So, October is in the books (pretend I wrote this 4 days ago, m'kay?). It was an interesting month, running wise. Here's what I did: ran the Chicago marathon, took part in the Tennessee Ragnar Relay, put 119 miles on my shoes, and ran one of the 10-miler races at Shelby Forest. What did I learn? A couple of important things, honestly. First, boy do I need to lose weight. I have to believe that more than anything else, the extra 35 pounds I'm carrying are getting in the way of my long runs. Sure, I can do 10 or 12 miles with no problem and I'm actually getting faster, but toting around the extra tonnage is keeping me from having a really good marathon. My best one so far is my first one and that was almost 20 pounds later than I am now. My best half came a month later. I truly believe that when I shed the extra weight, I will be in the best running shape of my life. My legs are much stronger, my body is getting more used to the rigors of running long distances and I'm pretty good at fueling properly at this time. I'll get back to this in a moment. But, let me get to my second point. I love to run. I love the races and traveling to different places to run. I enjoyed the Chicago marathon, but I also enjoyed the two other runs I did while in the Windy City. There's a certain pleasure in exploring a now locale by foot that you don't get by other transportation.
So, back to losing weight. I've started back with watching what I eat, counting calories and making sure that I have a deficit everyday. As usual, the first 6 or 7 pounds came right off. Now, it's down to losing 2 pounds a week for the next 12 or 13 weeks while getting ready for the MS River Marathon. Here's the deal I'm making with myself. If I lose the weight and have a bad race (for reasons that are within my control) or if I don't lose much weight and have a bad race, I'll give up running marathons until I get to a more appropriate weight. I won't sign up for one or even think about it until I do. I've tried using it as motivation and it doesn't work. I ran Chicago at a ridiculous weight for a "marathoner". I don't want to be one of those people who just finishes. No, I don't think I'll ever be in the top 10 of a big race, or the top 100. But, I want a time I can be proud of. Not just hear "hey, 90% of the country will never do what you did". I want to have a finish time south of 4 hours and maybe even one that could get me into Boston.
So, that's the deal. Lose the weight, have a good race and I'll keep doing marathons. Don't lose the weight and/or have a bad race because of something that I'm doing and I'm done until I can get everything in order. Maybe I'm not meant to run long distances, but I'll never know unless I give myself a chance and that's what I mean to do.
So, October's behind, I have 1 (or maybe 2 half marathons) in front of me and a trail 25K that will kick my ass if I don't get in great shape and might kick my ass even if I do and then the marathon.
So, the motto is: Two pounds a week, no excuses.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Tennessee Ragnar 2013
Want to have a great time running with 11 other people in two vans over 24-30 hours through central Tennessee? Want to run at noon, 10:00pm and 5:00am? Want to feel like the only runner on a lonely rural road in the middle of the night? How about sleep on a basketball court floor at 3:30 in the morning with 100+ other people? Does being in a 12 passenger van with 5 other stinky runners sound like a good time to you? If you said "Yes" to any or all of these questions, then run the Tennessee Ragnar relay race! It's 200 miles of all of this and more!
How about this one - Would you like to challenge yourself as a runner, make some great memories and new friends while seeing some pretty country? Because, when the smells fade from your nose, the tiredness is gone from your body, your belly is full of something not prepared in a school cafeteria or squeezed out of a gel pack, you're clean and stretched out on your sofa, this is what you'll remember.
Running Ragnar this year with 6 people I knew and 5 that I didn't was a great experience and, yes, I'd sign up for another relay with those same 11 people. We all got along, no assholes in the group and we all pulled together to support and cheer for each other. The best part about it is, that I've made some friends that I hope to see again soon.
I really recommend running this relay race. You will have a good time doing it and you'll have some great memories.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
More than just the 2nd
Ok folks (or, more like Ok me), it's time to talk about the Constitution.
I see stuff like "it's the greatest document ever written" spewed out by Republican congressman right before they yammer about how the President is stepping all over it and I wonder, do they really understand it? I wonder if they've actually read the entire thing (including all of the amendments, not just the second) and if they really digest the meaning of it.
