blueollie

Health care: I can live with some inequality

Ok, we know that the House attempt to kill Obamacare went down in flames; you had the “Freedom Caucus” who did not want any sort of government involvement at versus some moderates who didn’t want to see so many kicked off of insurance.

So, were do we go from here? Some populists are actually ok with some sort of universal coverage (think: “Medicaid for all”). I do not think that the populists are really free market types who are opposed to a single payer type solution. It is more tribal than that:

I think that perhaps too many of them see others from their tribe as being unworthy slackers and losers. But will enough of them move past that? We shall see.

I wonder if there is a way to play to President Trump’s ego and need for adulation…let HIM be the one that “finally got it done” and got us something like universal health care.

So what would such a plan might look like?

I could see some sort of “basic health care for all” with the option of people either getting some extras on their own. I could live with that, provided the “extras” really were extra.

Example: you get cancer, you get good treatment; the full works.

But if you’ve reached the point where you are semi-conscious, have no realistic chance of pulling out of it, but you want to spend the last month of your life in a semi-conscious state, hooked up to machines …well…that you can have a private policy to pay for. If you want to spend your insurance premium money so you can die on silk sheets, go for it.

Workout notes 4 mile walk on dead legs.

March 24, 2017 Posted by | health care, politics/social, social/political, walking | | Leave a comment

Conversation Starter

This is from the Chief’s Instagram feed. Yeah, believe it or not, what I picked up on HAS started conversations (indirectly) and, in at least a case or two, lead to a friendship, one of which is still current (I think)! Weird, huh?

But this does remind me that Bradley’s home baseball schedule starts this weekend and the Chiefs aren’t that far behind.

Workout notes:

Morning: a bit later than normal. But weights went fine:
rotator cuff
pull ups (5 sets of 10, determined)
bench press: 10 x 135, 6 x 185, 10 x 170 (good)
incline press: 10 x 135 (reasonably strict)
military press: dumbbell: 10 x 50 standing, 10 x 45, machine: 10 x 100 (each arm)
rows: 3 x 110 machine
goblet squats: warm up, sets of 5, 0, 25, 45, 45, 50, 60, 60, 60
abs: 2 sets of 12 twist crunch, 10 yoga leg lifts, head stand (up more quickly than usual).

Walk: Cornstalk classic 4 miler.

March 22, 2017 Posted by | big butts, walking, weight training | Leave a comment

A very common type of Trump supporter…

I know it is common to mock Trump supporters as being very wealthy people (e. g. CEOs) interested in getting their “low tax and deregulation” wish list fulfilled or as very dumb, poor people voting against their own interests. I’ve written about those two types of supporters.

But there is another large class of Trump supporters: people who, while not unusually educated, are not poor either. One might think of a factory foreman or perhaps a senior enlisted person in the military.

They are somewhat wealthier than the average American and, realistically, a bit above average in IQ. I was reminded of this type of Trump supporter when I read a comment on a physics professor’s Facebook page:

Rory, I’m a graduate Engineer. I was an Electronic Technician for years before I became an Engineer. I encountered this academic blindness on my first day of “Theory of Electrical Design.” My University professor began the class teaching that Electricity flowed from Positive to Negative because all things must flow “downhill.” I laughed. I had learned that electrons are responsible for electricity and, being negatively charged, they always flow from Negative to Positive AND I had built and repaired many a radio, radar and computer SUCCESSFULLY using this methodology. However, my Professor could/would not accept that fact! He had only heard his theoretical approach (I call it the “hole” theory) and I had to accept his POV in order to pass his class. He had never operated on any electronic devices and did not CARE how things worked in the real world (where I earned my living). It was difficult for him to see anything except theory and he was blind to any other POV. I, on the other hand, once I saw that if I reversed all my polarity signs, I could make the Math work for the sake of a passing the exam. I have other examples of Academic blindness insisting that Reality must change for the sake of their personally proven theory.

This is where you and I are. I have outer world experience in what works. You are an academic professional. You’ve lived inside this academic ‘bubble’ so long, you think I’M mad. The others following your page who delight in slander, emotional name calling, and illogical phraseology because they do not understand me, are different than you or I. There is no hope for them. But I extend this essay in the hope you might see some possibility of value to another view of reality. You see, from where I sit, it is not my view that contradicts the way Reality works, it is yours. And what, may I point out, is one definition of “Mental Illness” but a mental attitude that shuts out reality? With hopes we can exchange some meaningful dialogue, I offer you my Best wishes, Jon

Now, the person who wrote this probably has a somewhat above average IQ, though well below that of the physics professor he was addressing (who is a national class level researcher).

