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.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Friday, August 23, 2013
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:
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
Friday, July 19, 2013
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!
Friday, July 12, 2013
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
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
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
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.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
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:
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 :)
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:
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 :)
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Manta rays
New husband, new job, no time to blog, but it's all good! But I do want to share this awesome video from our honeymoon in Hawaii:
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Run for the Red Marathon
Marathon #15 was not my slowest marathon ever, but I think it was my hardest. They said the temperature was 79 F when I finished, but it might as well have been in the 90s. I was sweating bullets at mile 2 and doubting my 3:49 goal by mile 5. But, I reminded myself of all the swings I've experienced in previous marathons - feeling lousy and daunted at one moment, but then fast, high-energy, and relaxed just a few minutes later. I thought of one of the reasons I chose this marathon in particular - the >1,300 ft elevation loss over this Pocono Summit-to-Stroudsburg course - and adopted a calming mantra: "It's hot, but I can do it." I maintained this mantra through about mile 9. But by the halfway point, I knew there was no way, and just decided to relax and enjoy a nice fun run through the Poconos. And I did do my best to be positive, but well, the 2nd half of the race was pretty much just a hot, miserable blur (see my splits below). The misery was alleviated by seeing Kate and my mom at mile 16 and near the end (so sweet of them to come cheer me on and drive me home!), and chatting with a novice marathoner from Frederick also helped a little (although he was pretty negative). Anyway, here are my mile splits:
Mile 1 - 8:41
Mile 2 - 8:24
Mile 3 - 8:50
Mile 4 - 8:37
Mile 5 - 8:58
Mile 6 - 9:26
Mile 7 - 8:05
Mile 8 - 8:03
Mile 9 - 8:38
Mile 10 - 9:47
Mile 11 - 9:16
Mile 12 - 9:45
Mile 13 - 9:14
Mile 14 - 10:15
Mile 15 - 10:12
Mile 16 - 10:52
Mile 17 - 11:27
Mile 18 - 11:02
Mile 19 - 13:00
Mile 20 - 13:26
Mile 21 - 13:02
Mile 22 - 12:39
Mile 23 - 15:07
Mile 24 - 14:16
Mile 25 - 13:36
Mile 26 - 12:42
Last 0.2 - 2:01
Finish time - 4:39:33
Here's me after the finish. Smiling because I'm SO GLAD to be done running.
My mom or Kate took this picture. Did I mention how wonderful it was of them to come cheer me on? I think if I was by myself I might have seriously considered dropping out. I definitely entertained the thought, at least briefly. Many runners DNF'ed by way of a stretcher and ambulance, and I thought why push it? But the hassle of DNFing on a point-to-point course with loved ones waiting for me at the end helped dissuade me. And I guess it turns out, I had a finish in me - 4:39:33 is pretty darn slow, but it's not my slowest.
Still not sure what's next. My goal of 3:49:59 eludes me, and it's frustrating. 5 of my 15 marathons have been under 4 hours, and I don't think this goal or my training plans are unreasonable. But waiting for the stars to align and provide ideal conditions on race day is trying my patience. I'll decide what's next later. For now, I plan to take some time off from running, especially now that NC summer's heat will be in full swing soon.
Mile 1 - 8:41
Mile 2 - 8:24
Mile 3 - 8:50
Mile 4 - 8:37
Mile 5 - 8:58
Mile 6 - 9:26
Mile 7 - 8:05
Mile 8 - 8:03
Mile 9 - 8:38
Mile 10 - 9:47
Mile 11 - 9:16
Mile 12 - 9:45
Mile 13 - 9:14
Mile 14 - 10:15
Mile 15 - 10:12
Mile 16 - 10:52
Mile 17 - 11:27
Mile 18 - 11:02
Mile 19 - 13:00
Mile 20 - 13:26
Mile 21 - 13:02
Mile 22 - 12:39
Mile 23 - 15:07
Mile 24 - 14:16
Mile 25 - 13:36
Mile 26 - 12:42
Last 0.2 - 2:01
Finish time - 4:39:33
Here's me after the finish. Smiling because I'm SO GLAD to be done running.
