I do martial arts also (BJJ/MMA). My flexibility is fine and getting better because I have an actual stretching workout. Stretching for flexibility is different than stretching pre or post workout.
On my weightlifting days I warm up with weights, lift and then stretch (and do some active release with a roller and tennis ball). The goal on these days is to get stronger and then limit DOMS. On MMA days I warm up, stretch, and then practice the theme for the day. See the difference?
When GM or Ford's sales go down, they will need to react.
Blaming Americans who like american products is putting blame in the wrong place. The american auto industry has been mismanaged for years and is now being held over a barrel by the unions. Now it looks like we're (the tax payers if there are actually any of us left), are going to paying for a bailout of not just the current auto makers, but their liabilities to retired employees and their families.
Once again it lacks specifics. Just from his fiscal part:
Obama and Biden will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but they will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.
So who exactly is considered wealthy? Who is middle class?
Obama and Biden will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense.
They should start with social security...oh wait. Again no specifics which means whatever program they don't like they'll consider wasteful. Mentioning oil/gas gets them brownie points with Dems, but not much else.
Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient
And this means what exactly? That everyone wins a trophy even if they don't play? There already is a great tax reform plan which just so happens to be called the Fair Tax.
Even accepting at face value that stretching does weaken the muscle (which I do not without seeing the evidence), there are plenty of good reasons to stretch.
I don't think anyone is advocating against stretching, just more of when you should stretch. If you are lifting weights, stretching prior to lifting is detrimental. You should be warming up your movement with progressively heavier weights until you reach you workout weight and go from there. You should then stretch post workout which will help release muscle tension and provide for better blood flow (which will help with any DOMS).
And yes, it's been known for years by anyone who powerlifts that stretching prior to a lift will make you weaker. The 'tightness' helps move the weight and is something you want when trying to move maximal loads.
I'm too lazy to look it up, but this isn't anything new. Stretching removes a muscles elasticity which will remove some of it's strength. When I was power lifting I never stretched prior to a big lift. Of course you warm up with progressively heavier weights, but you don't want to loosen the muscle when wanting to move maximal loads.
Another really bad thing for you is stretching cold muscles, because it can lead to a muscle tear.. You need to warm them up first prior to stretching, and this is why most fitness people will recommend that the most important time to stretch is post workout.
Hmm...Apple isn't 'fixing' anything. Snow Leopard is supposed to add a lot of new features under the hood. Now, only time will tell if those features work as advertised.
The problem is that we don't really know what Obama thinks. He's avoided most of the tough issues and done his best to not take any firm stances on anything. Frontline had a show on the other night about Obama and McCain. They had Obama's own strategist who said that not taking a stance on anything was their actual strategy. That way he would never have to defend it later. It allowed him to enter into a campaign with near zero baggage. They bet right that experience and really knowing where someone stood on an issue wouldn't matter as long as you talked about change and vague promises of giving stuff to people.
The best I can hope for is that Obama does what he did while running the law review - get the best people to do the job and not just those who agree with his ideology.
I usually vote anti-incumbent, but this time around I simply chose not to vote for anyone who was for the bailout... which is almost the same thing anyway.
That's how I started and then figured since it was almost the same thing to just vote anti-incumbent.
No, they have both been a disaster. Pelosi is worthless, GWB has led the republicans into the ground, and the overall country is a worse place because of both the legislature and the President.
Take Barney Frank for example. Now here's a real gem. He fights against regulating FNM and FRE years ago when McCain and other republicans want to take a look at it. Now Frank is running on being the one who recently noticed FNM and FRE were in trouble. How does someone like Frank stay in office? He along with everyone else in DC needs to go. Obama isn't going to really change much of anything, and neither will 60 dems in senate. We need sweeping change. We need to replace everyone up there were someone new! We the people need to walk out on the floor point to the whole crew and say "You're Fired!"
It's not much of a cunning plan. I voted to change whoever is currently there regardless of party.
And when it comes to strengthen the majority party, I'm fine with it for now. The republicans need to be shown that the neocons and fundies are ruining the conservative party. The only way to show them is to have them lose big. I know it's a risky strategy since it could be hard to rollback policies that get through, but Bush and crew have led us to this.
