Socially responsible comedy and Christian Rock are siblings.

I found the counterpart to "Christian Rock."  It's "socially responsible comedians."

A pox on both your houses.

Chick-Fil-A is not horrible. Well, not horrible enough to legislate against.

Disclaimer before you assume I'm Christian:  I am (by the popular view of the definition) Agnostic.  Basically, everything Neil DeGrasse Tyson says in this 3 minute video is pretty much how I feel:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

Anyway.

Obviously, people are, or should be aware of the firestorm that was caused when the President of Chick-Fil-A, Dan Cathy, said that his company had donated $$ towards causes that rallyed against same-sex marriage.  He did so based on his (kinda silly) religious beliefs, but fine.

In an earlier post,  I laid out why (1) I support same sex marriage, but (2) would rather all governments just recognize civil unions, regardless of sex, to avoid equal protection problems.

So.  Let me get this "straight" (ha!):  Because I favor same-sex marriage, I should boycott Chick-Fil-A until THEY favor those marriages too, or at least until they shut up about not supporting them, right?

That's so wrong.

I patronize many companies.  If I were to scrutinze each company's social policies to match my particular viewpoint, I'd likely go hungry, not have as many cool gadgets as I like, and would almost certainly be pants-less.  And really, who wants to see THAT?  (Calm down, Marcus Bachmann)

Seriously, though -- Nike?  Almost ANY clothing manufacturer?  Apple?  How about the recognition that MOST corporate CEOs are super conservative themselves, and no doubt direct the money they earn from their jobs to conservative causes?  How about toys for your kids?  Are any NOT made in China, a repressive regime that routinely works to undermine this country while owning us at the same time?  Do we have to boycott companies that use products made in China?  Do we have to boycott them all?  That's wholly unrealistic, although it would delight me if a company promoted that their products were Made in the USA. 

By the way, at the place you buy GASOLINE(!?) do they also sell cigarettes?  How do you sleep at night, knowing you killing the environment/animals/air or whatever.  Is it fair for anyone to assume you HATE the environment because you buy gasoline (hell, or even tobacco?).  Or, just maybe, could it be a little much?

Anyway, this outrage over CFA is a little contrived:

First of all, who was genuinely surprised by CFA's stance?  They're closed on Sundays!  They make a point of saying why they are closed on Sundays (family, worship, apple pie, all that crapola).  Of COURSE the founders/leaders aren't down with same-sex marriage!  You just figured that out because of the interview?

Next, the reaction by some political leaders to fall all over themselves telling CFA that they WON'T let them do business in their cities is outrageous.  Hey Rahm Emanuel, you have a drug/murder problem in your city, but you want to take a stance against a LAWFUL business?  A business that makes a point to serve anyone, without regard to their stance? 

I have friends who own guns.  Should I assume they support the NRA completely?  Should I assume they oppose ALL gun control?  What if they DID oppose all gun control?  I might think them mistaken, but the logical leaps I might choose to take over that single piece of info would be unwarranted, and decidedly unskeptical.  Gun ownership is LEGAL.  Someone choosing to buy a gun doesn't make them supportive of all bad things OTHER gun owners say/do.  Why is it different with a chicken sandwich?

The forthcoming boycott/"let's-all-go-eat-at-CFA" events (both happening on the same day, 1 August 2012) is just silliness a little much.  Eat there if you like the food, don't if you don't.  Or don't if you don't like how they spend their profits.  Eat there if you hate "teh gayz" and want to support them.  This is the United States, you have that right to act within the law.

The founder had the right to voice his opinion.  People have the right to boycott . . . but this business of trying to PREVENT business is nonsense.  THAT is what upsets me the most.

I don't even eat at CFA that often, but if I were going to eat fast food, it's the place I'd choose.  The chicken is tasty, the lower-calorie options are good, their restaurants are often SPOTLESS (can you say that about some of the shadier McD's?), and their employees are straight out of a 50s comic book, although they are often of diverse backgrounds.

Which reminds me -- are liberal groups going to target employees of CFA?  Why wouldn't they?  Why wouldn't we find store managers, folks who want to put food on their family's table (pun, sorry), and accuse them of being "hate merchants?"  Why are they going to even let line workers off the hook? 

