blueollie

Toxic Activism and shortsightedness: Feminists and Southern Senators

This tweet (generated when a Congressional candidate body slammed a reporter) got me thinking:

IN THIS CASE, I was wrong in my assumption that a reporter barged in on a private event to pester the candidate with questions. Yes, reporters should be allowed to ask tough questions at public events. But candidates, along with everyone else, have the right to have “invitation only” events at private locations.

If that sounds wrong, ask yourself this: what if a scientist was holding a question and answer period with, say, science media and scientists at some science conference, and some creationist “reporter” from, say, Newsmax barges in uninvited and starts to pester him with stupid creationist questions …under the guise of “getting at the truth”. is that ok? Or is it ok for security to professionally remove the “journalist” from that location? (humanely, of course..I am NOT defending “body slamming”).

And do activists have the “right” to barge in and interrupt? Is THIS ok? (starts at 15 seconds)

To me, it is not.

This takes me back to when some feminist “activists” did an 11 hour sit in at the Ladies Home Journal. Now the magazine is a private entity and they had every right to remove those doing the sit in, though the activists correctly predicted that they wouldn’t do that due to negative publicity. NOW the magazine probably would kick them out. But never mind that.

During this sit in, there WAS an assault (book calls it “attempted assault” but the video I saw shows her jumping on the standing man)

(from here)

Via: The Fun of It: Stories from The Talk of the Town, Nostalgia for the Bygone Days of Family Feuding, Rebecca Meade

So, some time ago, I pointed this out to some lefties and I got “good for her!” “Way to go”. Assault is fine..when “your” side does it. At least, a non-zero percentage of people think that way. And that is nothing new. Remember what happened in the United States Senate?

On May 22, 1856, the “world’s greatest deliberative body” became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate’s entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness.

The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his “Crime Against Kansas” speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a “noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator.” Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator’s stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking “a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean,” added Sumner, “the harlot, Slavery.”

Representative Preston Brooks was Butler’s South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his “Crime Against Kansas” speech.

Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner’s head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.

Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.

From Wikipedia:

Conversely, Brooks was praised by Southern newspapers. The Richmond Enquirer editorialized that Sumner should be caned “every morning”, praising the attack as “good in conception, better in execution, and best of all in consequences” and denounced “these vulgar abolitionists in the Senate” who “have been suffered to run too long without collars. They must be lashed into submission.” Southerners sent Brooks hundreds of new canes in endorsement of his assault. One was inscribed “Hit him again.”[32]

As much as I’d love to tar conservatives as being stupid, evil people…I’ll reluctantly admit that this is really more of a reflection of the dark side of humanity which exists in a variety of social and political circles.

May 27, 2017 Posted by | politics, politics/social, social/political | Leave a comment

Reporters Trump and behavior

Last night, I responded to a Yglesias tweet about the Montana candidate who ended up physically attacking a reporter. I had read the campaign statement and was under the impression that the reporter had crashed a private event.

Yes, I know, physical violence is wrong but I still believe that reporters don’t have license to go where ever they want.
So I said “Bad overreaction, but that the reporter went onto private property, uninvited. Reporters need to respect boundaries.” which, predictably, lead to some responses, many of which were emotional and dumb.
I used the block function a couple of times.

BUT, I ended up talking to some cool people too and gained a couple of more “non-public” people to follow.

But this brings me back to reporters. I still remember this:

Yes, a private function has a right to exclude people. If this seems harsh, remember that the same rules apply if, say, a NewsMax or Fox “reporter” tried to crash and disrupt a press conference devoted to science to interject completely inappropriate questions and remarks.

But speaking of behavior, get a load of this:

https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/867758571882258432/video/1

This man is emotionally unfit for the office.

May 25, 2017 Posted by | political/social, politics, politics/social, social/political | , | Leave a comment

Removal of Trump from office: yes, there is a downside

First of all, I have no training in law; I do not know (for sure) whether Trump did anything impeachable or not. It appears to me that he violated his oath of office in at least 3 areas: violation of the emoluments clause, obstruction of justice (trying to hinder the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion with Russia during the election) and his grotesquely reckless giving “beyond top secret” information to Russia (though he DOES have the power to do so).

