I shall tell you now a tale of adventure and perseverance against impossible odds. Of a brave and righteous boy battling and his malign and exasperating father.
Our tale begins as most such tales do, with my father claiming a truth so outrageous as one could scarcely believe it could be uttered with a straight face. Alone is our hero the boy to give combat in the name of truth and justice, with only wit and grit to gird him against the follies of his villainous father. Standing solitary with the hosts of his foe arrayed before him the battle is joined with these words:
"Bill Gates, you know head of the Gates Foundation, which has untold amounts of money behind it, has even said he is supporting the use of vaccines around the world for depopulation."
This is what my father told us all at dinner. My dad and several others I hadn't met had arranged to meet for dinner at a lovely Lebanese restaurant which was bit pricey but, as I came to learn, had quite delectable food. The conversation was going nicely until someone started my dad on vaccines.
My dad is a pretty calm, steady guy. 6'6" with a deep voice, and meticulously combed hair which is graying at the temples he is not the sort given to chattiness. My dad is one of those types who when you ask them a question will sit and carefully chew over his response, giving it up only with the greatest reluctance some days time later. When we play chess he broods on the other side of the board silently playing every possible variation of moves before he moves a piece, a process which will take a mere 10-20 minutes if you rush him.
There is one strategy however which instantly draws my father out of his laconic habits. That is to touch upon one of his pet conspiracy theories.
My dad despises anything which smacks of Big Brother and gleefully revels in accusations of government misconduct while darkly alleging that such claims are but scratching the surface. One of his favorite such causes, and truth be told my dad treats these matters less like theories and more like causes on which he must educate all those within earshot, is vaccines.
So when he started in on vaccines I must confess I was only half listening. I had heard this routine before and admittedly I found the flat bread and hummus on the table far more interesting and gratifying. But the line about Bill Gates caught my attention.
"Wait a minute," I interjected. "Are you trying to tell me that Bill Gates not only said, but said publicly, he wants to use vaccines to kill people?"
That is exactly what he is saying, he replies. It was caught on tape, he saw the video. If I do the research I can watch the video too, it is astonishing.
I frown into the shallow plate of olive oil and spices as I dip a bit of pita into it, contemplating this claim.
"If you do the research.." and "If you look at the studies..." are two of my dad's favorite rejoinders when challenged. A brilliant tactic when you think about it since I rarely have occasion to wonder if Bill Gates is promoting global vaccine use in a plot to depopulate the world. I honestly can't imagine why this wasn't my suspicion from the first but it really hadn't occurred to me.
Knowing that pressing the matter was little likely to avail me I chewed over my bread silently. I had no evidence to refute him with no matter how outrageous his claim was, so for the present I just had to sit back and let it blow over.
The waitress just then appeared with our meals which, from the look and smell of them, seemed every bit as delicious as the appetizers. I consoled myself with the knowledge that no matter how crazy my dad's beliefs were it wouldn't make my dinner any less sumptuous.
And so our hero, recognizing that he cannot win this day, retreats for the moment for a day where he is sure to win.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Existential Crisis 1 of X (Where X = Many, I Am Sure) Written to the Tune of Dvorak's Symphony for the New World
Alternate title: Morose Thoughts on a Rainy Day
If I did not love Jane, then why did I have sex with her?
Did I love her in one of those truths too difficult to countenance? If I didn't, as a masturbatory act or simply an expression of genetic impulses it seems wholly (unacceptable/distasteful/tawdry) given my feelings in retrospect and especially at the time.
This raises the question of how can I judge if I am unsure what exactly the feeling of love is? A cop out I know, so let us assume I am 70% certain to recognize it when I see it.
Is making the realization and accepting that I love someone before having sex with them a standard I can or wish to set? Seems a remarkably high bar. I would not go so far as to say that this standard would apply to those relationships entered into for amusement, only those entered into for . . . Well, what are those other relationships entered into for?
Companionship.
Is the bulk of the wound the fact that I would even entertain the question of love with someone who has already completely rejected these feelings?
Interesting that I am able to speak of love so forcedly casual (granted in a place no one will ever see it) when I yet refuse to speak of it aloud.