Still not sure what's next. My goal of 3:49:59 eludes me, and it's frustrating. 5 of my 15 marathons have been under 4 hours, and I don't think this goal or my training plans are unreasonable. But waiting for the stars to align and provide ideal conditions on race day is trying my patience. I'll decide what's next later. For now, I plan to take some time off from running, especially now that NC summer's heat will be in full swing soon.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
National Blog for Choice Day
Today is National Blog for Choice Day - the 39th anniversary of the landmark Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision. In honor of the occasion, NARAL Pro-Choice America has called on like-minded, pro-choice citizens to blog about how we will do our part to elect pro-choice candidates in 2012.
Not surprisingly, right now most of the choice-issue focus seems to be on the national scale, especially the presidential race. A nice overview of where Obama and Romney stand on these issues can be found here. But instead I'd like to turn our attention to state-level politics, because this is arena where the damage done is more real, effective, and critical. In other words, real women are affected every day by state-level legislation concerning their reproductive rights. If you've been reading my blog in the past couple years, you're no doubt familiar with my musings on North Carolina's abysmal record when it comes to abortion access - see here for a quick overview of these restrictions.
So, I'll keep this short and sweet: my part in electing pro-choice candidates in 2012 will be to implore each of you to (1) look up your state representatives if you don't know who they are already; (2) look into their voting record on pro-choice and anti-choice policies; (3) figure out if these candidates are up for re-election this year; and finally (4) vote with your conscience - should a crummy politician really have a say in your and your partner's reproductive health or should that be a personal decision between you and your medical professional?
Thanks for reading.
Not surprisingly, right now most of the choice-issue focus seems to be on the national scale, especially the presidential race. A nice overview of where Obama and Romney stand on these issues can be found here. But instead I'd like to turn our attention to state-level politics, because this is arena where the damage done is more real, effective, and critical. In other words, real women are affected every day by state-level legislation concerning their reproductive rights. If you've been reading my blog in the past couple years, you're no doubt familiar with my musings on North Carolina's abysmal record when it comes to abortion access - see here for a quick overview of these restrictions.
So, I'll keep this short and sweet: my part in electing pro-choice candidates in 2012 will be to implore each of you to (1) look up your state representatives if you don't know who they are already; (2) look into their voting record on pro-choice and anti-choice policies; (3) figure out if these candidates are up for re-election this year; and finally (4) vote with your conscience - should a crummy politician really have a say in your and your partner's reproductive health or should that be a personal decision between you and your medical professional?
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
12th & Delaware
I just got back from seeing the documentary “12th and Delaware,” a very powerful film about “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs) in the United States. Everyone – whether you’re pro-choice or anti-choice – should see this film by the same folks who brought us “Jesus Camp.” But if you don’t have the opportunity to do so (I think screenings are limited), then read on.
CPCs are non-medical, anti-choice facilities that spread harmful lies and withhold important information under the guise of providing safe, medically-sound pregnancy care services. According to NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina, there are at least 122 CPCs in North Carolina, and about 1000 in the U.S., according to the film. The dangerous misinformation these places spread includes claims that abortion causes breast cancer, abortion is very risky and unsafe, and that condoms and other forms of birth control are ineffective. CPCs also use manipulative tactics such as shaming women with religious ideology, suggest women delay decision-making until it's too late to have a legal abortion, offer free ultrasounds to emotionally manipulate women, and offer incentives to women (mostly poor women) who choose not to have an abortion. Additional info on CPCs in NC can be found here.
If you've seen Jesus Camp, you know that Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing have a knack for obtaining real, raw, honest footage that shows things - especially PEOPLE - how they really are with no accompanying commentary. Grady and Ewing filmed women going into an abortion clinic as well as women entering (in some cases mistakenly) a CPC, both located at the corner of 12th and Delaware in a town in Florida. The film showed women being treated at the CPC and being counseled at the abortion clinic. ALL of the lies and manipulative tactics that I mentioned in the preceding paragraph were documented in this film. For example, early in the film we see a 19 year old woman who had already had one abortion and is seeking another at the CPC (she apparently meant to go to the abortion clinic across the street, a mistake that happened to many other women). As Anne, the main provider at the CPC, launches into her spiel of lies and misinformation, all I can think is "Abortion #2? Someone please tell that girl about birth control! Give her some condoms!" When the woman mentions she has no insurance, all I can think is "Someone please tell that girl about Planned Parenthood!" Spoiler alert: after her non-medically-certified ultrasound, the women leaves and we soon find out that she got her abortion anyway, just as she had already decided to do. Anne is understandably near tears when she learns this, as am I, but my feelings are intensified by the outrage I feel at CPCs for doing essentially nothing to ensure this woman will not be seeking Abortion #3. But more than this, what these CPCs ARE doing (e.g., telling them condoms don't work) probably increases the likelihood of yet another unintended pregnancy and abortion. And they call themselves "pro life."
