Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Archive for July 16th, 2010

Why are Obama and Holder intent on reversing the judge’s ruling on the DOMA?

with 2 comments

As you know, a Massachusetts judge found that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional in various ways, mainly by trying to tell states how marriages had to work. That’s not a Federal issue, and in particular if a state allows same-sex marriages, the Federal government has no role to play.

Now Obama claims that he opposes the DOMA—as do Democrats in general, though they are taking their own sweet time in dismantling it. But now a Federal judge has kindly dismantled it for us, and Obama and Holder are going to appeal?

Why?

One line of thought is that they have to appeal because they must defend the laws of the country. But that’s not true: they already decided to ignore any lawbreaking of the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Convention, which are the law of the US once they were ratified.

So if Obama and Holder can simply ignore that law, why can’t they ignore the DOMA and let the judge’s ruling stand?

One clue: Obama said that he opposes the DOMA. He also said that the would vote against telecom immunity. He also said that he supported the public option in healthcare reform. Obama says a lot of things that are inconsistent with what he does. That’s why I don’t respect him. I’m pleased by the progressive measures he’s passed, but I don’t respect him. Too many lies. Too much ignoring the law.

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 6:23 pm

Excellent articles on drug policy in the British Medical Journal

leave a comment »

These are worth reading:

Evidence based policy for illicit drugs
Evan Wood
BMJ  2010;341:c3374 (Published )
[Extract] [Full text] [Request Permissions]

An alternative to the war on drugs
Stephen Rolles
BMJ  2010;341:c3360 (Published )
[Extract] [Full text] [Request Permissions]

Policy resistance to harm reduction for drug users and potential effect of change
Tim Rhodes, Anya Sarang, Peter Vickerman, Matthew Hickman
BMJ  2010;341:c3439 (Published )
[Extract] [Full text] [Request Permissions]

Drug laws in Latin America
Bob Roehr
BMJ  2010;341:c3752 (Published )
[Extract] [Full text] [Request Permissions]

Personal View: Knowing the score: a doctor addict tells his story
BMJ  2010;341:c3725 (Published )
[Extract] [Full text] [Request Permissions]

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 5:25 pm

BP taking steps to ensure public ignorance of what the oil spill did

leave a comment »

Brad Johnson at ThinkProgress:

Foreign oil giant BP is on a spending spree, buying Gulf Coast scientists for its private contractor army. Scientists from Louisiana State University, Mississippi State University and Texas A&M have “signed contracts with BP to work on their behalf in the Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA) process” that determines how much ecological damage the Gulf of Mexico region is suffering from BP’s toxic black tide. The contract, the Mobile Press-Register has learned, “prohibits the scientists from publishing their research, sharing it with other scientists or speaking about the data that they collect for at least the next three years.” Bob Shipp, head of marine sciences at the University of South Alabama — whose entire department BP wished to hire — refused to sign over their integrity to the corporate criminal:

We told them there was no way we would agree to any kind of restrictions on the data we collect. It was pretty clear we wouldn’t be hearing from them again after that. We didn’t like the perception of the university representing BP in any fashion.

The lucrative $250-an-hour deal “buys silence,” said Robert Wiygul, an Ocean Springs environmental lawyer who analyzed the contract. “It makes me feel like they were more interested in making sure we couldn’t testify against them than in having us testify for them,” said George Crozier, head of the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, who was approached by BP.

These efforts to buy silence and cooperation come in addition to the $500 million Gulf Research Initiative, a Tobacco Institute-like program managed by a panel picked by BP to disburse scientific research grants in the coming years. Louisiana State University, University of Florida’s Florida Institute of Oceanography, and Mississippi State University’s Northern Gulf Institute have already accepted $10 million each.