I just had the thought that instead of accepting being broken up with I should have simply refused. Use my decisiveness to carry the day over those of weaker will. Immediately I knew it wouldn't work. A woman of such a lack of confidence and force of conviction wouldn't be able to handle dating me. The kind of woman I would date would never let me get away with trying to pull crap like that, not for a second.
If I did not love Jane, then why did I have sex with her?
Did I love her in one of those truths too difficult to countenance? If I didn't, as a masturbatory act or simply an expression of genetic impulses it seems wholly (unacceptable/distasteful/tawdry) given my feelings in retrospect and especially at the time.
This raises the question of how can I judge if I am unsure what exactly the feeling of love is? A cop out I know, so let us assume I am 70% certain to recognize it when I see it.
Is making the realization and accepting that I love someone before having sex with them a standard I can or wish to set? Seems a remarkably high bar. I would not go so far as to say that this standard would apply to those relationships entered into for amusement, only those entered into for . . . Well, what are those other relationships entered into for?
Companionship.
Is the bulk of the wound the fact that I would even entertain the question of love with someone who has already completely rejected these feelings?
Interesting that I am able to speak of love so forcedly casual (granted in a place no one will ever see it) when I yet refuse to speak of it aloud.
I just had the thought that instead of accepting being broken up with I should have simply refused. Use my decisiveness to carry the day over those of weaker will. Immediately I knew it wouldn't work. A woman of such a lack of confidence and force of conviction wouldn't be able to handle dating me. The kind of woman I would date would never let me get away with trying to pull crap like that, not for a second.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Pro-Business Defence of Net Neutrality
The question is not should the net remain neutral but why must the net remain neutral.
In the end it is rather simple. Let us take the example of skype. Now an internet carrier looking at skype might see it and think hmmm, they are making a good deal of money over there I need to buy that. But let us say the skype people are perfectly happy to run skype and keep runnign skype and they don't want to sell. Alright, well the I as the internet carrier don't have to give you the bandwidth on my network to run your service. Not only that, but I am going to tack an internet roaming fee to anything coming to my customer's computers from your site. In addition I am going to launch my own version of skype which customers can use for free, which I am going to give the necessary bandwidth.
The above scenario is bullshit in that I made it up but also in that it is offensive to my sense of justice and fair play. It is however far from bullshit in that it is completely doable should net neutrality end.
Now to be fair, the internet provider is not trying to buy up skype on a whim, because they are evil people. They are simply people with a purpose, and that purpose is profit. If skype provides a service that people want and generates a profit it will necessarily and rightfully attract the interest of other businesses who will want to horn in on these profits.
However to allow the biggest businesses in the game crush any other smaller business they want any time they please to get at the other businesses customers, not by out performing the smaller business in service but by making the other business untenable will have a chilling effect on the creativity and invention of those who wish to provide innovation to the market.
I am no longer convinced that I am saying anything which has not been said thousands of other places before now, but the thoughts are original to me so what the hell.
In the end it is rather simple. Let us take the example of skype. Now an internet carrier looking at skype might see it and think hmmm, they are making a good deal of money over there I need to buy that. But let us say the skype people are perfectly happy to run skype and keep runnign skype and they don't want to sell. Alright, well the I as the internet carrier don't have to give you the bandwidth on my network to run your service. Not only that, but I am going to tack an internet roaming fee to anything coming to my customer's computers from your site. In addition I am going to launch my own version of skype which customers can use for free, which I am going to give the necessary bandwidth.
The above scenario is bullshit in that I made it up but also in that it is offensive to my sense of justice and fair play. It is however far from bullshit in that it is completely doable should net neutrality end.
Now to be fair, the internet provider is not trying to buy up skype on a whim, because they are evil people. They are simply people with a purpose, and that purpose is profit. If skype provides a service that people want and generates a profit it will necessarily and rightfully attract the interest of other businesses who will want to horn in on these profits.
However to allow the biggest businesses in the game crush any other smaller business they want any time they please to get at the other businesses customers, not by out performing the smaller business in service but by making the other business untenable will have a chilling effect on the creativity and invention of those who wish to provide innovation to the market.