Because -- that would be bad politics.  And that is what gets me -- this boycott/exhortation to eat there is all about politics.  No one was surprised by the stance, but now that the company president spoke up, people want to fall all over themselves to show that they're good liberals/conservatives.  To target some store manager, or line workers would create bad press, and undermine your position, despite it being consistent with the logic behind the reasons for the boycott.

So, no thank you.  I'll eat there when/if I feel like it (which admittedly hasn't been often at all, but my daughter does enjoy going as a treat, so that's not going to change).  I'll smile at the workers, they'll smile back, they'll say "my pleasure" EVERY time I say "thank you" (that's gotta be a corporate directive), and my daughter and I will enjoy some chicken. 

Just not that often.  Back to training again, so the fast food has to be limited.  Just not because I don't like where a company puts its money.

So if you catch me eating at a CFA, and want to ascribe a certain political/social bent to me because of that, you can be SURE I'll pick apart everything you're wearing or weilding, and we'll see whose hands are clean (hint:  nobody's).  Liberty means you get to eat at any lawful place of business you want.  If you can do so while wearing/using nothing from a company that does some sort of evil, enjoy.


Postscript:

Most of my friends online are left-leaning, so I will await unfriending/unfollowing/whatever over this.  I assure you -- I will be sorry to see you go, but if you go to the trouble to "alert" me that you're disassociating with me, I'll just roll my eyes at your outrage and block you.  I have zero problem with your disagreement, but if you want to end the association because of it, just do it, and save the drama for your other friends.

2009 Richmond Marathon Race Report

This is an old race report.  I'm going to post some of the ones from my older races as a bit of a clearinghouse.  I chose this one first, because it represents my PR in a Marathon.

Richmond Marathon 2009 race report

Or, how a chick named Ida really but a downer on my day . . .

I'd been watching the weather for Richmond for two weeks, while at the same time hearing from LOTS of people about Tropical Storm Ida, which was slamming into Virginia, sheeting rain, flooding, and generally causing havoc.  It missed the race itself, but the remnants of the good ol' Nor'Easter was still pretty obvious.  The James River was near flood level, prompting race organizers to plan a detour if necessary, the middle miles were awash in debris from the rain, and . . . it remained windy as, well, a Nor'Easter.  Not good.

After my Half in September (a 1:55), the MacMillian pace predictor said that I should run about a 4:03 marathon.  I figured that if I started training for Richmond in October (rather than my standard training for the January Dopey) I might be within striking distance of a sub-4 hour marathon.  Based on my training numbers, I think I was close, especially if conditions were ideal.

Hi, Ida.

Richmond was a fine course, and I really don't have a lot to quibble with them about.  But because of Ida, we had some oppressive winds, which we had to deal with at some pretty inopportune times. 

The first few miles (rougly 4) were right into a headwind, and I began a pretty earnest effort to avoid puddles, of where there were plenty.  I'm not sure how Richmond pulled off the race, actually, because the Governor wasn't THAT far away, inspecting disaster-area damage!

Anyway, by mile 6, we'd gotten out of the wind for a welcome respite, only to hit the first of quite a few significant hills on the course.  They don't LOOK horrible, but they feel especially awful in the later miles, and it just plain sucks to have an invisible hand pushing you in your chest while you're already trying to keep on pace AND climb.

Regardless, during my stretch from 7 to 12, I was back on pace, but not by a lot. We were down by the James River, and it was amazing to see (1) how high it was (it apparently missed flooding by a foot or two before the rain stopped), and (2) how much debris was everywhere.  Lots of felled trees, sticks, and mud.  Oh, the mud.  I was laughing to myself as a I saw how many people had mud on them, and wondered what they were doing, only to discover post race on the ride home, that the backs of my calves were LOADED with it.  Anyway, I was ahead of pace enough that I was thinking I might come in under 4, but was still worried about the later miles.  We'd had some climbs during 7 to 12 that were NOT fun, but I took a little solace that we were at least out of those winds for a bit.  Ida couldn't find us in the trees.

We came out of the woods, hit the halfway point, and turned towards the infamous Mile 15 Bridge of Doom.  This is where we met the winds AGAIN, and it was ridiculous.  Just gusting, blowing winds that you couldn't get away from.  My Garmin informs me that I pushed through it barely ahead of a sub-4 pace, but that illustrates the Hobson's Choice you have -- push through the wind and expend energy you need for later miles, or ease up, get pushed slower by the wind, and then have to expend a LOT of energy later to catch up.