In contrast, the federal government has failed to coordinate the massive research program needed to save the Gulf, preventing academic researchers from observing the data collected by the NRDA teams that include both government and BP contractors. “The science is already suffering,” Richard Shaw, associate dean of Louisiana State University’s School of the Coast and Environment said. “The government needs to come through with funding for the universities. They are letting go of the most important group of scientists, the ones who study the Gulf.” (HT: The Independent Weekly)

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 5:04 pm

Bizarre: Tea Party Leader Mark Williams: "It’s Impossible For There To Be A Racist Element In The Tea Party"

leave a comment »

You can read more here, but let’s take another look at Mark Williams. Ta-Nehisi Coates blogs:

Here is former head and current spokesperson for the Tea Party Express Mark Williams satirically responding to the NAACP:

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.

The tea party position to "end the bailouts" for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of "reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government." What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government "stop the out of control spending." Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government "stop raising our taxes." That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew
NAACP Head Colored Person

Williams has since taken the original down and posted a half-hearted justification. Mark Williams is the same man who has denounced Barack Obama as "Indonesian Muslim" and a "welfare thug." If Mark Williams is not a racist, then there are no racists in American society…

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 5:00 pm

Posted in Daily life, GOP

Astounding statement from a Republican politician

leave a comment »

This makes my head spin. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) talking to radio host Bill Bennett:

BENNETT: Is it enough for Republicans to say we are opposed to what [Obama’s] doing — stimulus, health care, we don’t like what he’s doing with the government, and look at the job situation — or do we need to have meat on the bones? And say, this is what we are for? Do we have to have positive proposals? […]

KING: So, It’s a combination of being against what Obama is for, and also giving certain specifics of what we are for. Having said that, I don’t think we have to lay out a complete agenda, from top to bottom, because then we would have the national mainstream media jumping on every point trying to make that a campaign issue.

Where do you even begin? This particular Republican seems to have no grasp of how our government is supposed to work—and if that’s a general problem, it could help account for the GOP’s peculiar inability to govern.

Full story here.

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 4:51 pm

Al Franken makes the GOP crazy

leave a comment »

Their latest craziness: Franken was elected by illegal votes from felons. Truth content: zero.

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 4:43 pm

Posted in Daily life, Election, GOP

The small-business dodge

leave a comment »

Kevin Drum:

Blog_Small_Business_Tax_Cuts

Back in the day, one of the key Republican arguments against the estate tax was that it forced hardworking, salt-of-the-earth children of small farmers to sell the family plot in order to pay their taxes after dad died. It was a sad story, but with one problem: no one could find even a single small farmer who had been forced to liquidate in order to satisfy Uncle Sam’s voracious maw. Even the American Farm Bureau Federation was eventually forced to admit that it couldn’t come up with a single example, and a few years later the Congressional Budget Office estimated that under the now-current exemption level, only a tiny handful of small farms were likely to owe any estate tax to begin with — and of those, only about a dozen lacked the assets to pay their taxes. And even those dozen had 14 years to pay the bill as long the kids kept running the farm. In other words, the story was a fraud from beginning to end.

Good times. Today, though, we’re getting a rerun. The subject at hand is the Bush tax cuts, and the question is who exactly will get hurt if we go ahead and keep the cuts intact for middle income earners but let them expire for the rich. The obvious answer is, "the rich," but it turns out that, just as there are small farmers begging for our sympathy, there are small rich too: namely an alleged army of hardworking, salt-of-the-earth small business owners who would also end up paying higher tax rates. "To those who are pushing the higher marginal rates," thundered Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) earlier this week, "I say the burden is on you to show that you are not harming our primary job creators, small business."

OK then. Let’s show it. Step 1: The Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that only 1.9% of small businesses are in the two top brackets that would be affected. That’s a little better than the dozen small farms affected by the estate tax, but not by much.

Step 2: About half of that 1.9% aren’t really small business owners at all. They’re high-income investors who get part of their income from investments in small businesses. So we’re down to about 1% of small businesses that would be affected.

Step 3: The top brackets are just that: brackets. When the top rate goes up, it doesn’t affect your entire income, just the portion in the top bracket. So if the top rate goes back up from 35% to 39.6%, it only affects the portion of income above approximately $400,000. A small business owner making $500,000 would see an increase of about $5,000. This is a fairly modest amount for someone making a half million dollars, and anything higher than that is hardly a "small" business to begin with. And the marginal effect is even smaller for the second highest bracket.

