OBX race report

I had a great time last weekend hanging out with my friend Kate and her parents in the Outer Banks, NC.  It was beautiful sunny weather, lovely bay and beach views, and delicious meals.  The only downside of the weekend was running a marathon on Sunday morning.  Kidding!  Mostly.  Marathons HURT and, when averaged out over the full 26.2 miles, are often NOT FUN, at least when one is giving it their all and obsesses over every mile split like I usually do.  Oh, they're fun for the first 17 or so miles.  But when weighed against the pain of the last 9.2...wait, why do I keep running these things?  Oh, I remember - the JOY of finishing the darn thing, the satisfaction of tumbling into bed that night into a deep luxurious sleep, and the hurts-so-good soreness (which I am still enjoying 3 days later).  So yeah, I guess it's all worth it, and as some like to say, "if it were easy, everyone would do it."

Sorry if I sound slightly snarky or bitter, but to cut to the chase:  I finished in 3:53:31, missing a PR by three seconds.  THREE SECONDS.  If you're thinking "couldn't you have just run a little faster?" the answer is NO!  I gave this race MY ALL and had nothing left.  In the finishing area three different people asked me if I was okay? did I need help? was I sure?  That's how depleted I was.  And the other reason I didn't run a little bit faster (aside from I couldn't) was that I had no idea I was even close to my PR.  I was just hoping to get under 4:00, and by mile 20, that goal was slipping away - see my splits below:

Mile 1 - 9:10
Mile 2 - 8:23
Mile 3 - 8:20
Mile 4 - 8:35
Mile 5 - 8:15
Mile 6 - 9:07
Mile 7 - 8:12
Mile 8 - 8:58
Mile 9 - 8:17
Mile 10 - 8:35
Mile 11 - 8:44
Mile 12 - 8:43
Mile 13 - 9:10
Mile 14-16 - 26:19
Mile 17 - 9:03
Mile 18 - 9:01
Mile 19 - 9:16
Mile 20 - 9:51
Mile 21 - 9:38
Mile 22 - 9:31
Mile 23 - 9:36
Mile 24 - 9:24
Mile 25 - 9:09
Mile 26 - 8:23
Last 0.2 - 1:39
Finish time - 3:53:31

But it was also around mile 20 or 21 that I found myself running next to a man moving along at a decent pace - one I could sort of keep up with.  We ran alongside each other for a couple minutes.  He wasn't wearing earphones, so I said "you seem to moving along at a good pace.  I'm gonna try keeping up with you."  To which he responded "oh, I've been trying to keep up with you!" which was ridiculous.  He said "do you think we can finish in under 4 hours?" and immediately I said "I bet we can do it!" even though I was very doubtful.  But I was determined to stay with this man, who was somewhere in his mid-50s, had a South African (?) accent, was named Craig, and as I later found out, was running his 5th marathon overall but his 1st marathon since having heart surgery. 

At this point we had made the westward turn around mile 21 and were heading straight into 14-17 mph winds.  "Why don't you get behind me so I can block the wind for you?" he generously offered.  I gratefully accepted.  I tucked in behind him, focused on his yellow running shoes, and did my darnedest to hang on.  I didn't look up for quite literally the rest of the race (the reason I got my mile splits was because they had painted the mile markers on the road).  I just focused on Craig's flying yellow shoes.  Somewhere around mile 23 is the long hill over the bridge to Manteo.  Honestly, keeping our ~9:35 pace into the wind was so difficult that I thought we had already started the climb.  But then Craig said "are you ready for this?"  Oh shit.  We hadn't even started the hill yet!  But I chirped out "yes" and up we went.  My gaze stayed down, but I could see us passing people left and right.  Periodically he asked how I was doing, and each time I lied "I'm OK."

Around mile 25 Craig said "Oh, you can overtake me now!"  Uh, no, no I can't.  Readers, check out that time for mile 26.  That's right, 8:23.  The only reason I was able to do that was I stayed focused on Craig's shoes and let him pull me through (we were out of the headwind by then, but still).  I didn't lift my head until after we passed the mile 26 marker.  I had only been paying attention to my mile splits, not the overall time, and I was shocked when I saw 3:53 on the clock as we approached the finish.  Can you understand now why I just missed a PR? Grrr.

