and that they pursue, hsss, profits. All the code words are here. Cheap oil. Finite resources. Human costs. Oil companies get "huge breaks from our government". Of course, like free license to drill in deep water, like forbidden drilling offshore and in ANWR, like bans against heavy crude, surrender to OPEC, huge paper gains from (multitrillion dollar government induced) inflation, CO2 emission standards, and a daily dose of demonization.

blind eye's implication was that government must do something about global warming, i.e., waste more, regulate more, specifically to cripple the world economy, all because of the tautology that oil is finite. When shortages begin to appear, the real price of oil will rise until it reaches the point that the immense US shale oil reserve becomes profitable. Then blind eye's protective government will have to step in and ban that, too.

blind eye's remark about belief (e.g. "believe in global warming") is valid. AGW is a belief, not a scientific model. In science, it matters not what he or anyone else believes, or expects (as in "I expected more from you" – so, here's more), nor what any group of scientists believe or anticipate. These are all subjective, and hence external to science. What matters in science with respect to global warming is first the semantic problem that the phrase misleadingly stands for anthropogenic global warming, and then that AGW is a fiction and a fraud, a failed conjecture advanced to influence government for power, profit, recognition, and control. What matters in the socioeconomic scheme of things is what government does about that fiction and fraud, and tangentially whether it returns to reliance on free market solutions.

The subject of this thread was Dr. Harold Lewis's resignation from the American Physical Society for its blind (two blind eyes, I would note) endorsement of the AGW fraud. In its latest press release (10/12/10) response to Lewis, APS has reaffirmed its wholesale violation of its Mission Statement:

>>The American Physical Society strives to:

>>• Be the leading voice for physics and an authoritative source of physics information for the advancement of physics and the benefit of humanity;

>>• Provide effective programs in support of the physics community and the conduct of physics;

>>• Collaborate with national scientific societies for the advancement of science, science education and the science community;

>>• Cooperate with international physics societies to promote physics, to support physicists worldwide and to foster international collaboration;

>>• Promote an active, engaged and diverse membership, and support the activities of its units and members.

APS has instead dismissed a member's opposition to its collaboration with a governmental body, the IPCC, in a fraud that violates what APS pledged itself to respect and promote: laws of physics, principles of the scientific method, and the ethics of science.

Comment #68 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at October 17, 2010 9:22 AM

To Dale #66

If you've read and understood all my posts you should note that the underlying question behind the global warming debate is if we should do more to decrease our dependence on oil and foster other forms of energy utilization. Given that is the actual question at hand, whether or not global warming is occurring is a side issue and distraction from the impending stress on the world's economy and people's well-being when peek oil in the Middle East occurs. It is not a perversion of the truth to note the Saudi Arabia's 'proven reserves' have been increased multiple times without any new finds over the last thirty years, razing the question of were all this extra oil really is.

I'm a bit amazed how quickly those who've responded to my posts resort to fallacious arguments in an attempt to further their point of views (slippery slope in your case). Help me find the statement I made suggesting we should institute population control.

'So what' oil is located mostly in the Middle East? So what the USSR got a satellite into orbit first. So what Hitler is rampaging across Europe (which we actually said until Peal Harbor was bombed)? So what that you don't have to prove you've got an income to qualify for a mortgage? So what that our and every other industrialized country on the planet has an economy completely dependent on cheep oil? I am of the opinion that that we should search for and institute solutions to problems rather than throwing our hands up in the air and saying 'that just the way it is." You know, that good old fashioned can do spirit this country was founded on.

Good stewardship? How can you say that with a straight face? Acid rain, polluted lakes and rivers, Superfund sites. You guys act as though business given full reign would do the right thing for the environment (which humankind needs in to survive). Please wake up. If not for push back from environmentalists and the public at large our country would still have contaminated needles washing up on beaches across the country.

And by the way help me understand your apparent opposition to the oil saving measures I've (not some archetypal tree hugging fanatic you seem to want to paint me as) have suggested in my other posts.

Comment #69 - Posted by: blind eye at October 17, 2010 11:07 AM

To Prolix #67

Thank you for understanding what I meant and putting it in clearer terms than I did.

Comment #70 - Posted by: blind eye at October 17, 2010 11:12 AM

Jeff, obviously you failed to consider the points Prolix stated more eloquently than I. Nearly every argument you raised concerning the points I brought up are clouded by your emotional hang ups concerning environmentalism.

You have in fact completely failed to fathom what I'm talking about (or are too wrapped up in your skewed world view to realize the validity in them).

I have suggested providing equal funding to all energy producing endeavors. You claim to believe in the free market and yet hypocritically defend a structure that is a mockery of a true open market.

I've noted some of the many ways that we can decrease our dependence on oil and asked what's wrong with persuing them...again you have been silent.

