Tuesday, Jan 12, 2010

Posted by Mandee on January 11, 2010   |   50 Comments

Three rounds for time of:
Walking lunge, 50 meters
Standing broad-jump, 100 meters
Run 200 meters

Post time to comments.

Undressing the Terror Threat – Paul Campos- The Wall Street Journal

Day 2 of the Zone Diet Challenge– The pot is up to 300$  Remember that our judging criteria is a combination of compliance, discipline, interaction, and creativity!

50 responses to “Tuesday, Jan 12, 2010”

  1. Russell says:

    As anyone who follows our website knows, we, like the Glassmans, like to regularly include content on our site that spurs discussions outside the realm of fitness and health. The idea being, for us at least, that sometimes exercising the mind is just as important as exercising the body, and applying some of the same basic tenants of a successful fitness program to the real world ( measurable, observable, and repeatable results, for instance) might yield success in understanding other aspects of life.

    Today’s article was emailed to me out of interest by one of our athletes, and before you read my thoughts I encourage you to read the article in its entirety, then post your own thoughts to our comments.

    The opening paragraphs of this article are almost universally agreeable in the author’s criticism of wasteful, stupid, and pitifully ineffective TSA security policies. But the the author, Paul Campos, goes on to point out something that should be even more upsetting to us, that these policies are about to get worse because of our governments fearful reaction to a “troubling but essentially minor incident”.

    That’s right. An attempted bombing of an airplane full of people on Christmas day by a Muslim extremist is a minor incident. Even now, a couple hours after reading this article, I’m crippled by an inability to understand, or even comment on this guy’s ideas because he is so far out of touch with what I would consider reality that I can only conclude this- one of us must be crazy. Campos categorizes the attempted murder of a plane full of people as a “minor incident” on the basis of his two main arguments-

    1. bad things happen all the time
    2. the statistical likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack is near zero

    The problem with Campos isn’t that his arguments are wrong or misleading. His statistical citations are absolutely right. What’s the most interesting about this article is how someone can be perfectly accurate and completely wrong at the same time.

    Let’s imagine that this “minor” incident went the other direction. The explosives that the panty-bomber attempted to detonate were powerful enough to blow a sizeable hole in the fuselage of the plane he was flying in. This could have easily killed everyone on board. Hundreds of people were saved by luck, and as Campos puts it, the “incompetence” of the bomber. Was I on this plane? No. Was anyone I knew on this plane? No. I also didn’t know, and am not related to anyone who was killed in Pearl Harbor, so I suppose that in the mind of Campos, it would have been sufficient for FDR to dismiss the infamous Japanese attack on an American naval base on the basis of a low statistical threat to the average American.

    What’s really amazing his how badly Campos misinterprets the role of both our government, and the war criminal we are discussing. One of the comments on the WSJ website summarized this better than I could:

    ” The inefficient Politically Correct screening methodology that has impacted more American Citizen than Terrorists or life is full of risks?

    Let me see if I truly understand the contention of this legal mediocrity. If you accept that, the sole responsibility of the Federal Government in the Constitution (without the burden of penumbras and strained legalistic corollaries) is national defense. Islamic terrorism is a foreign threat from an alien and hostile faith that can be controlled by destroying the active sources and restricting the importation of this violent adherents but we should not worry about it because American Citizen with or without handguns engage in individual acts of violence?
    Freedom and Liberty are so difficult for the left to accept but their failure to perform the most basic prerequisites of our Constitution while they attempt to take control of even wider swaths of our economy is always easily explained with the comforting words: “Don’t worry about it, I am from the government and I am here to help”.

