I knew him then…

First a bit of humor from Frazz:

Larger.

Now back to my past: I started to run again in 1994; I was still 230 pounds and it took me about 25 minutes to jog 2 miles (yes, that is my “quick walking” pace, even now). After a lapse in 1995, I restarted and in 1996, I did my first 5K race (since the mid 1980s). It took me 23:30 to run 5K in baskeball shoes.

By 1997 the racing bug had bit me pretty hard; I was running races frequently (say, twice a month). Here are the results of one of the 5Ks:

1 Justin Young 17 M Peoria IL 15:23 4:57
2 Eric Moos 19 M Peoria IL 16:54 5:26
3 Christopher Friedman 24 M Peoria IL 17:14 5:33
[...]
11 Danny Burk 14 M Metamora IL 18:41 6:01
[....]
18 Kevin Burk 40 M Metamora IL 19:47 6:22
[...]

23 Jeffrey Neltner 33 M Peoria IL 20:11 6:30
24 Teri Brandt 31 F Brimfield IL 20:12 6:30
25 Jim Henkins 39 M Henry IL 20:20 6:33
26 Brandon Smith 15 M Peoria IL 20:27 6:35
27 Ollie Nanyes 37 M Peoria IL 20:34 6:37
28 Deborah Wresinski 31 F Peoria IL 20:36 6:38
29 Roger Owdom 28 M Chillicothe IL 20:45 6:41
30 Brad Dietrich 18 M IL 20:47 6:41
31 Dave Weaver 48 M Princeville IL 20:48 6:42
32 Robert Hultgren 54 M Peoria IL 20:51 6:43
33 James Martin 46 M Chillicothe IL 20:52 6:43
34 Katherine Suda 22 F Edelstein IL 21:00 6:46
35 Duke Burk 10 M Metamora IL 21:03 6:47
36 Valerie Marquis 16 F Dunlap IL 21:05 6:47
[...]

125 Patty Isit 36 F Peoria IL 34:42 11:10
126 Karla Losey 33 F Chillicothe IL 34:43 11:10
127 Carol Henry 37 F Pekin IL 36:30 11:45
128 Becky Henry 6 F Pekin IL 36:37 11:47

Note the Burks: father Kevin, sons Danny and Duke (10 years old!)
Well, Duke Burk used to often beat me at these things; this is one of the few times I actually finished ahead of him. Well, Duke is now back in the news as a wrestler for Northern Illinois University:

ST. LOUIS—Ten seconds, 10 lousy seconds.

That was the difference for Northern Illinois 174-pounder Duke Burk on Thursday during the second session of the NCAA Division I wrestling championships at the Scottrade Center.

Burk (26-6), a Huskies sophomore and former Notre Dame standout, met Central Michigan’s Brandon Sinnott during the evening session on the opening day of action. [...]

There is another article about him in the paper:

Duke Burk needed three, but only got two.

As in victories on the second day of the NCAA Division I wrestling championships at the Scottrade Center.

The Northern Illinois sophomore 174-pounder fell one match short of earning all-American honors on Friday when he dropped a 4-3 decision to seventh-seeded Matthew Stolpinski of Navy during the evening session of wrestlebacks.

“I guess it’s like climbing steps on a ladder,” said Burk. “Last year I went 1-2 and this year I went 3-2 so I improved in that year.

“I’ve got two more cracks at it, two more years to train. The next year I will dedicate to improving again, and if I improve as much again I’ll be right there.” [...]

Ahhh, he went from being a little kid who could sometimes kick my butt at running to being a young man who can just plain kick my butt.

He doesn’t know who I am, but I did shake his hand after these runs and I did chat with his dad (briefly); yes, his dad looked (looks?) every part the wrestler.

Oh yes, the other fact that I used to be able to run around 20 minutes for the 5K; sometimes a bit faster, mostly a bit slower. Those days are ancient history; I’d be lucky to break 25 minutes now. I think that, after FANS this year, I’ll take a break from ultras and see how fast I can run these “road” 5Ks. I might train for the Big Shoulders swim too. This sort of training is a bit less time consuming but is more intense; hence I’ll have to resume my bike workouts and maybe include a mile or two of running 2-3 times a week for now.

Race, anti-intellectualism, and Hillary Clinton’s real travelgate scandal.

I say “western” because the Eastern Orthodox Church has Easter at a different time.

Workout notes: nothing yet; I am a bit sore from yesterday. I’ve got some work to do to get ready for this June!

Update: 4 miles on the Floodplain trail in Wildlife Prairie Park. There was a little bit of mud but nothing serious. The frogs are coming back; one was singing its heart out. I also saw geese, other aquatic birds and about a dozen whitetail deer.