There were plenty of other places in this film where I nearly lost it. There was a woman who was heading into the abortion clinic and is stopped by the pleas of a group of protestors. In Spanish, they beg her not to kill her baby. She looks fearful, but listens, before finally telling them in a shaking voice that she is a single mom with 6 children already and no government support. "We'll give you whatever you need!" the protestors insist, "clothes for your children, money, food." One has to wonder for how long this charity actually lasts. According to the NARAL NC report on CPCs, "the assistance by many CPCs is, in reality, sporadic and contingent upon submitting to religious education." Some CPC volunteers even admitted that they only help women for a few months before cutting off all help.
The film also featured several women who indicated that their partners were abusive or refused to wear condoms. One woman at the CPC mentioned that her partner was verbally abusive. Rather than offering any comfort, counsel, or referral to a domestic abuse center, Anne instead said something along the lines of "a baby would change him," as if unwanted babies are the remedy for domestic violence.
But what really moved me to tears was a soft-spoken 15 year old girl. Near the beginning of the film Anne and the others at the CPC successfully scared this girl out of having an abortion with their usual inaccurate scare tactics, including inflating the risk that abortion could result in death. The girl is allegedly 7 weeks pregnant (I say "allegedly" because the film shows how this CPC deliberately made women think they were several weeks earlier in their pregnancy than they actually were to make them think they had more time to re-evaluate their decision). We see this girl again near the end of the film at which point she is 7 months pregnant. She expresses shame and worry, but what really gets me is that she mentions she decided not to have an abortion because of what Anne had told her, and that instead she was trying to end her pregnancy by doing things she perceived to be harmful for the baby, like drinking vinegar and lifting heavy things. Anyone who thinks criminalizing abortion is the answer - THINK ABOUT THIS GIRL AND OTHERS LIKE HER.
Let me be crystal clear. Abortion is tragic. I doubt any decent person would disagree with that. The decision to have an abortion should by no means be taken lightly and should be aided by counseling (as it most certainly is at Planned Parenthood and other legitimate medical facilities). We can all agree that abortion needs to be reduced and ideally eliminated. But the way to reduce abortion is NOT to lure women with misinformation and empty promises. The way to reduce abortion is NOT to criminalize it. The way to reduce abortion is NOT to tell women that condoms don’t work. The way to reduce abortion is NOT to withhold information about contraception from women prone to unintended pregnancies. The way to reduce abortion is NOT to withhold counseling and other professional support from a woman who’s just confided in you that her partner abuses her. The way to reduce abortion is NOT to scare a 15 year old girl with lies so that she decides not to have a safe, medical abortion and instead abuses her own body.
I encourage you to check out the situation with CPCs in your state, but if you're a fellow North Carolinian, listen up – this is important: first, do NOT buy a specialty “Choose Life” license plate when you’re at the DMV, as $15 of your money will be funneled to CPCs; second, do your homework before the next election and make sure you VOTE OUT anti-choice representatives in our state legislature. It is because of them that NC passed HB 854, the "Women Know Nothing" Act that requires women seeking an abortion to obtain an ultrasound 72 to 4 hours before the procedure, even if they already had one. The clincher is that this law also requires the state to maintain a registry of organizations that provide free ultrasounds for pregnant women, which means - you guessed it - this registry is littered with CPCs. As noted in that previously referenced report, "Legitimate public health clinics are often unable to offer all of their services free of charge, meaning that the law will effectively direct low-income women to these ideologically driven CPCs without any mention of their anti-choice agenda. By forcing the government to create and maintain a registry of these groups, the law, in essence, establishes a state-sanctioned channel through which women are referred to CPCs."
So again, fellow North Carolinians, two things to take away from all of this:
- Don't buy "Choose Life" license plates
- Show our anti-choice legislatures the door, and feel free to put a boot in their ass on the way out.