I am no longer convinced that I am saying anything which has not been said thousands of other places before now, but the thoughts are original to me so what the hell.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
A Stab at Life
I was running a couple days ago and here is what I came up with. I decided at some point in the course of things that for whatever reason I was going to try and define life, something that still pesters science.
So here goes:
As of this moment my attempt at defining life has two parts.
1) The entity must be able to collect energy is some fashion and store it in a physical structure that can be broken down and released later.
2) The entity must be able to replicate.
Now in the first part of the definition what one must pay attention to is the storing of energy in a physical structure. It is not sufficient for an entity to absorb and re-emit energy, essentially every bit of matter can do this in some capacity, that doesn't mean it is alive. No, to be alive an entity must take energy and convert it into a form that it can not only use for its own ends, but more importantly store for later use. Since the only way we will know that the entity has stored this energy is if it creates some physical structure, a chemical bond of some form or even perhaps more exotically in some mechanical fashion I'll not limit the physical form it takes, that has some energy potential.
One might notice that I do not require that the organism be able to release this energy again once it is stored. I conceive of the possibility of a symbiotic relationship existing between two entities whereby the entity storing the energy is only able to release it with the aid of the second entity.
The second part of the definition is the reason a wind turbine is not alive. A wind turbine can take energy and store it is a physical form, but it is incapable of replication. There is no conceivable scenario in which a wind turbine creates another wind turbine.
Before we move on to the difficulties of this position let me first answer the question which may occur to some: Does an entity need to be able to replicate independent of any other entity? Clearly our experience tells us no, an entity may need another entity (of say, the opposite sex), and expanding past our, or at least my experience, it is also permissible for an entity to require a chemical, or object to replicate.
Now stepping gingerly out into the brush Does an entity need to replicate an exact copy of itself? Again, our experience tells us no, it doesn't. To this point, so long as the product of the replication does itself fulfill the criteria above for being alive it is permissable to call the original entity (entities) alive.
Here we have reached the truly daunting terrain: How does one define an entity? Humans, who are alive, are composed of trillions of live cells. These cells are alive yes, they take energy in and store it in physical structures, and they replicate all the time. However, while they themselves are alive they are alive in service of a greater entity, the person. But what is the difference between the living cells of my lungs which are part of me, and the bacterial cells in my gut which are alive but not a part of me? To this I have no answer which is disappointing since in writing this I had talked myself into really believing this two part definition I had dreamed up.
So here goes:
As of this moment my attempt at defining life has two parts.
1) The entity must be able to collect energy is some fashion and store it in a physical structure that can be broken down and released later.
2) The entity must be able to replicate.
Now in the first part of the definition what one must pay attention to is the storing of energy in a physical structure. It is not sufficient for an entity to absorb and re-emit energy, essentially every bit of matter can do this in some capacity, that doesn't mean it is alive. No, to be alive an entity must take energy and convert it into a form that it can not only use for its own ends, but more importantly store for later use. Since the only way we will know that the entity has stored this energy is if it creates some physical structure, a chemical bond of some form or even perhaps more exotically in some mechanical fashion I'll not limit the physical form it takes, that has some energy potential.
One might notice that I do not require that the organism be able to release this energy again once it is stored. I conceive of the possibility of a symbiotic relationship existing between two entities whereby the entity storing the energy is only able to release it with the aid of the second entity.
The second part of the definition is the reason a wind turbine is not alive. A wind turbine can take energy and store it is a physical form, but it is incapable of replication. There is no conceivable scenario in which a wind turbine creates another wind turbine.
Before we move on to the difficulties of this position let me first answer the question which may occur to some: Does an entity need to be able to replicate independent of any other entity? Clearly our experience tells us no, an entity may need another entity (of say, the opposite sex), and expanding past our, or at least my experience, it is also permissible for an entity to require a chemical, or object to replicate.
Now stepping gingerly out into the brush Does an entity need to replicate an exact copy of itself? Again, our experience tells us no, it doesn't. To this point, so long as the product of the replication does itself fulfill the criteria above for being alive it is permissable to call the original entity (entities) alive.