After pushing on the bridge, I lost time on 16 catching my breath by easing up the pace, and had to work to make back some time from 17-18, even through they were hilly.  But, I re-caught the 4:00 pace group.  Just in time to again turn North into the headwinds, and life started to really suck again.  At this point, "option B" of the Hobson's choice showed why it is ALSO the wrong answer.  I had spent so much energy trying to get back on pace after slowing in the winds, that I was getting mauled by them again, and couldn't do much about it.

I continued to lose some time, and then, at mile 20, we had an uphill overpass, again with a strong headwind.  I was now a full minute off pace.  By mile 22, as we were out of the wind (I think?) but I was off-pace by a COUPLE of minutes, and had developed a pretty rough knot in my right calf.  It felt like a baseball under my skin.  My Garmin was going absolutely haywire trying to get a handle on my pace.  I'm not sure if it was the cloud cover from the storm, or my erratic pace, but it would go from the mid-7/mile, up to 10 minutes, back to the low 8s, and back to 10s, all in a short stretch.  I quit looking at it for pace guidance by that point, since I just couldn't trust what I was seeing.

So, I took my first walk break at 23, pretty much sick of my chest being buffeted, and literally laughing in disbelief that, despite my phone telling me the winds were supposed to be ONLY coming mainly from the North, we ALSO now had headwinds to contend with as we headed SOUTH.  The winds were truly a swirling mess out there today.  But, for a moment, when I started running again, I thought I could make up time and pull a rabbit out of my hat.  But as I quickly found out, I had just been beaten down with wind over the course of the race.  I lost even more time, as we had winds right up until mile 25, when ol' Ida finally cut us a break.  I skulked away with a finish just a few minutes over 4 hours.

I'm profoundly disappointed, but unlike a lot of past races, I'm not nearly as upset with myself.  You can't control the weather, and while we didn't run in the MIDDLE of a Nor'Easter, Ms. Ida definitely overstayed her welcome.  So it's like waiting to go to a baseball game, and then it's rained out.  The Dopey will not be an option for breaking 4, since I will have done 16 miles over the 2 days prior to the 26, so I'll settle for 4 and change and thank you all so very much for such kind e-mails and inquiries about my time. 

The results indicate that I finished exactly in the top 30% of all runners, which I'll take, although I wish the Chinese would hurry up with their reported weather control abilities.  I could have used a tailwind!  ;-)

One important lesson learned was this:  I ran though almost all water stops. I'd grab a cup, get a mouthful, toss, and then get another cup towards the exit of the water station for another cup.  I learned later that taking in not enough liquid likely had a great deal to do with my calf seizing up.  I won't make that mistake again.  Hydration, hydration, hydration.

Why I (usually) delete @replies on Twitter

You might notice that after we have a conversation on Twitter, if you check your timeline/mentions a month or two later, my replies might be gone.  I assure you this is NOT a sign of disrespect.  It's actually a deliberate choice, that was echoed in this guy's explanation:

http://carpeaqua.com/2011/12/28/the-social-networks/

The relevant portion of what he wrote is here:

I use Twitter as a smaller, creative outlet. I share links, write bad jokes and occasionally troll my followers for fun. I also obsessively delete replies after I am sure the person it is directed to has read it. When someone visits my Twitter profile for the first time I want them to decide whether to follow or not based on the content I produce, not the conversions I have with other users.

This is a good explanation for me (although I don't like to troll readers, so that's out).  I delete my own replies on Twitter because I like the notion that someone coming to my timeline for the first time can get a read on what kind of content I produce. 

The thing is, replies are just that -- my almost-private response to someone.  Once I know, or can reasonably expect, that they've seen it, I'm good.  If you see it because we both follow the same person, great.  But it's not there for everyone else.  It's just there to reply, and then I clear it out.  Apparently, and I didn't know this initially, many twitter comics clear replies out during the day too.  I think I put out some funny stuff, but it's not all meant as jokes.  Interesting, regardless.

I felt like I needed to post this, to explain why you won't see many replies left in my TL.  The usual exception to this rule is if my reply to a person furthers the point of a previous tweet, or stands on its own as content I'd like to use as an example of what I put out there.

A deletion is not in any way meant disrespectfully to the person I was replying to, and as you can see, it's a legitmate social media strategy.  My reply was meant just for YOU (unless I do the .@ thing).  So once I know you've seen it, I'll often delete, and feed my OCD need for a clean TL, as well as for the reasons above.