Step 4: The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the 10-year cost of these upper-income tax cuts is $678 billion, the vast majority of which hits wealthy individuals, not small businesses no matter how you define them. That’s a fair chunk of change for anyone concerned about the deficit.

So that’s the case. Letting Bush’s tax cuts for the rich expire affects only a tiny number of small businesses; it doesn’t affect them very much; and it generates revenues of $678 billion. If the only thing you care about is keeping taxes low for rich people, you won’t be convinced. For the rest of us, it’s a no-brainer.

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 4:41 pm

Krugman on the GOP

leave a comment »

Right on target, as usual. Krugman writes in today’s NY Times:

Republicans are feeling good about the midterms — so good that they’ve started saying what they really think. This week the party’s Senate leadership stopped pretending that it cares about deficits, stating explicitly that while we can’t afford to aid the unemployed or prevent mass layoffs of schoolteachers, cost is literally no object when it comes to tax cuts for the affluent.

And that’s one reason — there are others — why you should fear the consequences if the G.O.P. actually does as well in November as it hopes.

For a while, leading Republicans posed as stern foes of federal red ink. Two weeks ago, in the official G.O.P. response to President Obama’s weekly radio address, Senator Saxby Chambliss devoted his entire time to the evils of government debt, “one of the most dangerous threats confronting America today.” He went on, “At some point we have to say ‘enough is enough.’ ”

But this past Monday Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, was asked the obvious question: if deficits are so worrisome, what about the budgetary cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Obama administration wants to let expire but Republicans want to make permanent? What should replace $650 billion or more in lost revenue over the next decade?

His answer was breathtaking: “You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.” So $30 billion in aid to the unemployed is unaffordable, but 20 times that much in tax cuts for the rich doesn’t count.

The next day, Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, confirmed that Mr. Kyl was giving the official party line: “There’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”

Now there are many things one could call the Bush economy, an economy that, even before recession struck, was characterized by sluggish job growth and stagnant family incomes; “vibrant” isn’t one of them. But the real news here is the confirmation that Republicans remain committed to deep voodoo, the claim that cutting taxes actually increases revenues.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 4:38 pm

The motive behind whistle-blower prosecutions

leave a comment »

That’s another law that Obama can’t seem to ignore: he’s actively and aggressively prosecuting whistleblowers who expose government wrong-doing. Can’t have that, can we? If people find out about government wrong-doing, they may get upset. So Obama enforces that law with vigor, while letting torturers and murders go free. (Hundreds have died under "enhanced interrogation," and of course the four prisoners at Guantánamo who were murdered, but the murderers being carefully protected.)

I hate to say it, but the US is becoming a sewer of bad faith and broken laws, and Obama is not helping.

At any rate, the motives:

One of the more flamboyant aspects of the Bradley Manning arrest was the claim that he had leaked to WikiLeaks 250,000 pages of "diplomatic cables."  Those were the documents which anonymous government officials pointed to when telling The Daily Beast‘s Philip Shenon that the leaks "could do serious damage to national security."  Most commentary on the Manning case has tacitly assumed that the leaking of "diplomatic cables" would jeopardize national security secrets.  But a new BBC article today contains this quote from former UK intelligence analyst Crispin Black:

Diplomatic cables don’t usually contain huge secrets but they do contain the unvarnished truth so in a sense they can be even more embarrassing than secrets.

As usual, government concern over leaks is about avoiding embarrassment and other accountability; national security harm is but the fear-mongering excuse.  Similarly, a new Washington Post article today details the Obama DOJ’s prosecution of NSA whistle blower Thomas Drake, whose disclosures resulted in no claimed national security harm, but rather, was evidence of "waste, mismanagement and a willingness to compromise Americans’ privacy without enhancing security" (leaked only after his use of the official channels resulted in nothing, as usual).  As is true for virtually every whistle blower prosecution or threatened prosecution, there is no actual national security harm identified from that leak.  Other than when a covert agent’s identity is blown (as happened to Valerie Plame), has anyone ever heard of any actual, concrete national security harm from any of the high-profile leak cases, whether it be the illegal NSA eavesdropping program, the network of CIA black sites, the release of the Apache helicopter attack video, or the corruption and privacy infringements revealed by Drake? 