Here we have reached the truly daunting terrain: How does one define an entity? Humans, who are alive, are composed of trillions of live cells. These cells are alive yes, they take energy in and store it in physical structures, and they replicate all the time. However, while they themselves are alive they are alive in service of a greater entity, the person. But what is the difference between the living cells of my lungs which are part of me, and the bacterial cells in my gut which are alive but not a part of me? To this I have no answer which is disappointing since in writing this I had talked myself into really believing this two part definition I had dreamed up.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Magnetism and Dark Matter
So here is the idea I have been thinking of lately which will no doubt revolutionize the thinking in the field of physics. By which I mean this is a crakpot idea that I can't even begin to prove or back up.
So Dynamo theory says that a magnetic field is generated by circulating electric charges. Now to my knowledge the specifics of dynamo theory are still being worked out but less us assume that it is true. That brings us to the question of planetary magnetics.
There are three possibilities I will then consider here. The first being that various atoms within the earth's mantle have a charge and flow in circulating patterns of some sort and thus create earth's magnetic field. This circulation could be caused by earth's rotation or by convection, I don't know but it isn't important here.
The other possibility I will consider is to view even the mantle as essentially unmoving, a stationary object though still full of atoms with charges. In this view it is earth's rotation that makes the charges act as if they were circulating to generate a magnetic field.
This raises an important question in my mind. So a charge circulates and generates a field. Relative to what does it have to circulate? I know if you run a current through a coil of wire it generates a field, but what if you take something with a charge, tie it to the end of a rope and spin it around really quickly? Will this also generate a field? As essentially this is what I am proposing it does in the second scenario I contemplated.
I am going to skip to the end because I am rather tired now.
So here is the revolutionary bit. What if magnetic fields were generated by the circulation of charges yes. But what if the actual mechanism producing the field is the charges interaction with dark matter? I know I called it antimatter in a recent and rather lengthy post but I meant dark matter. I still mean to go back and correct that.
What if magnetism is the interaction between matter and dark matter? I'll tell you what if: it means that I am a genius. A sleepy, sleepy genius.
So Dynamo theory says that a magnetic field is generated by circulating electric charges. Now to my knowledge the specifics of dynamo theory are still being worked out but less us assume that it is true. That brings us to the question of planetary magnetics.
There are three possibilities I will then consider here. The first being that various atoms within the earth's mantle have a charge and flow in circulating patterns of some sort and thus create earth's magnetic field. This circulation could be caused by earth's rotation or by convection, I don't know but it isn't important here.
The other possibility I will consider is to view even the mantle as essentially unmoving, a stationary object though still full of atoms with charges. In this view it is earth's rotation that makes the charges act as if they were circulating to generate a magnetic field.
This raises an important question in my mind. So a charge circulates and generates a field. Relative to what does it have to circulate? I know if you run a current through a coil of wire it generates a field, but what if you take something with a charge, tie it to the end of a rope and spin it around really quickly? Will this also generate a field? As essentially this is what I am proposing it does in the second scenario I contemplated.
I am going to skip to the end because I am rather tired now.
So here is the revolutionary bit. What if magnetic fields were generated by the circulation of charges yes. But what if the actual mechanism producing the field is the charges interaction with dark matter? I know I called it antimatter in a recent and rather lengthy post but I meant dark matter. I still mean to go back and correct that.
What if magnetism is the interaction between matter and dark matter? I'll tell you what if: it means that I am a genius. A sleepy, sleepy genius.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Spaghetti
I was listening to this one astronomer type guy, I think it was just a clip on youtube so I don't remember who it was or what the video was called, but he was talking about what would happen if the world fell into a blackhole. He was expounding on his opinion that it would be a fantastically painful experience.
According to him as you near the center of the blackhole you would move progressively faster and faster. That is all well and good, but a black hole being the massive gravitational object that it is, he argued that as you fall closer and closer to the center even tiny differences in distance make a huge difference. Thus it would be that if you were falling feet first your feet would begin traveling faster than your head. Obviously that is not a good thing.