Now here is what is going on: when one teaches, say, circuit analysis to those who do not have a college mathematics and physics background, one must simplify. And at least in the Navy (and perhaps in other places), they are taught an “electron current” theory of electricity. This is more intuitive for them; they can visualize (so they think) little electrons (thought of as, well, small particles) flowing from one place to another.

Because using this convention and simplification allowed for this person to do electronic work, well, that must be “real world”.

In fact, current was defined before electrons were, and the standard electrodynamic theory has current “flowing” in the other direction. That is the universal definition among scientists and engineers and, at the university level and above, that is what *should* be taught.

But oh no…this individual, while not dumb, was terribly ignorant of “what was out there” and not curious enough to learn.

And what of the basic science behind the electronic components that he was able to tinker with during his “technician” days? Did that just appear from a burning bush? Nah, to this obstinate fool, well, that is some “no common sense professor” with his nose too deeply in the book to appreciate REAL WORLD stuff.

Anyhow, there are a lot of Trump supporters like this one. The conclusions that they have reached in their respective limited spheres and limited experiences override expert opinion, especially if that expert opinion is counter-intuitive to them.

Workout notes: 58:36 for a 5 mile walk on the treadmill; it felt fine.

March 20, 2017 Posted by | politics, politics/social, social/political, walking | 2 Comments

Thinking about poverty…

This was a 2014 Alternet article about poverty. That, plus reading some of the status updates of some of my friends helps me have a better understanding.

This is why: yes, there were times when I was short on money. But these were usually “between guaranteed jobs” times or “graduate student” times; one still had health insurance and still knew that a job was on the way. That makes a difference.

And of the poor people I actually know: well, many families have that “one or two” deadbeats that just mooches off of everyone else. They had the same parents, often had the same opportunities (and even got degrees in some cases) and even got the same inheritances …and blew it. Some sat by you in school. Others even had parents who made six figure incomes. And yet they failed and continue to fail, no matter how many times they are bailed out.

But this is the hazard of extrapolating from what one knows; it just doesn’t work that way for many of the working poor.

Workout notes: easy 5 mile walk at my “quick pace” outside. I felt yesterday’s leg workout.

March 19, 2017 Posted by | political/social, poverty, social/political, walking | Leave a comment

NIT “fever”: Illinois and Illinois State games

It is my spring break and so I took advantage to catch a couple of NIT games.

The first one was Illinois vs. Valparaiso in Champaign.

Ticket demand was low, so I was able to get “club sets” right at midcourt. Only 4700 people (or so) showed up (capacity: 16,000) but those that did were boisterous. And more importantly, the Illini showed up and won 82-57 in a a game that was even more lopsided than the score might indicate (and the final spread was 25!) Valpo was without their best player, who had a broken foot.

People wondered if the Illini would have any competitive fire as they were drummed out of the Big Ten tournament and their coach was fired. But they played well and dominated from start to finish. They hit the 3, dominated inside, etc.

The arena (State Farm Center) looks eerie from the outside:

We had club seats, which gave me access to a “10 dollars for a large meatball sub, with potato wedges, salad and dessert” (which I did not have). But it was a nice meal for an arena.

We had great midcourt seats.

And my long suffering spouse seemed to enjoy it.

Overall, it was as nice as the NBA arena we went to (at least as far as watching the game).

And the tickets were all of 22 dollars (plus some fees, which put the price to 28).

BUT, yes, there were empty seats…a LOT of them as you can see.


Yes, it was disappointment, plus the coach being fired, plus…a 6 pm start due to TV.

Next day: Illinois State vs. California-Irvine, 8:30 pm start.

Once again, you had a disappointed team as Illinois State felt that they deserved an NCAA bid (and I did too). But they had a nice match up vs. the California-Irvine Anteaters. This pitted the Missouri Valley Champions versus the Big West Champions.

And while ISU won 85-71, the game was only a 6 point game with 11 minutes to go. It was much more competitive than the previous game.