    –Andrew Malone

    As much as i’d like to just keeping picking at the ideas in this article, I am far more interested, and disturbed by the mind that wrote it. What motivation would someone have for trying to downplay acts of mass violence in a well-declared holy war against our country? For one, threats of war or fear of war might be a source for the growth of government and it’s control over our lives, but if this was Campos’s main concern, he would have noticed that our government is doing just fine at this without any need for hyping up “minor” terrorist attacks. I would guess that the real reason is this-

    I would wager Campos, like many others, has his brain on backwards. In other words, people like Campos form a mental model of how the world works based on how they would like the world to work, and then mold their understanding of the world to fit that model, often completely unaware of how ridiculous or unrealistic it might seem. Forming your view of the world with ideologically fueled truths such as “War is always bad and can do no good” for instance, might lead you to conclude that a ridiculously simple basketball analogy might be able to encapsulate and help us solve something as massively complex and varied as a war with religious extremists.

    shaping your interpretations to fit previous experiences and understanding is not bad, and it’s defiantly human nature. The problem comes from doing it without consideration that you might be wrong, or doing it to the extent that you are blinded into oversimplification, ignorance of the constitutional provisions of the federal government, and complete detachment from the human experience- ( again, calling attempted mass-murder a “minor” incident?) can become a serious problem.

    It just doesn’t fit into Campo’s view of the world that there might just be especially bad people in the world. It probably doesn’t even register with Campos that an idea, much less a religion, could be having the effect of creating these bad people. Campo simply doesn’t acknowledge the real threat of islamic terrorism, or the fact that, as Ann Coulter points out:

    “Since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with the same hair color, eye color and skin color. Half of them have been named Mohammad.”

    This of course, would give Campo a fix for this first complaint about air travel, giving him us an amazing ability to improve our saftey- Profiling likely terrorist based off of their most obvious characteristics and sorting them out with something other than what we use now… a weak combination of luck and ineffective security equipment.

    But what really doesn’t fit into Campo’s view of the world is how the U.S. Government might be responsible for, or even successful at waging war against the extremist nuts of a particular religion as they openly declare war on, and murder citizens of our country. To Campo, these are just average people, as bad as all the other bad people in America, which to him, is probably the majority of us (considering how many privately owned guns we have), not worthy of being distinguished from the suicidal terrorists who try to murder us in fanatical religious acts of martyrdom.

  2. Craig Herr says:

    I will keep it short and sweet-that guy is an idiot.

    by the way he is shaping young minds as a professor in our ultra liberal college system.

  3. J.D. says:

    Disturbing article. Excellent rebuttals Russell and Craig. Mr. Campos’ analogies were oversimplified and inaccurate- “apples to oranges”. I do agree that the Government tries to treat us like brainless sheep, which disturbs me almost as much as the people who gladly ACCEPT that role. Yes, as Campo asserts “bad things happen” daily and in much greater numbers than deaths from terrorism. But the threats are not the same. I mean, to attempt to put suicide… SUICIDE… in the same category as a foreign enemy combatant bent on killing exclusively civilian travelers on a Christian Holiday??? How do you compare those? And I’m not even going to go into the whole “…lives we would save by banning handguns” crap. I guess you could say all deaths are NOT created equal, and trying to blow up a plane full of passengers pretty much infringes on those rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” that the Government is supposed to try to protect. Without REMOVING the rights to “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” I might add. And said act is NOT the same as an automobile accident, falling off a ladder or SUICIDE! Sheesh…

  4. klowe says:

    Not much to say that hasn’t been said. By his own examples his rational is this “when it is your time, it is your time” and therefor if a terrorist with a bomb is sitting next to you on the plane….then, well…” -we should basically do nothing to prevent innocent deaths due to terrorism because there are bad people in the planet and you are eventually statistically likely to die….one day.

    But like JD pointed out his own examples SUCK! Car wrecks (chance) and suicides (cognitive decision).

    I also agree with Russell that the article is just very poor journalism. The title would lead one to think it is about terrorism but this leftist elitist purposely drifts off the title subject to include other personal agenda items such as: gun control, national speed limit reductions, drug legalization, etc, etc. By the time I read that part of the article I was thinking “WTF was this article supposed to convince me of besides a liberal elitist’s personal agenda?”

    I personally think this a poor reflection on the WSJ to allow this piece to be published under their name….but in I guess they are in the business of selling web hits and papers and endorse shitty articles that generate a responce of any type.

  5. Craig Herr says:

    Todays WOD as rx


    *Nice work 7 am class-Joe C killed this one at 12:25.

