Crossfit Day 1

My husband has been Crossfitting for a while, so I decided to give it a try. It's quick and I've already learned a lot of the basics from the Boot Camp he runs. I found a two week program for beginners that doesn't require any equipment. I figured that was smart, since I should probably ease into the weights. I have mostly recovered, but I'm a little nervous about lifting heavy weights. My abdomen still gets sore.

The whole idea behind Crossfit is to do short, but intense, work outs that constantly challenge you. You have to change up the work outs and are always doing different stuff.

Today's work out was:

3 sets of (for time):

10 burpees

20 squats

30 sit ups*

*I can't do full sit ups yet (abs are not strong enough post c-section), so I did crunches.

I did it in 7 minutes, which I figure is not too bad a start. I did hold an 8 pound medicine ball for the squats, but that was all the weight I used. I forgot how much burpees will kick your ass! My quads are already sore, and even typing I can feel it in my forearms. Overall, a good start I think!

Dinner tonight: Haddock over a salad with Light Balsamic and Basil dressing. Mmmmmm....

New Work Out!

Today's work out:

5 sets of 10 jumping jacks, 10 push ups, 10 crunches, and a run up the hill and back.

I'm not going to lie - it sucked! It's been so hot and humid, so I had to wait until the evening to do it. Still no scale - probably tomorrow.

As far as the diet goes - not too bad. Last night we went to a party and I was pretty good. We left before the cake!

The baby had his 2 month check up and weighed in at 15 lbs 6 oz!! He's a big boy.

Day 2 of Post-Baby Diet

Ok, so I didn't run today, but I walked about 3 miles relatively briskly. My legs are a little sore from the run yesterday, and I didn't get up early enough to run before it got hot. The baby slept until 5am and my husband took care of him when he got up again a couple hours later, so I took advantage and slept in.

Diet - going well. No sweets today, and no carbs:)

I need a new scale - apparently I broke mine while pregnant!! That might be a purchase for tomorrow...

Burn the Baby Fat!

Ok, so it has been almost 9 weeks since my c-section. This morning I went for my first run. I will be tracking my progress (let's hope I make some!)

Current weight: 143 pounds (down from 170 at the birth of my son in May)

Weight before pregnancy: 135 pounds

Goal weight: 128 pounds

I know, I know, it might be a bit lofty to want to weigh less than before the pregnancy, but I have reasoning. I was in awesome shape when I got pregnant and had a lot of muscle mass. I was a 135 pound size 2. Now, I'm only 8 pounds away from the same weight, but am much larger. I lost a lot of muscle mass and replaced it with fat, which as we all know, takes up more space. I figure 128 will put at about the same size. So here we go...

Today I ran 1.5 miles and it sucked. But I did it. So it's a start.

Tomorrow I will run again and do some weights... and report on what I ate (that's the worst part for me!)

Hello! Ok, so I have completely neglected my blog for almost a year... The good news is, I'm back. It's been quite a year - I got married last August and had a baby in May. He's almost 9 weeks old. So I think I have a bit of an excuse for not posting. Also, the political climate has been so sickening that I would have had a hard time typing about it without vomiting. Especially when you consider the morning sickness.

Anyways, there's much too much material for me to really comment on our illustrious administration, so I will pose one question, pick one topic, and move on.

Question: Is anyone else enjoying watching Obambi self-destruct as much as I am? When polls show that, were the election tomorrow, he'd be in a dead heat with Sarah Palin, that's quality stuff.