Everyone is free to spread their wealth around all they want.
Exactly. If you want be 'neighborly' feel free to head down to the coffee shop and give the waitress all your savings. No need to wait for the government to do it.
Well said. I voted democrat in 2 local elections today. The funny thing was that their platforms overall were more conservative than the republicans they were running against. WTF?
Plus, it fits with my anti-incumbent strategy since congress has been such a disaster.
Family structure (or the lack thereof) has a lot to do with the educational problems. This article touches on some of the sociological issues involved. Parents who are educated generally see the need for education whereas undereducated parents may not.
Right. Those poor people and their insistence on 'cool' non-education-related activities for their kids!
It's part that part of the 'dream' to be big in something other than education. Sports is a big draw to many. I never said that parents are insisting on non-cool activities, but that they don't push kids to be educated.
Or maybe it's the fact that holding down three jobs doesn't leave as much time for "pushing education from day 1".
Cry more? If you're going to be a parent then you should have to at least put your children first. If this means working 3 jobs and then coming home and doing homework with your children instead of having 'you' time so be it. People made it work for a long time prior to now, so why can they suddenly not make it work anymore?
I'm not interested in your anecdotal evidence of a tough start life overcome by family insistence on education. That's nice, but it's not going to work as a solution for the thousands of kids currently getting screwed by the system as it stands.
And how exactly are they being screwed? Is there a school for most kids to go to? Yes. Are there teachers there? Yes. What do you suggest we do when teachers are busting their ass, but the parents offer little to no help? What about discipline problems (which from my experience is the biggest issue in 'poor' schools)? Do we let bad kids slow down the whole class? Parents show up and defend their kids instead of listening to the teacher. How can that be acceptable? I don't care what happened, when I was a kid if the teacher called the house I would screwed. Surprise, no discipline problems.
The system isn't perfect, but you can't put all or even most of the blame on the system itself. People have to step up and take some responsibility for themselves and their kids.
Huh? No one is saying anything remotely close to that. Maybe if you didn't build your arguments on false premises, you'd actually understand what "the ideologues" are trying to say. Enjoy your vote for Strawman '08.
No, he's saying it's not an education or school problem. It's a parents and social issue. Education is not valued in lower incomes. For whatever reason it's not the 'cool' thing to do. When a higher income family sends their kids to private school they are not only spending their money to do that, but showing that they value an education. I was poor growing up and went to some pretty poor public schools, but my parents pushed education from day 1 as a way to better myself. When I talk to my teacher friends today they can't even get a parent to call them back to discuss their child. More money is not going to solve this issue, and neither is sending these kids to 'better' schools. A does of harsh reality is the only way to fix it at this point. It's time to stop blaming their current situation on everyone else and do something about it.
Thus libertarians who actually show up and debate on their views for the general election get smashed
This is mainly because libertarians are all about personal responsibility. It's hard to compete with someone saying they are going to hand out money and remove all negative consequences, even if it's a lie.
I saw a video of "Peggy" at the end of an Obama rally talking about how she didn't need to worry about paying her mortgage or paying for gas anymore. That if she helped Obama, he would help her. Now you and I know that he can't (even if he wants to) pay everyones mortgage for them, and has routinely said that under his presidency energy costs will likely go up, but Peggy doesn't see it that way. She sees him as handing her everything she wants with no strings attached. How can a message of personal responsibility even work on a person like that?
Oh, well I guess as long as it works on your laptop, everyone should be happy. Me? I have to jump through hoops just to get to "passable", much less "working".
I'm with you. I've never had suspend/resume/etc... work right on any laptop I've had until I got my MBP. I'm not sure why power management functions are so hard to get right.
I for one think that the scope of health insurance has gone out of control. No other insurance that I know of pays for "routine maintenance". Insurance is for the tragic and unexpected.
Completely agree.
They can't lower prices for uninsured patients because that would be discrimination by extending different base prices to different patients for the same treatment.