The Constitution is a great document used to setup the government. But, what many people don't really grasp is that one of the things that makes it so great, is the ability to change it. If we just had the original document, there would be no guarantees of protection of speech, from religion, from illegal searches and seizures and you might have a soldier living in your house. You could incriminate yourself, have no right to confront your accuser, women wouldn't be allowed to vote and people of color would be counted as 3/5. Also, we'd probably have a new constitution by now. The reason we have the oldest constitution is that it's changeable. The men of the constitutional convention knew that in order to last, it would have to change as the country did.
But, enough about that - maybe I'll tackle more on that later. What I really want to talk about is the Preamble.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It's only like 50 words (less if you take out United States twice). But, it conveys so much and, if you love the Constitution like some profess, you should be almost orgasmic over this part of it. It's written with such grace, such simple, direct words about what the purpose of the federal government is.
First, what are we doing here? We're trying to form a more perfect union. We were originally organized under the Articles of Confederation. Which, admittedly is not my strong suit, but suffice it say, that they wouldn't work for a nation that even back then, was divided into regions with different beliefs and priorities. So, the smart men of the time got together and started drafting a new governing document.
How are we going to make it better? We're going to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty.
Ok, so what does that mean? I guess it depends on who you ask, but this is what I believe. The easy part- common defence. We're going to make sure that the company is safe. While some of the founders were against a standing army (hence the first part of the second amendment "a well regulated militia" and the third (no quartering of soldiers during a time of peace)), but they knew that a strong military was important to the security of the nation. Of course, a strong military then vs. now is a whole other ball of wax.
Next, Justice. They setup the court system, topped by the SCOTUS. I'm not sure that many of them ever actually felt justice was blind or that the scales really balanced, but hey, they were all wealthy landowners (which meant they were male and white), so maybe their version of justice was a bit skewed (Lady Liberty could peek out from underneath her blindfold a bit). Still, they gave us the Bill of Rights - half of the amendments deal with the justice system - 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th. So, they really tried on that one.
Now, the Blessings of Liberty. Despite what some people think, we're pretty damn free in this country. We can bitch and moan about the government without really worrying whether that van down the street is full of federal agents. We can pack up and move, we can change jobs, marry who we want (well, that's becoming more and more true), have kids or not, and so on. Despite some overreach by the government, we have a shit ton of freedom and we live in a country that thousands of people come to to live and make a better life for themselves.
Promoting the general Welfare and ensure domestic tranquility I think are the parts of the preamble that many people forget (or try to forget). But, what does it really mean? Here's my take: The Union has an obligation and duty to make sure that all the people of the nation are provided for. We have to look out for each other. Allowing any type of firearm to be manufactured and sold does not ensure domestic tranquility (no matter what the NRA says). Letting people starve while we allow oil companies to pollute the air, sea and land is not doing either of those things. (sidenote: Great Rush lyric "Don't feed the people, but we feed the machine"). Some talking heads think that we should just let charities or churches take care of the needy. What they fail to realize is that they can't. A country of 300 million people needs a government that will help all those that need it. We need to fill in the cracks that people fall through. A huge percentage of homeless people are veterans. How do we let this happen? They provided for the common defence, but now we won't promote their general Welfare. It means taking care of the people that need it - giving them a helping hand or a leg up. Are there people that will take advantage of it? Sure. Are there people who will use is to improve their situation? Absolutely. We can't let the fact that programs aren't perfect by the excuse for doing away with them, nor should we stop trying to make them better.
Finally, it's not for just us. It's not so corporations can make more money. It's for us and our posterity. It's for our kids, grandkids and their grandkids. It's why some try to leave the world better than they found it. There is a saying (I always thought it was a Native American one, but I was wrong on that) that goes "We have not inherited the land from our fathers, we have borrowed it from our children". I think that many of the pro-business, extreme Right have forgotten this and instead of taking care of the resources of the planet, they exploit them.