  6. Justin says:

    The landing on the broad jumps really bothered my lower back

  7. joe c says:

    12:25 lost count on the last 50 meters wasted about 20 seconds

  8. Russell says:

    Justin, do you know if you were landing with straight legs?

    • Justin says:

      I might have been at the beginning, but after my back started hurting, I tried to really absorb the impact by bending my knees a lot on the landing. That didn’t seem to help much though.

  9. ReneeH says:

    Great responses on the article above. That guy is a moron. I can assure you had he been on that Christmas Day plane, his opinion might be different.
    On this morning’s workout, I felt more inept than ever. I completed only 1 round + 50m lunges before I had to stop and go throw up, not a great way to start the day. Day 2 of the Zone is in full gear, I don’t think there is a food item in my house that hasn’t been weighed or measured…

  10. LeshaS says:

    Today’s WOD: 24:10. I wish I had longer legs.

    A few comments on the article:

    Luckily, because of my exposure to the criminal population, federal laws, and rules, I have become somewhat desensitized to babbling idiots. I hate most of what this guy said, but have learned to expect commentary “like this” from people “like him”. Note, he is a Professor of Law. Without putting him in a pile with other “law professors”, most law professors I know have no practical experience in the legal world – they’ve never been a law enforcement officer of any sort nor they have they practiced law (criminal or civil). They went straight from a cap and gown to a tweed jacket.

    His assessment of “mandatory life for murder would reduce the homicide rate” is frankly, crap. Most murders are committed in the heat of a moment, for financial gain, or for some twisted other reason. The killer isn’t thinking, before he guts someone, “Hmmm, if I do this, I will go to prison for life. Maybe I should rethink?”, he (or she) is thinking something else completely. Additionally, his assessment of banning private gun ownership making gun violence decrease is also, crap. Most of the people I see for criminal gun possession got the gun illegally to begin with. Most of the gun violence out there isn’t perpetrated by law-abiding, registered gun owners. And 31,000 gun related suicides? Ummmm, in my experience with mental health issues, no one who attempted suicide ever said, “Well, I didn’t have a gun to use, so I decided not to try it at all”.

    So, considering all of the “information” he shared that I know I can rebut, I am considering all of his other information crap, too.

    Y’all have a great Tuesday!

  11. Daniel says:

    Hmm… where to start. The argument in the article is an incorrect, rambling argument that is disjointed and seemed fueled by some inner anger that forced the author to vent uncontrollably on many topics dear and near to his heart. You could feel his passion in the piece, but it was unfocused. As rightly pointed out by the dissenters here, he was wrong on many points. Obviously mishandling known information that could have saved hundreds of lives is a problem that needs addressing. Also going on about handguns and car wrecks seemed a weak attempt at tailoring a current event and using it as a segway into reigniting the debate on some of his personnel political pet peeves. I’ll paraphrase Russell by summarizing that relying on luck is not an effective security plan.

    What concerns me more is the commenters here resorting to personal attacks to discredit this man’s argument, a recent trend in debating tactics I thought was dying off. The previous administration’s 8 years was fueled mostly by the acidic rancor of Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, and Bill O’Reilly. Facts were replaced by slurs, and policies were based upon animosities. It was a sad 8 years. Let’s not continue the trend. It has been slowly declining, thankfully.

    Andrew Malone made a great statement and it was a great quote to include in the debate. That is, it was great, save for one phrase that which in my mind nearly discredits his entire statement. His acidic phrase, “Freedom and Liberty are so difficult for the left to accept, ” is a load of crap and deeply disgusting to me. It is a shame that he ruined a thoughtful retort with a seditious slur that could have been pulled off the pages of Hitler’s personal diaries or any of Ann Coulter’s books. It makes me distrust and suspect his disagreement with the author is not a well thought out position fueled by rational thought, but rather a position based upon an entrenched ideological prejudice in which he follows like a sheep any direction his herd takes.