In a nutshell: great outside shooting forced the Anteaters away from their “large” lineup (they had a 7′ 2″ center and a 6′ 10″ forward). That opened up the inside for repeated “Alley-Oop” dunks; I counted about a half-dozen of those or so. Hot outside shooting by the Cal-Irvine guards kept them in the game, but it wasn’t enough.

My seat (just me this time) was at the top of the lower bowl: not as fancy as the Illinois arena but still a very, very nice place to watch a basketball game.

Though the lower bowl was well filled, there were still quite a few empties in the upper bowl. They drew 5100 fans in the 10,200 capacity arena. The 8:30 pm start didn’t help.

Commentary

Yes, low attendance was due to the NIT being a “second rate” tournament to begin with (by definition); a consolation prize for those teams left out of the NCAA. And yes, you did have one coach being fired.
BUT, look at the start times: “barely enough time to make it from work” in one case (6 pm…LOTS of old people) and 8:30..kind of late for those who work the next day (again, LOTS of old people).

Why? The fact is that, while more people in the arena is nice, say, even 4000 more people at a marginal profit of, say, 10 dollars a ticket (upper bowl prices) is 40,000 dollars extra, which is peanuts compared to what television pays out.

The money is in television. Hence the next round of games for me is….MONDAY NIGHT…Illinois State at 6, Illinois at 8. Needless to say, I had to choose..and I got a group of 4 to go to the Illinois State game. They wouldn’t play on the weekend because that is when the NCAA games are…television.

Back in the days when television wasn’t the driving factor (many NIT games weren’t televised), start times were more convenient for the fans; the NCAA on TV wouldn’t be much of a factor in scheduling.

So…expect to see more empty seats as in this day and age, “in person” fans are really a “nice to have” afterthought. TV pays the bills.

Fortunately, I can move office hours (to a more popular time) and make at least one of the games; most people do not have that luxury.

And who knows; maybe next year my team will be in postseason of some sort? Making the CIT or CBI would be a decent goal, and I enjoy the last time I went to those games.

Workout notes
3 mile walk outside (too pleasant not to) and weights: rotator cuff,
pull ups (5 sets of 10, much better)
bench press: 10 x 135, 6 x 185 (good), 8 x 170
military press: 10 x 50 standing dumbbell, 10 x 45 standing dumbbell, 10 x 90 (each arm) machine.
rows: 3 sets of 10 x 110 machine
incline press: Hammer, 10 x 160 (80 each arm), 8 x 160, 10 x 140

Weight: 197.2 before (199.8 with shoes, shorts, shirt)

March 16, 2017 Posted by | basketball, walking, weight training | | Leave a comment

Pitts: What if we just don’t like each other…

Today’s article by Leonard Pitts starts off as follows:

So this driver is stopped at an intersection. A pedestrian is dawdling in the crosswalk. Driver leans out the window and yells, “Get out of the street, you damned liberal!”

It’s been years since I read that in a magazine. I can’t remember if it was a true story, though I think it was. But even if only apocryphal, the picture it paints of American acrimony in the post-millennial years is true beyond mere facts.

As such, it leaves me questioning the likely impact of two recent well-intentioned pleas for ideological outreach. Joan Blades, co-founder of the liberal activist group Moveon.org, wrote an essay for The Christian Science Monitor, asking progressives to stretch beyond their left-wing comfort zones and “love thy neighbor.” And New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof warned the left against a tendency to “otherize” Donald Trump voters.

I’ve got no real argument with Kristof or Blades. It’s a noble gesture they’re making. It occurs to me, though, that none of this addresses a question that has come to seem obvious:

What if the problem is simply that we just don’t like each other?

As I’ve said often, our acrimony is not political. It’s not about tax rates, government regulation or even abortion rights. No, this is elemental. This is about the city versus the country, higher education versus a mistrust thereof, Christian fundamentalism versus secular humanism. And it is about social change versus status quo.

I recommend reading the rest.

That got me to thinking about some things I’ve seen and read.

1. Some time ago, a friend (fellow liberal) posted a photo of an old-to-middle-aged white guy with a restored antique 3-wheel vehicle …and talked about him being “a douche” though her only contact with him was, well that photo. Later I asked my wife if she had seen the photo….and she replied “of the creepy guy”?

