Sexual harassment at a (half) Marathon?

Or a case of (fully) super-sensitive spectators?

I've often spoken on Twitter and elsewhere about the "Outrage Prism," which many (apparently) joyless people hold over their eyes 24/7, allowing them to find offense at any/all things they encounter in daily life.

But recently, the Nike Women's Half Marathon was run in DC.  And, DC being DC, it managed to attract controversy.

Some company/product, "BareMinerals by Bare Escentuals" engaged in a viral marketing campaign where "Frat Boys" cheered on the runners with signs saying things like "You Look Beautiful All Sweaty," and "Cute Running Shoes."  As discussed below, according to women runners on the course, the "DC Frat Boys" were not obnoxious or negative in any way, and instead cheered the runners along their 13.1 mile course.

But one group doesn't see it that way (cue Outrage Prism): 

Linky:  Trigger warning:  WTF-ness

The group "Collective Action for Safe Spaces DC" is focused on ending Street Harassment in DC, and certainly elsewhere.  They are focused on a noble cause.  But on THIS front, they're just way off base, and provide a great example of the Outrage Prism taking hold. 

Notice that the people complaining on that FB page didn't actually RUN the race.  The people complaining simply WANT the women runners to be offended. But one women commenter actually ran the race, and pointed out their folly:  

Katy Cavanaugh By mile 8, I want to see someone holding a sign telling me my shoes are cute and I'm still looking good. I ran the race. I remember seeing them. They were not acting obnoxious or violent in any way. They were cheering on the runners. Does this mean the women holding the "you don't sweat, you sparkle" we're equally as offensive? Pick someone else to be angry at this week. People out there cheering for runners one week after Boston should be applauded, no matter why they were standing there.

Katy makes a great point - you will see signs saying how "Sparkly" you look from the sweat all the time at Marathons, Half-Marys, and even some Triathlons.  Moreover, spectators shout "You look great!" to men AND women. They say things like, "You look awesome!" along with a host of other cheers, not just related to looks.

Are they saying it to harass?  To OMG INFLICT THE PATRIARCHY?  No.

They're cheering on the runners.  Context, people.  Context.  CONTEXT.

Finally, let's discuss the finish line at the race.  There were tuxedo'd men holding platters of Tiffany's Medals, and lots of women gleefully grabbed at the men to have photos with them.  Also, I don't see a lot of people protesting the "hot" guys giving out TIffany's Medals.  

And let's also point out the Diva Half Marathon in Myrtle Beach was that same weekend, which my friend Bang ran, and featured beefcake giving out medals.  No complaints.  Street harassment is one thing.  Getting pissed off because you don't like how runners are supported is another.  Because CONTEXT.

In fact, I actually thought:  "Why don't they produce RUNNERS who saw these men and were offended?  Hmm, I wonder what women who DID run the Half thought of the cheering section of (pretend?) Frat Boys?"

So first, I texted a woman I know who ran it.  She saw the cheering section, said that she smiled/waved, and didn't give it another thought.  She felt like this was all a bit silly, and that was that.  But obviously, apart from her and Katy, I needed more women to survey and ask.

GOOGLE TIME!

I'm going to cite to some bloggers who DID run the race, and who also posted race recaps with photos.  I'll link to their recaps, along with their Twitter pages.  But I'll say this:  NONE of the bloggers I found mentioned, much less complained, about this oh-so-offensive cheering section (assuming they even saw it).

First, I did a little Googling, and found this race recap from Anne, who ran the race along with a friend.  I posted a couple of comments on her page, asking her take on it. 

Then, I did a little MORE Googling, and found this race recap from Molly.  I didn't post any comments on her blog asking for her take, but I plan to ping her on Twitter and point her here.

Then then, I did even MORE MORE Googling, and found this race recap from Allie.  Same as Molly.  After I left the comments for Anne, it just seemed easier to get my thoughts out, and point them here to ask their views.

I did . . . well, you get the idea.  Here's a FOURTH race recap, this time from Amy.

I plan to update this blog with their takes, assuming they answer me about the cheering section, and to see if they felt objectified/harassed or appreciated the attempt.

One thing you'll notice in all their race recaps:  NO mention of the "Frat Boys" and their Evil Patriarchal Attempts to Objectify (cue thunder/lightning).  Again, the ONLY complaint I've found about this marketing campaign has come from people who DID NOT run the race.

I actually Googled to see if I could find anyone complaining about the "Frat Boys" cheering section.  The only links?  Complaints by . . . guess.

Oh, sure, there are complaints on Twitter . . . from people who (1) didn't run the race, (2) didn't see the cheering section, or, (3) weren't even IN DC for the race.  Which is why I thought, you know, let's ask women runners what they felt when/if they saw the cheering section. 