If you know what's up with CPCs in your state, please comment here - I'd be very interested!
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Some 2011 Race Reports
Blah. I am just not a good blogger. I've actually had a lot to say in the past year, but for some reason the motivation to write would initially surge and then quickly vanish by the time I sat down at my computer. So by now, probably no one is reading this blog anymore (Mommy? Andrew? Are you still there...?)
Anyway, as a frustrated and somewhat unfulfilled runner, I thought it would be therapeutic to reflect on some of my 2011 races. This blog post actually began as a Richmond Marathon race report, but the writing was going slowly because the race was a disappointment. As the weeks passed I ran three additional races which went pretty well (as I had no expectations), so I decided to blog about those, too. All in all, I think I ran 10 races in 2011 - three marathons, one 12 miler, and a bunch of smaller races.
Richmond Marathon
Allow me to rant and ramble a bit. One of my running friends and I used to have the same marathon PR of 3:58. In the last couple years we have both improved on this PR. For me, it's been a "chipping away" process, getting down to a 3:57 last fall and then a 3:53 last spring. My friend, on the other hand, blew things out of the water when she dropped 18 minutes off her previous time and qualified for Boston. "How?" I asked her. "You just have to really want it," she said. She said diligent training that included speedwork and other quality workouts was key.
Well, damn it, I want it! I don't even mean qualifying for Boston - I just want to get below 3:50. I first broke the 4:00 milestone in the October 2007 Columbus marathon, and I haven't seen significant improvement since then. I must be in a running rut - time to try something new. I decided a good "something new" would be this Hanson Marathon Training Plan (http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-238-244-255-13791-0,00.html), AKA the "less is more plan," which makes no sense because there’s nothing “less” about it. Average weekly milage is 40+ miles, with a peak at 50+ miles. One of the key weekly workouts is an 8-10 mile marathon goal pace run, which for me is 8:45 min/mile. I had been rocking these workouts, running 10 miles at 8:29, 9 miles at 8:35, 9 miles at 8:40, and 9 miles at 8:29 in the four weeks before tapering – hilly routes, too! Long interval speed work is also emphasized - my workouts included 6 x 1 mile repeats (~8:20), 3 x 2 mile repeats (~16:40), Yasso 800s (at 3:45), and various types of ladders and pyramids. The "less" part of the training plan apparently refers to the fact that the longest long run is only 16 miles. BUT we're talking 16 miles after 6 consecutive days of running hour-plus long workouts. And endurance has never really been a problem for me - speed is what I need. I had run 13 marathons, but never trained for one like this before. I was confident that 3:49 was mine!
Race morning was sunny, chilly, and windy. Andrew was running the 8K, which started an hour before the marathon, so after seeing his race start, I had a lot of time to kill (we had not been able to score one of the many hotels walking distance to the race start.) I was happy to find an unlocked VCU building where I could hang out and escape from the cold and was thrilled to find clean, line-free bathrooms and a water fountain. Awesome! I hung out here until 10 min before the start, when I checked my bag and headed to the starting corral.
For some reason, I wasn't feeling as mentally psyched as I usually am at a marathon start. I actually felt a tiny sense of...well, dread. I knew I was essentially trapped for the next 26.2 miles and that the last 5-6 miles of that would be hell. I tried to shake off these thoughts and told myself to focus on the scenery of this new course and the energy of the crowds. We were off, and I settled right into my goal pace, though just a tad slow. Here are my splits for first 7 miles:
Mile 1 - 8:44
Mile 2 - 8:42
Mile 3 - 8:50
Mile 4 - 8:47
Mile 5 - 8:48
Mile 6 - 8:55
Mile 7 - 8:07 (all downhill)
Miles 8-11 were a pretty scenic part of the course along the James River and through some wooded neighborhoods. However, the end of this section is also where I really felt the hills start to slow me down. Between miles 10-11 someone had a sign that said "Remember your reasons for doing this." Um, reasons? Is meeting a self-centered somewhat arbitrary goal a good reason? I think I understand why people run for charity.