Getting Government out of the marriage business, and other Republican Strawmen

After last night's vote in NC adding "Amendment One" to the state Constitution, I have been seeing convservatives on Twitter now attacking a compromise position, i.e., Getting Government completely out of the marriage business.  Their arguments rely on strawmen.  They declare that it's a brainless idea, because after all . . . Taxes!  Child custody!  Fire!  Ducks!  Pancakes!  Anarchy!  But these are just strawmen arguments designed to end debate and go back to fightin' those pesky gays.

First, no one is credibly saying that we should take all licensing of ANY kind of union out of the government's hands, except, perhaps Ron Paul and his supporters (who are REPUBLICAN).  As much as I sympathize with many Libertarians who also hold this view, I see the need to still have some predictability when it comes to taxes, child custody, etc.  So with respect to the Ron Paul folks, I'll simply say that I disagree with you, but have nothing but respect for your position.

Anyway, all that would happen, under the suggestion that I support, is that the Government would license all Unions as "Civil Unions," without discriminating against whether they were same or different sex Unions.  The Government gets its license fee, contracts/child-care/custody/taxation but still has something to point to and say, "Yes you two are together, so we can understand that you want a tax break (or penalty!) etc. etc."

Also, the benefit to the compromise is that it avoids (continual) losses in Court finding that prohibiting Gay Marriage violates the US Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.  I'm not aware of a SINGLE court that has ever upheld banning gay marriage, and said that was A-OK under the Equal Protection Clause.  And don't give me that "THEY ARE ALL LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!!oneone"  That's nonsense.  Your position doesn't hold up in Court, in the intellectual crucible.

If the compromise were in place, you'd then have some fairly easy scenarios:

1)  If you were religious, and wanted to really drive home the point that you were together, you'd go to a church/temple/mosque/whatever and get MARRIED.  The license would provide that you could go do that.  Or, after obtaining the license, you could do it at the courthouse.  Whatever.  Your church would call you "married," and you could call yourself that if you wanted.  The Gov't would view you as being part of a civil union.

2) If you were Gay and religious, you could see if your church would marry you.  If your place of worship would not marry you, then tough luck.  You joined a place that looks on you as second class.  Maybe you ought to pick a different religion/place of worship.  You still have a Courthouse, or even a Country Club, to go have your wedding.  The Gov't would view you as being part of a civil union, just like Scenario #1.

3)  If you were NOT religious, then go get married/joined/hitched or whatever, and have a party.  Nothing would stop you from the colloquial "married," any more than anyone else.  You could call yourselves married, whatever.  But the Gov't would view you as being part of a civil union, just like Scenarios #1, and #2.

See that?  Equality?  Or does it burn you, social conservatives?  Like sunlight on Gollum?

Answer me this:  Why would it bother you SO MUCH if the Government thought of you the same way it thought of a gay couple, if only in terms of taxes and contracts?  Does that upset you SO MUCH that you couldn't allow a gay couple to enjoy the same happiness you have?  Really?

Do you NEED a pronouncement from the Government that you are "married?"  That WORD?  You really NEED that from the Goverment, is that your argument?  Because, there are a LOT of social conservatives that seem to want LESS Goverment, but on THIS issue (wow, that involves gays and religion), you suddenly will have a self-esteem crisis if Uncle Sam doesn't refer to your union as a marriage?  That's nonsense.

What this boils down to is pure hatred dislike of the gay lifestyle.  Some married couples don't WANT Gay couples saying they are "Married."  It irks them.  They, for some reason, want to hold it above Gays that they can do something Gays can't.  That's ludicrious.  Would your marriage's sanctity be SO affected if Gays had a church (like Unitarian), or a ceremony, and then called themselves "married?"  Would that bother you SO MUCH?  If it does, seriously, on that point, like it or not, you're a bigot.

So the conservatives out there who deride "getting government out of the marriage business" as leading to chaos without regulation are just arguing against a strawman.  No one is credibly saying that.  You just can't stand that Gays might be on equal footing with you, despite that pesky Constitution (hi Tea Partiers!) guaranteeing equality.

I'm done.  I kept trying to share links on Twitter, and then would see idiots Tweeps making some really intellectually dishonest strawman arguments about marriage, and the supposed call for NO government regulation of it.  I figured rather than search anymore, I'd write my own.

The Reason Rally comes to DC, where I live . . .

. . . and I'm going to miss it.  Really.