Of course anyone can offer their opinion on a matter, but it seemed to me that it would be helpful if the folks who actually ran the race, and who may have seen the cheering section could offer their input.  Because, you know, their opinion might matter.  In fact, it DOES.  If there is no groundswell from women who actually RAN the race, and actually EXPERIENCED the cheering (or "street harassment"), then maybe -- just MAYBE -- this group is off-base.

But there's a happy ending in all of this . . . KIDDING!  There's not:

Bare Minerals informed Safe Spaces that, due to their joyless bullying protest, they would stop the marketing campaign.  But, that's not good enough.  Safe Spaces wants Bare Minerals to grovel.  They are demanding an apology.

Here's the problem:  To whom do they apologize?  Runners?  The only runners I've seen have said they didn't mind, didn't see, or outright LIKED the cheering.  So Safe Spaces wants an apology to . . . people who didn't participate in the race?  Who?  All women?

Outrage.  Prism.

 

P.S.  I wish Safe Spaces well.  I support their goals.  But nonsense like this protest, featuring utterly context-blind views on such an innocent matter, just undermines their credibility.

Update #1

Bang, of Run Bang Run has pointed something out to me in a Twitter DM.  What if these signs were held up by women?  Would this group protest it?  Sure!  If they were INSANE.  Realistically, of course they would not.  So, Bang points out, there is the question whether the words really offended them, or if it was because men were holding the signs.

Thanks, Bang!


Update #2

Allie got back to me -- she didn't notice the cheering section.  Thanks for letting me know Allie!


Update #3

I've now heard back from Anne.  She also did not notice them, but thinks this is all silly, and I'll link to her own words on the matter.


Update #4

The responses are rolling in!  Now I've heard from Molly, who DOES remember them, and states (over two tweets):

---"if I remember correctly, they were after a long stretch of silence. I was begging for a cheering squad!  Didn't mind at all that they were cute boys telling me I was beautiful!  Haha."

I really appreciate all the responses!  I put up this blog post last night (it's about 10-11 hours later as I write update #4), so I had NO idea what takes these linked bloggers would have on the matter.

Update #5

I had a real "V8" moment when I remembered my friend Cedric's wife, Tisha, ran the Nike Half as well.  I asked, she answered:

---"yep saw them! I chuckled & appreciated the word play! Not offended at all. This is stupid."


There are real problems in the world out there.  Street harassment is real.  But for a group like Safe Spaces to freak out over THIS thing just (1) discourages companies/sponsors from coming out to support runners, and (2) belies that this group is a "single issue" entity that views everything through (you guessed it) their own Outrage Prism.

Cherry Blossom 10-miler Race Report

 . . . or, "The Blossoms didn't really come out, but I did."

I've been over the "whys" and "hows" of losing time to injury, but fast foward to:

2 years, 5 months, and 1 week after my last race, I had trained for the Cherry Blossom, from doing the Thanksgiving to New Year's Run Streak, all the way to regular runs through March. I lost a week in March due to Achilles soreness, but still hit 100+ miles for the month.  I felt ready.

In fact, I felt completely hyper. I wasn't sleeping super well, I was evaluating, and re-evaluating my time goals, and all over my Garmin Connect account, studying my training runs.  I finally settled on two reasonable goals:

1.  Don't die.
2.  Shoot to break 85 minutes, so long as you don't run afoul of goal #1.  My PR was over 86 and a half minutes, so this wasn't an easy goal, especially for not having run a race. But it was a soft goal, because, you know . . . Goal #1.

On race day, I was up (this is true) at 1:15am, freaking out that OMG I OVERSLEPT RACE OVER I'M FUXORED WTF.  It took me until 3:00am to settle down and sleep again.  I was up again at 5:15am, and out the door at 6:00am.  Bear in mind, I'm on Capitol Hill, maybe 5 or so Metro stops from the race start, and had NO bags to check.

So there I stood at 6:20am.  Shivering, wearing a purple MCM shirt from 2005.  I planned to sacrifce it to the Red Cross at the race start.

I figured that the corrals would be well-marked, and they were.  They were also quite empty.  I had a few reasons for showing up so early, but also ran into what proved to be a significant issue:

1.  I wanted to break 85 minutes, and had seeded myself at 1:25:00, which earned me a position in the blue corral
2.  Hitting 1:25:00 takes a pace of 8:30 -- BUT --
3.  The 8:30 pace group was in the red corral.
4.  I was one corral back.  The blue one would start 3-5 minutes after the red.

Uh-oh.

So I figured I'd put myself as far to the front of the blue as I could.  But already I realized I would not be able to follow a pace group.  I tried to remind myself that this was just as well, because SEE GOAL #1.

Soon enough, 7:30 hit, and off we went.

Miles 1-5:

On the Cherry Blossom Blue Wave Start video page, you can see how close to the front I was, because in the first 10 seconds, you'll see my purple MCM shirt go flying across the screen from right to left.  I didn't hit anyone, and I think it actually landed ON the metal railing, almost like it was hung there.