Mile 8 - 8:44
Mile 9 -8:45
Mile 10 - 8:48
Mile 11 - 9:11 (uphill)
Mile 12 - 9:03 (also some hills)
Mile 13 - 8:54
By the halfway point, I realized that it was gonna be really really really difficult to make my goal. I reminded myself of that time I ran something like an 8:30 mile 23. The 20's don't have to be a slow down - I can do this! "You trained for this," I told myself. But as the mile markers ticked by, I became more disheartened. I didn't hit a wall or anything, but I just couldn't keep up the pace I thought I had trained so hard to maintain:
Mile 14 - 8:52
Mile 15 - 8:44
Mile 16 - 9:23 (nasty bridge)
Mile 17 - 9:03
Mile 18 - 9:29
Mile 19 - 9:24
Mile 20 - 8:57
Mile 21 - 9:34
Mile 22 - 9:45
Mile 23 - 9:45
Mile 24 - 9:23
Mile 25 - 9:50
Mile 26 - 8:39 (Andrew and the downhill helped out here!)
Finish - 1:32 (3:56:48)
I finished with tears in my eyes (I didn't actually cry because I was SO GLAD to not be running anymore). I thought of all those nights I was at the track and everyone else had cut the workout short and gone home; those 10 mile tempo runs where I wanted to slow down but didn't; and especially those Friday morning runs, sandwiched between Thursday night's 8-10 mile tempo run and Saturday's 12-16 mile long run. I wanted to skip those Friday runs so badly! But I didn't, and I told myself "this will all be worth it - it's making you stronger and faster." WTF? So, I'm still feeling down on marathoning and haven't decided my spring racing plans yet. When I do decide to run another marathon, I probably won't tell anyone about it, another strategy my aforementioned friend used that may have helped her, at least mentally. Maybe I'll also run for charity or something. Probably not overtly or officially, but some sort of thing where I make a pact with myself that I'll donate a certain amount of money if I make my goal. I really believe that a large part of marathoning is mental, and this might help.
Education for Eve 5K
Speaking of racing for charity, the Education for Eve 5K in Chapel Hill is certainly a worthy cause. I'm not much of a 5K runner, and when I do run them, I promptly forget about them. Andrew wanted to run this race because a few of his coworkers were doing it. I decided to run it, too, even though it was only one week after Richmond. Short race report here - I'll cut to the end: I actually passed Andrew a few hundred meters before the finish (haha!) and finished in 23:56, a 7:43 pace on a hilly course. So, maybe all that marathon training did something for my speed after all. I can't remember my 5-K PR, but this might be close to it.
Run at the Rock 7-miler
The Run at the Rock trail race was just plain fun and had yummy soup at the finish. Andrew and I ran it together in ~1:11. We picked up the pace toward the end, but for most of the race we were in no hurry. I liked that we got sweatshirts instead of tee-shirts. Also, my race number was 69.
Couch Mountain 5-miler
The Couch Mountain 5-miler is also a fun race, part of the Carolina Godiva Track Club Winter Series. The course heads to the top of "Couch Mountain," allegedly the highest point in Orange County, then winds through more Duke Forest trails and country roads. There are burgers at the finish line and like all Winter Series races the entry fee is $5. This year I somehow managed to finish in 41:10, a 8:23 pace. Not bad for a hilly course and no recent speed training! Although, it's not as much an improvement over my previous time as I thought: I finished in 41:54 three years ago.
Now Andrew and I are getting ready to kick off the new year with another Winter Series race: the New Years 8K, which also winds through Duke Forest. I still haven't decided what running goals, if any, (or life goals, if any) I'd like to set for 2012. Maybe I'll just take things easy this year. Happy New Year, everyone!
Anyway, as a frustrated and somewhat unfulfilled runner, I thought it would be therapeutic to reflect on some of my 2011 races. This blog post actually began as a Richmond Marathon race report, but the writing was going slowly because the race was a disappointment. As the weeks passed I ran three additional races which went pretty well (as I had no expectations), so I decided to blog about those, too. All in all, I think I ran 10 races in 2011 - three marathons, one 12 miler, and a bunch of smaller races.
Richmond Marathon
Allow me to rant and ramble a bit. One of my running friends and I used to have the same marathon PR of 3:58. In the last couple years we have both improved on this PR. For me, it's been a "chipping away" process, getting down to a 3:57 last fall and then a 3:53 last spring. My friend, on the other hand, blew things out of the water when she dropped 18 minutes off her previous time and qualified for Boston. "How?" I asked her. "You just have to really want it," she said. She said diligent training that included speedwork and other quality workouts was key.
