Bike>run>swim. Today was my first bike-run combo. A nice easy 2 mile jog (~18 minutes) after my 11.1 mile ride in to work.
Tomorrow I return to the pool for a little more public humiliation.
New Radio Show!
6 years ago
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
I hurt, or why I am triathlon training 9 months in advance
Friday was my first time on aerobars on my bike. That was good. A little more position fiddling, and I think I can pick up speed pretty quickly.
Today was my first time really swimming laps in, well, forever. I know I have swum the length of a pool before, but that 200yard swim this morning just about did me in. Lots o' work to do. A swim coach would be dandy, but represents more of an investment than I am willing to make at this point.
So bicycle good, pool bad. Now I just have to get back in the water on Friday.
Today was my first time really swimming laps in, well, forever. I know I have swum the length of a pool before, but that 200yard swim this morning just about did me in. Lots o' work to do. A swim coach would be dandy, but represents more of an investment than I am willing to make at this point.
So bicycle good, pool bad. Now I just have to get back in the water on Friday.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
too busy
So when I decided to blog, I thought I would do it at least 2-3 times a week. Then the last month happened. Between my lovely bride running a school supply sale & hurting her back, swim lessons for my oldest, finishing an article for submission, and getting ready for a new semester, things have been rather hectic.
What to do when life is too hectic? Decide to start training for a triathlon when I really can't swim terribly well. Too make it a little easier, I am targeting one next spring, but I really, really am going to do it. Really, I mean it.
What to do when life is too hectic? Decide to start training for a triathlon when I really can't swim terribly well. Too make it a little easier, I am targeting one next spring, but I really, really am going to do it. Really, I mean it.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
seeing what we want to see
Building on the post that two many things have happened in the past year to determine if it was "the surge" that led to stabilization in Iraq, I wanted to comment on the argument for / against withdrawing troops.
Many of those who supported the surge continue to support keeping troops in Iraq, even if it means doing so against Iraqi wishes (see McCain). Interestingly, at the time, Maliki was less than enthusiastic about the surge himself. The reasons for maintaining troops, however, have changed. 18 months ago, the surge was supposed to provide breathing space for Iraqis by providing additional security to reduce violence allowing them to pass necessary laws. Now that violence has gone down, the argument is we need to keep troops in order to make sure violence stays down. If violence were to go back up, the argument would be to keep troops in to reduce violence again. Whatever the conditions are, the argument is to maintain troops. Though McCain argues troop reductions should be dictated by conditions on the ground, there is no clear explanation of what those conditions should be.
This is remarkbly similar to arguments over tax cuts and missile defense. On tax cuts, during the 2000 election Bush argued we needed tax to return the surplus to the people. As the economy began to slow down, the tax cuts were needed to spur the economy. Whatever the prevailing economic conditions are, hard core tax cut proponents think taxes should be cut. There is an ideological belief that tax cuts are good, so all economic conditions justify tax cuts.
Missile defense fell into a similar scenario. The same proponents of missile defense before 9-11 supported it after 9-11 in spite of the fact that we were shown that terrorist were likely to use somewhat unexpected delivery methods to hurt the US, not a ballistic missile. Though proponents of missile defense cannot really point to anyone that has a missile that a) has a missle that can hit us and b) is likely to shoot at us, 9-11 proved US vulnerability and, therefor, the need to have missile defense.
Note, however, that the same thing can happen the other way. Those in favor of pulling troops out of Iraq need to take care in how that argument is justified. Pre-surge, one of the arguments was that too many US soldiers were dying. Casualties are down tremendously, so that argument is less powerful now (though every loss is sad).
Obama's broader strategic argument is much better here. The real reason the Iraq war was a mistake, beyond the fact that Iraq did not have WMD, ties to Al Qaeda, and presented no real threat to the US, was that it hurt the US strategically by taking resources away from Afghanistan and limiting the US ability to respond to other threats seriously. The larger strategic mistake is not fixed by the surge. Kerry did a good job on Meet the Press trying to argue this, though Lieberman made the counterattack clear: rather than focus on the argument, he painted the response that things other than the surge matter as insulting the troops.
I digress. Those who favor fairly rapid withdraw (anything less than say 30 months), need to keep the eye on the strategic prize -- the large troop presence hurts US interest regardless of the current level of violence -- and to press those who argue for troop removal depending on the "facts on the ground" to explain what those facts would need to be.