Actually, I should not be frustrated at all.  I was following the I-have-no-training-plan training plan, which means I dutifully completed my weekend long runs but just kinda did runs here and there when I felt like it during the week.  So, not bad.  This race could have easily gone a lot worse.  This was marathon #17 for me, but I still have lot to learn about smart racing and pacing.  My overall goal pace to achieve my elusive 3:49:59 time goal was 8:46 min/mile.  Now take another look at my mile splits.  How many of the 26 miles were on this pace?  That's right - none.  A range of 8:12 to 9:51 on a flat course is pretty poor pacing.  But - I guess it's also a good excuse to finally buy a fancy gadget!  (hint hint, if you're reading this Sweetie - Christmas is coming up! :))

Oh, and Craig ended up getting a PR by ~5 min and he was doing a lot better than I was at the finish, so that's good.  And - I hope she doesn't mind me bragging about her - but Kate set her SECOND marathon PR in as many months, which I think is beyond amazing.  It was only ~4 weeks in between the Baltimore Marathon and OBX and she shaved 3 min off her time!  Way to go!

Thanks for reading!

Modern day Lazurus and the rich man

Today's Gospel reading and sermon topic in church was the parable about Lazarus and the rich man from Luke chapter 16 (and of course I always think of the scene from Godspell when I hear this story!)  In a nutshell, a poor man named Lazarus and a rich man both die and go to heaven and hell, respectively.  Lazarus had begged at the rich man's door to no avail.  In the torments of hell the rich man begs for mercy and for Father Abraham to warn his surviving family so they won't go to hell, too.  Father Abraham's response is essentially "Tough.  Nothing will convince them to repent."

The pastor's sermon interpreted this parable in a modern-day context, complete with numbers on North Carolina's unemployment, food stamp, Medicaid, and other poverty indicators.  Yes, the sermon was politically bent (it was a supply pastor - my church is currently seeking someone full-time).  The pastor implied that our politicians, who mostly are rich and mainly represent the interests of the rich, have been acting as the rich man did when he denied Lazarus scraps from his abundant table.  It made me wonder how right-wing Christians would respond to this interpretation.  I imagine they would say things like "Poverty should be alleviated through the church and other private, charitable organizations.  Government is a non-moral entity, and when charity is left to the government, problems and inefficiencies result."  Some of the more ignorant folks may also argue something like "Poor people are poor because of their own choices.  If they didn't make so many bad decisions, stopped being lazy, and got jobs, they could help themselves."

I hear out-of-touch, clueless, insensitive crap like this all the time, and I'm sick of it.  Here's my piece:

1) Even if all the churches and other charitable organizations in the U.S. were to double - I think even triple - their giving and outreach, it would NOT meet the need of the impoverished here in our very own wealthy nation.  Admittedly, I don't have the references for this on hand.  I read this in a commentary written by a pastor in The Lutheran magazine.  She noted how church attendance and involvement (and hence donations) have steadily declined in recent years, while the need has only increased.

2) Personally, I do give, but at very low levels, so it would be hypocritical of me to rant against those who give nothing...and yet.  I read about studies like this and this and, well, I do see the rich man from the parable in some segments of our society.  Part of me thinks the lack of charitable giving combined with an anti-social-safety-net mindset often stems from a genuine, honest ignorance of how bad some people have it.  Again, I shouldn't be hypocritical - I don't fully understand and appreciate the hardships of poverty myself.  But I can't help thinking...what if every single American in the top ~60% income bracket (or something) were to spend an hour - just a single hour - working at a soup kitchen, food pantry, or homeless shelter?  And have a single conversation with a member of the working poor to learn their story?  I really think this brief glimpse could open so many hearts and minds and dispel the notion of the "lazy poor" who just "get a job already" or "learn how to make a budget and not wastefully spend."

3) Speaking of the working poor, here are some fun stats and debunking of the "prosperous poor" myth.