I looked forward to attending this, particularly since Rebecca Watson wasn't invited to speak.  I'm terribly sick of the "outrage prism" through which she views life, and feel certain much of it is designed to drive up page views.  She's not attending the Reason Rally because, as a non-speaker, she likely can't afford it.  But it smacks of, "If I can't be a star, I'm not coming to the show" type attitude.

Anyway, so I was psyched to go.  And, reading Twitter, many people I'd like to meet, including Tanya of http://daisiesandshit.com/ are here in DC.  Right.  Now.

But . . . .  Life.

My statement on the "Book of Mormon" Twitter List Debacle

I'm glad I still have this blog, because I can just tweet a link to various entries here, and (1) have my say in more than 140 characters, and (2) not subject my followers to multiple tweets complaining about being made to feel so crappy.

Here's my take:

--I'm a superfan of Broadway's "Book of Mormon."  I kept up with their development on FB, followed them on Twitter EARLY, and saw the show in July of 2011.  I took pictures (of other people getting their pictures with the stars, I was too shy), and then realized that MANY of the ensemble cast were also on Twitter, yet only the "big 4" (Andrew Rannells, Josh Gad, Nikki M. James, and Rory O'Malley) were publicized.

So I created a Twitter list.  Scott Barnhardt first hipped me to some ensemble members accounts, and I went from there.  I added in Bobby Lopez as well, and then even added in some crew/behind the scenes folks.  Some were huge, like Stephen Oremus, who won a Tony and Grammy for his orchestral work.

--But I also added in the 3 stage managers (highlighted by Josh Gad) who work so hard.

--Finally, I added on the Book of Mormon Company Manager, Adam Miller.

--The list was substantial (28 members!) and was both the most-followed Book of Mormon Twitter list out there (there were many), and was the most populated (28 was nearly double the next highest BoM Twitter list).

--Many of the cast members didn't have a ton of followers.  I usually welcomed them when they'd join Twitter (like Kevin D., or even Stephen), and noted that they were now listed on the comprehensive Twitter list, and hopefully, as people consulted it as a reference/clearinghouse, their following would increase.  Groovy, good vibes, yada-yada.

--Things seemed fine.  NONE of the crew rejected my following of them on Twitter.  In fact, NONE of those listed/followed: 

1.  Stopped me from following them.
2.  Stopped me from listing them, or
3.  Asked me to not endorse them on #FF days (I did list them on some #FF days).

Instead, in late February of 2012, I noticed that Adam Miller, the Book of Mormon Company Manager hadn't just @replied to me and asked me to de-list (or even de-follow).  He flat out blocked me.  Twitter confirmed this when I attempted to re-follow (not permanently, I only attempted to re-follow because THEN Twitter will tell you something like, "Sorry, this user has blocked you.").

Suffice it to say, I was hurt, and a little depressed/angry.  You can't even do me the courtesy of a reply/request to say, "Hey, I don't want to be on this list?"  At least let me ignore you before you go to the trouble to block me.

So, I just decided, "Hasa Diga."  I deleted the entire Twitter list.  I unfollowed every single BoM-related person.  Because Miller had blocked me, he couldn't see my comments, so I @replied to Rachel, a stage manager, and told her I was done.

The upshot of all this is that it brought back EVERY feeling from High School about being a misfit/outcast.  Once a freak, always a freak, apparently.  Things don't change.

That last part is tough to admit for someone who supports the teaching of Evolution, lol.  I got some personal phone calls from RL friends on Twitter, and even some @mentions about the list's deletion, and just took solace in the notion that I was never IN the cool crowd to begin with, so it shouldn't be a surprise that I'd be treated as a freak even when older.

But this whole thing hurt.  It was really surprising to me, because ordinarily, the staff of BoM are pretty friendly.  I'd actually had some good conversations with the BoM Twitter account via DMs, because I had been scouring YouTube, and alerting the Show Account to various bootleg videos that were online.  Together, we got the YT accounts deleted outright.  As of this writing, there are no bootleg videos on YT anymore, but I'll be damned if I'm going to alert anyone if I find any more.  I'd hate to be thought of as over-the-top.  Or blocked without comment/warning.  The musical itself is wonderful, as are the people.  It's a great, funny, and profound show.  But this is an example of the old adage, "Never meet your heroes."  While it isn't quite applicable to this situation, it's close.  Close enough that it really hurt.

So I'm done.