Recently Chris Paul was traded to the LA Lakers from the New Orleans Hornets for Lamar Odom and Adrew Bynum. The Houston Rockets were also involved but LA was not receiving any players from them so I'm leaving them out. Commissioner David Stern blocked the trade because it was "unfair" and many owners agreed with him including Dan Gilbert, owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers, who made public his e-mail he sent to the commissioner complaining that the Lakers gave up no draft picks and shaved 40 million in costs in making the trade, leaving cap room and options to trade for another big name such as Dwight Howard.
As an extremely loyal and devout Cavalier fan, I cannot endorse the e-mail sent by our owner. In effect, he is trying to make it impossible for anyone to thwart the Miami Heat and live up to his guarantee "that the Cleveland Cavaliers will win an NBA championship before the self-titled former 'king' wins one" (From Gilbert's statement after Lebron James decided to go to Miami).
Also in his e-mail GIlbert said, "They should just rename 25 of the 30 teams the Washington Generals"
A little different from "If you thought we were motivated before tonight to bring the hardware to Cleveland, I can tell you that this shameful display of selfishness and betrayal....has shifted our "motivation" to previously unknown and previously never experienced levels" (see above reference)
The hornets would've received a good/great center in Gasol or Odom and a really good power forward in Luis Scola (From Rockets), They believed they were benefitting from this trade. It is only an issue between the three times involved in the trade and should have nothing to do with any other owner or the commissioner. We had the lockout to try to limit Stern's power, and now he is blocking teams from doing what they think is right for their team. I don't think the New Orleans Hornets would purposely destroy their franchise to help the Lakers...if they want to make a trade, nobody except the teams they're negotiating with should stop them!
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this site.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Exceptions make the rule
My judgment of when a video has gone viral is if I've seen it. I don't spend much time on Facebook, even less on youtube and none on Twitter, so I normally don't see videos unless everyone else has seen them first. This is why I believe people have seen the video of an Iowa man speaking about Gay rights by a notoriously liberal organization. In the video, a man gives a very eloquent 4-minute speech about how he had two female parents and he came out alright, therefore being raised by two same-sex parents is the same as being rasied by a man and a woman. Above the video is a statement "Why are we against this again?" Let me answer.
I listened to his speech and his only evidence was, "I do well in school" and "Nobody can tell I was raised by two women." Great, I can't tell if someone was raised by divorced parents until they tell me. Hell, I can't tell if someone was raised by a single parent, does this mean that having a single parent or divorced parents is just as good as having two or married ones? No anti-gay marriage advocate has ever said that in 100% of cases the child will turn out bad....the argument is that the likelihood they will is higher.
It is a fact that homosexuals(yes even lesbians) have a higher risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals. The average homosexual couple stays together for 1.5 years...that's hardly enough to raise a child. Being around homosexuals encourages your kid to be one too and most gays I know, for reasons unknown to me since they are the most protected minority in America, will tell you that they would not want their kids to be gay because they don't want them to go through what they have. Homosexual parents promotes being homosexual and their kids are more likely to be homosexual as well. My favorite thing about this comment is when liberals scoff at it and then tell me in the next breath that there's a gay gene and see absolutely no contradiction. Of course, if liberals could pick up on contradictions...they wouldn't be liberals would they be?
Signed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page
I listened to his speech and his only evidence was, "I do well in school" and "Nobody can tell I was raised by two women." Great, I can't tell if someone was raised by divorced parents until they tell me. Hell, I can't tell if someone was raised by a single parent, does this mean that having a single parent or divorced parents is just as good as having two or married ones? No anti-gay marriage advocate has ever said that in 100% of cases the child will turn out bad....the argument is that the likelihood they will is higher.
It is a fact that homosexuals(yes even lesbians) have a higher risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals. The average homosexual couple stays together for 1.5 years...that's hardly enough to raise a child. Being around homosexuals encourages your kid to be one too and most gays I know, for reasons unknown to me since they are the most protected minority in America, will tell you that they would not want their kids to be gay because they don't want them to go through what they have. Homosexual parents promotes being homosexual and their kids are more likely to be homosexual as well. My favorite thing about this comment is when liberals scoff at it and then tell me in the next breath that there's a gay gene and see absolutely no contradiction. Of course, if liberals could pick up on contradictions...they wouldn't be liberals would they be?
Signed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Guilty until proven innocent
As I continue to watch the news and TV, I can't help but think that we have strayed so far in this country. Sure, on paper, the criminal justice system says we're "Innocent until proven guilty" but as I keep listening to accusations, I begin to laugh at how ridiculous it is to think this is true. Maybe for some things, like insider trading or the like but you are certainly guilty until proven innocent if you A) are a male and are accused of sexually harrassing a female B) Are an athlete and get accused of performance Enhancing drugs and C) Are accused of molesting a child.
"A" has come up because I keep hearing about how someone else is accusing Herman Cain of sexual harrassment. The problem is, there is never any proof. The only proof I hear is, "Where there's this much smoke, there has to be fire" That's not true at all. Especially if you're talking about a conservative. You can get millions of people to tell you that the phrase "Separation of church and state" is found in the constitution, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not. There are many liberal women, there's a reason for the expression, "Hell hath no fury over a woman scorn" so it stands to reason that you can find a handful of women who knew Herman Cain, got appalled by his conservative ideas, so made up a rumor about him. Multiple accusations does not a conviction make, you need proof. I need something like "Since Herman Cain repeatedly harrassed me, I taped it, here's the tape." That never happened. When this was brought up at the time it happened, it was concluded that it didn't happen. The only evidence is that he didn't do it because that was the conclusion of the only investigation into it. But alas, that's not what people will believe simply because so many women claim he did. And all have one thing in common....no proof whatsoever. And the same people who vehemently defended Bill Clinton for doing the same thing to Paula Jones and Linda Tripp are condemning Herman Cain.
To move out of politics, I'll go to Jerry Sandusky and Bernie Fine, two men accused of molesting little boys when they were assistant coaches for Penn State and Syracuse respectively. The only evidence for Jerry Sandusky is that in 1998, he was banned from the locker room when little boys were showering because of accusations and when interviewed he fumbled when asked point blank "Are you sexually attracted to little boys." I admit, the second one gets me a little suspicious....why not say no? But then again, if he did, nobody would beleive him....nobody believed the Duke Lacross players when they denied raping the stripper six years ago....luckily banks and taxi cabs keep detailed records showing their whereabouts in the time frame that the stripper gave....without that, they probably would have been convicted. Joe Paterno says that he took away Sandusky's keys to the locker room and banned him from being in the locker room when boys are showering because of what he heard from his assistant coach McQuery who alleged he saw it. But why did McQuery wait 12 years to report it to the cops? He's the one who saw it. So, based on the evidence, I don't think there's enough for me to definitively say Sandusky did it. I was very hard on Sandusky in my last post but now, I just want evidence.
Now Bernie Fine is a different story. This time, there is a tape recording of an alleged victim talking to Laurie Fine, Bernie's wife. He complains that Fine is touching him and the wife just rolls with it by saying "Yea he's got problems." Nowhere in the phone conversation does the guy say exactly where or how Bernie Fine touched him. It could have been a pat on the knee that made him uncomfortable. Or a slap on the ass, which is common in sports...Brett Favre did it to every one of his teammates. As I listened, I was skeptical, until the accuser said something along the lines that he thinks Bernie wanted him to give Bernie a blowjob. His wife responded, "Of course he did, why wouldn't he?"
That leads me to believe that there might be something to the Bernie Fine case. I don't know why his wife was so cool in the phone conversation, that's more distrubing. Makes me think she's one of these stay-loyal-to-my-husband-no-matter-how-fucked-up-he-is wives. I wish that in the phone conversation he said, "Hey Laurie, he touched my penis" or "Made me pull down my pants" or "Put his hands in my pants and grabbed me" something specific instead of "Touching." That phone conversation was enough for Jim Boeheim to back off on calling the accusers liars but I still think the evidence is kind of weak. This is the most damning of the three but still, it's just that his wife said, "Of course Bernie would want you to give him a blow job" and "Yea, Bernie has problems" The accuser goes on to say that he did have sex with Laurie Fine...which I think was a way to get back at Fine....get back at him for what? Well, I can think of one thing but again just the act of accusing Fine makes me believe that he doesn't like him. So, having sex with his wife just confirms, he really doesn't like him. Without the accusation, you wouldn't jump to "Because he molested me" so it's possible there's another reason. Why is it that when the accuser said at the time of the incident "Ask these four people, they'll confirm my story" and all four people said, "No, he's lying"? Why would that be the case?
Six years ago, the Duke Lacross story gave me hope that any woman can't accuse any man of rape with nothing more than tears as evidence. Now, I'm beginning to believe that it was merely an exception to the rule. It seems that women and children are given an "Accuse anyone of rape" card and that has dangerous implications.
"A" has come up because I keep hearing about how someone else is accusing Herman Cain of sexual harrassment. The problem is, there is never any proof. The only proof I hear is, "Where there's this much smoke, there has to be fire" That's not true at all. Especially if you're talking about a conservative. You can get millions of people to tell you that the phrase "Separation of church and state" is found in the constitution, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not. There are many liberal women, there's a reason for the expression, "Hell hath no fury over a woman scorn" so it stands to reason that you can find a handful of women who knew Herman Cain, got appalled by his conservative ideas, so made up a rumor about him. Multiple accusations does not a conviction make, you need proof. I need something like "Since Herman Cain repeatedly harrassed me, I taped it, here's the tape." That never happened. When this was brought up at the time it happened, it was concluded that it didn't happen. The only evidence is that he didn't do it because that was the conclusion of the only investigation into it. But alas, that's not what people will believe simply because so many women claim he did. And all have one thing in common....no proof whatsoever. And the same people who vehemently defended Bill Clinton for doing the same thing to Paula Jones and Linda Tripp are condemning Herman Cain.
To move out of politics, I'll go to Jerry Sandusky and Bernie Fine, two men accused of molesting little boys when they were assistant coaches for Penn State and Syracuse respectively. The only evidence for Jerry Sandusky is that in 1998, he was banned from the locker room when little boys were showering because of accusations and when interviewed he fumbled when asked point blank "Are you sexually attracted to little boys." I admit, the second one gets me a little suspicious....why not say no? But then again, if he did, nobody would beleive him....nobody believed the Duke Lacross players when they denied raping the stripper six years ago....luckily banks and taxi cabs keep detailed records showing their whereabouts in the time frame that the stripper gave....without that, they probably would have been convicted. Joe Paterno says that he took away Sandusky's keys to the locker room and banned him from being in the locker room when boys are showering because of what he heard from his assistant coach McQuery who alleged he saw it. But why did McQuery wait 12 years to report it to the cops? He's the one who saw it. So, based on the evidence, I don't think there's enough for me to definitively say Sandusky did it. I was very hard on Sandusky in my last post but now, I just want evidence.
Now Bernie Fine is a different story. This time, there is a tape recording of an alleged victim talking to Laurie Fine, Bernie's wife. He complains that Fine is touching him and the wife just rolls with it by saying "Yea he's got problems." Nowhere in the phone conversation does the guy say exactly where or how Bernie Fine touched him. It could have been a pat on the knee that made him uncomfortable. Or a slap on the ass, which is common in sports...Brett Favre did it to every one of his teammates. As I listened, I was skeptical, until the accuser said something along the lines that he thinks Bernie wanted him to give Bernie a blowjob. His wife responded, "Of course he did, why wouldn't he?"
That leads me to believe that there might be something to the Bernie Fine case. I don't know why his wife was so cool in the phone conversation, that's more distrubing. Makes me think she's one of these stay-loyal-to-my-husband-no-matter-how-fucked-up-he-is wives. I wish that in the phone conversation he said, "Hey Laurie, he touched my penis" or "Made me pull down my pants" or "Put his hands in my pants and grabbed me" something specific instead of "Touching." That phone conversation was enough for Jim Boeheim to back off on calling the accusers liars but I still think the evidence is kind of weak. This is the most damning of the three but still, it's just that his wife said, "Of course Bernie would want you to give him a blow job" and "Yea, Bernie has problems" The accuser goes on to say that he did have sex with Laurie Fine...which I think was a way to get back at Fine....get back at him for what? Well, I can think of one thing but again just the act of accusing Fine makes me believe that he doesn't like him. So, having sex with his wife just confirms, he really doesn't like him. Without the accusation, you wouldn't jump to "Because he molested me" so it's possible there's another reason. Why is it that when the accuser said at the time of the incident "Ask these four people, they'll confirm my story" and all four people said, "No, he's lying"? Why would that be the case?
Six years ago, the Duke Lacross story gave me hope that any woman can't accuse any man of rape with nothing more than tears as evidence. Now, I'm beginning to believe that it was merely an exception to the rule. It seems that women and children are given an "Accuse anyone of rape" card and that has dangerous implications.
Friday, November 11, 2011
In defense of Joe Paterno
I have never been a Penn State fan. I am completely indifferent to their program and everyone in it. It is from these eyes that I can be completely objective and call Joe Paterno's firing not only wrong but a sign as how pathetically 1984 are society has become.
Let's review the facts, in the 90's a perverted piece of shit by the name of David Sandusky raped 10-year-old boys in the locker room of Penn State. He was an assistant coach under Joe Paterno. One of his other assistant coaches caught David Sandusky sodomizing a boy. Following proper protocal he told his superior, Joe Paterno. Joe Paterno following the same protocal told his superior the athletic director. At this point it is the athletic director's job to call the police and report it. Or at the very least, the guy who actually saw the act taking place should call the cops.
Let's just pretend Paterno did in fact call the cops and they arrest Sandusky. After getting arrested, Sandusky pleads not guilty and it goes to trial. They call Paterno to the stand and say, "What do you know?" He responds, "My assistant coach told me he saw David sodomizing a boy in the locker room" in which case, the defense lawyer gets up and screams, "Objection, hearsay" the judge, following proper protocal says, "sustained" and Paterno's answer is stricken from the record. For all Joe Paterno knew, his assistant coach could have been lying to him about Sandusky. Maybe they had animosity. He did ban Sandusky from being in the locker room while his players were showering and presumably took away his key. So, Joe Paterno made sure that he wasn't in a position to do it again on Penn State property. Could he have called the cops....yea maybe but he's not the right person to do it....the man who actually SAW it is. By the way, the witness is still an assistant coach at Penn State for the exact reason I gave. He can testify against Sandusky, so they don't want to be mean to him by firing him because maybe then he won't testify.
In the book 1984 by George Orwell, a major theme is that nobody keeps secrets from big brother. Children rat on parents, spouses on each other, parents on their children, there is nobody you can confide in. Jim Tressel of Ohio State was fired for not telling the athletic director about players selling memorabilia. Joe Paterno was fired for telling the atheletic director of misconduct....so it seems like whether you do or don't, you get fired if something amiss happens. You must report it to the government, to big brother, to the cops, then all is huncky dory. Forget that Joe Paterno has been loyal for over 40 years to the organization. He isn't even worthy of being fired in person, the board of directors called him on the phone to do it. That cowardly, selfish, disloyal, act is far worse than anything Joe Paterno did. Joe Paterno protected the kids by not allowing David Sandusky in the locker room anymore. Sandusky quit a little while later.
This is just another indication of how Al Pacino describes educational institutions in Scent of a Woman "You're building a rat ship here, a vessel for sea going snitchers, and if you think you're preparing the minnows for manhood, you better think again because I say you are destroying the very thing this institution proclaims it instills." he goes on, "I don't know if Charlie's silence here is right or wrong? I'm not a judge or jury, but I can tell you this, he won't sell anybody out to buy his future and that my friends is called integrity, that's called courage, now that's the stuff leaders should be made of." Academic institutions only try to promote big brother mentality, Rat out everyone, save your hide, no loyalty. If this sounds good, read 1984 and see where this mentality leads you.
Let's review the facts, in the 90's a perverted piece of shit by the name of David Sandusky raped 10-year-old boys in the locker room of Penn State. He was an assistant coach under Joe Paterno. One of his other assistant coaches caught David Sandusky sodomizing a boy. Following proper protocal he told his superior, Joe Paterno. Joe Paterno following the same protocal told his superior the athletic director. At this point it is the athletic director's job to call the police and report it. Or at the very least, the guy who actually saw the act taking place should call the cops.
Let's just pretend Paterno did in fact call the cops and they arrest Sandusky. After getting arrested, Sandusky pleads not guilty and it goes to trial. They call Paterno to the stand and say, "What do you know?" He responds, "My assistant coach told me he saw David sodomizing a boy in the locker room" in which case, the defense lawyer gets up and screams, "Objection, hearsay" the judge, following proper protocal says, "sustained" and Paterno's answer is stricken from the record. For all Joe Paterno knew, his assistant coach could have been lying to him about Sandusky. Maybe they had animosity. He did ban Sandusky from being in the locker room while his players were showering and presumably took away his key. So, Joe Paterno made sure that he wasn't in a position to do it again on Penn State property. Could he have called the cops....yea maybe but he's not the right person to do it....the man who actually SAW it is. By the way, the witness is still an assistant coach at Penn State for the exact reason I gave. He can testify against Sandusky, so they don't want to be mean to him by firing him because maybe then he won't testify.
In the book 1984 by George Orwell, a major theme is that nobody keeps secrets from big brother. Children rat on parents, spouses on each other, parents on their children, there is nobody you can confide in. Jim Tressel of Ohio State was fired for not telling the athletic director about players selling memorabilia. Joe Paterno was fired for telling the atheletic director of misconduct....so it seems like whether you do or don't, you get fired if something amiss happens. You must report it to the government, to big brother, to the cops, then all is huncky dory. Forget that Joe Paterno has been loyal for over 40 years to the organization. He isn't even worthy of being fired in person, the board of directors called him on the phone to do it. That cowardly, selfish, disloyal, act is far worse than anything Joe Paterno did. Joe Paterno protected the kids by not allowing David Sandusky in the locker room anymore. Sandusky quit a little while later.
This is just another indication of how Al Pacino describes educational institutions in Scent of a Woman "You're building a rat ship here, a vessel for sea going snitchers, and if you think you're preparing the minnows for manhood, you better think again because I say you are destroying the very thing this institution proclaims it instills." he goes on, "I don't know if Charlie's silence here is right or wrong? I'm not a judge or jury, but I can tell you this, he won't sell anybody out to buy his future and that my friends is called integrity, that's called courage, now that's the stuff leaders should be made of." Academic institutions only try to promote big brother mentality, Rat out everyone, save your hide, no loyalty. If this sounds good, read 1984 and see where this mentality leads you.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Mob mentality
It is odd to me the mentality of a mob. Whether it be the KKK, the Wall Street Protestors, the people of Jerusalem who wanted to crucify Jesus or Unions. There never seems to be any rationality to them. The KKK couldn't even decide if they wanted to kill blacks or Republicans so they just killed both. The mob is never united, it's just a bunch of people who rally behind some cause. The result is anarchy. Almost every wall street protestor interviewed has a different reason why they're there ranging from bailouts to banks to the war in the middle east to legalizing marijuana. All they want to do is destroy, not to change. All the KKK wanted to do was kill and all unions want to do is make as much money as possible from company owners.
The other ones are obvious but unions are mobs too. They convince workers that without them, they would be working inhumane hours for little to no pay and would need to start at the age of 6. What the union men don't realize is that it is they who are being exploited by the unions, not their employers. I work for a construction company and the amount the company has to pay to the union is about the same hourly rate they have to pay their employees. That means that each worker costs them about twice a worker's salary...which means that without the union, they could afford to hire another worker and not affect their bottom line, which is the only thing a corporation really cares about. Also, people don't understand the very basis of how labor works. Not all blue collar workers are willing to work 20 hours of manual labor for little to no pay....so they simply wouldn't. This is why the Irish rose so quickly in America and why the HIspanics currently are. They are willing to put in the hard work to make it to the top. The Irish did it without unions and the Hispanics who are paid under the table do too. Everyone has a limit though and the better you are, the more alluring offer you get. In construction, very often, you're on a job with many different construction companies and they notice if you're a hard worker and if you're employer pays you shit, that makes you easier to lure away to a different company.
There is a direct correlation between the power of a union and the amount of layoffs. Unions don't prevent layoffs, they enable and cause them. If you fire one worker, than you save twice the salary (the salary of the employee and the amount you have to pay the union). If there was no union, there would be less incentive for them to fire you because they wouldn't save as much. Union workers have come to accept the high turnover rate and they don't enjoy job security. The union tells them, "Imagine how bad it would be if we weren't here fighitng for you to keep you job"
Well, they may be being paid less,but they would have more security. The cost to hire them would be half that to an employee and the cost savings to get rid of them would be half....so if they weren't there, they stand to be better off. By forcing the price of labor up, the contractor can't hire as many workers, which means more unemployed workers. Unions force and guarantee employment by doing this and then claiming they're helping them.
The union's only power is for you, the mob, to illogically fight against your employer so that your union can exploit you. Just like Pontius Pilate who killed Jesus because he feared the mob, your employer has to let the union exploit you and make it that much easier for them to fire you.
The other ones are obvious but unions are mobs too. They convince workers that without them, they would be working inhumane hours for little to no pay and would need to start at the age of 6. What the union men don't realize is that it is they who are being exploited by the unions, not their employers. I work for a construction company and the amount the company has to pay to the union is about the same hourly rate they have to pay their employees. That means that each worker costs them about twice a worker's salary...which means that without the union, they could afford to hire another worker and not affect their bottom line, which is the only thing a corporation really cares about. Also, people don't understand the very basis of how labor works. Not all blue collar workers are willing to work 20 hours of manual labor for little to no pay....so they simply wouldn't. This is why the Irish rose so quickly in America and why the HIspanics currently are. They are willing to put in the hard work to make it to the top. The Irish did it without unions and the Hispanics who are paid under the table do too. Everyone has a limit though and the better you are, the more alluring offer you get. In construction, very often, you're on a job with many different construction companies and they notice if you're a hard worker and if you're employer pays you shit, that makes you easier to lure away to a different company.
There is a direct correlation between the power of a union and the amount of layoffs. Unions don't prevent layoffs, they enable and cause them. If you fire one worker, than you save twice the salary (the salary of the employee and the amount you have to pay the union). If there was no union, there would be less incentive for them to fire you because they wouldn't save as much. Union workers have come to accept the high turnover rate and they don't enjoy job security. The union tells them, "Imagine how bad it would be if we weren't here fighitng for you to keep you job"
Well, they may be being paid less,but they would have more security. The cost to hire them would be half that to an employee and the cost savings to get rid of them would be half....so if they weren't there, they stand to be better off. By forcing the price of labor up, the contractor can't hire as many workers, which means more unemployed workers. Unions force and guarantee employment by doing this and then claiming they're helping them.
The union's only power is for you, the mob, to illogically fight against your employer so that your union can exploit you. Just like Pontius Pilate who killed Jesus because he feared the mob, your employer has to let the union exploit you and make it that much easier for them to fire you.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Obsession with eating babies
I don't understand people's obsessions with describing how they want to eat babies as ways of saying they're cute. This happened on a recent episode of "How I Met Your Mother" Marshall on the show sees a baby and says, "I just want to put those little feet in my mouth."
This is something I normally hear from women. I've heard comments like "I want to bite those cheeks" to "Nipple on their toes" and the generic "Gobble them up."
Obviocusly new borns are too young to understand but this does continue till like age 2 or 3 where they can comprehend what it is your saying. This seems slightly psychotic to me. I mean, I see babies, and yea they're cute, maybe I want to hold them, or sometimes I get the urge to kiss them on the forehead but it has never occurred to me to put any part of their body in my mouth. Am I crazy?
This is something I normally hear from women. I've heard comments like "I want to bite those cheeks" to "Nipple on their toes" and the generic "Gobble them up."
Obviocusly new borns are too young to understand but this does continue till like age 2 or 3 where they can comprehend what it is your saying. This seems slightly psychotic to me. I mean, I see babies, and yea they're cute, maybe I want to hold them, or sometimes I get the urge to kiss them on the forehead but it has never occurred to me to put any part of their body in my mouth. Am I crazy?
Monday, November 7, 2011
Running the marathon
I can think of several reasons why not to run the marathon. First off, the first guy to run the marathon died of exhaustion from it. On a more personal level, I had to stop wrestling in high school because I blew out my knee. Both my knees were weak to begin with. Now, after this, I ran cross country for two years. So, now not only do I have bad knees, I got bad shins from running with shin splints and bad ankles from constantly rolling/'spraining it and continuing to walk/ run and perform on it. So, for me , it's a lot more than the normal "you have to be nuts to run 26.2 miles!" After my friend ran the marathon yesterday, she squatted down. Squatting hurts my knees. My other friend will squat when she's tired of standing to relax her legs. If I crouch into a catcher's stance (what they do) I feel a sharp pain in the back of my knee and handsprings. This had been the case for at least as long as I can remember but probably my whole life. Running the marathon is not worth going to the hospital for reconstructive knee surgery, which is a distinct possibility if I ran the marathon.
With all this said, there's one question I keep asking myself; What if you did? This leads to so many more questions like how would it feel? What's it like to say 'I ran a marathon'? Can that be put into words? I think not. I can't put into words how proud I am of my friend for doing it. The odd thing is, it's the 2nd time she has. The first time was the Chicago one last year. I wasn't there and was like "Good Job, you're crazy" like most people react. But seeing her with the cape and the medal signifying she finished the New York City marathon, I couldn't help but want to constantly hug her. She had told me that she hurt all over so stop hugging her but why was I so proud? I realized I was having a different emotion as we kept walking; envy. I envied the feeling, the knowledge that I have conquored the marathon. She can say she did it twice. I actually like to run. That was never the issue. I feel New York City would be the ideal place because I know and power walked/run on a lot of the course. I'm not familiar with the entire 26.2, but I am familiar with a vast majority since I and many of my friends have lived near part of the route. The problem with this is you can't run the New York City marathon unless you've run one before. There's no way I'd run it twice. But what if I just run the course the day before the race? This way the barricades are already in place, so I have it mapped out....or map my own 26.2 miles course looping back to my apartment.
So now for more questions. How do I know my legs can't handle it? How do I know I wouldn't be able to finish? When I ran cross country, I drank 6 cans of soda and 2 hot dogs for lunch every day. What if I decided for 5 months, I'd actually do the traditional thing. I trained correctly, I worked at it and gave myself the opportunity to run 26.2 miles. Why not try? For that's the only way I'll get an answer to these questions.
Now evidence why I may be able to. When I ran cross contry, I averaged 6:35 minute mile for 3.2 miles. After 9 years or so of no exercise and doing nothing athletic, I ran a 9 minute mile. That's horrible by my and cross coutnry standards but not so bad for general population standards. I never timed how fast I could run only a mile when I was in Cross Country shape. But, at West Point to max the mile test, you need to get a 6:30. After that that they stop you. So, over a 3.2 mile course, I was averaging five seconds less than the maximum required for the United States army. I saw a lot of old people who finished the marathon. Yes, I ran cross country 11 years ago, but can I get near that shape again? My friend maintained an 11:23 mile pace up till about mile 23 where she dropped to 11:55. So, I was running a 5 minute quicker pace for 3.2 miles. Does that mean if I dropped the pace by five minutes, I could go another 23.1 miles? I think there's only one way to find out.
With all this said, there's one question I keep asking myself; What if you did? This leads to so many more questions like how would it feel? What's it like to say 'I ran a marathon'? Can that be put into words? I think not. I can't put into words how proud I am of my friend for doing it. The odd thing is, it's the 2nd time she has. The first time was the Chicago one last year. I wasn't there and was like "Good Job, you're crazy" like most people react. But seeing her with the cape and the medal signifying she finished the New York City marathon, I couldn't help but want to constantly hug her. She had told me that she hurt all over so stop hugging her but why was I so proud? I realized I was having a different emotion as we kept walking; envy. I envied the feeling, the knowledge that I have conquored the marathon. She can say she did it twice. I actually like to run. That was never the issue. I feel New York City would be the ideal place because I know and power walked/run on a lot of the course. I'm not familiar with the entire 26.2, but I am familiar with a vast majority since I and many of my friends have lived near part of the route. The problem with this is you can't run the New York City marathon unless you've run one before. There's no way I'd run it twice. But what if I just run the course the day before the race? This way the barricades are already in place, so I have it mapped out....or map my own 26.2 miles course looping back to my apartment.
So now for more questions. How do I know my legs can't handle it? How do I know I wouldn't be able to finish? When I ran cross country, I drank 6 cans of soda and 2 hot dogs for lunch every day. What if I decided for 5 months, I'd actually do the traditional thing. I trained correctly, I worked at it and gave myself the opportunity to run 26.2 miles. Why not try? For that's the only way I'll get an answer to these questions.
Now evidence why I may be able to. When I ran cross contry, I averaged 6:35 minute mile for 3.2 miles. After 9 years or so of no exercise and doing nothing athletic, I ran a 9 minute mile. That's horrible by my and cross coutnry standards but not so bad for general population standards. I never timed how fast I could run only a mile when I was in Cross Country shape. But, at West Point to max the mile test, you need to get a 6:30. After that that they stop you. So, over a 3.2 mile course, I was averaging five seconds less than the maximum required for the United States army. I saw a lot of old people who finished the marathon. Yes, I ran cross country 11 years ago, but can I get near that shape again? My friend maintained an 11:23 mile pace up till about mile 23 where she dropped to 11:55. So, I was running a 5 minute quicker pace for 3.2 miles. Does that mean if I dropped the pace by five minutes, I could go another 23.1 miles? I think there's only one way to find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)