Not so sure about this. Maybe it's state by state, but I was at the doc the other and he had a big sign up that if you paid cash at the time of service you'd get an immediate 30% off. Basically by skipping the insurance hassle he figured it was worth 30% to him. Not a bad discount.
Also, last year I had knee surgery. My doc said if I didn't have insurance (which I did) that all of the prices were negotiable. Seeing how everything was priced, then repriced and priced again was a real eye opener for me.
I'm sure it happens sometimes, just like the stories you hear of someone being refused emergency treatment from the lack of insurance (illegal BTW).
I wish candidates would talk more about the healthcare they want to fix and provide. Obama says he wants everyone to have healthcare. Does that mean he wants everyone to be able to get weekly checkups or just that if you do get cancer it won't bankrupt you? Many clinics already give free healthcare if you're pregnant, need birth control, or other normal healthcare things. ERs have to treat you regardless of insurance. So what does that leave? I agree there is a problem, but I want details on what and how it's going to be fixed.
I don't know if the government is in the best place to fix the issue either. One of the big problems with health insurance is that people are over insured for stuff like checkups and under insured for catastrophic illnesses.
Here comes the car analogy:p Imagine if you insured all the maintenance on your car for the life of the car. It wouldn't be cheap. Instead we insure for emergencies. Routine visits should be something you just pay for the same way you pay for oil changes in your car. Ideally, this would mean that routine visits get cheaper, but at this point it might be a chicken and the egg problem. Although, I was at the doctor not long ago and he gave 30% discounts to people who paid cash at the time of the visit and didn't use insurance.
The other problem is that the government and insurance companies are already to involved in pricing. When I had knee surgery the first bill came to 20k, then my insurance company went in and did a whole bunch of funny math to where they only paid 8k and I owed 1k. Why did I need insurance to get that price and why was the hospital so apt to lower it?
The whole system is messed up, I just don't feel that getting government even more involved is going fix anything.
Let me give you an anecdote to help to make your point and show how much of a parasite the insurance companies really are.
I took my grandfather to his general doctor the other day. On the window is a sign, "Pay in full at time of service with cash and get 30% off." So basically if you skip the whole insurance process you get 30% off on the spot at this doctor. Insurance isn't the only problem, but is a big part of why healthcare costs so much.
Finally a sensible post. Even Obama has backed off his bring everyone home right now rants. The war is a mess and one that most likely should have never started, but it's a mess we are in. Going forward what is the proper way to withdraw? Packing up tomorrow and bringing everyone home is probably not the right way to go. Staying there another 50 years is also the wrong decision. The dems, instead of bitching about Bush, need to put forward so alternate plans for getting us out. The only thing that has worked lately and gotten us closer to leaving has been the surge. Now, what do we do from here?
Slashdot Mirror
Well Obama is promising for the US to be more like Europe...
I do martial arts also (BJJ/MMA). My flexibility is fine and getting better because I have an actual stretching workout. Stretching for flexibility is different than stretching pre or post workout.
On my weightlifting days I warm up with weights, lift and then stretch (and do some active release with a roller and tennis ball). The goal on these days is to get stronger and then limit DOMS. On MMA days I warm up, stretch, and then practice the theme for the day. See the difference?
Blaming Americans who like american products is putting blame in the wrong place. The american auto industry has been mismanaged for years and is now being held over a barrel by the unions. Now it looks like we're (the tax payers if there are actually any of us left), are going to paying for a bailout of not just the current auto makers, but their liabilities to retired employees and their families.
Once again it lacks specifics. Just from his fiscal part:
So who exactly is considered wealthy? Who is middle class?
They should start with social security...oh wait. Again no specifics which means whatever program they don't like they'll consider wasteful. Mentioning oil/gas gets them brownie points with Dems, but not much else.
And this means what exactly? That everyone wins a trophy even if they don't play? There already is a great tax reform plan which just so happens to be called the Fair Tax.
I don't think anyone is advocating against stretching, just more of when you should stretch. If you are lifting weights, stretching prior to lifting is detrimental. You should be warming up your movement with progressively heavier weights until you reach you workout weight and go from there. You should then stretch post workout which will help release muscle tension and provide for better blood flow (which will help with any DOMS).
