Tired of the unending amount of equipment and complication involved with New Age fitness (read: Wii Fit), Todd Levin decided to try out a classic mainstay of health and power: Charls Atlas’s 1922 Dynamic-Tension course.

Next, I stood before a mirror, held my hands as if grasping an imaginary rope just above my head, and pulled downward toward my knees while tensing my arm and chest muscles to provide resistance. According to my new fitness guru, if I “hold in the mind’s eye AT ALL TIMES the Ideal of Physical Perfection,” soon I could advance to other vitality-building exercises, such as gently and rapidly punching myself in the stomach, and washing my genitals with ice water. Yet somehow this still felt less degrading than a spinning class.

via ryan north:

Here’s an experiment which could be pretty rad! I’m going to link to the Flickr images tagged “haylookit” here for the next few days, and maybe INDEFINITELY. If you have something you want thousands and thousands of like-minded strangers to see, try uploading it to Flickr and tagging it with “haylookit”! And if you want to see something that some stranger on the internet thought you’d like, click here!

AWESOME IMAGES ONLY, PLZ

“UPDATE: Guys this is awesome.”

She voted (I was unaware until my good friend Edwards pointed it out to me today) to classify the Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. She simultaneously claims to be alarmed by the Bush Administration’s level of inflammatory rhetoric against Iran and favors only diplomacy or talks leading to cooperation between our two countries (a wise idea, to say the least) in an effort to reach a non-violent resolution of any political conflict (stemming from Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities and their supposed support of terrorist cells and gorilla insurgents in Iraq).

If Clinton is going to attack Bush’s foreign policy that seems set on starting wars with those whom it does not agree, then perhaps she should also own up to her popular (though ignorant) vote that puts Iran in a lump with terrorists. Votes like the one that Clinton made are directly in line with the neoconservative call-to-arms against Iran. Starting a dialogue with Iran will be impossible with current popular foreign policy rhetoric in Washington that participates in name-calling, false accusations and cage rattling.

Clinton is a part of this violently anti-diplomatic rhetoric and yet also a part its criticism? It is exactly this sort of hypocritical dichotomy that faulted her in last weeks debates, and is what, in my mind, disqualifies her as a real contender for the presidency. We don’t need a confusing enigma. We don’t need a secretive elitist.

Hillary’s campaign, after her Tuesday night “gang bang” (Wonkette), is claiming that she has come out on top. After a night of stonewalling, contradicting, and avoiding any (let alone direct) answers to tough questions, Clinton now seems, well, taken aback at her opponents negative disposition. She and her staff are disappointed, if you will, that her fellow candidates have “abandoned the Politics of Hope,” that they had all unknowingly signed on to before the debate. Or, rather, it would be more honestly told that Hillary spiked her losing the debate with this clever slogan so that people had no room to bad-mouth her after she again failed to tell voters what it is exactly that she means. Anyway, Clinton has come out on top. While everyone else is “piling on” to her for lying and hiding and dodging, at least she remains hopeful.

Of course, she should really probably just remain in the kitchen.

I really can’t stand Hillary. She was shady as a First Lady and I think that she’s even shadier as a candidate for the presidency. I couldn’t tell you what the woman wants for the country. I think that her response to her opponents’ demands for a more solidly attackable (and a much less flighty, slippery, or tricky) Hillary (who works a little harder to make full document disclosure from her days as Bill’s number two readily available), is pathetic. They’re only attacking you because you’re in the lead? Get a grip. They’re attacking you because if anybody knows anything about anything, they know there is one thing Democrats don’t need in 2008 and it’s another flip-flop, another scandal, or another secretive politician.

I wish Hillary would own up to her beliefs and have a little more faith in the intellect of the common-American. I for one am unconvinced of her sincerity, to say the least.

I mean, all I really wanna do is have sex with John Edwards. Wait, was that too much?

Haha, Sarah Silverman likened the above statement to any of her jokes aimed at Paris Hilton. Pretty good one, right?

Well today, President Bush called Congress “fiscally irresponsible,” among other accusatory remarks (the same-old-same-old, blaming congress for not passing bills giving the Iraq war funding, claiming that they are not providing needed armor for troops in the battle field), while his administration has, over the past eight years, managed a THREE TRILLION DOLLAR deficit.

Perhaps another wording of the old adage could read, “Like a lame duck calling a partisan-split congress do nothing?” Nah, it’s not nearly as funny as a whorey kettle.

I don’t understand why there is such a major emphasis on spirituality in 2008’s presidential election, but there is. Starting a few months ago, I noticed the 24-hour news cable channels doing specials on Hillary and God, Obama and God, Edwards and God, the Democratic Party and God, and I wondered why.