I did this after eating a large “brunch”; so the 4 mile “trail” part (trailhead to end) took about 1:06 (easy walking)

Weather notes: snow. Yes, snow, though it should hang around too much longer. It didn’t stick to the ground.

Links/Stories for the day:

Via brotherpeacemaker:

(larger)

Of course conservatives such as Pat Buchanan have a different point of view.

My former minister talks about Jeremiah Wright (I say “former” because I rarely go to church anymore, though I donate from time to time) Here is his letter:

By now nearly everyone has heard the story and seen the tapes. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former minister of the church Barack Obama attends, has spoken harsh words about the United States, a place we like to think of as the land of the free.

Obama has replied – not to everyone’s satisfaction – but eloquently in the view of many. He has repudiated Wright’s extreme views but refused to denounce his former minister as a person. The blogs and airwaves are aflame with accusations and predictions of political gain or loss.

Electoral politics is not a pretty picture in our country. With few exceptions it is harsh, personal, manipulative, deceptive and often mean. Any perceived weakness is immediately exploited. Political gain too often trumps truth, civility and ethics.

In the case of Jeremiah Wright, we have had a few brief moments from his sermons driven relentlessly into our consciousness, with little or no regard for what else he has ever said or done. We have heard him say words that are deeply troubling to many of us, words that seem unpatriotic and wrong.

And yet those of us who are familiar with the prophets of the Bible know that such harsh language is very typical of prophetic preaching. The prophet Jeremiah was only one of many Hebrew prophets who called down the wrath of God onto his own nation for its sins. In Jeremiah 9:11 we read:

“I will make Jerusalem a heap of ruins, a lair of jackals; and I will make the towns of Judah a desolation, without inhabitant.” Then in Jeremiah 15:6, “I have stretched out my hand against you and destroyed you.” This is uncomfortable language.

But prophetic language is supposed to make us feel uncomfortable. In the Bible, the role of the prophet is to chastise those in power, including threatening them with God’s doom and destruction if they do not mend their sinful ways. One may not like such language, but the Bible is full of these exhortations. They are part of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Am I saying that what Jeremiah Wright said is all true? Of course not. I find much of what he says disturbing. But in calling the nation to task for its racial history, he sounds very much like the Hebrew prophets of old. One thing is for sure: The African-American experience in this country has been one of pain and struggle, beginning with slavery and slowly marching toward justice and equality over many difficult years. There has been plenty to be angry about, and no one should be surprised that such anger still exists or that it sometimes gets expressed in dramatic ways.

Should Obama have left his church over these remarks, as some have claimed? Who are we to pronounce judgment on which religious community any American chooses to attend? Our heritage is religious freedom. People join a congregation for many reasons: a dynamic Sunday school, an inspiring choir, family tradition, a network of precious friends, a commitment to serving human needs.

Should we leave a church because we disagree with a particular sermon? Perhaps, but that would be a deeply personal and complex decision. For all we know, Obama might have thought he could change his minister’s mind on these issues.

What we do have a right to expect from any political candidate is to know what he or she believes, what is his or her view of reality. Obama has answered that question in a speech that will be remembered long after the pundits and bloggers who are relentlessly hammering him are forgotten.

One may choose to support Obama for president, or not. Either of these positions can be an honorable choice. What is not an honorable or healthy use of religion is to take a moment out of a religious service and use it as a political club to bludgeon a congregation and a candidate who, apparently, sincerely wishes to unite rather than divide.

Racial tensions in this country are a persistent and serious challenge for all of us. We all pay a steep price for the ongoing distrust in which we live. The present moment can be used to deepen the divide or take a step toward healing. Once again, the door is open.

The Rev. Michael W. Brown is a Unitarian Universalist minister in Peoria and former president of the Central Illinois Chapter of Interfaith Alliance.

Anti-intellectualism, Science Avenger has a nice post on it. I recommend reading the whole post.

[...]But her commentary on those whom rely on casual videos for their information seem right on, particularly with regard to politics:

” No wonder negative political ads work. As video consumers become progressively more impatient with the process of acquiring information through written language, all politicians find themselves under great pressure to deliver their messages as quickly as possible — and quickness today is much quicker than it used to be.

Harvard University’s Kiku Adatto found that between 1968 and 1988, the average sound bite on the news for a presidential candidate — featuring the candidate’s own voice — dropped from 42.3 seconds to 9.8 seconds. By 2000, according to another Harvard study, the daily candidate bite was down to just 7.8 seconds.”

Anyone doubting how much things have changed, who rightly suspect a little too much nostalgia in this view that things were so much better in the good ol days, need only go watch some video (a good example of my counter point) of some presidential election debates past. Particularly watch the Kennedy/Nixon debates, which are full of detailed, complex viewpoints, the kind that would put modern American audiences to sleep.