The Post today quotes Obama DOJ spokesman Matthew Miller’s justification for the administration’s escalated war on whistle blowers as follows:  "We have consistently said that leaks and mishandling of classified information are matters that we take extremely seriously." [Murder of prisoners? not so much. – LG]  There’s no doubt that they take such acts "extremely seriously," but what’s the reason for it?  There’s been no identified harm to national security from any of these leaks. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 3:01 pm

The challenges for Obama

leave a comment »

A truly excellent post by digby:

There’s a ton of discussion this morning about this article in which unnamed White House functionaries run to Politico to complain that nobody understands them. I think it pretty much speaks for itself, but there are some points worth discussing.

First of all, the central premise seems to be that liberals should be happy that Obama has "gotten something done" without regard to what that "something" is. But the fact is that professional politicians always rattle off a legislative laundry list while activists care about process, politics and policy — and average voters only care about the results. (The press cares about "the score", however they decide to define it that day.) A successful president is expected to know how to manage all of that — and browbeating his voters is rarely a winning strategy.

Therefore, his political advisers should know that when the country is still reeling from unemployment and foreclosures after nearly two years, the passage of an inadequate stimulus bill, which unrealistic benchmarks and a giddy victory party ensured would be the only chance they got, the only people who will consider that a "success" would be beltway insiders. They should have realized that a health care bill that nobody in their right minds would have designed from scratch, the worst aspects of which liberals will be asked to defend for years to come, would be met with dampened enthusiasm by those who watched the process devolve from a sense of progressive purpose to an exhausting farce. They are expected to be able to predict that financial reform without accountability for what’s gone before, combined with the administration’s unwillingness to confront the civil liberties abuse of the last administration — indeed expanding on them in some cases — would show a lack of fundamental concern for justice among those who care about such things.

Since the Village is essentially a Republican town perhaps they assumed that liberals were all going to be the same dead-enders the Bush cultists were, defending their man until the day he was out of office (and then insisting they never liked him in the first place.) That’s what "little people" (and paid political hacks) are supposed to do. But liberals are not known for cultlike devotion to their leaders — ask Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter.(JFK was on the verge of an insurrection over Vietnam and civil rights and we’ll never know how he would have handled it.) In the last 50 years, the only president who maintained the support of his liberal base was Bill Clinton and it had far more to do with the nature of the congressional opposition and the extreme hostility of the press (and a big, fat tech bubble) than support for his policies. Plus, as Rick Perlstein pointed out to me the other day, he noticed while reviewing some of his speeches of the era that regardless of his Third Way proclivities, even the unabashedly centrist Clinton used populist rhetoric, which at least kept the notion of the middle class and support for those who "work hard and play by the rules" as a sacrosanct value, something which is obviously no longer true. The unemployed, foreclosed-upon and over-stressed middle class are now being openly told by Republicans that they get what they deserve and there’s barely a peep of protest. ("There’s not a great appetite for additional spending.") Indeed, they’re being exhorted to sacrifice even more — while the malefactors of great wealth get richer by the day.

Which brings us to the real problem for Obama among all Americans, not just his base, which is …

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 2:42 pm

Sociopathic self-absorption

leave a comment »

Glenn Greenwald on Jay Bybee:

The New York Times has an article today on Jay Bybee, the torture-authorizing Bush OLC lawyer and current judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The focus of the article is Bybee’s recent Congressional testimony that several of the torture tactics used by the CIA were never approved by the Justice Department — which means they should fall outside the scope of the Obama DOJ’s immunity shield from prosecution— but it was the last passage that I think is most noteworthy (h/t reader rg):

[Bybee] said he was "proud of our opinions" at the Office of Legal Counsel, too, calling them "well researched” and "very carefully written."