2. I thought about my own reaction when I saw some elderly (ok, not THAT much older than I) men with a Trump hat or a Trump shirt. Yes, I felt a snarling contempt. I noted that I was in much, much better condition than they were…then I recalled I know some Trump voters who are my age (or slightly older) who can run and walk circles around me; in one case, his 100 mile walk pace would be a decent marathon walk pace for me.

But, yeah, I am as tribal as anyone else, though my “tribe” really isn’t purely political.

I have Republican friends, and by that I mean there are Republicans that I happily socialize with; one is a frequent, welcome dinner companion. I look forward to spending time with her.

BUT: she is secular, pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-science and very knowledgeable. She believes in public investment and knows that there is a time for a government to spend and at time for austerity (“basic macro”, she says). We have some disagreements on the degree to which businesses should be regulated and taxed. But we agree on quite a bit, especially on social values. Ok, ok, we disagree on some things too. 🙂

Then I think: what about the baseball and football games I attend? Almost every single time, I end up in a conversation with a fan about the game; I always enjoy these. And I can assure you, statistically speaking, at least some (most?) of those said fans vote differently than I do. But for the purposes of the game, we are in the same “tribe” (football or baseball fans)

I don’t know; maybe public events are a good way to bring different kinds of people together? After all, there really isn’t a black/white/conservative/liberal way to discuss the action in a football game.

Same thing with running races: I KNOW that many of my running/walking friends have different politics than I do. But our experiences..our way of encouraging each other to bring out the best in each other really isn’t partisan.

Workout notes
weights then a 4 mile walk (28:00 first 2, 26:41 second 2: 54:41 for 4).

Weights: rotator cuff
pull ups: 5 sets of 10…very careful in the “recovery” motion to protect my arm.
bench press: 10 x 135, 5 x 185, 8 x 170 (very conservative)
incline press: 10 x 135
military presses: standing, 10 x 50 dumbbell, 6 x 50 standing dumbbell, 10 x 45
rows: 3 sets of 10 x 110 machine
squats: lots of free squats, then 3 x 5 with 45, 2 x 50 goblet, 2 x 60 goblet
leg presses: 10 x 250
abs: 2 sets of 12 twist crunch, 10 yoga leg lifts
headstand: ok, but was distracted getting into it.

March 14, 2017 Posted by | Friends, political/social, social/political, walking, weight training | Leave a comment

The unpopularity of the Democratic Party

Yes, President Trump has historically low approval ratings (for it being this early in his administration).

That is undeniable. (this graph is via Gallup).

But ..the Democratic party...rates even LOWER

Of course, the Bernie Bros are claiming “see, you need to become more like Bernie” and they cite articles like this one:

But what this apparently means to the people who are calling for unity is getting behind the corporate, suit and tie, lobbyist-driven agenda of the establishment. But let me break it to you – the establishment has almost no grassroots momentum. Virtually every progressive grassroots movement in America right now is fueled by people outside of the Democratic Party establishment and this is a huge reason why the party is so outrageously unpopular.

Huge grassroots movements, made up of millions and millions of people, are fueling the fight for a $15 minimum wage, fighting back against fossil fuels and the Dakota Access Pipeline, fighting to end fracking, fighting to remove lobbyist money from politics, fighting to end senseless wars and international violence, fighting for universal healthcare, fighting for the legalization of marijuana, fighting for free college tuition, fighting against systems of mass incarceration, and so much more. But mainstream Democrats aren’t really a central part of any of those battles, and, to be clear, each of those issues have deep networks, energized volunteers, and serious donors, but corporate Democrats virtually ignore them.

In the past two months, I’ve spoken in a dozen states around the country and thousands of people show up. Wednesday night, in the freezing rain, lines were wrapped around multiple city blocks to attend an event I was hosting at a local Seattle high school. We literally formed the event a few days ago on Facebook and didn’t spend a single penny putting it together.

This is a breath-taking amount of ignorance. Yes, “activists” really love those things and have energy. But a tiny percentage of people can be a lot of people in a country of 320 million. That, by no stretch of the imagination, translates into something the electorate will rally around.

Riddle me this: how did left wingers do in the past election? Example: Russ Feingold lost by a larger margin than Hillary Clinton did in Wisconsin.

While left wing populism might be very inspirational to a small percentage of the population, it really isn’t a winning political coalition:

On November 20, less than two weeks after Donald Trump’s upset win, Bernie Sanders strode onto a stage at Boston’s Berklee Performance Center to give the sold-out audience his thoughts on what had gone so disastrously wrong for the Democratic Party.