Not only have you failed to address what I've actually said in addition you continue to paint me as 'Ivan the Terrible' instead of discussing the points I have raised.

You also claim I condone some form of government mandated control of CO2 (How can you believe you understand what I'm saying when you've twice somehow implied I would like to see such government control occur when what I actually said [pay attention this time Jeff, try to control you prejudices and you might just get it] "Again, from my point of view it doesn't matter if you believe in global warming/climate change or not.") Many that seems pretty clear to me, but I guess it's not to you.

The point Jeff is that you and many others have in fact determined that accepting global warming as plausible is 'a great evil' that must be fought at all costs. You may be correct about that, I don't know, nor to I claim to. But does your feeling about AGW justify your apparent unwillingness to accept that better energy efficiency, the use of current alternatives and development of others is in fact a very good thing that should be pursued on an equal footing with current mainstream sources.

Your continued venom and unwillingness to address the actual issues that have been raised are truly disturbing.

Name calling and changing the subject while ignoring arguments you have no valid and reasonable response to is no way to present an argument that you expect others to accept.

Comment #71 - Posted by: blind eye at October 17, 2010 6:03 PM

blind eye #70 says, "the underlying question behind the global warming debate is if we should do more to decrease our dependence on oil and foster other forms of energy utilization". At the same time, he decries how others "resort to fallacious arguments". Then he goes to brag about the "push back from environmentalists".

So what is the link between global warming and oil? The only answer available is carbon dioxide, a beneficial greening agent that should be the delight of the greenies. "We", our overbearing federal government, have now yielded to the push back from loony environmentalist to declare it instead to be a pollutant, so to regulate it and minimize it. Those regulations being written by EPA bureaucrats are to create automobiles contrary to what the public needs and wants, and to phase out coal fired and oil fired power generators in favor of international redistribution of wealth. Nuclear power, the safest and cleanest energy source, has already been queered in the US by the environmentalists' pushing back into our big government.

The real "we", the free people of the US, should be fostering sensible energy from coal and uranium, and fostering our domestic sources of oil to bring down the overbearing price of crude paid to a monopoly. That transfer of wealth is creating golden cities in the Middle East, tempting fresh tyrants into wars, and funding the terrorism of the Imams. This ship will be righted when the "we" of big government just get out of the way, limiting our governing selves to those things for which even have government.

The link between global warming and oil is environmentalism, a belief system that runs contrary to intelligence and knowledge. It is unintended consequences bred in the Petri dish of scientific illiteracy that decades back replaced our science curricula. With the CO2 movement, environmentalism is trying to outdo its push back victory over DDT that unleashed the ravages of malaria. What is fallacious is environmentalism, a movement that has killed people on a scale to rival every tyrant who has ever breathed, to say nothing of the billion or so victims added annually to those tormented by the disease, and continues in sorry force today.

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878341/posts for an introduction, links, and some numbers.

Comment #72 - Posted by: Jeff "drrocket" G. at October 17, 2010 6:40 PM


Also, if you read my whole response to your comment about everything being finite you'll see that I haven't changed my argument in the least. Oil is finite and will run out (including the shale in the USA) long before solar (including wind) will. Given this fact the prudent thing to do is hone our ability to harness these longer lasting energy supplies and improve fuel efficiencies as much as is both possible and practical prior to some crunch created by blind reliance on oil.

Your arguing beside the point at hand to note that all things are ultimately finite did succeed in momentarily confusing the point but if you read the entire comment what is summarized above is self evident in the initial text.

Your comments cause me to infer a great many things concerning your ideas about what our energy goals should be. I for one don't want to put words in your mouth, particularity considering how unpleasant it's been to be on the receiving end of your incorrect inferences concerning my position. Why don't you share your point of view on the subject? That is after all what this forum is about isn't it?

Comment #73 - Posted by: blind eye at October 17, 2010 6:42 PM


I don't want to speak for Blind Eye, but it seems reasonable to me that he might hope for trillion dollar market (with billion dollar corporations) for wind power. It is not the profit motive which he is upset with....it is the impact of a range of carbon-oriented activities directed at making profits that he is upset with. Perhaps the kind of government intervention we're talking about is pushing people into new types of profit-seeking behaviour, perhaps subsidizing this for a time until it is really profitable. This is a far cry from collectivizing the means of production.

Comment #74 - Posted by: Prolix at October 17, 2010 6:45 PM

Missed some days this seek so I did

100 Pullups
100 Situps
100 Pushups
100 Squats


Comment #75 - Posted by: Sting M/45/69"/160 at October 18, 2010 7:38 AM

During the 2008 election cycle, T. Boone Pickens was regularly seen on TV pushing his wind farm initiative. It was the renewable, green energy for the future.

Pickens spent $60 million out of his several billion dollars, then quietly dropped the idea. He said he was postponing the project because he was unable to borrow money for it. What he might mean is that he couldn't get investors for it, not lenders. He wasn't a fool – he wasn't going to spend HIS money, or put up HIS collateral for it.

Regardless, this failure is an excellent example of a sound energy policy – the free market solution. Whatever the risk involved, minimum to maximum, let capitalism work. Let people decide for themselves to defer gratification from their money, investing it for a greater future return. Let projects proceed under the expectation that they will make sense, meaning only economic sense: prove after-tax profitable.

Wind is like all the other alternative energy sources – too speculative and too low a return on investment for a variety of reasons. These have always been the results of sound studies on alternative energies. And this is why some people want the government to do it. Government doesn't invest – not in the sense of an entrepreneur. Government doesn't defer gratification on the hopes of a greater return one day. Democratic government spends taxpayer money, spends it now, on projects designed to succeed solely by winning political support for the next election cycle. Mass rapid transit. Alternative energies. Welfare. Housing projects.

A despotic government spends taxpayer money, and spends it now, on projects that secure its police power over its populace, that reduce the risks in its military conquests beyond its borders, or simply serve as monuments to its tyranny.

Comment #76 - Posted by: drrocket at October 18, 2010 1:00 PM

Way to go Cody & Tiffani of Hub City CrossFit at Disney World!

Comment #77 - Posted by: Tony Arnold at October 18, 2010 6:58 PM


Do you think the Erie Canal, the St Lawrence Seaway, the Panama Canal, the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal, the transcontinental railroad,

a) could have been made with private capital alone?
b) were constructed for the purpose of the next election cycle, and if so did this short term purpose undermine their long term benefits?
c) are anything other than government "investments"?

Governments invest and make returns on their investments all the time. A most obvious example of this is investing in infrastructure (residential, leisure, economic) to attract people to build and buy dwellings in a particular area thereby increasing the tax base of the local government.

Your little story about T Boone Pickens might have been told by the folks at the Central Pacific Railroad of Californial and the Union Pacific Railroad who were trying to construct the first transcontinental railroad if the tyranous congress hadn't supported their endeavour with 30-year bonds and land grants.

Please note I have not made an argument for government investment in wind/solar power etc, I have simply tried to correct your rather docrinaire (i.e., unempirical) approach to thinking about American energy policy.

Comment #78 - Posted by: Prolix at October 18, 2010 7:04 PM

Alternative energy sources are a fairytale solution and global warming is the fictitious bogeyman. Both concocted and heavily promoted for political gain by people who could sell beach front property in Death Valley. While it is highly desirable to be totally self-sufficient and reliant upon technologies that don't 'dirty' anything up, Solar and wind are still in their infancy. Solar is still far too inefficient and the source is not very reliable. The same is true for wind.
While many like touting the idea of an untapped reserve of easy access energy, its a fairy tale (for now anyway.) Reality is, oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric are the only technologies that can be relied upon to produce adequate energy on demand. But, no one likes oil or coal. Gas sounds too much like oil and people tend to be very afraid of nuclear power. Hydro, is limited by the number of dams and the amount of impact we want to allow downstream.
Wind and solar sound like a 'creative third way,' and while they really aren't viable yet, most people already believe in them. This is great for politicians, as any nay sayers can be easily cast as villains (or more accurately scapegoats) bent on impeding progress.
Wind and solar wont really be viable until storage technology is developed to a point where it can take 30 or 40 days worth of productive operation per year and spread it over all 365 days of the year and somehow cope with peak demand periods at seemingly random times throughout.
This can't and wont happen overnight no matter how much money we throw at the problem. This is where the hoax comes in. The more afraid and desperate we are, the more willing we are to throw money at anything with 'global warming' or 'alternative energy source' stamped on it. A lot of what we've spent so far has gone into show ponies, gimmicks and perpetual motion machines.
The technology for what some people are selling just isn't there right now. It will come eventually (and probably from an unexpected direction,) but blowing our collective wad on snake oil right now because of misguided impatience is fool hardy.
In the mean time, a temporary and fading dependence upon oil is not the Achilles heel many say it is. Gas is produced domestically while the governments we buy oil from actually seem to like getting our money. The governments we don't get along with don't get our money. The people who hate us tend to be leaders and rabble rousers who attempt to consolidate and expand power by blaming America for every woe and by promising to use any power given to them to get even. And of course the followers who grant them such powers.
The real 'quick fix' is being cleaner and more efficient with what we've got during the interim. Trying to make some kind of 'big jump' right now would be like diving from a 13 story building into an airbag that isn't there yet.

Comment #79 - Posted by: bobsyruncl at October 19, 2010 12:22 AM

20 minute AMRAP:

10 jumping air aquat
10 situps
10 pushups

23 rounds Rx

Comment #80 - Posted by: MNinKC at November 14, 2010 6:55 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?