Mile 1 was fast (for me).  8:22.  It was also gloriously uncrowded, and I just worked my position as best I could, aiming for good lines.  My heart rate wasn't really taxed (except at the beginning, which had to be from excitement/nerves),and I had only 1 scare, early in mile 3 where my Garmin lost satellite reception under the Kennedy Center (it reaquired and recalculated quickly).

My 5 mile split came in around 42 minutes and X seconds, and I was feeling good.  It looked like I'd finish a little above 85 minutes (by mere seconds), but I hoped I could burst at the end to challenge that.  Still, I was already looking forward to just past mile 6, and the water/gatorade table, which meant a BIG slowdown.

Miles 6-8:

I pretty much lost my sub-85 minute goal here.  I passed mile 6 and slowed to a walk in order to take Gu and drink at the water station.  I just CANNOT run and drink.  I'm awful at it.  Once that was done, however, we were heading into Hains Point, and right into a headwind.

I think, with climate change being what it is, we are collectively just going to have to accept bigger extremes, bigger "swings" in temperatures.  So the nasty winds were expected, but still not anything I was pleased with.  Mile 6-7 was slow, reflecting my walking/drinking break, and I didn't increase speed at mile 7.6 or so, when the course turned, and we picked up a tailwind. I sped up SOME, but not enough.  For some reason, I had in my head to wait for mile 8 and THEN calculate what I needed to do.  I could have used the remaining portion of mile 7 to really pick up my pace and go.

Miles 8-10:

I'm pleased by these last two miles.  They were my fastest of the race. In fact, mile 10 dropped below 8 minutes.  But, I was 17 seconds slower in my 2nd half of the race, and had a LOT of traffic towards the end (I almost ran over/through a MarathonFoto photographer as I tried to dodge a 4-abreast group petering out on the final uphill).  This whole section was also tough to run because Hains Point is quite narrow there, and it was the most crowded portion of the whole race for me.

One high point:  A couple dressed as ketchup and mustard bottles, imporing us to run "with relish."  I would have hugged them both if I wasn't trying to pick up speed. And really, who eats relish anymore?!

Anyway, I finished in under 85 and a half minutes, beating my 3-year-old PR by over a minute.

The Good:

--PR!
--Apparently, I can run again!
--My Garmin clocked in at 10.10 miles, so I only was "off" the course by a small amount (I have friends at work who came in at 10.4 or higher from their weaving).
--No serious pain that day or the next morning!
--I finished in the (roughly) top 25% of all runners, and (roughly) the top 41% of males in my age group.


The Bad:
I would have liked a couple of dozen more seconds, or even a few seconds more per mile, to get sub-85, but this is a TOUGH course to PR on.  Sure, it's flat, but it's quite crowded.  You really have to stake out a spot at the front of a corral if you want to minimize dodging.  I would have loved to have been paced by the 8:30 person, but the corrals gods apparently wanted me alive more.  ;)  :P

The truth is, I really don't have much to complain about.  It's been so long since I pinned a number on and ran that I was just happy to be out there.  And posting my best-ever 10 mile time.  Maybe, if I get in next year, I'll print pace bands to have an idea of how I'm doing, even with half mile splits.

But, the bottom line is this -- as I said in my last blog entry about the Cherry Blossom -- nothing tastes as a good as a PR feels.  Turns out that's true.  :D

Eat my words

Greetings!  If you're reading this, it's not because I publicized this post on social media.  Instead, you're almost certainly reading this because I, or someone like-minded, has sent you this link.

Why?  Because you likely just espoused some "Anti-GMO" position that I thought was wrong enough to warrant a response, but just don't have the time for a Twitter War, or a social media conversation.

I let a LOT of stuff go by on social media.  Devout Theism (I don't begrudge it at all, unless you want schoolchildren taught that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that Jesus rode a dinosaur on Noah's Ark, or whatever).  Gun Control (I'm for it, but I recognize at least some of the arguments against it, and also want a focus on mental health).  Even the Designated Hitter (blech).

I also don't fight over High Fructose Corn Syrup ("HFC"). It's not the same as GMO.

But -- some of the stuff I've seen, where people espouse Anti-GMO crap, along with Anti-Vaccination nonsense, is too much to let go.  So this entry is here to tell you, an Anti-GMO "advocate" why you're wrong.  I supect this blog entry will add links as more pro-science authors shoot down the crap floated by people.

I COULD just point out that the American Academy for the Advancement of Science has shot down this nonsense recently, but I'm also going to put out my objections to your Anti-GMO stuff in 3 easy points:

I.  Norman Borlaug

First and foremost, any discussion of GMO must begin with the man who have saved over a BILLION lives, Norman Borlaug.  This man invented a way to make minature wheat, so entire countries could feed themselves.  He's saved lives.  Mexican lives in this hemisphere, and Indian/African lives on our other hemisphere.