    I’ve found that I can still disagree with someone without the childish name calling, and the resulting argument has less potential for my opponent to fortify his position and raise his defenses. I’m far more likely to illicit a shift towards the middle when I present my argument with facts and civility rather then name calling and fit throwing. This goes with my ideological opponents as well as with my wife.

    Labeling the piece as a ‘liberal socialist agenda’ is a damaging stereotype. My political views are liberal, but I disagree with his argument here. I don’t believe in taking away our constitutional right to bear arms, and I definitely don’t believe that freedom and liberty are difficult to accept! Stereotyping his argument as ‘Liberal’ as a way to discredit the argument is as rancorous to me as calling a black person a nigger. It is not a crime to have a varying position nor is it bad to allow disenting individuals express themselves. In fact diversity is always better! In every arena from the floor of congress to the university classrooms and even to the biological diversity of the global gene pool, diversity has always, always proven to produce the best outcome.

    Like Russell said, “exercising the mind is just as important as exercising the body”. I try set my prejudices aside, at least initially, when I evaluate another’s argument. Just as I try to push my body through the complete range motion in an exercise so to do I push my mind through the entire range of thought motion even though in the end my conclusions will probably still be affected by my personal biases. However, I at least give myself the opportunity to change my mind, and I am open to new thoughts even if they affect long held positions. I would hope that favor would be returned when I make a attempt to make a reasoned argument even if it was as poorly reasoned as this author’s efforts.

  12. Craig Herr says:

    Daniel you are turning this into an official classroom debate with certain rules on “style and approach”–this is our local cross fit blog. Sometimes less is more and in this case it appears most people disagree with the contentions in the article. That said, I certainly understand a contrarian point of view can spur some healthy debate. Diversity is essential in society to be sure, but sometimes people like to write long diatribes that tend to shift the focus to other less important topics. I will stand by my original comment that I think the guy is an idiot. I don’t care if he is black, white, green, ultra liberal, ultra conservative, communist, Muslim, Christian, Gentile or Jew. Several others have picked a part his arguments nicely so no need for me to as well.

  13. Linda P. says:

    WOD: 30:05. I know my time sucks and I NOW know that I hate doing the broad jumps (halfway through the 1st round I came to that realization,) but I’m soooo happy that I completed today’s WOD!! I wouldn’t have made it to the 3rd round today without the help and support of Tracey & Russell. But for me to COMPLETE that last damn round (especially those fu#%!ng broad jumps): a big THANKS from me to Jake, who pushed me and made me finish. Cheers!

    • tracey says:

      Linda, you are doing great!!!! this was a tough one, especially at 6 a.m. in the freakin freezing temp.
      Keep it up!

  14. Daniel says:

    As rx’d 19:49. Back hurt from round 2 on.

  15. dunnbball says:

    As rx’d in 24:41

  16. Daniel says:

    I see your point Craig he is an idiot. His article was easy to pick apart and your right all the valid points had been made, I just wanted to chime in on my little pet peeve as well. Maybe I’m guilty of the same tactic and sick with the same type of unresolved inner turmoil that bothered the author causing him and I to vent on unrelated topics. Sorry for that. I just hate arguments made with predjudicial statements presented as fact. I’m a leftist but I do not have a hard time understanding ‘freedom and liberty’. That was as idiodic a statement as the article it lambasted.

  17. Aaron says:

    17:59, as rx’d full ROM

    Not sure if the cool down lunge stretch helped or just completely frizzle fried whatever I had left in my legs…

  18. Russell says:


    I think the point you missed is that those comments, or personal attacks, as you called them ,weren’t used to discredit the author, but just a garnish on top of far more reasonable arguments.

    I also don’t think I understand how categorizing this article as “liberal socialist agenda” is a damaging stereotype. If anything, it’s probably fairly accurate (though you are an exception as a dissenting liberal)

    And last, I do find it funny that you think ad hominem attacks are a “recent trend” and that they are somehow tied to the Bush administration… that’s funny. I also don’t see any examples cited in that paragraph,so I’m guessing your claims about acidic rancor are more a product of that unresolved turmoil you were talking about.