So, that's my long rambling interpretation of the Preamble of the Constitution. It's important to remember that the goal of the entire document and the Federal Government is summed up in that short opening statement. There are lessons to be learned from it. House Speaker Boehner had all of the Congress read the Constitution out loud when they were sworn in in 2011. I wonder if they actually paid attention to that part of it or skipped over the "fluff" and just read the 2nd over and over again.
I see stuff like "it's the greatest document ever written" spewed out by Republican congressman right before they yammer about how the President is stepping all over it and I wonder, do they really understand it? I wonder if they've actually read the entire thing (including all of the amendments, not just the second) and if they really digest the meaning of it.
The Constitution is a great document used to setup the government. But, what many people don't really grasp is that one of the things that makes it so great, is the ability to change it. If we just had the original document, there would be no guarantees of protection of speech, from religion, from illegal searches and seizures and you might have a soldier living in your house. You could incriminate yourself, have no right to confront your accuser, women wouldn't be allowed to vote and people of color would be counted as 3/5. Also, we'd probably have a new constitution by now. The reason we have the oldest constitution is that it's changeable. The men of the constitutional convention knew that in order to last, it would have to change as the country did.
But, enough about that - maybe I'll tackle more on that later. What I really want to talk about is the Preamble.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It's only like 50 words (less if you take out United States twice). But, it conveys so much and, if you love the Constitution like some profess, you should be almost orgasmic over this part of it. It's written with such grace, such simple, direct words about what the purpose of the federal government is.
First, what are we doing here? We're trying to form a more perfect union. We were originally organized under the Articles of Confederation. Which, admittedly is not my strong suit, but suffice it say, that they wouldn't work for a nation that even back then, was divided into regions with different beliefs and priorities. So, the smart men of the time got together and started drafting a new governing document.
How are we going to make it better? We're going to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty.
Ok, so what does that mean? I guess it depends on who you ask, but this is what I believe. The easy part- common defence. We're going to make sure that the company is safe. While some of the founders were against a standing army (hence the first part of the second amendment "a well regulated militia" and the third (no quartering of soldiers during a time of peace)), but they knew that a strong military was important to the security of the nation. Of course, a strong military then vs. now is a whole other ball of wax.
Next, Justice. They setup the court system, topped by the SCOTUS. I'm not sure that many of them ever actually felt justice was blind or that the scales really balanced, but hey, they were all wealthy landowners (which meant they were male and white), so maybe their version of justice was a bit skewed (Lady Liberty could peek out from underneath her blindfold a bit). Still, they gave us the Bill of Rights - half of the amendments deal with the justice system - 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th. So, they really tried on that one.
Now, the Blessings of Liberty. Despite what some people think, we're pretty damn free in this country. We can bitch and moan about the government without really worrying whether that van down the street is full of federal agents. We can pack up and move, we can change jobs, marry who we want (well, that's becoming more and more true), have kids or not, and so on. Despite some overreach by the government, we have a shit ton of freedom and we live in a country that thousands of people come to to live and make a better life for themselves.
Promoting the general Welfare and ensure domestic tranquility I think are the parts of the preamble that many people forget (or try to forget). But, what does it really mean? Here's my take: The Union has an obligation and duty to make sure that all the people of the nation are provided for. We have to look out for each other. Allowing any type of firearm to be manufactured and sold does not ensure domestic tranquility (no matter what the NRA says). Letting people starve while we allow oil companies to pollute the air, sea and land is not doing either of those things. (sidenote: Great Rush lyric "Don't feed the people, but we feed the machine"). Some talking heads think that we should just let charities or churches take care of the needy. What they fail to realize is that they can't. A country of 300 million people needs a government that will help all those that need it. We need to fill in the cracks that people fall through. A huge percentage of homeless people are veterans. How do we let this happen? They provided for the common defence, but now we won't promote their general Welfare. It means taking care of the people that need it - giving them a helping hand or a leg up. Are there people that will take advantage of it? Sure. Are there people who will use is to improve their situation? Absolutely. We can't let the fact that programs aren't perfect by the excuse for doing away with them, nor should we stop trying to make them better.