He then theorized that eventually your body would be ripped apart into segments as they were strained to the breaking point by the gravity of the blackhole. He goes further to say that even after your body has begun falling in pieces you still have the moment were the gravity is so strong it begins to snap the bonds holding the atoms of your body together. Literally eating you on the atomic level.
Here is my issue with this: in this talk the speaker seems to assume that you are conscious throughout this entire experience, or at least until the point were you have been atomically disassembled. Let us examine this.
So you're falling feet first. Your body begins to be ripped into segments. Eventually all you are is a falling head as it would be fairly tough to rip a head apart, it being a pretty solid mass. The blood will be sucked down and out, which is assuming the soft brain tissue isn't collapsing under either the force of the super acceleration or the pressure of the every increasing atmosphere, or incinerated by its passage through said atmosphere, or that your brain is sucked out of your skull along with the blood.
No, let us assume the brain stays in the skull and that even with the blood getting sucked out not all of it manages to get out. With some leftovers of blood I suppose thought would still be technically possible, even without a body. And while you wouldn't last long, you really wouldn't need to, at such a rate of fall and with such gravity time would distort and an instant would take a good long while. The thing is, with everything slowed down because of your speed would you be able to perceive it as an instant? Even if it took a lifetime would it pass it you as a mere flicker of time?
My thinking here is that it all comes down to biology. The brain will not function without blood, or at least not for long. So without the blood supplying the brain there is no thought and therefore no pain. The counter point being that in a black hole you don't have to live very long, things are going to be moving along rather briskly. In the end I suppose it comes down to how long it takes for a neuron to fire and transmit the message of pain.
Also in arguing for one not being conscious of their own demise in a black hole, while only one factor need go wrong for the victim to be rendered unconscious, every factor need go right to sustain it, which puts the odds heavily in favor of unconsciousness.
I am vaguely conscious here that I may be injecting myself into a conversation that has been underway for some time and may have already arrived at a consensus. Nevertheless I persist.
According to him as you near the center of the blackhole you would move progressively faster and faster. That is all well and good, but a black hole being the massive gravitational object that it is, he argued that as you fall closer and closer to the center even tiny differences in distance make a huge difference. Thus it would be that if you were falling feet first your feet would begin traveling faster than your head. Obviously that is not a good thing.
He then theorized that eventually your body would be ripped apart into segments as they were strained to the breaking point by the gravity of the blackhole. He goes further to say that even after your body has begun falling in pieces you still have the moment were the gravity is so strong it begins to snap the bonds holding the atoms of your body together. Literally eating you on the atomic level.
Here is my issue with this: in this talk the speaker seems to assume that you are conscious throughout this entire experience, or at least until the point were you have been atomically disassembled. Let us examine this.
So you're falling feet first. Your body begins to be ripped into segments. Eventually all you are is a falling head as it would be fairly tough to rip a head apart, it being a pretty solid mass. The blood will be sucked down and out, which is assuming the soft brain tissue isn't collapsing under either the force of the super acceleration or the pressure of the every increasing atmosphere, or incinerated by its passage through said atmosphere, or that your brain is sucked out of your skull along with the blood.
No, let us assume the brain stays in the skull and that even with the blood getting sucked out not all of it manages to get out. With some leftovers of blood I suppose thought would still be technically possible, even without a body. And while you wouldn't last long, you really wouldn't need to, at such a rate of fall and with such gravity time would distort and an instant would take a good long while. The thing is, with everything slowed down because of your speed would you be able to perceive it as an instant? Even if it took a lifetime would it pass it you as a mere flicker of time?
My thinking here is that it all comes down to biology. The brain will not function without blood, or at least not for long. So without the blood supplying the brain there is no thought and therefore no pain. The counter point being that in a black hole you don't have to live very long, things are going to be moving along rather briskly. In the end I suppose it comes down to how long it takes for a neuron to fire and transmit the message of pain.
Also in arguing for one not being conscious of their own demise in a black hole, while only one factor need go wrong for the victim to be rendered unconscious, every factor need go right to sustain it, which puts the odds heavily in favor of unconsciousness.
I am vaguely conscious here that I may be injecting myself into a conversation that has been underway for some time and may have already arrived at a consensus. Nevertheless I persist.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The Marathon
And now a few thoughts on the marathon I ran.
I am mystified having run the thing, why anyone in their right mind would do it again. And yet, having said that I may have to do it again.
I had two goals running the marathon. Aim for a 3:40 finishing time and never walk.
I finished with 3:39:34. But was forced to a walk when with two miles left to go there was a particularly cantankerous bridge with an inhumanly steep incline - practically vertical, should be illegal - proved greater. The tragedy of it was that I was so keenly aware in the moment of how much I'd regret it later but I just couldn't make it go.
And now, reflecting on it my own words come back to smack me in the face. "Champions are greater than the sum of all excuses.". I may run some other races between now and then because already as the stiffness goes out of me and all the soreness eases I am hungry for another run. However, other races aside, I still feel the deep bite of losing face to this bridge before my fellow runners, and my city. I was wearing my pink jersey, along with pink bandanna, and pink shorts, I was flying the colors and put my name to it. Every runner I passed knew that I was Cruton and I was defeated. I must regain my honor before Baltimore.
A quick breakdown of the miles:
1-12: all fun and games, everyone has plenty of energy and is in high spirits.
12-20: work, your moving but it isn't as fun anymore now it is just doing it to get it done.
20-26: this sucks, muscles are burning and it is a struggle to keep putting one foot in front of the other, a lapse in willpower will lead to walking (and I should know)
I was walking along the park on Monday and I put on the super bright neon long sleeved under armor shirt they gave the marathon runners because at the time I was just puttering around the house when I decided to go to the bank. So I had this shirt on and I am walking by the park and I see joggers and I was amused because I found myself thinking "Bow before me joggers for I am your God!" and I am not going to lie, I was serious.
Finishing the race my butt hurt like it hasn't since maybe the infamous 400m run back in my track days.
I saw the gummy bear guy and even took some gummies. The problem was it was so late in the race that I put the first one in my mouth and quickly decided that it was far too much energy to chew the damn thing. I ended up spitting it out and dumping the rest of them I had in my hand on the street.
I enjoyed the parts of the course with bands.
I think I made a major mistake in this race not taking any of those calorie gel things. In my post run analysis I think my walking breakdown was due to a utter lack of available calories. Also, I find in amusing in retrospect how at the start of the race and well through it at the water stops I was able to keep going while holding the water fairly steady and drinking it but towards the end of the race I somehow completely lost the ability to hold the cup still and had to just kind of throw the liquid in the direction of my face and hope for the best.
I talked to Mike and Blue at work. Mike who was aiming for under 4 hours came in hot on my heels with a 3:47 if I recall correctly. Blue apparently ran a marathon in New York when he was younger and got a 3:15.
Quite pleased with the medal, it has some serious heft to it. The crab logo thing is still retarded but the medal is awesome.
That is all I can think of to say about the marathon - Wait!
Taking the turn up I don't know what after running through Patterson on Linwood, and along the course they had at various points Under Armour logos and slogans on the pavement, and we were all running along when there was this guy. And for whatever reason this guy was super pumped. Like there is rooting for people and then there is rooting for people like it is the super bowl and you need this drive to work to win it all. Not crazy ecstatic but genuinely, masculinely into it. And he just really got to me, got me really hyped, and I belted out as loudly and in as deep a voice as I could muster "WHO WILL PROTECT THIS HOUSE?!" I even heard a few people call out the answer "I Will!" Anyway that had me feeling awesome for a while. A feeling I sorely missed a little later on.
When I got to the inner harbor, the halfway mark and a spot for some of the bigger crowds one girl came streaking past me and I thought to myself, yeah, you run like a hero, I'ma see you in a little bit. And sure enough, a mile or two later, when she wasn't high on the crowd I passed her.
Also, I am not sure I could run a distance other than the marathon at an event where a marathon was being held. As running the marathon I looked down at all the other, lesser, distances. Way down.
Lastly, other marathons totally have it figured out. Half marathoners should not finish with the full. You are just starting to dig into your trenches, the pack has thinned out and you know the people in front and behind you fairly well when this mass sea of people is dumped on you. They of course are all jazzed up with energy to burn setting paces much too fast. And I wanted them to die. Spontaneously burst into flames.
Ok, this time I am done. For reals.
I am mystified having run the thing, why anyone in their right mind would do it again. And yet, having said that I may have to do it again.
I had two goals running the marathon. Aim for a 3:40 finishing time and never walk.
I finished with 3:39:34. But was forced to a walk when with two miles left to go there was a particularly cantankerous bridge with an inhumanly steep incline - practically vertical, should be illegal - proved greater. The tragedy of it was that I was so keenly aware in the moment of how much I'd regret it later but I just couldn't make it go.
And now, reflecting on it my own words come back to smack me in the face. "Champions are greater than the sum of all excuses."
A quick breakdown of the miles:
1-12: all fun and games, everyone has plenty of energy and is in high spirits.
12-20: work, your moving but it isn't as fun anymore now it is just doing it to get it done.
20-26: this sucks, muscles are burning and it is a struggle to keep putting one foot in front of the other, a lapse in willpower will lead to walking (and I should know)
I was walking along the park on Monday and I put on the super bright neon long sleeved under armor shirt they gave the marathon runners because at the time I was just puttering around the house when I decided to go to the bank. So I had this shirt on and I am walking by the park and I see joggers and I was amused because I found myself thinking "Bow before me joggers for I am your God!" and I am not going to lie, I was serious.
Finishing the race my butt hurt like it hasn't since maybe the infamous 400m run back in my track days.
I saw the gummy bear guy and even took some gummies. The problem was it was so late in the race that I put the first one in my mouth and quickly decided that it was far too much energy to chew the damn thing. I ended up spitting it out and dumping the rest of them I had in my hand on the street.
I enjoyed the parts of the course with bands.
I think I made a major mistake in this race not taking any of those calorie gel things. In my post run analysis I think my walking breakdown was due to a utter lack of available calories. Also, I find in amusing in retrospect how at the start of the race and well through it at the water stops I was able to keep going while holding the water fairly steady and drinking it but towards the end of the race I somehow completely lost the ability to hold the cup still and had to just kind of throw the liquid in the direction of my face and hope for the best.
I talked to Mike and Blue at work. Mike who was aiming for under 4 hours came in hot on my heels with a 3:47 if I recall correctly. Blue apparently ran a marathon in New York when he was younger and got a 3:15.
Quite pleased with the medal, it has some serious heft to it. The crab logo thing is still retarded but the medal is awesome.
That is all I can think of to say about the marathon - Wait!
Taking the turn up I don't know what after running through Patterson on Linwood, and along the course they had at various points Under Armour logos and slogans on the pavement, and we were all running along when there was this guy. And for whatever reason this guy was super pumped. Like there is rooting for people and then there is rooting for people like it is the super bowl and you need this drive to work to win it all. Not crazy ecstatic but genuinely, masculinely into it. And he just really got to me, got me really hyped, and I belted out as loudly and in as deep a voice as I could muster "WHO WILL PROTECT THIS HOUSE?!" I even heard a few people call out the answer "I Will!" Anyway that had me feeling awesome for a while. A feeling I sorely missed a little later on.
When I got to the inner harbor, the halfway mark and a spot for some of the bigger crowds one girl came streaking past me and I thought to myself, yeah, you run like a hero, I'ma see you in a little bit. And sure enough, a mile or two later, when she wasn't high on the crowd I passed her.
Also, I am not sure I could run a distance other than the marathon at an event where a marathon was being held. As running the marathon I looked down at all the other, lesser, distances. Way down.
Lastly, other marathons totally have it figured out. Half marathoners should not finish with the full. You are just starting to dig into your trenches, the pack has thinned out and you know the people in front and behind you fairly well when this mass sea of people is dumped on you. They of course are all jazzed up with energy to burn setting paces much too fast. And I wanted them to die. Spontaneously burst into flames.
Ok, this time I am done. For reals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