I do grasp the idea that traditionally, conservatism and Christianity go hand and hand. Grass roots politics in cahoots with the Religious Right, the Christian Coalition, and the Bible Belt’s endorsements have steadily been Republican. This year, however, things might be a shade grayer, according to recent headlines.

I am unconvinced, however, that the lines of support aren’t as black and white as they always have been. I’m not saying that any particular candidate is or isn’t religious. Lord knows (an interesting but not deliberate choice of phraseology) that Giuliani is no more devout a Catholic than Obama seems to be a Baptist.

Analysts have said that religion is often a double edged sword for liberals. If they suddenly choose to mention Jesus in a stump-speech, they are booed for having brought religion into the political arena by the separation-of-church-and-state junkies who are at the backbone of progressivism and the fight for modern liberties in this country. If religion goes unmentioned then candidates are blamed for having a large portion of constituents untapped. When they do mention it, their sincerity is brought into question by holier-than-thou conservatives.

However, substance-lacking bible thumping gets you no where. Hallelujahs and the mention of your breaking construction of a great kingdom hear on earth may seem like a quick-fix to a political conundrum plaguing that’s been Democrats for years but without showing convincing signs that you are genuine or knowledgeable the work seems counterproductive. When you are asked tough questions, don’t dodge the bullet (Hillary wasn’t sure, despite how seriously and personally she takes her spirituality, on the exact theology describing necessary prerequisites for entering into heaven).

Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s devotion is not in question (he was a missionary in France during his college-years). But the fact his religion damns every Christian baptism that took place between the time of Jesus’s Apostles and the 19th century inception of Mormonism is just a touch judgy, for my taste.

Today, Senator Larry Craig announced that he would not resign from his Senate seat, even after his September 1^st address, in which he told of his plans to retire early. “I have apologized for what I have caused. I am deeply sorry,” said a then an embarrassed and humbled Senator Craig. He told the small gathering of friends and family (wife, Suzanne, and two of his three children) at his home in Boise that times as serious as these are ones that “deserve the Senate’s and the full nation’s attention.”

A month has gone by and an apparently emboldened Craig told his Idaho constituents (on whose behalf he had promised resignation, their best interests always at heart, seemingly) via press-release that he was “extremely disappointed” in Judge Porter’s order denying Craig’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The Senator apparently too is interested in withdrawing his apology (After all, what is there to be sorry for? Suzanne? Kids? Right?) and his impending resignation. “I will continue to serve Idaho in the United States Senate,” said Craig, five days after the September 30^th deadline he gave himself to leave office. Listing reasons for why he will remain in his seat while he explores his “additional legal options,” Craig told voters, “I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively.” In addition, the Idaho senator expressed his desire to clear his name in the Senate committee on ethics, a task which is impossible while he is not serving.

The Republicans, having just withstood a monumental defeat in the congressional elections of ’06, are facing strong current in their voyage without a sail up the windless river to the day of the ‘08 presidential elections against the Democrats, and certainly do not need any scandal-related hindrances to their progress. Senator Craig’s not-unexpected promise reversal, leaving him to remain on Capitol Hill, was met with mixed, though mostly and not surprisingly sour, reviews. Nevada Senator John Ensign, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has the job of defending two dozen senatorial seats that are up for grabs in the ’08 elections and seemed far from optimistic about Craig’s decision to stay. “He had his day in court,” he said, “the judge ruled against him. I think he should do the right thing and honor his decision [to leave]. I believe the best thing for him to do is to keep his word. I could not feel more strongly about it.” Ensign also threw in that an ethics committee investigation (with whom Craig is hoping to fight for a clean slate) “is going to be embarrassing for the Senate and embarrassing for his family.”

No matter which side of the isle you are on, I think that the ensuing strategical discussion (or whether or not there should be any debate at all) could be interesting. Is the Idaho Senator a perverted old man who was caught red-handed cruising airport restrooms for a little under-the-stall-divider action or is his pooping stance just a touch wide? Should his Republican colleagues be unified in their support of their fellow politician while he tries to defend his name and eventual legacy or do they disown him?

What I will say is this: Generally, closeted Republicans should be more cautious. The ensuing hypocrisy of being found out is embarrassing for everyone. Unfortunately, living a life in the closet seems to force people to express their sexuality via venues that are not only disgusting but often illegal. If you are married, if you have a record of congressional decision-making that perpetrates a political culture of discrimination towards millions of homosexuals, if you speak out from a religious or moral standpoint against homosexuality, if you do any of these things, then you had better be pretty goddamn sure that you don’t get caught soliciting sex from an underage boy. Probably refrain from any urges to offer twenty dollars to an undercover police officer in exchange for the opportunity to suck his dick in a public park.