    • Daniel says:

      Well one obvious example is the quote you included, and the trend seemed very recent to me. No I don’t have a laundry list of examples but I lived through the past 8 years. I’m not the only person who noticed that trend nor mentioned it. I’m sure you’ve heard the same b4.

      I have a problem with using the term ‘Liberal’ as a slam to broad and varied subjects. To me the terms liberal and conservative have been bastardized and abused to the point of being useless as anything more then a common slur. The dictionary definitions definitely don’t match the random associations made with either term.

      Liberals are not afraid of liberty, that is ridiculous and im not a dissenting liberal either when I say this. I seem to recall a huge debate over personal liberties versus invasion of privacy when the last administration tapped millions of phones. Sounds to me like conservatives are afraid of freedom and liberty.

      It is fair to call gun control a major liberal issue, but there are several points that the author makes that don’t reflect mainstream liberal views. The very programs and systemic fixes and reports and updates to security procedures he is railing against are being promoted by a Democratic President! It is better, and this is my point, to debate the article on its merits only, and not to use meaningless inflammatory slurs to argue a point.

      What you call ‘garnish’ I call rancid meat. They stunk. The arguments made against the article were far more powerful without the added embellishments. It would be like me saying

      “conservatives are just too stupid to understand my complaint,”

      but I wouldn’t say that because I don’t believe it. If I did say something inflammatory like that it would only make the opposition forget any point I tried to make. They’d only remember that I called them ‘stupid’, and my whole argument would be shit.

    • Russell says:

      Personal attacks in political arguments may very well seem like a recent trend to you. I can’t argue about your experience, I just disagree that they are and find the notion hillarious.

      One of the basic tentants of having reasonable discussions is that if you make a claim, the burden of proof rests on you. If make an especially controversial claim, like insinuating that a presidential administration somehow effected the likelihood of personal attacks in political discussions for approximately 8 years, you will need at least some tangeable examples, outside of a single post that was actually made outside of that particular 8 year period and the fact that you’ve heard your own argument before.

      I don’t want a laundry list, just some basic data. You might be absolutely right, but how do we know when you are practically just describing a feeling without examples?

      What’s more is that even if you are right, I’m not really convinced personal attacks are a problem in any way. They might not be effective, meaningful, or even very mature, but I’m not convinced they are harmful to anything other than the feelings of those persons insulted.

      I can see why you would dislike people using the term “liberal” to encompass ideas that you disagree with as a liberal. That makes sense to me. I do think the term is useful, perhaps because I am not a liberal, at categorizing the ideology and political philosophies I tend to disagree with. I don’t care what the dictionary says, if it wasn’t a useful term we wouldn’t use it in discussion so successfully. I for instance know exactly what Kevin was talking about when he used it. whether that matches up with the definition of someone with another view is beside the point.

      now to get specific- you said- “Liberals are not afraid of liberty”
      I would think you are right. I do not think they are friends of it, but I also don’t think afraid of it.

      You also said- “I seem to recall a huge debate over personal liberties versus invasion of privacy when the last administration tapped millions of phones.”

      three simple points about the wiretapping issue, because it’s old and off topic:

      1.The wiretapping in question was always done with at least one party of the phone call being in a foreign country, so “Domestic” is a pretty misleading term. You had to make or receive a call from a suspected terrorist overseas to have your phone tapped.

      2.As a senator, Obama was very much against Bush’s presidential wiretapping power. But then he voted for the bill anyway that gave Bush the power to do so

      3. Days before Bush left office FISA validated the “power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a specific court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved.”

      And last but not least, you said that:

      “Sounds to me like conservatives are afraid of freedom and liberty.”

      Isn’t this the same kind of broad statement you’ve been condemning?

      I guess I just don’t see what the fuss is about. No one on this blog was at all out of line with their comments, and what you are calling personal attacks don’t seem that offensive… sorry.

  19. Garth says:

    I am with you guys and think this guy’s article is flawed and even dangerous. Let me, however, take a different tack in interpreting his message in an attempt to understand why he wrote it or at least why the WSJ published it. I assume, not knowing much about him but based on what he wrote and his position being a U of CO law professor, he is likely a liberal but also not a complete imbecile.