Well, damn it, I want it! I don't even mean qualifying for Boston - I just want to get below 3:50. I first broke the 4:00 milestone in the October 2007 Columbus marathon, and I haven't seen significant improvement since then. I must be in a running rut - time to try something new. I decided a good "something new" would be this Hanson Marathon Training Plan (http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-238-244-255-13791-0,00.html), AKA the "less is more plan," which makes no sense because there’s nothing “less” about it. Average weekly milage is 40+ miles, with a peak at 50+ miles. One of the key weekly workouts is an 8-10 mile marathon goal pace run, which for me is 8:45 min/mile. I had been rocking these workouts, running 10 miles at 8:29, 9 miles at 8:35, 9 miles at 8:40, and 9 miles at 8:29 in the four weeks before tapering – hilly routes, too! Long interval speed work is also emphasized - my workouts included 6 x 1 mile repeats (~8:20), 3 x 2 mile repeats (~16:40), Yasso 800s (at 3:45), and various types of ladders and pyramids. The "less" part of the training plan apparently refers to the fact that the longest long run is only 16 miles. BUT we're talking 16 miles after 6 consecutive days of running hour-plus long workouts. And endurance has never really been a problem for me - speed is what I need. I had run 13 marathons, but never trained for one like this before. I was confident that 3:49 was mine!
Race morning was sunny, chilly, and windy. Andrew was running the 8K, which started an hour before the marathon, so after seeing his race start, I had a lot of time to kill (we had not been able to score one of the many hotels walking distance to the race start.) I was happy to find an unlocked VCU building where I could hang out and escape from the cold and was thrilled to find clean, line-free bathrooms and a water fountain. Awesome! I hung out here until 10 min before the start, when I checked my bag and headed to the starting corral.
For some reason, I wasn't feeling as mentally psyched as I usually am at a marathon start. I actually felt a tiny sense of...well, dread. I knew I was essentially trapped for the next 26.2 miles and that the last 5-6 miles of that would be hell. I tried to shake off these thoughts and told myself to focus on the scenery of this new course and the energy of the crowds. We were off, and I settled right into my goal pace, though just a tad slow. Here are my splits for first 7 miles:
Mile 1 - 8:44
Mile 2 - 8:42
Mile 3 - 8:50
Mile 4 - 8:47
Mile 5 - 8:48
Mile 6 - 8:55
Mile 7 - 8:07 (all downhill)
Miles 8-11 were a pretty scenic part of the course along the James River and through some wooded neighborhoods. However, the end of this section is also where I really felt the hills start to slow me down. Between miles 10-11 someone had a sign that said "Remember your reasons for doing this." Um, reasons? Is meeting a self-centered somewhat arbitrary goal a good reason? I think I understand why people run for charity.
Mile 8 - 8:44
Mile 9 -8:45
Mile 10 - 8:48
Mile 11 - 9:11 (uphill)
Mile 12 - 9:03 (also some hills)
Mile 13 - 8:54
By the halfway point, I realized that it was gonna be really really really difficult to make my goal. I reminded myself of that time I ran something like an 8:30 mile 23. The 20's don't have to be a slow down - I can do this! "You trained for this," I told myself. But as the mile markers ticked by, I became more disheartened. I didn't hit a wall or anything, but I just couldn't keep up the pace I thought I had trained so hard to maintain:
Mile 14 - 8:52
Mile 15 - 8:44
Mile 16 - 9:23 (nasty bridge)
Mile 17 - 9:03
Mile 18 - 9:29
Mile 19 - 9:24
Mile 20 - 8:57
Mile 21 - 9:34
Mile 22 - 9:45
Mile 23 - 9:45
Mile 24 - 9:23
Mile 25 - 9:50
Mile 26 - 8:39 (Andrew and the downhill helped out here!)