Many of those who supported the surge continue to support keeping troops in Iraq, even if it means doing so against Iraqi wishes (see McCain). Interestingly, at the time, Maliki was less than enthusiastic about the surge himself. The reasons for maintaining troops, however, have changed. 18 months ago, the surge was supposed to provide breathing space for Iraqis by providing additional security to reduce violence allowing them to pass necessary laws. Now that violence has gone down, the argument is we need to keep troops in order to make sure violence stays down. If violence were to go back up, the argument would be to keep troops in to reduce violence again. Whatever the conditions are, the argument is to maintain troops. Though McCain argues troop reductions should be dictated by conditions on the ground, there is no clear explanation of what those conditions should be.
This is remarkbly similar to arguments over tax cuts and missile defense. On tax cuts, during the 2000 election Bush argued we needed tax to return the surplus to the people. As the economy began to slow down, the tax cuts were needed to spur the economy. Whatever the prevailing economic conditions are, hard core tax cut proponents think taxes should be cut. There is an ideological belief that tax cuts are good, so all economic conditions justify tax cuts.
Missile defense fell into a similar scenario. The same proponents of missile defense before 9-11 supported it after 9-11 in spite of the fact that we were shown that terrorist were likely to use somewhat unexpected delivery methods to hurt the US, not a ballistic missile. Though proponents of missile defense cannot really point to anyone that has a missile that a) has a missle that can hit us and b) is likely to shoot at us, 9-11 proved US vulnerability and, therefor, the need to have missile defense.
Note, however, that the same thing can happen the other way. Those in favor of pulling troops out of Iraq need to take care in how that argument is justified. Pre-surge, one of the arguments was that too many US soldiers were dying. Casualties are down tremendously, so that argument is less powerful now (though every loss is sad).
Obama's broader strategic argument is much better here. The real reason the Iraq war was a mistake, beyond the fact that Iraq did not have WMD, ties to Al Qaeda, and presented no real threat to the US, was that it hurt the US strategically by taking resources away from Afghanistan and limiting the US ability to respond to other threats seriously. The larger strategic mistake is not fixed by the surge. Kerry did a good job on Meet the Press trying to argue this, though Lieberman made the counterattack clear: rather than focus on the argument, he painted the response that things other than the surge matter as insulting the troops.
I digress. Those who favor fairly rapid withdraw (anything less than say 30 months), need to keep the eye on the strategic prize -- the large troop presence hurts US interest regardless of the current level of violence -- and to press those who argue for troop removal depending on the "facts on the ground" to explain what those facts would need to be.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Why I suck as a bicycle racer
Ok, the first reason I suck as a bike racer is that I haven't raced this year, or frequently in years prior. In fact, I've never raced much. I really want to, but I don't. So the real question is why don't I? Part of it is that I don't train enough, part of it is that I haven't made time to race. Even with my limited training, I know I am in better shape right now than I have been in for quite some time.
But what is the real reason, I ask? I think it is that there are just things I enjoy doing more than racing or even riding my bike. As much as I long to be on my bike some weekends when I am doing other things, in the end, I do consider some activities more important than just getting up and going riding (as much as I love doing so). If you give me the choice of a nice 3 hour solo ride or 3 hours playing with the boys, even knowing that at least 1 hour of that is going to include crying by one or all of us, I'll normally take the 3 hours with the boys.
I also don't often do evening group rides (though I have & plan to soon). The two main reasons are 1) that I am tired in the evening; and 2) evening group ride means less time with boys, even when they are screaming & crying. It also means more stress for the wife, which I also don't want to cause.
The final reason I haven't even done the training races this year is sort of silly to many -- I don't want to pay for it. I don't want to pay for my license so I can be pack fodder. Which means I need to train harder to justify the expense, which means finding the time to do so. Which means I should get off the damn computer.
But what is the real reason, I ask? I think it is that there are just things I enjoy doing more than racing or even riding my bike. As much as I long to be on my bike some weekends when I am doing other things, in the end, I do consider some activities more important than just getting up and going riding (as much as I love doing so). If you give me the choice of a nice 3 hour solo ride or 3 hours playing with the boys, even knowing that at least 1 hour of that is going to include crying by one or all of us, I'll normally take the 3 hours with the boys.
I also don't often do evening group rides (though I have & plan to soon). The two main reasons are 1) that I am tired in the evening; and 2) evening group ride means less time with boys, even when they are screaming & crying. It also means more stress for the wife, which I also don't want to cause.
The final reason I haven't even done the training races this year is sort of silly to many -- I don't want to pay for it. I don't want to pay for my license so I can be pack fodder. Which means I need to train harder to justify the expense, which means finding the time to do so. Which means I should get off the damn computer.
Well, several bright people disagree with the argument in my previous post (see, here & here for conservative disagreement, here for liberal disagreement). Either I'm wrong, as are some other really smart people, or I'm right and these folks are wrong. It could be that Obama is being treated to the Kerry & Gore treatment, it could be some deep-seated racism, or it could just be bad campaign tactics by McCain, I really don't know.