    I have stated on this board in the past that I believe we need balance in our responses to terrorism. Just because we can spend billions on the most expensive, most technologically advanced scanner, sniffer, or robotic pat down machine, does not mean we should. Just because people are scared does not mean we should be giving a full body cavity search of grandma and little Johnny. I think most of you would agree that our society should find an acceptable limit on these security measures. We must find a balance between security and economic interest.

    Let me get back to why Campos’s article can serve a purpose. By writing what I see as a purposely inflammatory article, he generates dialogue about what the balance should be. Of course he uses many spurious analogies to get to his point, but I think the WSJ’s goal in publishing him is to show an extreme view to help us discuss and start to search for a more acceptable middle ground. Clearly, ignoring terrorism and allowing anyone onto a plane without a check, sort of what Campos was trying to posit, is the wrong side of the extreme. The other direction, reacting like cowards and spending endless amounts of money and time to counter every potential terrorist threat is also the wrong extreme. Our society cannot afford either end of this spectrum. Seeing that we have a longer and more thoughtful discourse here on the board (and also in the WSJ comments) than we would typically, I think the WSJ, at least, was successful in the goal I am suggesting they set out to accomplish.

    • Daniel says:

      I agree Garth. Op-Ed pieces are intended to be controversial for the very reason you stated. In fact all news be it political or tabloid or whatever needs for marketing purposes to have an element of sensationalism.

    • Daniel says:

      I also agree that to spur debate, it is common practice to take an extreme view, even if it is irrational, to invigorate the debate. He is as you say, generating dialogue as to where the balance should be.

      Politicians and talk show hosts do this everyday. It is a tried and true tactic.

  20. Robert S. says:

    18:19 as rx’d

  21. Russell says:

    That’s an interesting take Garth. I can see how the WSJ might have thought of that, but I think you have more faith in College Professors than I do. Campos is either a brilliant and crafty manipulator or a disconnected and childish nut. I’m going to default to Occam’s razor.

  22. Krista says:

    26 something
    My first WOD in about a month. I felt really out of shape and had my first experience with “pukie”. Not a good feeling but I’m happy to have shown up today and finished the WOD.

  23. Craig Herr says:

    Daniel fair enough valid points.

  24. Emily D. says:

    re: Zone Challenge

    Day 2 and I am already grumpy.

    Bless all of these men that have felt the wrath of a dieting Emily today 🙂

    • Kerri says:

      I’m just HUNGRY!!! It’s like whatever I eat, my stomach isn’t even registering it as food!! I’m hoping after 7 days of this, and my body gets used to it after a month of sloppy eating and drinking, my brain and belly will be back in sync!!

    • Emily D. says:

      Amen sister!

      I am constantly hungry…..I wish I could fast forward to next week!

      I come into work this morning and my coworker has made pound cake and freaking fudge. FML. I didn’t even want to walk by the stuff. It is like snack city in this lab all the time……sucks. Plus the vending machine is literally right outside my door so every time I have to leave my office I have to walk by it. I swear it calls to me 🙂

    • Kerri says:

      Yes…I walk out to one of my countless trips to the little girls’ room, and there, each time, is the fully stocked vending machine…And, yes, vending machines DO have voices, and it’s a bit of a mocking tone too!!
      I work with a bunch of men, all married and over 50. This borders on harassment for a single ‘young’ girl like me, trying to live, eat, breathe, THE ZONE……
      Sorry if you can’t concentrate while you’re reading this…it’s just my stomach growling!! =o(

    • tracey says:


  25. Russell says:

    and Daniel

    Remember that even as I disagree with you and pick apart your arguments, I’m glad you’re disagreeing with me. This would all be a little boring and kind of ruin the point if we all just patted ourselves on the backs and moved on.

    Sot thanks, we need more of you.

  26. Patrick says:

    Steppin’, Hoppin’ and Runnin’ still ain’t happening.

    Did today’s CF Football WOD:
    AMRAP in 20
    1 DL 255# (80% 5RM)
    1 Weighted Pull up 35#
    3 DL
    3 Weighted Pull up
    5 DL
    5 Weighted Pull up
    Complete above to make 1 round.