Months ago, some anti-GMO person said to me, paraphrased, "I'm talking about AMERICAN lives" in the course of telling me why GMO was bad. 

What.  The.  Fuck.

So because anti-GMO is grounded in the biggest of #FirstWorldProblems, we just let people die?  Of starvation?  "Sorry, Mobalage Singh Rodriguez, you could live a life free of hunger, but US schoolkids wearing Gap clothing are getting a little rotund in the middle"

That's about as offensive an argument against GMO as I could have ever fathomed.  And someone made it to me.  Either GMO is safe (it is, and I'll get to why), in which case the WORLD deserves it, or it's not, in which case we don't give it to 3rd world countries, like they're lab rats or something.

Norman Borlaug crystalizes the #FirstWorldProblems attitude of many Anti-GMO people:

"Some of the environmental lobbyists of the western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They have never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they would be crying out for tractors, and fertilizer, and irrigation canals, and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things."

Norman Borlaug has actually used GMO to save more lives than Superman in any of his comics.  Without a cape.  Instead, he used the Scientific Method.

II.  Mark Lynas

Mark Lynas was a profound Anti-GMO advocate.  He has since changed his position, and outright apologized for his behavior, as well as the damage he's caused.  He did so with class, which you can see/read for yourself here.

The Scientific Method is about getting to a result, and NOT trying to put English on the result you want.  If GMO is ever shown to be harmful, or Homeopathy to be anything other than WATER, or Ghosts to be real, I'll be right there, carving "fancy that" on the side of my . . . self.

But most Anti-GMO activists won't care what Lynas has to say.  They can simply say, "He was paid off," without considering his points, because, after all, it's easier than admitting you were, you know, agenda-driven and not concerned about the actual truth.

By definition, "Alternative Medicine" has not been proven to work, or has been proven not to work.

You know what they call "Alternative Medicine" that works?  Medicine.

III. Hey Liberals -- you're not helping

By most accounts, we see the most egregious attacks on Scientific thought coming from conservatives.  After all, even "Conservapedia" has plenty of Dinosaurs-on-Noah's-Ark-level of crazy, but we almost EXPECT that of them.  There are plenty of them, and we're used to it.  But, as Michael Shermer has pointed out, the Left is guilty of it too.

Chris Mooney, in my view, correctly points out that it's not equal.  But, to be sure, Liberals do it too.  And every time a Liberal turns his/her back on sound science (usually because of latent crunchiness), you just feed into the (incorrect) notion that Science Denial is equal, which makes people shrug their shoulders and think it balances out.

That doesn't help!  But I'm not coming at this as a Liberal.  I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Personally, I identify as Centrist, because I'm progressive socially, moderate economically, and likely more conservative on foreign policy.  But I see plenty of my Liberal friends pat themselves on the back for being so much more "enlightened" on political topics than those goofy conservatives, but then move on to talk about "Frankenfood" or why they won't vaccinate their children.

If you find that you're lining up with the likes of Jenny McCarthy, Alex Jones, and Charlie Sheen, and the people on the other side of the line are actual, you know, THINKERS, you might want to re-think your positions.  If you're brave enough.

Eat THAT.


========================================
Edit:

First update!

Today a saw someone refer to a story on "Natural News," a website that peddles nothing "natural," or "newsworthy."

A funny writeup about it (complete with ACTUAL citations to concrete evidence!) is right here.  It's amazing how off the rails it is.

But it's also sad.  It has been ranked as the #1 most anti-science website on the internet.  THAT takes some doing.

If your answer to all of this is, "Well, they're in on it!  They're part of the conspiracy!"  Then you're likely too far gone (and, I suspect REALLY not used to having someone disagree with you).  I'm not afraid to be proven wrong.  I welcome it.  But if your answer to everything is more of the same bullshit, you're just not a critical thinking.  You're actually prey.

Just Google the picture of Joesph Mercola's mansion.  Yeah, but the doctors who are still in debt from Med school are all in this for the money.

Blossoming Tension

I love the Cherry Blossom 10-Miler.  It's easily one of my favorite races.  Over the years, it's served as a gauge for my health.  I last ran it in 2009, as I was in nearly year-long training for running the Goofy Challenge (or the Dopey Challenge) at Disney. In 2009, I ran it in about 86 minutes + change, or about an 8:40 pace.  I went on to narrowly miss breaking a 4-hour marathon in Richmond, which I took comfort in, thinking, "Hey, I ran in the after-winds of a hurricane, and I just did Dopey.  I'll be back!"

Nope.

In 2010, I flirted with Tri training.  I forgot, however, a few points:

1.  I only owned a 15-year-old mountain bike
2.  I wasn't much for biking fast, because I was sure I'd fall off a cliff (even if in the Sahara --- I had an Italian mother growing up)
3.  I really wasn't the best swimmer.

Off to do tris!