4) Most of the people who are in favor of food stamp cuts are also against the minimum wage.  Again, this mindset just screams "out-of-touch."  Just how exactly do you expect people to get by?  Oh, food pantries?  And how much do you yourself donate to food pantries each week?

5) Also, most of the people who argue the government shouldn't "give handouts" because they are a "non-moral" entity also believe, incongruously, that the government SHOULD regulate a woman's reproductive rights. 

Again, I don't mean to come across as some holier-than-thou, generous, charitable saint.  I'm not.  I'm tremendously blessed and I can give so much more in terms of time and money, but instead I make excuses and elaborate rationalizations of why I don't have time.  But while I can certainly do more, I strongly believe (based on the data) that we as individuals and private entities cannot do this alone - government involvement is needed.

Voter Suppression in NC

OK.  I've been really busy with classes starting this week, but I am doing my best to keep abreast of our state lawmakers' efforts to make voting more difficult for poor, minority, and student voters.  A quick but relevant aside:  High Point University recently announced that next year's graduation speaker will be Colin Powell.  But North Carolina is on Powell's radar for a number of reasons, because on Thursday he spoke out against NC's new voting law, calling it "punishing" to minority voters.  As Powell indicated in his remarks, there's a lot that's messed up about this voting law, but right now I want to focus on the issue of college students voting on campus.

First, I'll start with some of the arguments put forth by those in favor of suppressing student voting on campus.  According to my dear spouse, for example, college is often a transient residence for students, not a permanent home where they plan to establish themselves within the community.  While some students do stick around after graduation and establish residency, many do not. 

Alright, that sounds reasonable.  It's unconstitutional, but superficially, it sounds reasonable. 

But let's also consider the facts about where exactly state Republicans have targeted their student voter suppression efforts:

• Elizabeth City State University (ECSU), a historically black college.  Note that in addition to challenging many student voters' residencies, GOP lawmaker Pete Gilbert has specifically gone after a senior who plans to establish residency after graduation and run for city council. 
• Appalachian State University, a Democratically leaning student body.  Students returned to campus to learn that their on-campus polling place has been eliminated and now 9,300 residents of Boone, NC must vote in one county building that has only 35 parking spots.
• Winston Salem State University, another historically black college, although fortunately the county election board later backed down from what I'm sure they quickly realized was a touchy issue and terrible idea.

Let's also consider where state Republicans HAVE NOT suppressed the student vote (or have even facilitated it):

• Campbell University, with a largely conservative student body, recently had a polling place moved onto campus...into a building named after Art Pope's father (this blows my mind)
• Mid-Atlantic Christian University, with a largely white, conservative student population, is in the same town as ECSU, and yet GOP lawmakers have not challenged the residencies of any of these students.  Just the ECSU ones.

Additional info on the NC student voter suppression issue can be found here.

Do GOP lawmakers really expect us to believe that these unevenly targeted, blatantly discriminatory efforts are supposed to make our voting system more just?!?!   I don't even know what else to say, except that whether you're a Democrat, Republican, or neither, you should agree that this is outrageous.  Seriously.

Indulgences

I'm about to reveal my ignorance in a big way here - and those of you familiar with my religious upbringing and liberal arts education will probably be shocked:  I honestly thought that indulgences were something belonging to the Catholic church's ancient, sordid past, with the likes of the Inquisition and Crusades.  I remember learning in my Lutheran confirmation class (or maybe even in earlier Sunday school years) that Martin Luther spoke out against the Catholic church selling indulgences to followers who believed that forking over cash to the church would get them into heaven.  The idea of having to pay money to get into heaven seemed ridiculous to Martin Luther, to my 13-year-old self, and to me now (obviously).  One of the key Bible passages that Luther used to argue against indulgences was from Romans chapter 3:

²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Just as the Catholic Church has evolved from many of its earlier ways (again, the Crusades, the Inquisition), I guess I assumed that indulgences were a thing of the past.  But then today I saw this headline in The Onion:  "Pope To Reduce His Twitter Followers’ Time In Purgatory"  I know, it's The Onion, right?  Fake, funny news.  But this was in The Onion's "American Voices" section, which is actually real stories accompanied by fake (and often hilarious) commentary.  So, I had to go find a more informative news article about this, and indeed, the Vatican is offering indulgences to people who follow the pope's tweets live from Catholic World Youth Day.  Granted, this is nowhere near as unscrupulous as the ancient selling of indulgences for greedy amounts of money.  And I'm sure that Catholics, including my friends and probably some of my in-laws, would argue there is nothing unscrupulous about this at all - it is simply a way for the church leadership to reach out to young followers and better engage them in the Catholic faith and its teachings.  I understand this, but - sorry if I offend or disrespect - indulgences are ridiculous and stupid and Biblical unsound (although not as ridiculous and stupid and Biblical unsound as many other aspects of the Catholic faith).  Of course, my knowledge of the Bible is pretty damn poor, so please comment away if you'd like to take issue with this.  The quote above is pretty much my main argument!

Why don't you trust me? A letter to anti-choice politicians

Yes, this is Yet Another abortion rant blog post, but can you blame me?  The misguided, self-righteous, full-throttle attack on reproductive rights that is currently plaguing our so-called great nation is absolutely unbelievable.  Perhaps I am particularly upset because my adopted home state is suffering a large, national-news-worthy chunk of this attack, but, my gosh, I think it's something like DOZENS of states that are or recently have been ground-zeros for these assaults on our basic, personal, intimate rights.  For a little something different, I've drafted this letter to anti-choice politicians, which I could modify, personalize...maybe actually deliver (though I need to replace the footnote links with primary sources).  I'm thinking a good start would be my local representatives in the NC state house and senate, both of whom are, surprise, surprise, old white men with business/ real estate backgrounds and clear, consistent anti-choice voting records.

Dear Lawmaker,

We have not met, so please allow me to introduce myself:  I am an early-career scientist who was recently appointed to a tenure-track position at a private university in North Carolina.  I enjoy running, cooking, and hiking.  I attend church.  I am married and plan to start a family soon.  Please excuse my boasting, but I am well-educated, intelligent, and hard-working:  I earned my Ph.D. at the age of 26 and since then I have published many papers, taught many students, and contributed to my discipline in meaningful ways.

Now that you know a little about me, I have a question for you:  Why don't you trust me?  Based on your voting record (e.g., [INSERT SPECIFIC EXAMPLES HERE]), I understand that you have attempted to limit, make more onerous, or even take away my right to choose what happens to my pregnancy.  Thankfully, you have not yet succeeded in eliminating this right, but you have indeed managed to make it more difficult to access safe, legal care to which I am entitled, just as you are entitled to safe, legal reproductive health care.  I do not wish to take away your care, and I cannot understand why you are so concerned with mine when we have only just met.  Why don't you trust me?

Maybe you actually DO trust me now that you know I plan to start a family soon and thus you may assume that I would not chose to have an abortion.  But the sad reality is that none of us ever can predict what tragic situations may befall us.  I am sure you have heard the stories of women (and couples) who were stricken with the heart-wrenching decision of what to do about learning of something terribly wrong with their unborn baby (e.g., this would be a footnote in the letter).  In many cases, these parents felt abortion was the most loving, caring choice for their baby.  Why don't you trust them?  Especially when you do not even know the intricate, intimate details of their plight.  You would not want them or me to make such decisions for your family, correct?  Then why do you feel compelled to make them for me?  For all of your constituents? 

[SECTION OF LETTER FOR NC STATE LEGISLATORS]:  Why don't you trust me?  Why don't you think I am smart and clear-thinking?  I realize when you voted for the so-called "Women's Right to Know Act" you probably thought you had my best interests in mind.  But honestly, I - along with most of the women in this state and their partners - was incredibly insulted that you think I wouldn't know such important, intimate facts about my own reproductive choices and situation.  I am certain that my doctor is insulted as well that you force her to read to her patients a medically unsound, ideologically-driven script crafted by politicians with no medical training.  This is why so many of us re-named this the "Women Know Nothing Act" because it presumed NC women were not carefully considering their reproductive decisions.  Why don't you trust me?  Why don't you trust us?