Finally, it's not for just us. It's not so corporations can make more money. It's for us and our posterity. It's for our kids, grandkids and their grandkids. It's why some try to leave the world better than they found it. There is a saying (I always thought it was a Native American one, but I was wrong on that) that goes "We have not inherited the land from our fathers, we have borrowed it from our children". I think that many of the pro-business, extreme Right have forgotten this and instead of taking care of the resources of the planet, they exploit them.
So, that's my long rambling interpretation of the Preamble of the Constitution. It's important to remember that the goal of the entire document and the Federal Government is summed up in that short opening statement. There are lessons to be learned from it. House Speaker Boehner had all of the Congress read the Constitution out loud when they were sworn in in 2011. I wonder if they actually paid attention to that part of it or skipped over the "fluff" and just read the 2nd over and over again.
Friday, September 27, 2013
conservatives vs. Conservatives
I was reading another blog a while ago and something that the author was whining about stuck with me. I've been thinking about it for a while now and can't shake what they wrote.
Here's what it boiled down to: Why is everyone picking on us conservatives? They wrote that they and their parents were conservative - they recycled their stuff, cared about the environment, and so on.
On its face, I would say the author is conflating conservationism with conservatism. But (and I admit that I don't remember the post or where I read it), I think they were trying to make a larger point. The author also wrote something negative about dirty, rowdy Occupiers. They were clearly getting some of their Occupy talking points from Fox News. Which is where I completely lost interest. Not because of their opinion, but their lack of either facts or experience to back up what they said.
So, let me start with that. Occupy Wall St, and its progeny did suffer from a certain amount of notoriety and lack of clear messaging. In this 24-hour news cycle world, tea partiers are better at getting their exact message out and the basis of that movement was simple - people felt that federal bailouts of banks and industries were not good for the US. Now, big money like the Koch brothers got behind the movement, paid for buses to round up people and take them to events and, wham, you get "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" signs. In its infancy, whether I agree with their position or not, the Tea Party had a certain ring of sincerity to it.
Occupy, on the other hand, not so well messaged in the media, not so well funded. Perhaps I should say not so well funded so not so well messaged in the media. However, the people that were serious about it, on some level, would have agreed with some of the early tea partiers. Why are we bailing out those who crashed our economy? Of course, while the TP wanted nothing done, Occupiers wanted the people bailed out. All those underwater mortgages would be better served by forgiveness or money to pay them down. More money pumped into the lowest earners in the country would revive the economy more. Occupiers felt that trickle down was the 1% pissing on their heads and telling them its raining.
So, anyway, back to the original post. I yelled at my screen "Teddy Roosevelt was a conservative". You'll remember him - President, Rough Rider, National Park starter. Eisenhower was a conservative. He's the one who warned of the military-industrial complex. He's the one who started the interstate system. The men and women in Congress that have an "R" after their names are not conservatives. They're Conservatives.
Those are the people we progressives have a hard time with. Those are the people that, if Reagan were President, would think he's a RINO. There is very little in common between the current clown car that is the RNC and the RNC of Teddy, Dwight or even Richard (he started the EPA).
So, to my conservative friends out there - progressives don't hate you. We hate Conservatives. The ones that want smaller government yet call for trans-vaginal ultrasounds. The ones that want fewer regulations, but want money when a privately owned fertilizer plant blows up a town. The ones that vote against money for Hurricane Sandy relief, but want money for their state ravaged by floods. The ones that are all for tax breaks for the people who don't need them and want higher taxes on those with the least to give. The ones that think companies are people too, but don't want to help feed actual humans. The ones that care so much about making sure every baby is born, but couldn't care less about them after that. The ones that talk about how marriage is a sacred institution and so same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry but are on their third wife (I'm looking at you, Newt). Those are the ones we don't like, don't respect and don't want trying to run (or ruin) the government.
Here's what it boiled down to: Why is everyone picking on us conservatives? They wrote that they and their parents were conservative - they recycled their stuff, cared about the environment, and so on.