And yes, it's been known for years by anyone who powerlifts that stretching prior to a lift will make you weaker. The 'tightness' helps move the weight and is something you want when trying to move maximal loads.
I'm too lazy to look it up, but this isn't anything new. Stretching removes a muscles elasticity which will remove some of it's strength. When I was power lifting I never stretched prior to a big lift. Of course you warm up with progressively heavier weights, but you don't want to loosen the muscle when wanting to move maximal loads.
Another really bad thing for you is stretching cold muscles, because it can lead to a muscle tear.. You need to warm them up first prior to stretching, and this is why most fitness people will recommend that the most important time to stretch is post workout.
Hmm...Apple isn't 'fixing' anything. Snow Leopard is supposed to add a lot of new features under the hood. Now, only time will tell if those features work as advertised.
The problem is that we don't really know what Obama thinks. He's avoided most of the tough issues and done his best to not take any firm stances on anything. Frontline had a show on the other night about Obama and McCain. They had Obama's own strategist who said that not taking a stance on anything was their actual strategy. That way he would never have to defend it later. It allowed him to enter into a campaign with near zero baggage. They bet right that experience and really knowing where someone stood on an issue wouldn't matter as long as you talked about change and vague promises of giving stuff to people.
The best I can hope for is that Obama does what he did while running the law review - get the best people to do the job and not just those who agree with his ideology.
Karma plus paying for your mortgage and gas too? WTF else do you want? :p
That's how I started and then figured since it was almost the same thing to just vote anti-incumbent.
No, they have both been a disaster. Pelosi is worthless, GWB has led the republicans into the ground, and the overall country is a worse place because of both the legislature and the President.
Take Barney Frank for example. Now here's a real gem. He fights against regulating FNM and FRE years ago when McCain and other republicans want to take a look at it. Now Frank is running on being the one who recently noticed FNM and FRE were in trouble. How does someone like Frank stay in office? He along with everyone else in DC needs to go. Obama isn't going to really change much of anything, and neither will 60 dems in senate. We need sweeping change. We need to replace everyone up there were someone new! We the people need to walk out on the floor point to the whole crew and say "You're Fired!"
It's not much of a cunning plan. I voted to change whoever is currently there regardless of party.
And when it comes to strengthen the majority party, I'm fine with it for now. The republicans need to be shown that the neocons and fundies are ruining the conservative party. The only way to show them is to have them lose big. I know it's a risky strategy since it could be hard to rollback policies that get through, but Bush and crew have led us to this.
Exactly. If you want be 'neighborly' feel free to head down to the coffee shop and give the waitress all your savings. No need to wait for the government to do it.
Well said. I voted democrat in 2 local elections today. The funny thing was that their platforms overall were more conservative than the republicans they were running against. WTF?
Plus, it fits with my anti-incumbent strategy since congress has been such a disaster.
Family structure (or the lack thereof) has a lot to do with the educational problems. This article touches on some of the sociological issues involved. Parents who are educated generally see the need for education whereas undereducated parents may not.
It's part that part of the 'dream' to be big in something other than education. Sports is a big draw to many. I never said that parents are insisting on non-cool activities, but that they don't push kids to be educated.
Cry more? If you're going to be a parent then you should have to at least put your children first. If this means working 3 jobs and then coming home and doing homework with your children instead of having 'you' time so be it. People made it work for a long time prior to now, so why can they suddenly not make it work anymore?
And how exactly are they being screwed? Is there a school for most kids to go to? Yes. Are there teachers there? Yes. What do you suggest we do when teachers are busting their ass, but the parents offer little to no help? What about discipline problems (which from my experience is the biggest issue in 'poor' schools)? Do we let bad kids slow down the whole class? Parents show up and defend their kids instead of listening to the teacher. How can that be acceptable? I don't care what happened, when I was a kid if the teacher called the house I would screwed. Surprise, no discipline problems.
The system isn't perfect, but you can't put all or even most of the blame on the system itself. People have to step up and take some responsibility for themselves and their kids.