Maybe I am beginning to sound too offensive and aggressive in tone, so let me stop, relax, breathe, and switch gears.  I respect you.  Honestly, I do.  I understand and respect the fact that you believe human life begins at conception and that it is your duty as a politician to stand up for those unborn humans.  You are anti-abortion and always will be.  Me too.  Yes, you read that right.  I am anti-abortion.  Who isn't?  Abortion is a horrible (but safe) procedure and it is nothing anyone hopes to have one day.  You and I both agree on this.  Where we disagree is how to eliminate abortions.  As a politician, you naturally think the law is the best tool (even though you are supposedly of a "limited government" philosophy).  But as a woman, a scientist who relies on data, and a former Planned Parenthood patient I very strongly - and respectfully - disagree.  When laws restrict or eliminate access to safe, affordable, legal, abortions, women resort to cheap, dangerous, illegal procedures that not only harm the unborn, but also the woman herself (another footnote or two).  Just think - if she already has children, such botched abortions could be depriving children of a mother.  They could be depriving other family members of a wife, partner, sister, aunt.  They could be depriving society of a valuable, hard-working citizen.  Real-life horror stories like Kermit Gosnell illustrate what women can be subjected to when abortion is unregulated (another footnote).  You call yourself pro-life, but how does forcing women to resort to these horrors promote life?

No, the best way to eliminate abortions is NOT to ban or restrict them.  It is to eliminate the need for them.  Rather than closing Planned Parenthood clinics, promoting "abstinence only" education, insisting that insurance policies should not cover contraception, and other actions that disproportionately neglect poor women, as a society we should be improving access to affordable reproductive health care.  We should properly educate our children about sex and pregnancy [FOR NC STATE LEGISLATURES] and not spread lies about abortion to our public school students like you have voted to do.  

By your voting record thus far, it is clear that you believe that abortion and women's reproductive health should be regulated by governments.  Fine.  While laws that restrict abortion clearly will exacerbate rather than alleviate the problem, there are other actions that you politicians could take that would actually make a positive difference.  So, help our state build more health clinics serving low income women in all regions of the state.  Data from many studies clearly show that improving access to and affordability of contraception reduces unplanned pregnancies, and reducing unplanned pregnancies reduces abortions (footnote; footnote).  Data also show a correlation between poverty and unplanned pregnancies, and so steps to alleviate poverty may also reduce abortions (particularly illegal ones; footnote).

I am informed, intelligent, and independent, and you should trust me.  You should trust all women and their partners to make their own personal, private, life-altering decisions - those decisions are theirs and not yours, no matter what laws you pass.  I strongly, passionately - even desperately - encourage you to heed my recommendations to eliminate abortions.  I want the same thing you do, but the only way we'll achieve this goal is for you to trust me - trust all of us.

Respectfully,
Sandra

Abortion debates

The Diane Rehm Show just featured a panel discussion of abortion,and I feel compelled to briefly comment on a few tidbits raised by the panelists and callers:

• No one is "for" abortion.  Proc-choice does not mean pro-abortion.  It is a tragedy, but it is a necessary tragedy.  Laws like the 20-week ban in Texas will result in even more tragedies by denying women access to safe, legal abortions and forcing them to resort to unsafe, unregulated procedures.
• Increasing abortion access does not increase demand.  In fact, I'll bet there's data to support the idea that closing Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health clinics increases demand for abortion because of reduced access to contraception.  So many anti-choicers seem to ignore this issue or even denounce contraception altogether.  In my opinion, anyone who claims to be "pro-life" better be "pro-contraception access" but they usually aren't.  This is why I view the anti-choice movement as part of the reason why abortion rates are so high in the U.S.  Ironic, isn't it?
• The panelist from the Susan B. Anthony List claims that just as we do everything we can to give life-saving treatment to a 24-week pre-term baby, we should similarly do everything we can to save a 24 week unborn fetus - there should be no moral distinction.  While I understand her logic, she fails to realize that parents and doctors caring for a pre-term baby face a painful range of choices that can be described as a "confusing tug of war between two basic moral touchstones: doing no harm...and doing everything in our power to help."  This RadioLab podcast is a touching example of why we don't (and shouldn't) legislate major medical decisions for pre-term babies and why we shouldn't legislate decisions regarding pregnancies.  The mother is a journalist who chronicled her experience in a series of articles.  The tag line for Part 1 encapsulates it best:  "When a baby is born at the edge of viability, which is the greater act of love: to save her, or to say goodbye?"  Each situation is unique and deeply personal.  Our politicians have absolutely no business telling us what to do.