So, while BARELY training in two new sports, I was losing tons of running mileage, and also experiencing nagging knee pain.  I'd try to make up for lost running time by CRANKING when I ran, which aggravated the knee more.

Fast-forward to Halloween 2010, and I ran the MCM on one working knee, because I'd already signed up for the race, and the MCM Mock turtlenecks were black that year. 

Yes, I'm an idiot.

Anyway, January 2011 comes along, and by this point, I can't walk without a limp.

Goodbye, 2011.  Hello, nothing but physical therapy.  Oh, and hello EATING EVERYTHING BECAUSE FEELINGS.  And, as a public service, when you hit 40, your metabolism really does slow down.  A lot.  So recoving from (this is true) visits to "Steak and Shake's Happy Hour" (they really do have one) set me WAY back.  You can't just run 40 miles one week and be back in shape again.

I've spent much of 2012 easing into running again, and doing some biking on a used tri-bike I bought.  I promised myself I'd hold off on racing until the Cherry Blossom, when I would have almost a full year of gently-amped-up running under my belt. Things were going well.  I'd lost almost all the weight I'd gained from 2011, and was almost liking myself again.

Returning from Maui, I found myself running faster.  I was actually thinking I could finish Cherry Blossom faster than my 2009 PR, which was particularly important.  Why?

The McMillan Pace Calculator suggested I should have run 2009 Richmond in about 4:01 or so.  If I could put myself in a position to finish the 2012 Cherry Blossom just a TEENSY bit faster than my old PR, the calculator was predicting a sub-4 finish.

Now, I realize it's not an oracle.  Not by any means.  But, it tells me that, after losing the person I was for almost two years, I might be back.

Which brings me to now.

I have something -- I don't know what -- going on in my left ankle.  Pain.  Kinda behind the ankle, so almost classic Achilles tendonitis.  Having learned from past mistakes, I've rested it this week.  But I feel the weight creeping back.  Still making better health choices, but also it's not healing fast at all.  Which is making me plenty tense.  I can FEEL my cardio-fitness level falling.

I'm so close.  And now here's the classic runner's, "two steps forward, one step back" thing.

Pardon me while I wallow.  And ice.  But I will NOT eat my feelings.  Because THAT kind of blossoming would NOT be good for me.  Not anymore.

Nothing tastes as good as a PR feels . . .

. . . I just hope I get to find that out in three weeks.

Why I race, and do not just run

Recently on Twitter, Cedric lamented someone asking him, "Why do you have to do races, why not just run?"  If I recall correctly, he wasn't quite sure of how to answer that.  When I saw it, I knew I immediately had to write something.  Fortunately, a long journey home from Maui has allowed me to do just that (check my Twitter feed for lovely sunset/rainbow pictures).

Why do runners do races, and not just run?  For me, the answers are almost equally valid, and all equal parts.

1.  Races test you better than some, if not all, training runs.

A lot of training runs are not at your race distance.  Marathons, for example.  You'll infrequently run 26.2 miles unless you HAVE to do so. Sure, you COULD, but you won't run as fast, because, as is well-documented, without sufficient support and nutrition, human bodies typically exhaust all stored glycogen after 20 miles (the usual max distance for marathon training runs).

Also, even if you're training for a 10-mile race, why not just run 10 miles?  Actually, many people DO run 10 miles in training for a race.  So it's not an either/or proposition.  So answer #1 is, "I do run the same distance as some races.  I don't consider that I have to choose between them.  I do both."

2.  Race support will always top a fuel belt of water, and some Gu packets.

At races, you have tables of volunteers passing you cups of water, Gatorade, Powerade, and even beer (sometimes).  You have bands playing music, celebrating your very public attempt to complete a distance that some people wouldn't even consider.

Running on your own requires you to pack all that stuff onto your waist/back.  You still have to CARRY the bottles, even after you've had their contents.  You need to find trash cans after you've taken nutrition.

In a race, you actually GET to throw them to the ground (although, surprise, I'm type-A enough that I wait until the end of the volunteer lane and throw my stuff in the trash cans). You also get much more support than you would from a training run:  food waiting at the finish, medical attention right there if you need it, and sometimes even a UPS truck with your extra clothing waiting for you, which they've checked/stored for you while you raced.

So answer #2 is, you typically get phenomenally better run support at races than you ever would at a training session.  Pampering, almost.

3.  You will typically race faster than you will ever train.

Sure, we all do "Tempo" paces.  We run hard at intervals.  We also might even pick a bike/runner ahead of us, and think, "I'm going to keep at it until I catch/pass that one ahead of me."  But, in the back of your mind, you know that you don't really HAVE to do that.  Because it's NOT a race. That person ahead of you could have just gotten on the trail, or might be finishing up a huge session.  There's no real meaning to cranking up your pace.