Topic: Illegal Immigration. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Now, I am a confessed Conservative and I may even be a little extreme in some of my views. However, most of the time I can at least see the Liberal side of an argument, even if I don't agree. Not so with illegal immigration. I can see absolutely NO good reason for not completely securing the border and using force if necessary. This is our safety we're talking about. Furthermore, our laws. It is a violation of our laws to be in the United States illegally. And don't give me that crap about "They're the gardeners and housekeepers and cooks - they're not criminals." Wrong. By virtue of the fact that they are ILLEGAL, they are criminals. That's what illegal means, jackass. It means AGAINST THE LAW. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would not understand this. I can see why there might be some debate about what to do with the ones already here, just because deporting them all would be a logistical nightmare, even though it's what I support. But the border itself? Build a wall, and if the idiots trying to climb it fall off and die, it's a consequence of them choosing to commit a crime. Send troops down there with orders to shoot on sight. I guarantee we'll see a decrease in illegals coming across. The reality is, it's not just housekeepers and gardeners coming across. Drugs and violence are coming across, too. In large quantities. It's time for politicians to consider the country's best interest for once and stop courting the Hispanic vote. SECURE THE BORDER!

New School Year

Today, I started a new school year. I have been contemplating lately how on Earth I am going to teach U.S. Government objectively. I have become so overwhelmingly anti this current trend the government is in that I am going to find it really difficult not to come out and tell the students that I think we currently have the worst President since Jimmy Carter (and maybe even before that. Hoover, anybody? Or how does Ulysses S. Grant sound?) And then, when I think about it, I start to realize that I don't really have to mask it. Liberals have long used public schools to indoctrinate the nation's children. Just look at Barry's latest plan: Address (brainwash) the school children directly, and provide lesson plans so that teachers ask their students to come up with ways to help the President (I don't even know what to say about this except that I am ABSOLUTELY not doing it under any circumstances. I'd rather get fired). The public education system is a bastion for those who are ultra liberal - probably mostly because their audience (children) either doesn't know enough yet to argue, or because the kids don't feel comfortable doing it. If it's ok for Liberals, it's ok for me. The difference is, I will explain to my students the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, unlike many of my colleagues (this past week one of them looked me straight in the face and told me the media isn't biased, because "the truth isn't liberal" and everyone except Fox News reports the truth. WHAT????). I plan to tell my Government classes what an awful President we have, as many teachers did between 2000 and 2008. Isn't it the same? Besides, I have numbers on my side: currently, 52% of voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing (from 9/3 Rasmussen poll) and Obama's index rating is -11. That means a great deal more people strongly disapprove of him than strongly approve. Additionally, 42% of voters believe that people randomly selected from the phone book could do a better job than Congress. I have to say, I agree. Provided the phone book isn't a directory for a public school district.

Lastly, my husband and his friends were trying to come up with a name for their bowling team last night. They were trying out Big Lebowski references, as well as names related to King Pin and Eastbound and Down. When they began musing that they would probably only play the 1st half of the season, and they most likely wouldn't deliver on all the promises of grandeur they have been making, I suggested Obama and the Bail Outs. They liked it.

Hypocrisy?

Does anyone else find it hypocritical of the Democrats to want a special interim appointment to fill the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat until the special election? Let's review the facts:

-In 2004, the Democrats pushed the passage of a special state law that mandates a vacancy be filled by a special election taking place about 145 days after the seat becomes vacant. At the time, John Kerry was running for President in (apparently) a close race with incumbent George W. Bush. The Democrats feared that then-Governor, Mitt Romney (a Republican), would appoint a Republican to replace Kerry if he was elected President.

-In order to avoid a Republican gaining the seat by appointment, the Democrats came up with this law, arguing that it was unconstitutional for a Senator to take his place in the Senate without having been elected.

-Now that Kennedy has died, the Democrats are urging a special appointment. It's obvious that they want another Democrat in the Senate because they are having trouble getting support for their healthcare legislation. Is it fair that this type of appointment was blocked in 2004, but now that it would serve the Democratic Party it is viewed as necessary? I don't think so.

-Could this also have anything to do with the fact that Democratic candidates are struggling in the polls all over the nation? If the seat remains empty until next year, it gives time for a Republican candidate to organize and prepare for the election.

I'm beginning believe we should have term limits for Congress...