This is also what allows professional prevaricators like the Discovery Institute to get away with their shenanigans over and over again. Without an audience with the patience to dig for the full context, or background information (or lack thereof) of what IDers say, they can get away with half truths repeatedly.

” The shrinking public attention span fostered by video is closely tied to the second important anti-intellectual force in American culture: the erosion of general knowledge.

According to a 2006 survey by National Geographic-Roper, nearly half of Americans between ages 18 and 24 do not think it necessary to know the location of other countries in which important news is being made. [...]

But the following point is very interesting:

But she hits the real problem with her third rung:

The problem is not just the things we do not know (consider the one in five American adults who, according to the National Science Foundation, thinks the sun revolves around the Earth); it’s the alarming number of Americans who have smugly concluded that they do not need to know such things in the first place.

Call this anti-rationalism — a syndrome that is particularly dangerous to our public institutions and discourse. Not knowing a foreign language or the location of an important country is a manifestation of ignorance; denying that such knowledge matters is pure anti-rationalism.

Ed Brayton had a great rejoinder to this:

“But I think it goes even beyond that, and I go back again to the argument I made in my C-Span speech about the difference between mundane ignorance and virulent ignorance. Yes, this mundane ignorance is disturbing, as are the many rationalizations offered for it (’some of the dumbest people I know have PhDs but they lack common sense’), but it pales in comparison to the effects of virulent ignorance.

Far too many of those who think they’re knowledgeable on some very important subjects have in fact been educated into even greater ignorance, swallowing a series of falsehoods and half-truths that make them think they know what they’re talking about when they don’t. Memorizing a dozen “proofs” that the earth is only a few thousand years old does not cure one’s ignorance of geology, it only serves to inoculate the credulous against actual evidence.”

I’ll add this to the “mundane ignorance”: yeah, I’ve heard the crack about PhDs and the like, but the clowns who say this are those who brag if their kids make it, and do not hesitate to use the stuff that these “no common sense” PhDs come up with (computers, medicine (MDs too), flu shots, etc.

Politics

I had talked at some lengths as to how Hillary Clinton “embellishes” her past deeds.

Here is a very recent, very blatant example:

Just this week Sen. Clinton said that she landed in Bosnia under “sniper fire,” adding: “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” Clinton used to tell Iowa audiences: “”We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady.”

And her 16-year-old kid?

This latest deception isdocumented in detail in the Washington Post by a reporter who was there. The paper awards her statements “four Pinocchios,” a rating they reserve for political misstatements they describe as “whoppers.”

“Whopper” (Merriam-Webster): “An extravagant or monstrous lie.”

Comedian Sinbad’s now-famous response to Sen. Clinton’s claims was to say, “What kind of president would say, ‘Hey, man, I can’t go ’cause I might get shot so I’m going to send my wife…oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.’” He added, “I think the only ‘red-phone’ moment was: ‘Do we eat here or at the next place.’”

As is often the case these days, the Clinton campaign responded to this observation by sticking to their story, and even embellishing it (in this case, with colorful details about running for cover under fire). That could turn out to have been a catastrophic mistake — but that, as with so much in American politics, depends on the media and how they choose to handle it. They’ve saturated us for nearly two weeks with video of Rev. Wright, who as it turns out didn’t say anything more extreme than what other candidates’ spiritual advisors have said. Will this flap get the same attention? It remains to be seen.

Video from nitpicker.

Note: in case you might be wondering:

Clinton supporters have noted an update to the WaPo piece with this statement from Lissa Muscatine: “I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C17– a plane capable of steep ascents and descents — precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter.”

The last time I took a flight I was told what to do in “in the event of a water landing.” But if I said I had survived a crash landing on water, would I be telling the truth? Hillary provided a vivid description of having to run from sniper fire. It was a complete falsehood.

From Wikipedia: “Lissa Muscatine was a speechwriter and the communications director of former First Lady Hillary Clinton. Currently, she is a speechwriter for Senator Clinton’s campaign for the presidential nomination, and is one of her closest advisors …”

It requires enormous suspension of disbelief to accept the idea that Hillary brought her 16-year-old daughter too a place that was considered “too dangerous for the president” and exposed her to live sniper fire. Do those pro-Hillary commenters really believe she did that? If so, they should be concerned about her judgment.

or

There are those who suggest in comments that she might have been talking about some other stop, but that really can’t be the case. In her speech she’s talking about the Tuzla airport. That’s video from the Tuzla airport.

You can check her schedule yourself here (Clinton Library records, huge pdf file) Go to page 468; note that the ceremony went off as planned and that she did indeed land in two other places, in a helicopter.

Folks, the most charitable conclusion is that she is badly confused.