But, in a race, it is Showtime.  Dress rehearsal and Table Reads are over (thinking of you, the Galadriel-eque Pia Glenn).  Every second literally counts.  You have a chip on your shoe/bib that's tied to a clock, which will result in a public statement that, "It took [this person] X time to complete Y distance."  Like it or not, for most people, this will be the fastest you will ever go compared to training runs.  You'll push.  You'll grind.  You'll (try to) ignore pains.  Because regret will last longer than pain will.  And you WON'T have strollers, kids, cars, or whatever stepping in front of you.  The paths will be clear.

Answer #3 boils down to, "Racing prompts me to go my fastest possible, and ensures a clear, safe path, without interference."

4.  Racing presents an opportunity to gauge yourself against others.

You might chat with people at a water cooler.  If you're into "LogMyRun," or "RunKeeper," or any of the social running stuff that I see people post, that's fine, and you can see how others are doing.  But, it's not as accurate.  Because you're reading about people of different sexes.  Different ages.  Different distances.  

A race will not only give you an overall finish time/pace, but it will also tell you how you fared in comparison to people of your sex and age group.  To what end?  Probably, nothing.  But if you're genuinely curious, it will answer that question.  The good news is that except for a small handful of people, the front-of-the-pack runners get the same swag as those who just make it under the time deadline.

So it's almost minor, but answer #4 is, "It allows me to gauge my performance compared to others." 

5.  Races provide motivation for training.

You circle a date on your calendar.  The race looms.  You have told people you're going to try to race it.  They're going to ask you if you did it.  Why do people take on workout partners?  Motivation.  Why do we do races?  There you go.

Answer #5 is, "It's an ominous/exciting motivator.  Plus, you know, I coughed up money for the thing, so I'm damn well doing it.  You can't wear the race t-shirt until you finish the race."

Note:  If someone goes to a nice restaurant, we don't ask them, "Why did you go to that steakhouse?  You could just grill a steak, couldn't you?"  Seems silly that we are asked these questions about racing.

6.  Races are akin to a public demonstration of healthiness.

We have protests for everything nowadays.  Protests to DO something.  Protests to STOP doing something.  Protests of things that hardly seem worth getting worked up over.  But a race is, to a curious degree, another demonstration.  

It's an opportunity for people who are into fitness and health to say, "We are tacking this distance.  It's a long way for a lot of us.  Some of us aren't sure if we can even DO it, but we're going to try.  Because we want to be healthy, and we don't care who knows it."

And it really is, isn't it?  Some people collect shot glasses.  Others collect beer growlers.  Others collect SUPER VINTAGE ACTION FIGURES, OMG THEY ARE --NOT-- DOLLS, MOM!  

Sorry.

Anyway.

My office has it's own "ego wall."  A couple of college degrees.  A law school diploma.  A bar license.  Even a personally handwritten letter from Janet Reno I'd received shortly after taking my Dept. job, discussing a law review article I'd written.  But it also has race swag.

[u]Prominent[/u] race swag.  For instance, it has side-by-side medals of the first two Marine Corps Marathons I'd ever run.  The ones where I'd barely trained beyond 8-12 miles at a clip, and then ran them faster than many people who DO train for them.  They were my first, and are some of my fondest.  I also have a substantial shadow box with memorabilia from running The Dopey Challenge (sometimes called "The Goofy Challenge" at Disney World).

What are those things?  Public affirmations that I put my money where my mouth is.  They aren't just banners of sports teams I like, or signed jerseys.  They are things that say, "I am into this running thing, and sometimes even Triathlons.  I'm trying.  I'm not the best, because none of these are "1st place" medals, but they damn well show I finished.  And they show I put in the time/effort to TRAIN for doing these things in the first place.  In a pool.  On a bike.  On a running trail.  Or all 3.

So no, answer #6 is, "No, I don't win any of these races, but I do finish them.  And I'm proud to show that I can DO these events.  How many mementos of finishing races do you have?  Are you able to do those things?  (Possible answers: "Sorry you're unable," or "So you just choose not to because watching tv is more fun?").

This isn't to rub someone's nose in it.  It's to say, "No, I don't win these races.  But I'll always place ahead of someone on a couch."

That is, until they give medals for eating Doritos.

Thanks for the blog idea, Cedric.  Just send them here if they ask you again!

My review of the Zombies, Run! app -- good for casual runners, but NOT for avid runners

Zombies, Run! is an app for iPhone and Droids, and is essentially a game you can play while running.

If you're already familiar with The Walking Dead, you know about the whole (modern era) Zombie Craze (World War Z seems to have spurred the whole thing).  I'm just "Meh" on zombies.  They seem like the Pabst Blue Ribbon of monsters -- overrated, and favored by hipsters.  But, I do think The Walking Dead is a good show.  So, when this app, which retails for about $8, was on sale for about $4, I took a shot with it.