Still, he said the controversy surrounding his tenure there had been difficult.

"I have regrets because of the notoriety that this has brought me," he said. "It has imposed enormous pressures on me both professionally and personally. It has had an impact on my family. And I regret that, as a result of my government service, that that kind of attention has been visited on me and on my family."

Just think about that.  The so-called "government service" Jay Bybee did caused countless detainees to be subjected to systematized, medieval torture techniques designed to permanently break their mind and spirit. Innocent men spent years wasting away in a cage, with no due process of any kind, subjected to horrific and life-destroying abuse because of what Bybee authorized.  So frivolous were Bybee’s opinions that they were scorned even by subsequent right-wing, Bush appointees such as Jack Goldsmith, and the DOJ’s own Office of Professional Responsibility formally renounced and harshly criticized those memos.  For that work, he was rewarded with a life tenured, permanently-well-paying job as a federal appellate judge.

But the only victim Bybee recognizes in all of this is himself, and the only "regret" he has is the self-pitying objection that the dark, ugly and destructive work he did caused him to be subjected to some criticisms.  It’s extremely similar to what Karl Rove identified yesterday as his "biggest mistake":  not helping to start a war on false pretenses that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but rather, failing to attack war critics with sufficient viciousness…

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 2:39 pm

Tim Geithner: A closer look

leave a comment »

Simon Johnson:

In modern American life, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner stands out as amazingly resilient and remarkably lucky – despite presiding over or being deeply involved in a series of political debacles, he has gone from strength to strength.  After at least eight improbably bounce backs, he might seem unassailable.  But his latest mistake – blocking Elizabeth Warren from the heading the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – may well prove politically fatal.

Geithner was a junior but key member of the US Treasury team that badly mishandled the early days of the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and received widespread criticism (Life #1).  He was promoted as a result and thereafter enjoyed a meteoric rise.

As President of the New York Federal Reserve from 2003, and de facto head of the government’s financial intelligence service, he completely failed to spot the problems developing in and around the country’s financial markets; nothing about this embarrassing track record has since stood in his way (Life #2).  He subsequently became Hank Paulson’s Wall Street point person for one of the most comprehensively bungled bailouts of all time – the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, which in fall 2008 first appalled Congress with its intentions and then wasn’t used at all as advertised (Life #3).

TARP and related Bush-Paulson-Geithner efforts were so completely and clearly unsuccessful in October/November 2009 that the crisis worsened and Geithner was offered the job of Treasury Secretary by President-elect Obama; the incoming team felt there was no substitute for “experience”.  Nevertheless, he almost failed in the confirmation process due to issues related to his taxes (Life #4) and then stumbled badly with his initial public repositioning of the TARP (Life #5), which was going to buy toxic assets again but in a more complicated way (perhaps his most complete and obviously personal political disaster to date).

His next Great Escape was the stress tests in spring 2009 – it turned out, supposedly, that there was really no financial crisis.  Most of the big banks really did have enough capital; all that had been missing was the government’s endorsement of this fact (this is the story, honest).  If this seems too good to be true, look at the mass unemployment still around you and tell me if the financial sector really looks healthy (Life #6).

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 2:33 pm

“That’s not a tea-ball. THIS is a tea-ball.”

leave a comment »

The razor (a Gillette Executive) is in the photo only for scale. This particular razor has a handle 3 feet long, so you can just imagine the size of the tea ball.

I got the tea ball because I drink a fair amount of water, and it helps if it has some flavor. Also, I am no longer drinking white tea in the morning, and I do want to get my white tea, an effective cancer-prevention food. So just letting the tea steep overnight in a pitcher of water in the fridge will get me the infusion I want.

I got the tea-ball here. Because the ball is large, though not so large as I suggest above, you need a wide-mouth pitcher.