I cannot, however, believe, that McCain would say he is proud of his campaign's Brittney / Paris ad.
I take back my earlier comment about voting for McCain if you agree with his policies. Can you really trust anyone with such bad taste?
I cannot, however, believe, that McCain would say he is proud of his campaign's Brittney / Paris ad.
I take back my earlier comment about voting for McCain if you agree with his policies. Can you really trust anyone with such bad taste?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Arrogance or race baiting?
By now, Dana Milbank’s Washington Post column arguing that Obama is too presumptuous has been roundly criticized for taking quotes out of context in some places and misquoting in others.
Nonetheless, the view that Milbank’s has presented that Obama is some how arrogant has taken hold. NBC ran with a “debate” about it on the Today show this morning, McCain is running ads comparing Obama to Brittney Spears & Paris Hilton. The question is where does this criticism come from? Because he dares to express confidence in his ability to win (while noting that the road to victory will be long and difficult)? Because he met with foreign leaders & officials, after being goaded by the McCain campaign for not doing so? I seem to remember George W. Bush touting his close ties with Mexico as well, even making a campaign visit to open a cross border bridge during the 2000 campaign (see the April 25, 2000 Washington Post). Furthermore, when was the last time a presidential candidate came out and said, “well, it’s going to be a tough campaign, and I expect we will lose?”
If you listen to some of the talk, it smacks of old-fashioned race baiting. Let’s just replace “presumptuous” and “arrogant” with “uppity.” Obama is both a Democrat (making him elitist, though he is worth far, far less money than McCain, pays his taxes, and doesn’t have an annual budget for personal staff in the six figures) and an African American, meaning that he should be careful about expressing too much confidence.
Next time someone suggests Obama is arrogant, think about what that same person would say if McCain said the exact same thing, or made the same visit. What if McCain went abroad and met with foreign leaders? Would there be an uproar? Oh, that’s right, McCain did make that little speech in Canada about NAFTA. McCain has travelled to Iraq. McCain has travelled to Jordan (with Lieberman in tow). I guess he is presumptuous and arrogant as well.
Finally, vote for John McCain if you want to, but do so because you agree with his stances on the issues and believe his likely policy proposals and decisions are best for the country. Do not, however, vote for McCain because of all the bullshit about Obama that is just that: bullshit. Arrogance, elitists, etc., does not matter even if you believe it. Which candidate do you think has the better advisors, better policies, and would you expect to make the best foreign policy decisions? Vote for that candidate.
UPDATE: Damn NYT stealing my ideas! Even if they are obvious...
Nonetheless, the view that Milbank’s has presented that Obama is some how arrogant has taken hold. NBC ran with a “debate” about it on the Today show this morning, McCain is running ads comparing Obama to Brittney Spears & Paris Hilton. The question is where does this criticism come from? Because he dares to express confidence in his ability to win (while noting that the road to victory will be long and difficult)? Because he met with foreign leaders & officials, after being goaded by the McCain campaign for not doing so? I seem to remember George W. Bush touting his close ties with Mexico as well, even making a campaign visit to open a cross border bridge during the 2000 campaign (see the April 25, 2000 Washington Post). Furthermore, when was the last time a presidential candidate came out and said, “well, it’s going to be a tough campaign, and I expect we will lose?”
If you listen to some of the talk, it smacks of old-fashioned race baiting. Let’s just replace “presumptuous” and “arrogant” with “uppity.” Obama is both a Democrat (making him elitist, though he is worth far, far less money than McCain, pays his taxes, and doesn’t have an annual budget for personal staff in the six figures) and an African American, meaning that he should be careful about expressing too much confidence.
Next time someone suggests Obama is arrogant, think about what that same person would say if McCain said the exact same thing, or made the same visit. What if McCain went abroad and met with foreign leaders? Would there be an uproar? Oh, that’s right, McCain did make that little speech in Canada about NAFTA. McCain has travelled to Iraq. McCain has travelled to Jordan (with Lieberman in tow). I guess he is presumptuous and arrogant as well.
Finally, vote for John McCain if you want to, but do so because you agree with his stances on the issues and believe his likely policy proposals and decisions are best for the country. Do not, however, vote for McCain because of all the bullshit about Obama that is just that: bullshit. Arrogance, elitists, etc., does not matter even if you believe it. Which candidate do you think has the better advisors, better policies, and would you expect to make the best foreign policy decisions? Vote for that candidate.
UPDATE: Damn NYT stealing my ideas! Even if they are obvious...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