    6 rounds even

    About the article: I’m with Leesha. Campos argument is crap.

  27. Robb Dempsey says:

    2 WODs over 3 weeks is not suggested. this one sucked all around from mentally screwing up where I was to hip flexors not wanting any more of it. Cut off @ 30min with 200m run left.

  28. Kyle Mosier says:

    14:57 – I liked this one.

  29. Russell says:


    I’m not a fan of the broad jump for workouts. It sucked, don’t get me wrong, but I don’t know that it’s measurable enough for good compairison.

    Just as an example- Joe and Craig got 12:00 times, and Aaron, who has the fastest 5k time in the class, and a 13 minute 400m lunge for time, came in at 17:59….

    Joe and Craig definately worked hard this morning, because I saw them come spilling into the gym afterwards, but something just isn’t adding up and I’m betting it’s a discrepancy in broad jump strength and frequency…. I’d know if I’d been coaching the 7am class but I was doing a training session.. maybe Jake could chime in since he saw the 6am and 7am today.

  30. Russell says:

    This may be the first time I’ve had tired ankles and shins though… kind of feels like after I’ve been swimming hard… which is rare.

  31. Mandee Miller says:

    23:44 as rx’d

  32. Kerri says:

    17:22 as rx’ed
    Yeah, major discrepancies in time…

  33. Barry S says:

    28:13 for me, mostly because: 1. I don’t have a *&!@#(*% clue how to broadjump appropriately, & 2. ran out of gas after 2 rounds…will eat supper first tomorrow instead of after!

    Zone on the Road is the pits…any chance of setting up a handicap system, Russell?

    Finally, I’m in Garth’s camp on the article & believe it was (primarily) intended to spur discussion on the relative merits of various risk mgt vs. economic impact…funny thing is, later this morning after reading this article, there was an interview on CNN.com with a security consultant with El Al. They do a 1-on-1 interview with EVERY passenger prior to boarding! They also use standard screening tools, but they don’t share our fixation on technology as the be-all, end-all for every problem.


  34. Jake Naumcheff says:

    14:20 as rx’d

    I agree with Russell on the issue with the broad jumps not being measurable enough for good comparison. As for the 7 a.m. and all the classes for that matter we did specify what a broad jump was before the WOD but it seemed after the first round the broad jumps turned into more frequent hops without near as much jump strength behind them. I saw a little of this in all the classes as the discrepancies in time indicate.

  35. Jake Naumcheff says:

    But none the less great job to everyone who braved the cold weather and finished the WOD!!

  36. Zak says:

    Power Snatch 3, 3, 3, 3, 3

    Complete as many rounds as possible in 20 minutes:

    1 rounds consists of:

    1 Deadlift 85% of 5 RM
    1 Weighted Chin Up 35 lbs
    3 Deadlifts 85% of 5 RM
    3 Weighted Chin Ups 35 lbs
    5 Deadlifts 85% of 5 RM
    5 Weighted Chin Ups 35 lbs

    6 rounds even. DL’s @ 315#

  37. tracey says:

    I cant remember…3 seconds after Katie. Maybe 16:44? or 14:46? ITS THE ZONE!!! im dingier(?) than my normal self. Broad jumps are not my favorite.

  38. Emily D. says:

    21:37 lunges are miserable for me.

    Pose shoes are not fun to do broad jumps in.

  39. klowe says:

    Lunch: Snatches – worked up to 1rm. Got 195, got under 200 three times but couldn’t finish the lift. Frustrating

    Did the CFFB WOD this evening with Zak and Garth
    6 rounds and some change.

    That was horrible but a lesson well learned. I have horrible DL form. Once my lower back could not do the work I “had” to do proper form DL’s. SURPRISE!!! Doing DL’s with good form makes them easier and less painful.

    Good WOD. Fun working out with Zak and Garth.

  40. Katie says:

    I thought this workout would be easier, but the broad jumps are such an awkward movement, I think. I guess it helps with learning how to get power from opening your hips?