We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Jumping is one of the best and most demanding calisthenic/cardio-endurance exercises. It is harmless to knees and hips because it is on toes.
Like most things, it takes practice to get to the point where it is useful. I am working towards a repertoire of jumps, but it is more difficult than it looks and I am not highly-coordinated. (If you think you are, try double unders sometime and let me know.) Also, I find just two minutes of speed rope to be quite fatiguing. That's why I embed a minute or two of rope in a circuit of calisthenics. Cardio and calisthenics are a waste of time without intensity.
This guy is an expert. It's like watching a dancer. His double unders are great. Three things to watch: 1. His body stays in a relaxed athletic posture with no tension 2) The rope usually maintains a steady pace regardless of what his legs and feet are doing (he is mostly not doing speed), and 3) His hands and arms remain in the same position.
NYC's City College is a great public school, (ten Nobel laureates, countless distinguished citizens, academics, and professionals) but it had a lot to recover from. So did the rest of the huge CUNY system which aspires to make higher ed accessible to aspiring New Yorkers.
Fridays are still mostly moving/calisthenics day for me. It's always a different mix.
After a five-minute elliptical warm-up:
- 4 sets of increasing wt leg press (to try to improve my barbell squats next week) - Then what I call a circus: 5 go-rounds of a circuit of ladder drills, heavy ball floor smashes, and jump pull-ups. Whew. I still can not get 10 regular pull-ups, but getting there. A goal. - Then 4 rotations of heavy ball wall smashes alternating with jump rope variations (singles, running man, and practicing one-footed jumps)
Total body fatigue in one hour, barely able to move. Good stuff, highly stressful and exertional. If I were not doing my program, my life would contain no extreme physical exertion.
Unlike most commenters on microaggressions, I view the entire concept as a joke. And I feel it is a joke that anybody takes the idea seriously. And nobody hardly does, outside of the peculiar testosterone-challenged administrators on American campi.
Here's the deal: Since no real aggressions are anywhere to be found, some people invented the micro. Next will come nanoaggressions. Why? Because the victim/oppressor narrative must continue. It's, like, you know, the System.
In sum, microaggression catalogs are a form of social control in which the aggrieved collect and publicize accounts of intercollective offenses, making the case that relatively minor slights are part of a larger pattern of injustice and that those who suffer them are socially marginalized and deserving of sympathy. [The social conditions that give rise to this form of social control] include a social setting with cultural diversity and relatively high levels of equality, though with the presence of strongly superior third parties such as legal officials and organizational administrators… Under these conditions, individuals are likely to express grievances about oppression, and aggrieved individuals are likely to depend on the aid of third parties, to cast a wide net in their attempt to find supporters, and to campaign for support by emphasizing their own need against a bullying adversary.
There are no cures for the most serious, chronic psychotic mental illnesses. Such patients can be helped in many ways but can never be normal, and many such patients, for a variety of reasons, do not cooperate with help that is offered.
Very few of these people are violent, and many of them just prefer to be left alone to live in their strange worlds.
How does one "help" such patients when they have no desire for help and treatment but are unable to live in the real world? Asylums existed for a reason.
It is a thoughtful essay, but I will object to the term "policy" because it implies government action in a situation in which nobody knows what is best to do. "Help" has to be individualized, not manualized.
I entirely agree with their idea of job training for high school grads, and I also agree that the overemphasis of college is foolish. I am not sure the idea is neglected, though. There are vocational schools all over (public and private), and community colleges generally have vocationally-oriented programs.
Much neglected in the discussion in the US are apprenticeships, which cost nothing and which are usually paid helper jobs which can lead to well-paid jobs afterwards. My electronics repair guy gets $175/hr. My computer expert gets $200/hr, has no college. My gunsmith, $150/hr. Carpenters, electricians, plumbers, tree men, chefs, and so forth all can have solid incomes via apprenticeships.
In fact, legal training is mainly through apprenticeship. Sure, you have to go to law school in most states now, but the real learning is by doing under supervision.
One of the greatest delusions of many people is that freedom and ‘voice’ in one’s life resides chiefly in, and is secured chiefly by, the right to vote. In fact, freedom and voice in one’s life resides chiefly in, and is secured chiefly by, the rights of private property (and the associated law of contract and tort).
John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, the 20th century’s most influential text on the nature of social justice, was controversial on the left because it provided a supply-side argument against the assumption that socialist equality was the end-all-be-all of distributive justice. Rawls recognized that incentives to production have something to do with levels of consumption and argued persuasively that unequal shares are justified if they leave society’s least advantaged as well off they can be. For many socialists, admitting that justice can possibly admit of unequal shares gives away the store. Rawls sold them out.
Yet Rawls himself, like many other mid-century social democrats, had an uneasy attitude toward enrichment, and tended not to see much to admire in the human motives or legal rights that tend to produce it. Rawls was a liberal who saw society in liberal terms as a “cooperative venture for mutual advantage,” but there was in Rawls’ theory very little appreciation of the possibility that liberal rights and economic growth might need each other. Indeed, he thought that, after a certain modest level of material comfort had been achieved, a regime of fair cooperation founded on liberal rights would do better—and would still be the most desirable of all regimes—without any growth at all. ..
There are endless, interesting debates to be had on this topic. From my standpoint, I like spare cash but value freedom over wealth. However, the core of freedom is private property. My vote is important in theory but trivial in effect.
The anointed and/or self-anointed political/intellectual elites have been getting a come-uppance lately. That is all for the good because our moral and intellectual superiors of both political parties have not done a very good job when they gain access to power. Enjoying power, they begin to apply their talents to keeping it and expanding it. Furthermore, these elites often ignore common sense.
As one of my best friends said yesterday, “If any of them were real Republicans they’d be using their shock, outrage and vitriol to attack Obama and Hillary and Bernie every second of every day. They’d be condemning the Democrats over this horrible economy. We’re all drowning. Instead Republican leaders are in panic over Trump? Are you kidding me?”
Six months from now, being #nevertrump is going to be the mark of Cain, regardless of the election outcome. If Trump loses conservatives will blame these traitors for the defeat. If Trump wins, the #nevertrump loons will be packed off to the labor camps. Well, we can dream. Still, life is not going to be fun for these people if Trump is in the White House. There’s just no obvious upside to this #nevertrump nuttiness, other than the craven cash grab.
I think power can act like a drug, and promote the most self-indulgent or sociopathic character traits. Not so, however, in those determined to be on best behavior. What sorts of people seek power over others?
Could We Just 
Image stolen from 
Are You Raising a Little Criminal? 