No, he's saying it's not an education or school problem. It's a parents and social issue. Education is not valued in lower incomes. For whatever reason it's not the 'cool' thing to do. When a higher income family sends their kids to private school they are not only spending their money to do that, but showing that they value an education. I was poor growing up and went to some pretty poor public schools, but my parents pushed education from day 1 as a way to better myself. When I talk to my teacher friends today they can't even get a parent to call them back to discuss their child. More money is not going to solve this issue, and neither is sending these kids to 'better' schools. A does of harsh reality is the only way to fix it at this point. It's time to stop blaming their current situation on everyone else and do something about it.
At this point, I'd be happy that kids were even going to a science class.
This is mainly because libertarians are all about personal responsibility. It's hard to compete with someone saying they are going to hand out money and remove all negative consequences, even if it's a lie.
I saw a video of "Peggy" at the end of an Obama rally talking about how she didn't need to worry about paying her mortgage or paying for gas anymore. That if she helped Obama, he would help her. Now you and I know that he can't (even if he wants to) pay everyones mortgage for them, and has routinely said that under his presidency energy costs will likely go up, but Peggy doesn't see it that way. She sees him as handing her everything she wants with no strings attached. How can a message of personal responsibility even work on a person like that?
I'm with you. I've never had suspend/resume/etc... work right on any laptop I've had until I got my MBP. I'm not sure why power management functions are so hard to get right.
Completely agree.
Not so sure about this. Maybe it's state by state, but I was at the doc the other and he had a big sign up that if you paid cash at the time of service you'd get an immediate 30% off. Basically by skipping the insurance hassle he figured it was worth 30% to him. Not a bad discount.
Also, last year I had knee surgery. My doc said if I didn't have insurance (which I did) that all of the prices were negotiable. Seeing how everything was priced, then repriced and priced again was a real eye opener for me.
ROFL. That's been gone a long time. Watch this video to the end and see what Peggy has to say about personal responsibility.
I'm sure it happens sometimes, just like the stories you hear of someone being refused emergency treatment from the lack of insurance (illegal BTW).
I wish candidates would talk more about the healthcare they want to fix and provide. Obama says he wants everyone to have healthcare. Does that mean he wants everyone to be able to get weekly checkups or just that if you do get cancer it won't bankrupt you? Many clinics already give free healthcare if you're pregnant, need birth control, or other normal healthcare things. ERs have to treat you regardless of insurance. So what does that leave? I agree there is a problem, but I want details on what and how it's going to be fixed.
I don't know if the government is in the best place to fix the issue either. One of the big problems with health insurance is that people are over insured for stuff like checkups and under insured for catastrophic illnesses.
Here comes the car analogy :p Imagine if you insured all the maintenance on your car for the life of the car. It wouldn't be cheap. Instead we insure for emergencies. Routine visits should be something you just pay for the same way you pay for oil changes in your car. Ideally, this would mean that routine visits get cheaper, but at this point it might be a chicken and the egg problem. Although, I was at the doctor not long ago and he gave 30% discounts to people who paid cash at the time of the visit and didn't use insurance.
The other problem is that the government and insurance companies are already to involved in pricing. When I had knee surgery the first bill came to 20k, then my insurance company went in and did a whole bunch of funny math to where they only paid 8k and I owed 1k. Why did I need insurance to get that price and why was the hospital so apt to lower it?
The whole system is messed up, I just don't feel that getting government even more involved is going fix anything.
Let me give you an anecdote to help to make your point and show how much of a parasite the insurance companies really are.
I took my grandfather to his general doctor the other day. On the window is a sign, "Pay in full at time of service with cash and get 30% off." So basically if you skip the whole insurance process you get 30% off on the spot at this doctor. Insurance isn't the only problem, but is a big part of why healthcare costs so much.
Finally a sensible post. Even Obama has backed off his bring everyone home right now rants. The war is a mess and one that most likely should have never started, but it's a mess we are in. Going forward what is the proper way to withdraw? Packing up tomorrow and bringing everyone home is probably not the right way to go. Staying there another 50 years is also the wrong decision. The dems, instead of bitching about Bush, need to put forward so alternate plans for getting us out. The only thing that has worked lately and gotten us closer to leaving has been the surge. Now, what do we do from here?