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 2:16 pm

Posted in Daily life

Congress and the deficit

leave a comment »

Congress has not yet engaged the deficit effort with any seriousness so far. From the Center for American Progress in an email:

Despite strong objections from the Defense Department, the House of Representatives has moved forward to fund a second engine for the F-35 fighter jet.

The Pentagon says that the alternative engine is a huge waste of money and has asked Congress to jettison the program, but the House decided to fund it anyway in the 2011 defense authorization bill.

The second engine is hardly the only example of wasteful defense spending from Congress: even though the Pentagon hasn’t requested any new C-17s — military transport planes — over the last four years, "Congress has appropriated $12 billion for 43 of the transport aircraft, including eight in the fiscal 2009 war supplemental spending measure and 10 in the fiscal 2010 Defense appropriations law."

As Congressional Quarterly pointed out, Congress’ insistence on funding a plane the Pentagon doesn’t want is "due in no small part to the lobbying efforts of Boeing Co., which builds the planes in California, Missouri, Georgia, Connecticut and elsewhere."

Boeing is also "belatedly lobbying for the purchase of five more C-17s at a cost of about $1.3 billion" for this year.

Earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates addressed the lobby’s influence, saying he’s "fully aware of the political pressure to continue building the C-17" while announcing he would "strongly recommend that the president veto any legislation that sustains the unnecessary continuation."

As Pentagon officials told a Senate subcommittee this week, "it is not in the national interest to continue adding more C-17s. In our view, the production line should begin shutting down."

As the Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo points out, "This isn’t just about the upfront cost of purchasing more planes, which is considerable. It’s about then paying to maintain the planes for years.

The Pentagon actually spends $1 billion per year to maintain the 43 C-17s that it didn’t request, but received anyway."

President Obama has called the continued purchase of C-17s "waste, pure and simple."

This seems quite clearly a result of bribes donations to House members. We are facing a large deficit, which will get bigger if Congress manages to pull itself together and start to actually govern, extending unemployment benefits and doing a right-size stimulus, probably through building and repairing infrastructure. And so what does the House do? Vote to spend billions of dollars are military equipment WE DO NOT NEED. The Representatives voting in favor of that expense—in full knowledge that US spends on its military as much as the entire rest of the world combined—must be voted out of office and, hopefully, reduced to pushing their remaining belongings around in a shopping cart.

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 2:01 pm

Very good training session

leave a comment »

I’m very glad that I’m not trying this on my own. This morning’s session made me realize that I am disliking and avoiding the flexibility exercises—I can’t even remember them—because I really, really need them. A life spent in sedentary work, with only the occasional jogging or bicycling has left my shoulders and upper body totally tense and unfit. The result is that I can’t even feel things: “You feel that stretch?” the trainer will say, and I don’t feel it. “Do you feel that muscle tighten?” No. I just am not aware of internal muscle feelings. But I’m getting there. Today I actually did start to feel things.

One thing, unfortunately, was a shoulder pain (right shoulder) on doing the press. So no presses for a while, and other exercises to make the shoulder better.

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 9:15 am

Posted in Daily life, Fitness

Busy morning

with 3 comments

I leave soon to meet with trainer, then to the diet counselor for a weigh-in (I’ve lost, I believe), and then to Whole Foods for the new bunch of salad stuff: Romaine, red leaf lettuce, radicchio, and cilantro, and to wash, tear up, spin-dry, and toss into my refrigerator container.

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 7:41 am

Posted in Daily life, Fitness

Castle Forbes: Best shaving cream?

with one comment

Castle Forbes—Lavender or Lime—may be the best shaving cream available. Of course, that’s very much a YMMV thing, but still: every time I use it, I’m surprised by how great it is. And I’m even growing to like the aftershave balm, once I’ve applied it and it has time to dry. I used the men-ü synthetic-bristle brush and immediately obtained a superlative lather. The Apollo Mikron with its Swedish Gillette blade did a very fine three-pass shave, and the aftershave balm finished the job.

Written by Leisureguy

16 July 2010 at 7:39 am

Posted in Daily life, Shaving

%d bloggers like this: