Runalong

"In a radical departure from modern schoolroom readings, the book has almost nothing to say about feelings, relationships or how boys can learn to cry. It valorizes risk, adventure and manliness.

Today's boys inhabit a danger-averse world where even old favorites like tag and dodge ball are under a cloud - Too competitive! Someone might get hurt! The National Parent Teacher Association recommends a cooperative alternative to the fiercely competitive "tug of war" called "tug of peace."
By contrast, "The Dangerous Book for Boys" has detailed instructions on how to hunt, kill, skin and cook a rabbit."

"Wild at Heart" for the younger set! Link.

You can listen to the two sermons from 2Samuel 11 & 12 here. I'll be preaching on Psalm 51 the next two Sundays.

We link, you decide:

MonsterPig.com

Hog Washed!

That wasn't really the name of the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson, but it's where it ended up. I hate to spoil the ending but if atheism IS rational, Hitchens stubbornly refused to show how it could be. Hitchens' arguments were the usual potshots that your local village atheist, teaching at the JC or pumping gas at the mini-mart, would offer. Wilson's responses centered on whether or not morality is an objective reality or a subjective sentiment, and the implications of either view, and on whether there is any reason to assign any value whatsoever to human thought if one accepts atheistic principles. Here's an excerpt from Wilson's end of the rope:

Take the vilest atheist you ever heard of. Imagine yourself sitting at his bedside shortly before he passes away. He says, following Sinatra, "I did it my way." And then he adds, chuckling, "Got away with it too." In our thought experiment, the one rule is that you must say something to him, and whatever you say, it must flow directly from your shared atheism—and it must challenge the morality of his choices. What can you possibly say? He did get away with it. There is a great deal of injustice behind him, which he perpetrated, and no justice in front of him. You have no basis for saying anything to him other than to point to your own set of personal prejudices and preferences. You mention this to him, and he shrugs. "Tomayto, tomahto."

I am certainly willing to take the same thought experiment. I can imagine some pretty vile Christians, and if I couldn't, I am sure you could help me. The difference between us is that I have a basis for condemning evil in its Christian guise. You have no basis for confronting evil in its atheist guise, or in its Christian guise, either. When you say that a certain practice is evil, you have to be prepared to tell us why it is evil. And this brings us to the last point—you make the first glimmer of an attempt to provide a basis for ethics.

You say in passing that ethical imperatives are "derived from innate human solidarity." A host of difficult questions immediately arise, which is perhaps why atheists are generally so coy about trying to answer this question. Derived by whom? Is this derivation authoritative? Do the rest of us ever get to vote on which derivations represent true, innate human solidarity? Do we ever get to vote on the authorized derivers? On what basis is innate human solidarity authoritative? If someone rejects innate human solidarity, are they being evil, or are they just a mutation in the inevitable changes that the evolutionary process requires? What is the precise nature of human solidarity? What is easier to read, the book of Romans or innate human solidarity? Are there different denominations that read the book of innate human solidarity differently? Which one is right? Who says?

And last, does innate human solidarity believe in God?

Here are links to part one and part two. From part two you can link to the other three parts.

And here is a link to excerpts from Wilson's book on the topic of atheism. He's a fine writer.

Update: If you are really interested in how secular philosophers try to solve the morality problem, here's a typical example. Once you wade through all the lingo and analyze his three concluding "lessons" you will realize that the author, as is typical of such attempts, basically is saying, "I really don't have a clue, but I can give you a nice survey of the various alternatives that have been proposed."

From an AP story: "Utah led the nation, with people in nearly nine out of 10 homes saying smoking was never allowed. The state's large population of Mormons, who eschew tobacco, probably contributed to that statistic, the agency said."

Lots of baseball players eschew tobacco as well. I suppose smokeless tobacco would be one alternative where smoking isn't allowed. Personally, eschewing tobacco seems kind of disgusting to me, but apparently Utah's population of large Mormons disagrees.

For awhile in high school I dated a girl with a wooden leg but I had to break it off.

"In March he said that he planned to continue as chancellor for another 13 years, until he was 86. In 1997 he wrote, 'God may call me home today, and I would have no complaints, but in my heart of hearts I actually believe that He is going to give me another 20 or 30 years. If you read some day soon that "Jerry Falwell has died," be assured that i was greatly surprised.'"

Strange, isn't it. There's nothing more certain, and nothing more unexpected.

For the record, my answer to that question is "no". Some of my best friends are vegans and they have a pretty good grasp of nutrition and what it takes to be a successful vegan. That isn't one of my aspirations but I needed to clear the air before linking to this op-ed which comes dangerously close to implying a "yes" answer to the question in my title. I would say, if you are going to be a vegan, be a scientific vegan. Don't make it your religion (many vegans do). Be sure you know what you are doing (most vegans do).

My reason for linking to the article is this: Most nutritionists and nutrition-journalists drive me nuts because they are such lemmings. They just repeat the company line and don't seem capable of, or interested in, really looking at the evidence (or lack thereof) behind the recommendations they so confidently assert. The truth is: we really don't know a lot about nutrition. So even though Nina Planck doesn't provide, in the links that follow, the kind of scientific evidence for her claims that I would like to see; I appreciate the fact that she is willing to think for herself and challenge the status quo.

Her claims about "real food" may be valid. At the very least they tend to agree with my biases! Read and ponder for your own self:

Meat: Yes!
Whole Milk: Yes! (Raw)
Low-fat diet: No!
Q&A with Nina Planck

... comes this headline from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Finding cause of diarrhea is a process of elimination

I've often commented on the fact that if you ask someone over 60 what is most important to them (temporally speaking), they always answer: health. "All that matters is if you have your health," yet, if you ask someone under 60 what they are doing to prepare for retirement years they can tell you all about IRA's and retirement plans and how they are trying to save and invest for the financial aspect of retirement, but few are doing anything to ensure that they'll be in good health in their latter years.

Now, there are no guarantees: your investments may go sour and good health may elude you even if you do all the right things. But if we sacrificially prepare for financial well-being, shouldn't we prepare for the more important matter of health?

The current Money magazine, of all sources, agrees. The greatest regret of retirees isn't failing to provide for themselves financially, but failing to invest in their health (p18). And health is a two-fer: "Want to double your portfolio's size? Exercise, cut out fats and don't smoke."

Later in the magazine they look, Money-style, at which form of exercise gives you the most health-bang for the buck. The clear winner: Running: more than four times better than swimming and seven times better than cycling (per dollar spent).

Hey, if I can inspire John Stumbo, maybe I can inspire you too!

I've always wanted to do this race but it's a long way away and conflicts with a lot of other races I like to do but I finally "just did it" this year. I had to finish the sermon and a bunch of other stuff first so it was 12:17 Friday afternoon before I left for an almost six hour drive and 10:20 Saturday evening when I returned from a nearly six hour return trip. In between the race itself took me just short of six hours (5:53).

On the way up I passed Callahan's Restaurant near Ashland. It was at Callahan's a few years ago that I, as a newbie ultrarunner, met Scott McQueeney, with lots of UR experience, including Badwater, though he was a few years younger than I. We talked quite a bit over dinner one night just before the Siskiyou Outback 50K. A few years ago I was going to run McD but it ended up on the same day as my daughter's graduation from college. Decisions, decisions.... (just kidding!). Scott ran McD that year and finished right about the time I would have finished, then collapsed and died of a massive heart attack. Running makes your heart stronger, but if you have bad genes...

In Corvallis I ran into the same (mostly) bunch of Ashland runners I ran into six years ago in Auburn, CA just before my first ultra, the Way to Cool 50K. Now, as then, they invited me to join them for dinner.

As is the case with most of my races, McD has virtually no flat sections, only ups and downs. The RD's had asked me if I would make a film of the race as I had of the Miwok race a couple years ago but I said not this time, I wanted to see the course first- maybe next year. Lots of people at the race knew me because of the Miwok video (and/or because of other races or the internet or maybe even direct revelation from God- running up the trail a guy I'd never met, upon hearing I was from Redding, asked if I was Mark Swanson- he never did say how he surmised that).

Also in the race was John Stumbo, pastor of the Alliance church in Salem, one of the largest in our denomination. Since I have a long streak of coming in first place in the Pastor's division (which exists primarily in my head), this could be a problem. He ran the race last year and finished in 6:06. I was hoping for a 5:35 finish, so I thought I'd be OK.

I talked to John before and after the race. I'd met him once when he spoke at a pastor's conference, but I couldn't remember what he had spoken about or if we had talked at all. I was quite surprised when he told me I was the reason he was here, his "inspiration" and recounted, seemingly verbatim, a conversation we had had in which he had asked me about running, I had told him how I started out just running to the end of the driveway, etc, etc. We continued to talk a little at the beginning of the race but I'm a slow starter and he looked like I was holding him back so I let him take off (he did), figuring I would catch him later when my superior sense of pacing would enable me to pass the too-fast starters.

The course was fine: Typical Oregon forest and ferns and a couple spectacular viewpoints. One of the aid stations was populated (infested?) with hippies: Hippies with really, really bad hair. BTW, did you know that when Oregon runners blow the snot out of their noses it lands on the ground and interacts with the decaying vegetation and turns into banana slugs? Some second generation Oregonians have actually evolved to the point where they just blow fully-developed slugs out of their noses!

Anyway, the early going was marred by the insistence of some runners to continually shout "Aflac!" at each other. Maybe something to do with the U of O Ducks? I'm not sure if the shouters were for or against the Quackers. I have to admit that through hours of practice they had virtually perfected their spot-on imitations of the obnoxious TV duck.

Back at the ranch I was having some trouble. I just couldn't generate much energy going up hill. I had trouble running the easy grades and when I walked I couldn't walk as fast as normal. My mind would tell my body to speed up and my body would reply, "try and make me!" My mind would reply, "we've been here before body, I have ways to make you accelerate," and my body would reply, "neener-neener" and refuse to speed up. Just one of those days.

On the downhills, however, I was, as usual, SMOKIN'! Younger runners would hear me bearing down on them from behind and would step aside and cower in fear as I sped by, followed by a sonic boom. I was just flying down steep grades, gliding over roots and rocks, the personification of power and grace. This is important so listen up, kids (well, it's not important to you, but it is to me, so listen up anyway).

You see, if there is one thing I've noticed about old people, it is that they don't like going downhill or down anything. They move slowly and gingerly and cautiously. I, on the other hand, was flying downhill recklessly and fearlessly. The lesson is obvious: Old people don't do that. I do do that. Therefore, I am not old. I told you it was important.

But all in all it was a tough race what with all those uppity sections of trail. I finished in 5:53, about 30 seconds a mile slower than I'd planned. Rev. Stumbo, on the other foot, finished in 5:10. I was still the fastest out-of-state pastor.

Anyway, it doesn't matter who won or lost (the actual winner set a course record at just under 4 hours) or how fast I went. All that matters is that I'm not old.

Out in the woods the critters are doing their birds and bees thing. Yesterday was the first time I'd ever come across baby coyotes frolicking in the field. They looked to be no more than two weeks old, red and fluffy and big-eared and absolutely adorable, even to a grizzled old grouch like moi. I turned a corner and there they were, three of them: Huey, Louie, and Dewey.

I went back today with my camera and tried to sneak in on them from the other side. They were out there doing their Disney "fa-la-la" cute animal thing, but they heard me and ran away before I got close. I went over and sat on the ground and waited. After a half hour I decided to give them five more minutes or I'd leave without them (that'd teach them!). Just then I heard a rustling noise and saw two ears sticking up in the grass about 30 feet away. How Huey got there without me seeing him or him noticing me I don't know. But all I could see were his ears, he's only the size of Nehi.

A few minutes later L & D came scampering out acting like kittens. None of them noticed me. I watched for awhile but couldn't get close enough to get any better pics with my point-and-shoot camera than these shots of Huey. Trust me, these guys (gals?) are cue-ute.

His name is Nehi. Like the soda. And because that's how tall he is:



Some people accuse us of putting him on a pedestal...



Nehi is very amusing. Sadly, he doesn't find me so.

This has been making the rounds of the blogosphere lately. Personally, I'd take the cat. But don't show this to a certain daughter of mine who doesn't much care for her husband's cat...



HT: Scotte

Headline from WSOC-TV news:
"Royals To Get A Taste Of Angels' Colon"

I'd rather have frog juice.

You can find out by entering your zip code here.
Not all stations are included (Arco doesn't show up in my area and they're often cheapest).

"I'm not going to complain about my age because without it, I'd be dead."

This has been going around the internet. You are supposed to copy it and sent it to all your friend(s), who then answer and yada, yada. Although I'm a sociable people-loving person (that's my story and I'm sticking to it), after reading about 30 people's responses to "what color are your socks?" and "Cherries or Blueberries?" I decided to dedicate my version to Ted's cat (who doesn't mind the cussing, but may take offense at #12):

1. What is your occupation? I'm currently occupied filling out this survey.
2. What color are your socks right now? Same color they were yesterday.
3. What are you listening to right now? I can't listen and type at the smae tmie. %$^!, see what you made me do!
4. What was the last thing that you ate? Arsenic, he answered posthumously.
5. Can you drive a stick shift? No, but I can drive a car with manual transmission.
6. Last person you spoke to on the phone? I call Warren Buffet once a day to give him stock tips.
7. Do you like the person who sent this to you? Not anymore.
8. How old are you today? 25, he answered dyslexically.
9. Favorite drink? This time of year: Tadpole smoothies.
10. What is your favorite sport to watch? The Tour de Fargo
11. Have you ever dyed your hair? no, everyone's hair is this color where I come from.
12. Pets? Varies, let me check the freezer.
13. Favorite food? Hot dogs (see #12).
14. What was the last movie you watched? The Last Picture Show (was that supposed to be a trick question?)
15. What's your favorite day of the week? Tomorrow
16. How do you vent anger? None of your #^*@! business!!!
17. What was your favorite toy as a child? The chemistry set, until the FBI took it away.
18. What is your favorite season? cayenne pepper
19. Hugs or kisses? Anything chocolate is fine with me.
20. Cherries or Blueberries? Cherries. I have a bag of dehydrated blueberries that says, "Helps prevent aging."
21. Living arrangements? That's next on my to-do list.
22. What is on the floor of your closet? carpeting.
23. What did you do last night? None of what they're accusing me of.
24. Favorite smells? Earthworms dying on the sidewalk after a summer rain.
25. What inspires you? Rich celebrities who drone on about simplifying their lives.
26. What are you afraid of? Anything that prevents aging.
27. Plain, cheese or spicy hamburgers? I'll take the plain cheese.
28. Favorite dog breed? Oscar Meyer
29. How many states have you lived in? Confusion, Denial, Disarray... I could go on.
30. Favorite holiday? Send Your Children to Work Day

Here we go again...

"According to the data, people who maintain their weight through diet rather than exercise are likely to have major deposits of internal fat, even if they are otherwise slim. "The whole concept of being fat needs to be redefined," said Bell, whose research is funded by Britain's Medical Research Council.

When it comes to being fit, experts say there is no short-cut. "If you just want to look thin, then maybe dieting is enough," Bell said. "But if you want to actually be healthy, then exercise has to be an important component of your lifestyle."

The length of the road to the South Fork summit: 7 miles.
The elevation gain: 2000'.
The date: May 7, 2007.
The temperature on the digital sign as I drove to the trailhead: 102º (I don't think it was really that hot).
The first: First time I ran up to the top with no walking breaks.
The time: 73 minutes to the top, breaking my old record by four minutes.
How much did the last two miles cost? Don't even ask.
How close did I come to breaking into a walk the last half mile? Don't even think about it.
The views at the top: Almost worth it*.
The seven mile gravity-assisted descent: Almost worth it.
The feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment at the top: Priceless.

*Would have been worth it if I hadn't been up there so many times before.

Time for our annual free running lesson for all Runalong readers!

If running was always as hard as the last two miles up South Fork this evening, nobody would run.
When you start running, all running is as hard as that. That's why most people don't stick it out.
Why make yourself miserable?

But after awhile, your body adapts. With proper training, even those last two miles up South Fork wouldn't have been so bad.
Running in an untrained body is no fun. But running in a trained body is as easy as walking.

The trick is getting through the training period.
The training period is ten weeks long.
For those ten weeks you need to commit an hour a day, five days a week.
The more days you skip, the longer it takes for running to become easy. The longer running stays unpleasant, the slower your progress, the less likely you'll stick with it until it does become easy. One hour a day, five days a week, ten weeks. The benefits of fitness to mind, body and emotions are amazing. But you've got to make the ten week commitment to get there.

Here's how to make those ten weeks more pleasant-
Go at the same time every day. Every day + same time = habit. Habits are easier than having to decide every time. If you have to think that hard about it, sooner or later you'll think, "I'll just skip this once." Even with a habit it will be a temptation. Habits are hard to form, but make life easier.
One hour: dress for running- make sure you have good shoes. Go outside- weather won't kill you. Run until it starts to feel unpleasant. One minute maybe. Walk until you recover. Repeat until twenty minutes are up. Note your location. Turn around and do the same until you are home. Take a shower and get dressed. Your hour is up.

Don't push yourself too hard. The process takes time and trying to speed it up makes it take longer. Tomorrow you will run a little more and walk a little less and go a little farther. In four to six weeks you'll be running the whole way. Don't rush it- what matters isn't how fast you can run three miles but whether you are still doing it a year from now.

After the ten weeks are up, IF you have been consistent, you may now adjust your running to your schedule. You only need to run three times a week to maintain fitness; 15 miles a week is ideal for most of the benefits of exercise and fitness. That should take you about three hours a week. That will do you until you die. After that it gets even easier!

On January 1 I announced to a world atwitter with anticipation that I had invested some of my retirement money in an energy fund (VGENX) on the theory that if gas prices kept going up my investment should go up as well and that would take some of the sting out of the sticker shock at the pump.

Well... pump prices HAVE gone up- currently over $3.30 a gallon here in Redding and since Mrs. Runalong has a 90 mile daily commute, that's a lot of petrol. Between us we're investing over $300 per month into global warming (another complementary Runalong service for our good friends in Canada!).

So how has the VGENX investment worked out? Well (as in oil's well that ends well), our gain to date is just over $2300 which more than covers all of our gas expenses... except... that we would have made about $1600 anyway if we had just invested the money in an index fund so we really only made $700 which does NOT cover all of our gas bills... except... that we would have spent $900 (vs the $1200 we did spend) on gas even if prices had remained steady so our $700 gain easily outpaced our additional $300 in gas costs.

Alas, like most things in life, this somehow is not proving to be as satisfying as I hoped!

It's "Down on Artificial" day at Runalong. If you thought artificial butter was bad, what about artificial insemination, i.e., life without father?

At least not if it has "artificial butter flavor".

Beautiful but deadly:


(via instapundit)

The definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" seem to be rather fluid lately. In foreign affairs which is conservative and which is liberal: isolationism or intervention? Conceptually, leaving things alone would seem more conservative than jumping into the fray, but we all know that conservatives today tend to be more interventionist than liberals (though there are many exceptions).

The French have an election tomorrow. The candidate who wants to introduce some radical changes is considered "conservative" while the one who wants to pretty much preserve the status quo (that's French for "femme fatale") is viewed as the liberal. Meanwhile, "conservationists" are more often liberals than conservatives, which seems to defy etymology.

Generally, liberals want to see the government take on more responsibility for the well-being of the citizens while conservatives would prefer to be granted more freedom to care for themselves and others without government "meddling". Liberals see government programs, supported by mandatory taxation, as the simplest and surest way to meet human needs; conservatives fear that the unintended consequences of such programs will outweigh the good they may do as well as fearing letting too much power reside in one organization under the theory that power corrupts.

I'm painting with a broad brush, but my point is simply this: the liberal candidate for president of France would, if elected, be the best looking head-of-state in history (sorry about that, all you Margaret Thatcher groupies!).

No wait: my real point is this: The liberal-conservative conundrum, as brilliantly and concisely presented above, cannot be easily resolved by an appeal to Scripture. Few of us are completely socialistic or completely libertarian and the question of where to draw the lines (more government or less) must generally be resolved on pragmatic grounds. Christians should not claim divine authority for their positions on whether or not we should invade Iran, raise taxes or ban automatic weapons, etc.

I happen to be a conservative on most political issues. But my political opinions are just my opinions. A lot of pastors and other "Christian leaders" don't seem to remember that. Why does it matter? Because the Gospel is of life and death importance, is the Word of God, not of man, and we need to be absolutely clear on when we are speaking for God and when we are presenting our own views. Blurring the lines between the two will not convince any political liberals to become conservatives (or vice versa) but it will convince unbelievers that our views about God and salvation are politically motivated rather than divinely sanctioned.

Sometimes, on social issues such as abortion, we CAN speak for God. But on most economic and international issues, we can only speak for ourselves. Make sure the people you talk to know the difference, and know that YOU know the difference!

For information purposes only - French election:
Liberal babe vs. Conservative non-babe:

I dare you to think about this AP news item just before you fall asleep tonight...

Gonzalez adds three ladles of hot, white bean broth, two generous spoonfuls of honey, raw aloe vera plant and several tablespoons of maca - an Andean root also believed to boost stamina and sex drive - into a household blender.

Then she drops the frog in.

Once strained, the result is a starchy, milkshake-like liquid that stings the throat.

At least 50 customers a day ask for steaming beer mugs of frog juice at Gonzalez's countertop-only restaurant...

Don't believe me? Go to this site and type in your cell phone number (or anyone else's) and wait while it hones in on your location.

Stay on the beach in Hawaii for $5 a night. Pastor Mark tells you how (and more)!

That's how Bex spent her spring break last month. Hard to believe that we'll heading to Europe to see her NEXT month (that's the one after this one). Anyway, here are her pics from Sicily.

But what's with the Frog Crossing?!

It's Thursday evening at 10 pm. You're too tired to do anything useful but not quite ready to fall asleep. You'd surf the net if there was anything to surf. Don't worry kids; Runalong is here to help! Here's a link to a couple dozen sites worth checking out. One of them is bound to keep you busy until you start to nod off. You may even want to bookmark a couple.

Mark Krikorian titled this post "Chutzpah" - now there's an understatement for you!

The head of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, is complaining about Nigerian Anglican bishops coming to Virginia this weekend to formally install the head of the conservative breakaway denomination in this country. Here's what she said: "Such action would violate the ancient customs of the church."

I kid you not. The female head of a church with a practicing homosexual bishop planning to "marry" his lover, a church that could accept into seminary the adulterous homosexual governor of New Jersey, a church that embraces splitting open babies' skulls and vacuuming their brains out, is complaining about violating ancient customs? Wow.

Where did the April posts go? It appears that on May 1 they automatically archived themselves- you'll find them near the bottom of the sidebar. I don't have time to see if I can de-automate that or not. And while were at it, where did the 20th century go?

Along with all the revisions in dietary recommendations comes this shocking new development: we may be making ourselves more susceptible to cancer and other diseases BECAUSE WE ARE AVOIDING THE SUN!

Authorities are implicated because the main way humans achieve healthy levels of vitamin D isn't through diet but through sun exposure. People make vitamin D whenever naked skin is exposed to bright sunshine. By an unfortunate coincidence, the strong sunshine able to produce vitamin D is the same ultraviolet B light that can also causes sunburns and, eventually, skin cancer...

Those studying the vitamin say the hide-from-sunlight advice has amounted to the health equivalent of a foolish poker trade. Anyone practising sun avoidance has traded the benefit of a reduced risk of skin cancer — which is easy to detect and treat and seldom fatal — for an increased risk of the scary, high-body-count cancers, such as breast, prostate and colon, that appear linked to vitamin D shortages.

The sun advice has been misguided information "of just breathtaking proportions," said John Cannell, head of the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit, California-based organization.

"Fifteen hundred Americans die every year from [skin cancers]. Fifteen hundred Americans die every day from the serious cancers."...

Read the whole article!