I have read that while the Constitution says “High crimes and misdemeanors” as the standard,

Fifth, this may well be a violation of the President’s oath of office. Questions of criminality aside, we turn to the far more significant issues: If the President gave this information away through carelessness or neglect, he has arguably breached his oath of office. As Quinta and Ben have elaborated on in some detail, in taking the oath President Trump swore to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” to the best of his ability. It’s very hard to argue that carelessly giving away highly sensitive material to an adversary foreign power constitutes a faithful execution of the office of President.

Violating the oath of office does not require violating a criminal statute. If the President decided to write the nuclear codes on a sticky note on his desk and then took a photo of it and tweeted it, he would not technically have violated any criminal law–just as he hasn’t here. He has the constitutional authority to dictate that the safeguarding of nuclear materials shall be done through sticky notes in plain sight and tweeted, even the authority to declassify the codes outright. Yet, we would all understand this degree of negligence to be a gross violation of his oath of office.

And yes, I find this convincing.

The downside: the biggest one for me is that if Trump leaves office before his term is up (whatever reason) then:

1. He is going to be replaced by a conservative, and almost certainly, one with a lot more political skill. That is, the Republicans will still control both chambers of Congress and the executive AND have someone who is better situated in getting their agenda passed.

2. The replacement will have a good shot at reelection and

3. The Republicans in Congress can play the “we placed patriotism over party” card and probably better positioned to retain their seats.

So there are political minefields here. BUT, right now, I am worried about disaster and would trade Trump for some conservative who is more emotionally stable and rational, even if it hurts us politically.

I still see impeachment as a longshot though:

And yet, outside the inner circle of Republicans with access to the commander-in-chief, Trump’s popularity remains respectable, even solid. The conservative base is largely unaware of the constant revelations of Trump’s gross incompetence, or has been trained to ignore them as propaganda emanating from the administration’s enemies in the deep state or the liberal media. In red America, Trump remains a hero at best, and a competent, normal president at worst.

Recognizing competence is not a strength of red America. Remember that Trump was elected by people who see Trump as themselves, had they been born into money. And many of them probably sincerely believe that THEY could do a competent job as president.

Workout notes weights, 2 mile run, 3 mile walk.
weights: rotator cuff, 5 x 10 pull ups, incline presses: 10 x 135, 7 x 150, 3 x 160 (strict hips), military: 20 x 50 dumbbell (seated, supported), 2 sets of 10 x 45, rows: Hammer: 3 sets of 10 x 200. headstand.

run: 20 minutes (2.08) 10:38 mile 1, 19:16 mile 2 (6.7 at 8 minutes then up by .1 ever .25 miles)
walk: 5K Bradley Park course (easy)

May 17, 2017 Posted by | political/social, politics, politics/social, republicans, republicans political/social, running, social/political, walking, weight training | | Leave a comment

We will always talk past one another

Interesting. I see things like this:

Or read articles like this one (about conflating affordable health care with personal responsibility)

Or even articles like this one (saying that our growing economic inequality is making us more and more like a 3’rd world country).

And often, my conservative friends and I agree on the facts. Seriously. The issues are:

1. Ok, who is to blame for this? Yes, that is an important question (*) thought that might sound strange.

2. Ok, what is the best way forward toward resolving this problem?

It appears to me that, in general, conservatives assign more agency to the individual. For example: are people behaving responsibly, or are they, say, just going around and making women pregnant without having any means of supporting a kid? Yes, that DOES happen:

Among low-income, unwed parents, having children with more than one partner is now the norm. One long-running study found that in nearly 60 percent of the unwed couples who had a baby, at least one parent already had a child with another partner.

Note: this article is from a “bleeding heart” perspective; it goes on to attempt to absolve such “fathers” of their behavior.

Poor health? It is undeniably true that, at least statistically speaking, much of our poor health comes from terrible habits (overeating smoking, etc.).

So, our conservative friends tend to trace many of our social problems to defects in human behavior rather than as something that society bears direct responsibility for.

And you know what? I don’t see our conservative friends as being completely wrong or as being crazy.

Why do I remain a liberal? For one, there is evidence that demand side economics works (stimulation at the bottom of the economy indeed trickles up) and well planned public aid at the bottom of the economy can reduce the chances of ending up on it later in life.

Another reason is that, statistically speaking, pathological social behavior tends to follow poverty rather than be the cause of it. Some evidence for this theory: look at what has happened within some previously non-poor groups.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that I think that people don’t have agency or bear some personal responsibility. I still exercise and carry out my professional duties, and my degrees were not handed to me. I worked for them (while enjoying, yes, taxpayer funded subsidies which I want others to have access to as well).

But those born in harsh socio-economic circumstances have a much, much smaller margin of error and effort only goes so far.

Think of it this way: I could probably improve my running my losing, say, 30 lbs. and running more and running harder. But there is NOTHING I could do to become competitive. My effort can move the needle, but only so much.

And it is my opinion that those born into the bottom can only escape with an enormous amount of effort, and those who do are probably those with an almost an outlier amount of talent.
Of course, it happens, but right now, it is my opinion that it is, for structural reasons, an event whose probably is too low to be considered “fair and just”.

Sure, some who have no excuse fail anyway. There will always some of these. And given a level playing field, some will always do a whole lot better than others. I accept that.
But I don’t see the playing field as being level.

(*) if you disagree that “blame” is not important, ask yourself this: two people need a new liver to be able to live. One is a typical person who got an unfortunate disease. Another is someone who suffered internal injuries while they were attempting a robbery. Who gets priority?

workout notes: weights then an easy 3 mile walk outside (too pretty not to)
rotator cuff, pull ups (5 sets of 10), bench press: 10 x 135, 4 x 185, 8 x 170 (empty gym, no spotters..had to stay conservative), incline: 10 x 135, military: 20 x 50 dumbbell, seated, supported, 2 sets of 10 x 45 standing, rows: 3 sets of 10 x 200 Hammer machine.
Abs: 2 sets of 12 twist crunch, 10 yoga leg lifts, 10 moving bridges. Headstand (relatively easy today).
And goblet squats (between upper body stuff): 5 x (25, 25, 45, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70). These ARE getting easier.

May 15, 2017 Posted by | politics, politics/social, social/political, walking, weight training | Leave a comment

Liberal: ok, you are angry. But guess what: No. One. Cares.

Ok, maybe this isn’t exactly accurate. If you live in a Congressional district that is represented by a Democrat or if your Senators (or one of them) are Democrats..they might, especially if they have a primary election to worry about.

And yeah, I understand venting to friends; I do that all of the time. And your friends and loved ones probably care.

But Republicans do not care at all…or wait…they might even delight in your anger.

But think about it: in general, the world cares about you to the extent that it can get something out of you.

Yeah, you might be able to, say, jam things up by blocking a highway..but wow, that worked didn’t it? Those primary/election Trump protests worked really well didn’t they? BLM disruptions? Great..now we have a neo-confederate as an Attorney General. How is THAT for improving things?

Bottom line: if you are one of those who doesn’t have money to spend, why should a company care about you or what you think?
If you aren’t someone’s boss: why would they care about what you think?

So go ahead an rant your heart out.

But if you have nothing worth having to offer, no one (aside from a few loved ones and friends) is going to care what you think.

If we don’t win Congress (or at least one chamber in 2018)…or at least drive Trump to quit the presidency….all for nothing.

Workout notes: easy 5K in West Peoria before a loooooong graduation ceremony. Ugh. At least there is the ballgame tonight.

May 13, 2017 Posted by | politics/social, running, social/political | | Leave a comment

The appeal of Trump, data analytics and all that…

Still working on finals; taking a break. Workouts are logged at the end of this post.

Trump and data miningFor me, this is, at once, both spooky and awe inspiring. Remember that Trump won the key Electoral College states by a whisker so even a 1 percent shift was HUGE. These go into how it was done, at least in terms of data mining, false news planting and the like. (here, and here) Trump’s people knew who to target, what fake news to show them and how to motivate their people to get to the polls.

And I have to hand it to the Republicans: they know that many vote their resentments and they know how to turn resentments away from the upper, upper classes to the far less wealthy “professional classes”.

And surprisingly enough, I can see it. Think about the “data mining” links I posted. Who paid for that and set it up? That’s right: multi-millionaires to billionaires. But who do you see wagging their fingers at you and calling you a bigot because you, say, are uncomfortable with…oh, say, transgender rights (say, to use a locker room)? Who is enforcing, uh, “political correctness” at the workplace?

People like villains that they can see.

And I get it. Look at the push-back against the House health care law I am seeing on my feed. Almost exclusively, it is “poor person X saying that YOU need to pay more in tax because THEIR kid needs it”. Yes, the other “not-so-well-off” find the message appealing. At times, it really does seem that the liberal message is “hey, high income earner: you need to pay more in tax to fund MY poor life choices”.

Yes, yes, yes, reality is way more nuanced than that, but I am talking about appearances and emotions here.

Yes, I don’t like Trump and I even gave the Clinton campaign some money (and, of course, voted for her). But it is easy for me to dislike Trump (as a President anyway) because I put a high premium on being factual and on technical competence; for example, had the race been between Mitt Romney and Jill Stein, I would have voted for Romney even though I agree with Stein on more issues.

And yes, “demand side” economics makes more sense to me, and the stimulus that society gets by being a bit more generous with safety net stuff is worth the price of funding a small percentage of slackers and no-good-for-nothings (and yes, they are there and yes, many get public aid).

Workout notes Monday: am, weights: rotator cuff, pull ups (5 sets of 10; last one was 5-5), bench press: 10 x 135, 5 x 185, 8 x 170, incline: 10 x 135, military: 20 x 50 dumbbell (seated, supported), 10 x 45, 10 x 45 standing, rows: 3 sets of 10 x 110 machine. goblet squats: 5 x (25, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70).

Later: walk (5K, Bradley Park)

Today: 1:49:40 for my 15K course; 47:56, 47:26 were the two “just over 4” segments. Cool and sunny, but it was a shuffle; legs were somewhat tired from the squats yesterday.

May 9, 2017 Posted by | politics, politics/social, running, social/political, walking, weight training | | Leave a comment

Ok, Obamacare repeal passes the House..what next? Malthus lives on…

Here are a couple of good articles which explain what must happen for this bill to become law: it needs a CBO score, then it needs to be determined if this bill meets the rules for reconciliation AND it can even get 50 Republican votes. (Washington Post, Scientific American)

My guess: House moderate Republicans changed their minds because, unlike the ACA, this is unlikely to become law in its current form. So, while the ACA passage cost the Democrats many, many seats, this bill, if it dies or becomes unrecognizable, might not cost the Republicans nearly as much.

Besides, the biggest threat to many Republicans is a primary challenge, NOT the general election.

My guess: the Senate will have to make some tweaks to both get to 50 votes AND to meet reconciliation rules, and that tweaked bill might not survive a second round in the House. I’ll be watching carefully.

Oh, my feed is full of “those heartless Republicans” but these pleas are likely to fall on deaf ears. The elite Republicans have always had a bit of a social Darwinist element to their reasoning.

You see life is hard, it is risky and many do not make it. If you are one of those, well, that is sad, and perhaps a charity might help you out. But that is NOT “our problem”.

This sentiment is expressed by former US Representative Joe Walsh:

Republicans in office cannot say this directly, but he can. Believe me, many of the wealthy Republicans think this way.

There are assets and debits. If you cannot contribute due to either age or disability AND aren’t wealthy, well, you are a debit, not a credit. So society is better off not supporting you. Reverend Malthus would be proud.

Workout notes:
rotator cuff, pull ups (ugly got 10-10-10-10-(5-5), incline presses (10 x 135, 5 x 135, 4 x 135, strict hips), military: 20 x 50 (dumbbell) seated, supported, 2 sets of 10 x 45 standing (dumbbell), 3 sets of 10 x 110 row machine.

2 mile run: 10:36/19:14 via 8 minutes of 2-2-2-2, then 6.7 until mile 1, 6.8-7.1 and 7.2 for the last 46 seconds.

Then goblet squats (100 meter walk recoveries) 50-45-50-60-50-65 (5 reps). Took two sets to get to the proper depth.

Now: onward to see my daughter graduate and finish final exams.

May 4, 2017 Posted by | health care, Personal Issues, politics, politics/social, republicans, republicans political/social, republicans politics, running, social/political, weight training | Leave a comment

Conflicted about Trump and Clinton

Trump: yeah, he is incompetent, but is his incompetence stopping bad policy from happening? And what in the hell will happen if/when we have a crisis? Or, will Trump’s ego be leveraged into eventually, say, fixing our infrastructure and/or getting a universal health care plan?

Clinton: So many factors lead to her loss, including campaign missteps, her baggage, her lack of what I call “personal campaign talent” (she lacks the “show-biz” aspect that Obama and Bill Clinton has and she has no Teflon at all; she is like Al Gore in that everything, fair and unfair, sticks)

On the other hand: Russian collusion and the Comey letter, plus the weirdness of our Electoral College..and yes, Trump’s brilliant campaign (yes, it WAS that..as much as I ridiculed it).

Now if you say “what about misogyny”, I believe that you have to win elections with the electorate you have; you can’t change the hearts of those at the polls. If you think that misogyny is the overriding factor, are you prepared to nominate only male candidates? I am not.

Oh yeah, and our media sucked…then again, in a capitalist society, the “perception of fairness” is important to circulation, unless you are part of the political media.

Anyway, here is the full interview of Hillary Clinton. It takes 35 minutes. The best part of it is where she discusses the situation in North Korea and toward the end, when she explains that so many of the issues (say, jobs, health care, and internet access) are important and GO TOGETHER. But long term strategy is not sexy enough to be put on a bumper sticker.

Workout notes weights then a nice 10K walk (untimed) weights: rotator cuff, pull ups: (2 sets of 5-5-5, 2 sets of 10), (change grip on the 5-5-5), bench press: 10 x 135, 5 x 185, 8 x 170, military (dumbbell) 20 x 50 seated, supported, 2 sets of 10 x 45, rows: 3 x 110 machine, machine incline: 2 sets of 10: 140 and 150. Abs: 2 sets of 12 twist crunch, 10 yoga leg lifts, 10 moving bridges, headstand (surprisingly easy),
goblet squats: sets of 5: 25, 45, 45, 45, 45, 50, 60 65. These went well, as did the walk.

May 3, 2017 Posted by | politics/social, social/political, walking, weight training | 1 Comment

Democrats: always a tough sell…

I’ve spent some time on twitter discussing the 2016 election, and the fine line between critiquing the Clinton campaign (which, IMHO, was terrible) and Hillary Clinton herself (yes, I STILL think that she would be a good president) and going over the various factors that worked against her (sexism of some, Russian collusion, Comey’s ill timed letter, and yes, Trump’s campaign skill, which, IMHO, was underrated).

I might post a link to that long twitter conversation because it started with hostility and ended with understanding; I found myself actually liking the people I was talking to. That is always a good thing.

And so that was true…Obama understood the showmanship side of campaigning AND had the knowledge and deportment to be a good president. Trump has only the showmanship to get elected.

But think about what a tough sell the Democrats have. Read the Facebook feed of liberals sometime. What do you see:

1. People advocating for the poor
2. People advocating for those with criminal records (as my IL-House representative is…and she too has a criminal record)
3. People advocating for someone with this disability or that challenge

On the other hand, Republican politicians usually preach “success” and “achievement”. They deride liberals as those who want to take from the successful and give to the losers and slackers.

Now riddle me this: which “club” would YOU rather belong to? And when someone speaks, who would you take more seriously: someone who is chronically on welfare or someone who has some professional success?

Now, yes, there are those with Nobel prizes in subjects (science, economics, medicine) who are liberal and one doesn’t get more successful than that. And many of my liberal friends hold advanced degrees and/or professional credentials. So we have some success on our side too. But the politicians never say “vote Democrat to become more like someone with an advanced degree”; it is almost “vote Democrat to help out some single mom or someone making minimum wage”. Advocating for those on the lower runs of society will always be a very tough sell, IMHO. And at the national level, we are going to need a Bill Clinton /Barack Obama caliber politician to pull it off.