sandracookie.blogspot's Resurrection

After a lengthy hiatus, I'm back!  Finding concurrent time and motivation to write has been difficult for the past year or so, but I've decided to set a goal to blog once a week because I think the cathartic release will be healthy for me.

Updating readers on life events since my last postings seems overwhelming and unnecessary given that anyone who reads this probably knows all of these tidbits anyway, but here's a recap in list form:

• got married
  
• honeymooned in Hawaii (see manta ray video in the previous post!)
  
• started a new job (I'm on the right - not a great pic, but it's the only photo I have of me working in my new gig as biology professor at High Point University)
  
  
• bought a new house
  
• ran my 16th marathon in March
  
• got back into shorter racing with a couple 5Ks and 10K in the past few weeks (this terrible pic is from the Run for the Haw 5K...23:41)
  
  
• spent a few days in New Orleans to celebrate my sister's graduation from Tulane's MPH program.  The blurry figure at the podium (wearing the cap) is the Dalai Lama!
  
  
• just returned from a meeting in San Antonio (haven't traveled much since the honeymoon, so these little trips seem noteworthy)
  
• in the process of selling my Durham house!  This pic was taken the day I closed in April 2008:
  

But rather than providing self-indulgent chronicles of my life happenings (which I will indeed continue!), the primary reason I wanted to resurrect the blog is to maintain a healthy outlet for my raves, rants, and other foods for thought.  The past year or so has been a particularly frustrating time of injustice, ignorance, and stupidity regarding issues I care deeply about:  family planning, gender  equality, sexuality equality, and use & abuse of science, to name a few.  Today I'll limit this post to a brief rave, a brief rant, and a brief piece of "food for thought."

Rave:  No big surprise that I'm raving about yesterday's SCOTUS moves:  rolling back a key section of DOMA and clearing the way for marriage equality in California!  We still need to eliminate ALL of DOMA and legalize marriage between 2 consenting adults in 37 states, but we'll get there.  We also need to legalize plural marriages and incestuous marriages, but again, we'll get there someday.  One step at a time, and this was a huge step in the right direction!  (And if my call for plural marriages and incestuous marriages freaks you out, check if your "ick" response is rational and justified.)

Rant:  This week the NC House passed an "Abortion Teaching" bill that would require students in 7th grade and higher to be lied to.  Specifically, the lie they would be told is that abortion causes premature births in subsequent pregnancies.  Major medical societies dispute this link, as it is not supported by any solid data.  This is just the latest example of NC lawmakers wasting their time and our money with harmful, ideologically-driven legislation instead of recognizing and addressing the real issues impacting North Carolinians, especially the poor and unemployed.

Food for Thought:  Yet another potentially policy-shifting study recently emerged from the environmental chemistry lab of Dr. Heather Stapleton.  Her previous work has examined flame retardants and other endocrine disruptors in baby products.  This current study found large concentrations of flame retardants in household dust.  Based on everything I've read in the environmental toxicology literature, I have a strong hunch that the "cure" to cancer and other diseases lies in environmental chemicals (that is, the cause lies in chemicals).  Unfortunately, linking cause and effect is extraordinarily difficult in environmental toxicology, especially compared to elucidating genetic causes of disease, because of the challenge in detecting and quantifying acute and chronic exposures of hundreds and hundreds of synthetic chemicals.  But studies like these make at least some progress, so that's encouraging.  What's not so encouraging is that each time a study like this comes out, we realize how difficult it is to avoid exposure to these chemicals.  Since Dr. Stapleton has a couple babies and has devoted her career to this stuff, I think I'll follow her lead!  Excuse me while I go dust with a wet cloth :)