On its face, I would say the author is conflating conservationism with conservatism. But (and I admit that I don't remember the post or where I read it), I think they were trying to make a larger point. The author also wrote something negative about dirty, rowdy Occupiers. They were clearly getting some of their Occupy talking points from Fox News. Which is where I completely lost interest. Not because of their opinion, but their lack of either facts or experience to back up what they said.
So, let me start with that. Occupy Wall St, and its progeny did suffer from a certain amount of notoriety and lack of clear messaging. In this 24-hour news cycle world, tea partiers are better at getting their exact message out and the basis of that movement was simple - people felt that federal bailouts of banks and industries were not good for the US. Now, big money like the Koch brothers got behind the movement, paid for buses to round up people and take them to events and, wham, you get "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" signs. In its infancy, whether I agree with their position or not, the Tea Party had a certain ring of sincerity to it.
Occupy, on the other hand, not so well messaged in the media, not so well funded. Perhaps I should say not so well funded so not so well messaged in the media. However, the people that were serious about it, on some level, would have agreed with some of the early tea partiers. Why are we bailing out those who crashed our economy? Of course, while the TP wanted nothing done, Occupiers wanted the people bailed out. All those underwater mortgages would be better served by forgiveness or money to pay them down. More money pumped into the lowest earners in the country would revive the economy more. Occupiers felt that trickle down was the 1% pissing on their heads and telling them its raining.
So, anyway, back to the original post. I yelled at my screen "Teddy Roosevelt was a conservative". You'll remember him - President, Rough Rider, National Park starter. Eisenhower was a conservative. He's the one who warned of the military-industrial complex. He's the one who started the interstate system. The men and women in Congress that have an "R" after their names are not conservatives. They're Conservatives.
Those are the people we progressives have a hard time with. Those are the people that, if Reagan were President, would think he's a RINO. There is very little in common between the current clown car that is the RNC and the RNC of Teddy, Dwight or even Richard (he started the EPA).
So, to my conservative friends out there - progressives don't hate you. We hate Conservatives. The ones that want smaller government yet call for trans-vaginal ultrasounds. The ones that want fewer regulations, but want money when a privately owned fertilizer plant blows up a town. The ones that vote against money for Hurricane Sandy relief, but want money for their state ravaged by floods. The ones that are all for tax breaks for the people who don't need them and want higher taxes on those with the least to give. The ones that think companies are people too, but don't want to help feed actual humans. The ones that care so much about making sure every baby is born, but couldn't care less about them after that. The ones that talk about how marriage is a sacred institution and so same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry but are on their third wife (I'm looking at you, Newt). Those are the ones we don't like, don't respect and don't want trying to run (or ruin) the government.
Monday, September 16, 2013
T-Minus 27 days
So, yeah, Chicago is less than 4 weeks away and what have I done? Well, in some ways, quite a bit. I've really picked up my mileage and have brought my times down a skoosh. The weather in the midsouth has gotten a bit more temperate and morning runs have not been quite so arduous, so that's helped. I ran a 10K in just over an hour (9 seconds to be exact). That's the kind of pace I'd like to do the marathon in.
On the other hand, I've lost weight, but oh so slowly. At the rate I'm going, I'll be in prime shape for Chicago 2015. I have 4 weeks to make sure that, at the least, I'm down a few pounds and priming my body for the rigors of 26 miles with good fuel.
I have one more long run before the marathon. I'm torn on which way to go. Do I just do 18 or 20 miles and call it good or do I try for 23 or 24. There's a part of me that wants to be sure I can do the distance, but it will only be two weeks out from the race and I have a tough 10 miler the week between so I'm leaning more towards a shorter run. I'll probably let how I'm feeling and the weather and all that decide.
I did a 15 mile trail run on Sunday and man, I am sore. It was a tough run with lots of up and down hills. Lots of logs to jump over, duck under and generally avoid. Stinging nettles and thorns to run through. Stumps to trip over, etc. I'm hoping that this was good muscle building for the marathon. My running partner wants me to do a race on the trails we ran in February. I'll have to make a decision on that soon. If I do it, I'll have to subject myself to that course a few times for training. Some parts of it are really beautiful, some are tortuous.