April 20, 2017 Posted by | Democrats, politics/social, social/political | | 2 Comments

Introspection: good medicine, though not everyone agrees…

A book called Shattered has caused a mini-sensation in some Democratic circles:

Donald J. Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in November came as a shock to the world. Polls, news reports and everything the Clinton campaign was hearing in the final days pointed to her becoming the first female president in American history.

In their compelling new book, “Shattered,” the journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes write that Clinton’s loss suddenly made sense of all the reporting they had been doing for a year and a half — reporting that had turned up all sorts of “foreboding signs” that often seemed at odds, in real time, with indications that Clinton was the favorite to win. Although the Clinton campaign was widely covered, and many autopsies have been conducted in the last several months, the blow-by-blow details in “Shattered” — and the observations made here by campaign and Democratic Party insiders — are nothing less than devastating, sure to dismay not just her supporters but also everyone who cares about the outcome and momentous consequences of the election.

Now this has been tough to talk about in public. IF you dare bring this up and your list of “social media” friends includes followers of liberal/Democratic politics, you’ll get the following:

1. Some will tell you how unelectable HRC was from the get-go and how we should have rallied around BERNIE (no, I am not making this up)
2. Some will bring up the very real factors of Russian collusion (a fact) and the Comey letter (another fact) and mention sexism/misogyny and say that was IT, period.

Many are simply not open to the fact that, even given that a woman is going to have a tougher time of it than a man, and given the Comey letter and Russian collusion, the Clinton campaign WAS a disaster; they neglected areas were Obama campaigned hard. Evidently, HRC and company learned nothing from the 2008 primary. If one remembers: the 2008 primary was essentially tied after Super Tuesday. But the Obama campaign had set up field offices in the next 10 states; HRC did not and she got creamed and fell hopelessly behind in the delegate race. When she recovered, it became even from there on out (more or less) but she was in too deep of a hole to catch up.

So, Clinton campaign incompetence is all too easy to believe.

And one wonders: where was OUR Cambridge Analytics “get out the vote” operation?

I liken it to a football team that goes on the road, gets a few bad calls and loses a close game. Sure, the bad calls matter, but so do the unforced fumbles and missed field goals. It is several things, and the race should have never been close enough to lose to begin with.

And yes, the loser of the election (with perhaps the exception of Walter Mondale, who had zero chance against Reagan) gets raked over the coals. That comes with the territory.

Sure, Hillary Clinton has had an outstanding career; she not only won a major party nomination, but was a Senator and a Secretary of State. That is awesome. She is a success. But she is NOT a natural politician (as she admitted) and her final two campaigns still stunk.

And this leads to the concept of introspection: I’ve found that, at least on a personal level, I benefit from looking at my failures and asking myself: “what could I have done better”? “what will I do differently next time?”

No, this is NOT the same thing as “self loathing”; after all, beating myself up for not being as smart as Stephen Hawking or being a professional athlete is useless (not that I don’t do it anyway, from time to time). But what I am talking about is my critiquing myself when I fall short of MY potential.

And, frankly, I am surprised at how many do NOT see this as a valuable thing to do. So many times, I see people blaming everyone else but themselves (other people, society for not appreciating them, etc.). I’ve never seen that turn out well, but people do it all of the time.

Workout notes yesterday, weights and a 2 mile walk.
Weights: rotator cuff, pull ups (5 sets of 10, easy), bench press: 10 x 135, 5 x 185, 4 x 185 (no spotter), incline: 10 x 135, military (dumbbell): 20 x 50 seated, supported, 10 x 45, 10 x 40, rows: 3 sets of 10 x 110, abs: 2 sets of 10 yoga leg lifts, 12 twist crunches, head stand , goblet squats (sets of 5) warm up, 45, 45, 55, 55, 60, 65.

today: easy 5 mile run after dropping Barbara off.

Better get to grading: I want to watch baseball tonight!

April 18, 2017 Posted by | politics, politics/social, running, social/political, walking, weight training | , | Leave a comment