Sanders had a simple answer. Democrats, he said, needed to field candidates who would unapologetically promise that they would be willing “to stand up with the working class of this country and … take on big-money interests.”

Democrats, in other words, would only be able to defeat Trump and others like him if they adopted an anti-corporate, unabashedly left-wing policy agenda. The answer to Trump’s right-wing populism, Sanders argued, was for the left to develop a populism of its own.

That’s a belief widely shared among progressives around the world. A legion of commentators and politicians, most prominently in the United States but also in Europe, have argued that center-left parties must shift further to the left in order to fight off right-wing populists such as Trump and France’s Marine Le Pen. Supporters of these leaders, they argue, are motivated by a sense of economic insecurity in an increasingly unequal world; promise them a stronger welfare state, one better equipped to address their fundamental needs, and they will flock to the left.

“[It’s] a kind of liberal myth,” Pippa Norris, a Harvard political scientist who studies populism in the United States and Europe, says of the Sanders analysis. “[Liberals] want to have a reason why people are supporting populist parties when their values are so clearly against progressive values in terms of misogyny, sexism, racism.”

The problem is that a lot of data suggests that countries with more robust welfare states tend to have stronger far-right movements. Providing white voters with higher levels of economic security does not tamp down their anxieties about race and immigration — or, more precisely, it doesn’t do it powerfully enough. For some, it frees them to worry less about what it’s in their wallet and more about who may be moving into their neighborhoods or competing with them for jobs.

Yeah, left wing populism and a focus on the poor and economic injustice may have worked…in 1932 when unemployment was at 25 percent!

But the reality is:

1. Most do not care all that much about the Dakota Access Pipeline
2. Most have little in common with those who are at risk of losing their Obamacare insurance (and many of these ignorant jackasses voted for Trump)
3. Most of us earn well above the minimum wage
4. Most are not Muslim and most do not have Muslim friends
5. Most of us do not care whether someone is offended by someone else using the “wrong” pronoun.
6. Most of us did not go out and have a bunch of kids that we could not afford to raise.

In fact, much of left wing populism appears to be a transfer of money from those who have achieved to “the unworthy”.

Oh, there are many good reasons for those programs; I happen to believe that wealth trickles up through the economy and NOT down; when the bottom of the economic ladder is better off, the rest of us are are better off. Personally, I want more people to be able to afford to send their kids to my university and to patronize the neighborhood businesses. There is evidence that poor kids that get SNAP do better than those who don’t.

But that is a difficult sell, especially to people like me, who have been raised on The Ant and the Grasshopper.

But there is more from the Vox article quoted above:

When Corbyn took control of Labour leadership last September, UKIP — Britain’s far-right, anti-EU party — had been in decline, netting around 10 percent in the Britain Elects poll aggregator. By the June 2016 Brexit vote over whether to leave the EU, UKIP’s numbers had risen to a little over 15 percent.

Corbyn and Labour publicly supported staying in the EU, but didn’t campaign for it particularly hard. It may not have mattered: Eric Kaufmann, a professor at the University of London who studies populism, looked at what Brexit voters said were the “most important” issues facing the UK. More than 40 percent said immigration; a scant 5 percent said “poverty and inequality.”

According to Kaufmann, this reflects an uncomfortable truth: The kind of voter who’s attracted to the far right just doesn’t care a whole lot about inequality and redistribution, Corbyn’s signature issues. Tacking left to win them over, as Corbyn has, is “a bad idea,” he told me in a phone conversation.

Yes, this is the United States, not the UK. But:

This, they hypothesized, was not an accident. People are only willing to support redistribution if they believe their tax dollars are going to people they can sympathize with. White voters, in other words, don’t want to spend their tax dollars on programs that they think will benefit black or Hispanic people.

The United States is marked by far more racial division than its European peers. Poverty, in the minds of many white Americans, is associated with blackness. Redistribution is seen through a racial lens as a result. The debate over welfare and taxes isn’t just about money, for these voters, but rather whether white money should be spent on nonwhites. “Hostility between races limits support for welfare,” Alesina, Glaeser, and Sacerdote conclude flatly in the paper.

Now, it’s been a decade and a half since this paper was published, so it’s possible the evidence has shifted. I called up Sacerdote to ask him whether any subsequent research has caused him to change his mind. His answer was firmly negative. “It’s almost sad that it’s held up so well,” he told me.