The app/game itself is a serial story, combined with an app for tracking your running speed/distance, and rewarding you for doing so, by giving you useful (virtual) items for your home "town" (outpost, really).  The more you run, the more stuff you are told that you have collected, and the more your town grows.  Then, as the missions get tougher, the better equipped you are to build up your town.

Along the way, however, you will receive notification of "WARNING:  ZOMBIES DETECTED" and you will be prompted to increase speed (or else the zombies will take your items, they never do bite you).  The app is designed that you can (1) turn OFF the chases if that freaks you out too much, or (2) if you walk only, the chases won't start (there are minimum/maximum speeds for Zombie chases).

You can run your own music through the app, via your iPhone, for instance, and it will shuffle songs for you.  The storyline works itself in, pretty much in between each song.

So far, so good.  It's fairly straightforward, and will remind you of the MP3 training programs that mix in a coach working you through interval training.  I know that years ago, Chris Carmichael did some interval training/coaching via MP3s (where he interviewed *cough*LanceArmstrong*cough*).

The trick with the zombie chases is that you're supposed to REALLY speed up for about a minute.  BUT, if you're already running fast, you will NOT attain the necessary speed to evade the zombies, and will thus lose the items you've dutifully collected while running.  For instance, if you're running at an 8:30 min/mile pace, you need to crank all the way up to 6:00 min/mile, possibly faster at times, to evade.  If you run about a 10-11 min/mile, you can go up to 8:10-8:15 min/mile, and will evade them.

Now I'm all for "race pace equality."  If you're out there running, I don't care if it's 10 min/mile, all the way up to 13-14 min/mile, YOU ARE A RUNNER.  Pace is irrelevant.

BUT -- bear in mind - if you're running 6:00 min/mile, you're going to look, unless you're wearing Kenyan/Ethiopian garb, like you're in a full-out, blazing pursuit (or fleeing zombies).  The PROBLEM with that is, let's face it, you're not actually doing that.  Ethiopians, Kenyans, and those people who weigh as much as the club sandwich I had for today's lunch can go that fast with seemingly no effort.  Not "us."

WE are likely on a running trail, with bikers, walkers, children on little bikes, and even dogs on leashes.  You do NOT want to crash into them and say,

"Sorry, I was pretending to run from zombies, and this app requires me to go WAY faster than I ever should in order to do that, but I didn't want to lose this set of batteries.  What set of batteries?  Oh, they're pretend too.  Why are you laughing?"

Or, we are (even worse) on a sidewalk, with cars, pedestrians, and hipsters with dry cleaning.  As much fun as it might be to plow into them, that's again not practicable.

I can tell you that from my perspective, as a 181lb guy running on the National Mall, I turned a LOT of heads, not in a good way, as I was cranking in the 6:00 min/mile range trying to escape a zombie (and WTF failing?!).  The problem was that I had increased my speed earlier in the run to around 8:20 min/mile, and so the app thought I could/should go even faster.  But I already looked like I wasn't training/running, so much as trying to catch a bus (or evade a mugger).  Or, you know, being over 180lbs, trying to get to a McDonald's before they stopped serving breakfast.

So, what the app does is essentially require you to run slower during the "normal" times in order to keep your "chase pace" manageable.  Otherwise, you'll just lose all your stuff.  Serious runners doing Tempo work, Strideouts, or even an LSR won't find themselves in sync with this app.  It's a lovely fitness idea for casual runners, who might be just trotting alone, finding their stride.  But, if you are ALREADY cranking out at a fast clip (I mean, a 9:09 min/mile pace will get you a sub-4 hour marathon, something only like 33% of marathon runners can even complete), the app requires you to (almost) double down, and crank up to extremely fast speeds.  That's not only not realistic, you'll quickly start to SLOW yourself down for the bulk of your time, as you try and "trick" the app into thinking you are a slower runner, just to have room to crank up when the app wants you to run faster.

The app appears far more aimed at casual runners shambling their way off a couch, than runners with full-on training plans.  If you're looking for a way to shake up your training plan, this isn't it.

At least it only cost me 3 bucks instead of the $8 they normally charge.

P.S.  One thing -- here's how to "cheat" at "Zombies, Run!" if you're so inclined to do it.  It's not MUCH of a cheat, but it's a decent strategy.  First of all, let's assume you're able to run better than 10 minute miles  There IS a "minimum speed" you have to reach before the app will either give you reward items OR zombie chases, and that, in my testing, appeared to be 13:00 min/mile or better.  It could possibly be lower than that, but I went from 17-18 min/mile (walking) with nothing, to an attempted slow trot of 13:00.

(1) Anyway, you need to ignore what's being said to you by the characters.  They'll comment on your pace, exhort you to run like hell, and even say things like, "GO NOW!"

(2) Don't go.  If anything, slow up a bit, and listen.  You want to wait for a little series of beeps.  Once that's on, the Zombies are "chasing" you, and that's when the app will task you to go faster, and what the app ususally does is "sample" your speed, then calculate how much faster you need to go.  THAT is when you want to kick it up to a much faster sprint (be safe, of course).  Hold that for about one minute, and you should be all fine.