Anyway, that's about where I'm at. My longest run since the MS River Marathon is just under 20 miles. I'm doing about 120 miles a month. Some runs have been great and I've felt strong afterwards. Others have been abject failures and made me question my readiness for Chicago.
Four weeks from yesterday will be the test.
On the other hand, I've lost weight, but oh so slowly. At the rate I'm going, I'll be in prime shape for Chicago 2015. I have 4 weeks to make sure that, at the least, I'm down a few pounds and priming my body for the rigors of 26 miles with good fuel.
I have one more long run before the marathon. I'm torn on which way to go. Do I just do 18 or 20 miles and call it good or do I try for 23 or 24. There's a part of me that wants to be sure I can do the distance, but it will only be two weeks out from the race and I have a tough 10 miler the week between so I'm leaning more towards a shorter run. I'll probably let how I'm feeling and the weather and all that decide.
I did a 15 mile trail run on Sunday and man, I am sore. It was a tough run with lots of up and down hills. Lots of logs to jump over, duck under and generally avoid. Stinging nettles and thorns to run through. Stumps to trip over, etc. I'm hoping that this was good muscle building for the marathon. My running partner wants me to do a race on the trails we ran in February. I'll have to make a decision on that soon. If I do it, I'll have to subject myself to that course a few times for training. Some parts of it are really beautiful, some are tortuous.
Anyway, that's about where I'm at. My longest run since the MS River Marathon is just under 20 miles. I'm doing about 120 miles a month. Some runs have been great and I've felt strong afterwards. Others have been abject failures and made me question my readiness for Chicago.
Four weeks from yesterday will be the test.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Post #1
Here we go again...yet another blog about running. And here I go again, trying to start up another blog that will, hopefully continue on for more than a couple of weeks. (Although I'm off to a bad start since this first post has taken 3 days).
Anyway, I've done blogs in the past about preparing for a particular race - one which happened, one didn't (well, it happened, but I wasn't in it). My plan is to use this one to talk about all kinds of things - mostly running since that's what occupies a pretty large part of my free time. But also other stuff that is of interest to me. That's probably because I'm about the only one likely to read this.
I'll probably post some recipes, thoughts about books I'm reading, music I'm listening to, and other random things. I'll probably actually get political (shock!). I'm an unabashed Progressive that is stuck in a red state and constantly laughing at some of the people around here.
So, that's the plan. Here's the nitty gritty:
I'm 45 years old (eek!). I'm still a bit overweight but I love to run. I just need to love to eat a little bit less. I'm currently training for a pretty busy fall running season - 1 full marathon (Chicago), 3 half marathons (one of which is St. Jude Memphis) and part of a Ragnar Relay team. I'm also learning to play guitar, still trying to fit into a new job, have 3 dogs to walk 2 or 3 times a day, a pretty rabid football fan (and part of a fantasy league), and so on. That is to say I keep somewhat busy, but not too busy.
Ok, back to work. More later...
Anyway, I've done blogs in the past about preparing for a particular race - one which happened, one didn't (well, it happened, but I wasn't in it). My plan is to use this one to talk about all kinds of things - mostly running since that's what occupies a pretty large part of my free time. But also other stuff that is of interest to me. That's probably because I'm about the only one likely to read this.
I'll probably post some recipes, thoughts about books I'm reading, music I'm listening to, and other random things. I'll probably actually get political (shock!). I'm an unabashed Progressive that is stuck in a red state and constantly laughing at some of the people around here.
So, that's the plan. Here's the nitty gritty:
I'm 45 years old (eek!). I'm still a bit overweight but I love to run. I just need to love to eat a little bit less. I'm currently training for a pretty busy fall running season - 1 full marathon (Chicago), 3 half marathons (one of which is St. Jude Memphis) and part of a Ragnar Relay team. I'm also learning to play guitar, still trying to fit into a new job, have 3 dogs to walk 2 or 3 times a day, a pretty rabid football fan (and part of a fantasy league), and so on. That is to say I keep somewhat busy, but not too busy.
Ok, back to work. More later...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)