And I see it as being grimmer than this.

Take public education. One would expect teachers to have to have a basic standard of literacy, right? Well, in New York, the public education establishment is about to do away with a literacy test for teachers because…too many minorities are not passing the test!

New York state is poised to scrap a literacy test for people trying to become teachers, in part because an outsized percentage of black and Hispanic candidates were failing.

The state Board of Regents on Monday is expected to adopt the recommendation of a task force to eliminate the exam, known as the Academic Literacy Skills Test.

Critics of the exam said it is redundant and a poor predictor of who will succeed as a teacher.

Backers of the test say eliminating it could put weak teachers in classrooms.

Just 46 percent of Hispanic and 41 percent of black test takers passed it on the first try, compared with 64 percent of white candidates.

The test was among four assessments for prospective teachers introduced in the 2013-2014 school year.

(note to conservatives who might be laughing: I hope you are equally outraged at attempts to give creationism “equal time” in science curricula).

And so it goes. It is bad enough that we have racism in our population, but then we go and lead with our chin with stupid stuff like this. Guess whose kids those illiterate teachers will be teaching?

Workout notes: home treadmill (snow outside): 10 minute jog, then 50 minutes of “quick walking”; 5 miles in just about 1 hour (maybe 1:00:20 or so).

March 13, 2017 Posted by | 2016, Democrats, political/social, politics, poverty, social/political, walking | Leave a comment

Ego gets me in trouble…

Workout notes: low energy weights, easy 4 mile walk outside.

Weights: rotator cuff
pull ups: 4 sets of 10, 2 sets of 5 (low energy)
a few light squats
bench press: 10 x 135, 1 x 185 (it was not going to happen)
dumbbell bench press: 10 x 70, 10 x 75, 8 x 80; hurt my right arm lowering them. I felt a “pop” and a “tug”..too heavy for me today
dumbbell military :3 sets of 10 x 45, got ’em all with no problems.
machine rows: 3 sets of 10 x 140 (70 each arm)

my right arm hurts a bit and it stiffens quickly. We’ll see; I could still do pull ups.

March 12, 2017 Posted by | injury, walking, weight training | Leave a comment

Annoying terminology: “war on the poor”

I sometimes cringe when some subjects are brought up. Poverty is one of them.

I often hear “war on the poor”. I’d like to know what is meant by that.

IF one is talking about things like, say, a dearth of good, affordable food options (food deserts) or businesses that prey on the poor (e. g. payday loan places), ok, I agree that these things are bad. The former is a consequence of being too reliant on the capitalist model for everything (food stores in such areas are often not good investments) and the latter is, well, greed.

BUT if one is saying “we want to lower taxes and make safety net programs less generous”, I don’t see how that can be called a “war on the poor”. I don’t think that there is an obligation of someone, no matter how rich, to pay for someone else’s living expenses.

So, becoming less generous really isn’t a “war”.

Now, I am for these safety net programs for a variety of reasons; I think that it is a good thing to do with tax money, and I’d much rather do that than some of the other stupid stuff we do. It think that being a bit more generous (as a society) is a good thing and I support politicians that support that.

But to NOT do that hardly constitutes a “war”.

Workout notes: easy 4 mile walk outdoors in Bradley Park. The weather was brisk. My walk wasn’t.

March 10, 2017 Posted by | poor, poverty, social/political, walking | Leave a comment

Extra strength today?

I don’t know what is up; I felt stronger in the weight room today:

rotator cuff
pull ups (5 sets of 10)
bench presses 10 x 135, 6 x 185 (good), 10 x 170
military presses: 10 x 50 standing, 20 x 50 seated, supported (dumbbell), 10 x 45 standing
rows: 3 sets of 10 x 110
incline presses (Hammer Machine) 3 sets of 10 x 160 (80 each arm)
a LOT of squats: 2 sets of 5 with no weight, 5 x 30, then at least 6 sets (probably more) with 45-50 (goblet)
2 sets of 10 x 250 leg presses
abs (2 sets of 12 twist crunch, 10 yoga leg lifts)
headstand (ok today)

Then an easy 4 mile walk outside (Cornstalk classic)

Some days are just better than others, and today it went well. More sleep?

March 7, 2017 Posted by | walking, weight training | Leave a comment