What you need to be aware of is that if you were running at 8:30-8:45/mile/min, you're almost certainly going to get "caught," unless you can really get down to the 6 minute mile range.  That might be do-able on a track (it is for me), but who wants to go to a track just to play this game?

I think the bottom line for this app is, "The newer to running you are, the better."  But after a while, you'll want to run, not just run when some pretend guy tells you to, just because there are some pretend zombies trying to get your pretend goodies.

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.

Interesting exchange the other night

I'm helping Kitra learn how to use a buffbot (no, it's not that she's completely inept with these things -- she's literally never used them before!). I'm there as my mule, who is in his SUPER A-1 AWESOME HALLOWEEN COSTUME. It's actually pretty cool. It came in 2nd place a few years ago in a Dereth Fashion Show judged by some Devs and Maggie the Jackcat. I have a feeling I should have been first, and our final decision apparently caused much debate amoungst the judges, who were in a fellowship, and whose chat we couldn't see. I've had several offers for it while in the MP.

Anyway.

We're at the mansion, and a guy goes, "Whose ur main?" I tell him. "I've never heard of you," he says. Kitra laughs at this development. I then say something like, "I'm no one of consequence, just a gimp running through Dereth," and he says, "Yah, only us PKLs really get to be famous around here."

*snort*

Wow. Bitter much?

Ok, so that LAST entry seemed a little bitter, even though I was PLENTY bitter.

I still play lots of AC, but it's often at bizarre hours. I keep up with folks in game via Facebook. You can find me as THIS username. Friend request me!

So much to keep up with in AC. Need writs of refuge. Need to find that "rare exchanger" and trade in all the stoopid assess person rares.

Still having fun, though!

AC Christmas Shopping! It's like being in "Second Life," but with Arrows! And talking Snowmen.

Foxy and Marie hipped me to the fact that I was going to miss out on getting my own polar . . . Ursuin (seriously? We can't have a cute little Polar Bear drinking Coke out of an old time bottle? I mean, Polar Bears are practically mythical creatures by this point anyway).

Anyway, I got on tonight to hurry up and get one, and Kitra asked if she could come along. So we could give one of our Bears (eff it, I'm not calling it an Ursuin). It struck me how much AC is like real life. Consider:


In real life, you go from store to store in order to get that gift for your kid she would LOVE to have. You dodge traffic, get lost here and there, and fight through crowds to get the thing you want at the last minute.

In AC, you go from town to town to get that gift you want, you dodge groups of mobs (which, in my case, is usually necessary because I insist on doing these types of quests wearing my Dapper Suit, not my armor). You fight through ANNOYING crowds of shadows at the Umbral Hub, just to get what you want.

Speaking of which . . . the Umbral Hub has LOTS of useful portals. Someone should note that on the Wiki. We went to Zaikhail (twice) trying to get to Al-Jalima, and only later, when I (1) remembered I HAD an Umbral Hub portal, and (2) There was a Plateau portal there, did I notice that there was an Al-Jalima portal there.

It actually went like this:

Kitra Zan says, "Isn't that a portal to Al-Jalima? Could we not have just used that one instead of all that running?"

You say, ". . . "

So in that sense, it's ALSO like real life when the woman says to the man, "Why can't you stop and ask for directions?!"

Anyway, we're about 2/3 through this RAIL FAIL quest (that's my term for "Running Around Intently Looking For An Interesting Lagniappe") when Kitra Jr. had to be put to bed for school Monday. So we'll pick it up tomorrow. Whereupon --maybe-- I'll ask for directions.

P.S. One point. We hit this Igloo-looking thing (turns out it actually WAS an Igloo), and I noticed it had this snowman in there, around level 95, whom I thought I could target (turns out I targetted him in peace mode). So I made a big show, while Kitra was rebuffing, of talking to him, calling him names, etc. Then, IMMEDIATELY as I took out a flaming arrow, and furrowed my brow, trying to figure out why I couldn't target him, he MOVED. He did that kind of "lean in and squeeze his arms together" thing.

I nearly peed myself. I then wrote that in open chat, thinking that Kitra was the only other one in the Igloo with me.

Ahem. You guessed it. AC is low populated my (tight) bee-hind. There were TWO other players running up to the igloo during all this, and they came in just as I announced my jumpy-ness (read: propensity to wee-wee my armor) to Kitra.

Coolness. It never leaves ya.

Hi all!

Hey there all,

I'm still around, kickin, and now with CREATURE magic!

Much love goes out to my fair lovely Scottish lass Marie the Loyal, and the sweetest little (har, get it) patron ev-ar, Foxy.

You never know when I'll turn up online . . . !

Oh, and I now have Twitter updates, because by all means, you have to know what I'm up to IRL. Right? Oh. :-(