Finish - 1:32 (3:56:48)
I finished with tears in my eyes (I didn't actually cry because I was SO GLAD to not be running anymore). I thought of all those nights I was at the track and everyone else had cut the workout short and gone home; those 10 mile tempo runs where I wanted to slow down but didn't; and especially those Friday morning runs, sandwiched between Thursday night's 8-10 mile tempo run and Saturday's 12-16 mile long run. I wanted to skip those Friday runs so badly! But I didn't, and I told myself "this will all be worth it - it's making you stronger and faster." WTF? So, I'm still feeling down on marathoning and haven't decided my spring racing plans yet. When I do decide to run another marathon, I probably won't tell anyone about it, another strategy my aforementioned friend used that may have helped her, at least mentally. Maybe I'll also run for charity or something. Probably not overtly or officially, but some sort of thing where I make a pact with myself that I'll donate a certain amount of money if I make my goal. I really believe that a large part of marathoning is mental, and this might help.
Education for Eve 5K
Speaking of racing for charity, the Education for Eve 5K in Chapel Hill is certainly a worthy cause. I'm not much of a 5K runner, and when I do run them, I promptly forget about them. Andrew wanted to run this race because a few of his coworkers were doing it. I decided to run it, too, even though it was only one week after Richmond. Short race report here - I'll cut to the end: I actually passed Andrew a few hundred meters before the finish (haha!) and finished in 23:56, a 7:43 pace on a hilly course. So, maybe all that marathon training did something for my speed after all. I can't remember my 5-K PR, but this might be close to it.
Run at the Rock 7-miler
The Run at the Rock trail race was just plain fun and had yummy soup at the finish. Andrew and I ran it together in ~1:11. We picked up the pace toward the end, but for most of the race we were in no hurry. I liked that we got sweatshirts instead of tee-shirts. Also, my race number was 69.
Couch Mountain 5-miler
The Couch Mountain 5-miler is also a fun race, part of the Carolina Godiva Track Club Winter Series. The course heads to the top of "Couch Mountain," allegedly the highest point in Orange County, then winds through more Duke Forest trails and country roads. There are burgers at the finish line and like all Winter Series races the entry fee is $5. This year I somehow managed to finish in 41:10, a 8:23 pace. Not bad for a hilly course and no recent speed training! Although, it's not as much an improvement over my previous time as I thought: I finished in 41:54 three years ago.
Now Andrew and I are getting ready to kick off the new year with another Winter Series race: the New Years 8K, which also winds through Duke Forest. I still haven't decided what running goals, if any, (or life goals, if any) I'd like to set for 2012. Maybe I'll just take things easy this year. Happy New Year, everyone!
Saturday, December 03, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Sweet Delights
A few weekends ago, Andrew and I made it out to the Carolina Godiva run at Umstead State Park. Some of the runners were talking about figs and what to do with them. So after the run when we headed over to the teeny tiny Cary Farmers Market, we were delighted to find figs! There were only 3 of them, and at $0.25 each we grabbed them all. We simply halved them, spread on some local goat cheese (also from the farmers market), drizzled some balsamic vinegar, and baked ~10 min at 350. They turned out really yummy! I think we paired them with some type of semi-sweet white wine, either from Biltmore or Andrew's dad's friend's vineyard in WV, and it was an excellent combo. The one downside was we only had 6 fig halves, but there were a whole bunch of figs at the Durham farmer's market this morning - along with goat cheese - so we're definitely doing this again!
Last weekend was Andrew's birthday, and he requested peach cobbler after our fantastic lunch at Lexington Barbeque in Lexington, NC (on our way to Asheville). I don't think my cobbler turned out as well as theirs, but it was still pretty damn good, especially for my first attempt, if I do say so myself. Fresh, delicious peaches from the farmers market certainly helped.
We were impressed with Lexington BBQ, by the way. I haven't liked any BBQ I've tried in NC until this. The meat wasn't overly salty (just the right flavor), the hush puppies were very tasty, and you could order everything in reasonably sized portions, leaving room for dessert!
Last weekend was Andrew's birthday, and he requested peach cobbler after our fantastic lunch at Lexington Barbeque in Lexington, NC (on our way to Asheville). I don't think my cobbler turned out as well as theirs, but it was still pretty damn good, especially for my first attempt, if I do say so myself. Fresh, delicious peaches from the farmers market certainly helped.
We were impressed with Lexington BBQ, by the way. I haven't liked any BBQ I've tried in NC until this. The meat wasn't overly salty (just the right flavor), the hush puppies were very tasty, and you could order everything in reasonably sized portions, leaving room for dessert!
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
More on NC's new anti-choice law and abortion rights
Today I listened to "The State of Things," a local public radio program here in NC. I wanted to catch today's show because host Frank Stasio moderated a conversation on NC's new anti-choice law and the history of family planning in the U.S. The guests included Senator Warren Daniel (R-Burke & Caldwell), who is a primary sponsor of the bill; Dr. Charles Monteith, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina; and Bebe Anderson, senior counsel with the Center for Reproductive Rights. So here are a few additional tidbits I learned about this new law and abortion access in NC:
Senator Warren Daniel's defense of this law made me want to throw my radio (actually my computer) against a wall. I'm not kidding - he actually compared this new law to refinancing a house or getting a divorce! He defended the fact that women will now be forced to wait for an abortion by pointing out there are government-mandated waiting periods for receiving a divorce or refinancing a house. He also stated that this new law is expected to reduce the abortion rate by ~10%, resulting in 3,000 extra new lives (per year, I think - I missed the details on this). I want Senator Daniels on my dodgeball team, because when Stasio asked (twice!) if there would be an increase in social services and public education spending to pay for these 3,000 new lives, Senator Daniel rambled a bit about how great it was that 3,000 lives would be saved and that public education costs are calculated on a per student basis. So, it was crystal-clear that his true answer to this question is "NO."
Toward the end of the conversation, I think it was Bebe Anderson who noted that there is no such imposition on men seeking medical procedures related to their reproductive health. So this gets me thinking...hey Senator Daniels! Why don't you introduce a bill that forces men to listen to anti-choice speech and wait 24 hours before having a vasectomy? Or forces men to listen to feminist, men-are-pigs rhetoric and wait 72 hours before purchasing Viagra? Or that forces gun buyers to listen to liberal anti-gun spew and view violent images of gun crime victims and wait 96 hours before purchasing a weapon? None of these scenarios are any more ridiculous, intrusive, and oppressive than the one you and your anti-choice cronies have inflicted upon the women of North Carolina.
- Under this new law women seeking abortion are required to have an ADDITIONAL ultrasound. It's already standard procedure to get one ultrasound, but now, as I understand it, she'll be required to wait and get a second one within 72 hours of the first. She can choose to avert her eyes during the procedure, but if she does, she must sign a piece of paper that is kept by the provider for 7 years (no idea why).
- Who will pay for this second ultrasound? In many cases, the woman herself will. If she can't afford it, she may have to go to a "crisis pregnancy center," which are anti-choice institutions that provide ultrasounds that won't cost you anything in dollars but will cost you significantly in dignity, self-respect, and emotional burden.
- NC already has informed consent laws that require doctors to provide information about a patient's options before any procedure, including abortion. Dr. Monteith made this very clear.
- There are similar laws in other states, but in most of these states - even TEXAS! - exceptions are granted in the case of rape, incest, fetal anomaly, and other exceptional circumstances. The only exception of the NC law is life-or-death emergency.
Senator Warren Daniel's defense of this law made me want to throw my radio (actually my computer) against a wall. I'm not kidding - he actually compared this new law to refinancing a house or getting a divorce! He defended the fact that women will now be forced to wait for an abortion by pointing out there are government-mandated waiting periods for receiving a divorce or refinancing a house. He also stated that this new law is expected to reduce the abortion rate by ~10%, resulting in 3,000 extra new lives (per year, I think - I missed the details on this). I want Senator Daniels on my dodgeball team, because when Stasio asked (twice!) if there would be an increase in social services and public education spending to pay for these 3,000 new lives, Senator Daniel rambled a bit about how great it was that 3,000 lives would be saved and that public education costs are calculated on a per student basis. So, it was crystal-clear that his true answer to this question is "NO."
Toward the end of the conversation, I think it was Bebe Anderson who noted that there is no such imposition on men seeking medical procedures related to their reproductive health. So this gets me thinking...hey Senator Daniels! Why don't you introduce a bill that forces men to listen to anti-choice speech and wait 24 hours before having a vasectomy? Or forces men to listen to feminist, men-are-pigs rhetoric and wait 72 hours before purchasing Viagra? Or that forces gun buyers to listen to liberal anti-gun spew and view violent images of gun crime victims and wait 96 hours before purchasing a weapon? None of these scenarios are any more ridiculous, intrusive, and oppressive than the one you and your anti-choice cronies have inflicted upon the women of North Carolina.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
