Well, I suppose it's not really official till I'm downtown in the middle of 45,000 people on October 7th, but at least financially speaking I am in for sure as of today. I guess loosely speaking you could say that I have already started training, though mainly the workouts I have done so far have been geared more towards losing weight than increasing endurance. I started about a month ago doing about 30 minutes on the elliptical machine 4-5 days per week. I got myself up to about 50 minutes and then last week finally graduated to the treadmill with the intention of running 3 miles without stopping. The first time I attempted it I ran a little over 2 miles and walked 1, but the past 3 times I have been able to do it without walking. Now I am by no means setting a blistering pace for myself (average about 13 min. miles) but I'm still quite pleased with my progress so far. The plan for me is to get up to 12 min. miles and then start stretching myself out till I can do that for 5 miles. I'll try to do that at least 4 times per week so I get my total mileage up to at least 20 miles.
I'm still looking at various marathon training programs but the one I'm leaning towards right now is a 16-week one. Fittingly, if I follow that one my first official day of training will be June 18th, which is the day after I am projected to graduate with my MBA. So really it's just jumping from one marathon into another.
I also decided while signing up that if I'm gonna actually do this, I might as well try to do some good in the world at the same time, so I will eventually be looking for people to sponsor me in the name of some charity (I haven't decided on which one yet). Probably won't start pushing for that one, though, until I get farther along and my feet and/or determination haven't given out yet.
Anyway, wish me luck everyone and I will periodically try to update my progress on here!
In other news, Christy and I are escaping the cold for a few days and heading out to Phoenix this weekend. I'm very excited not only for the warmth and relaxation but also because it will be my first trip out to Spring Training! On tap is 3 afternoon Cubs games and then a lot of sitting by the pool and relaxing. I can't think of anything I'd rather be doing.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
I Give the Public What It Wants: More Graphs!
So I have been pondering what to write about next for about a week now, and I have to admit that at the present time the cupboard is kind of bare. I'll chalk it up to the fact that my mind has been pre-occupied with the seemingly endless amount of schoolwork I have this quarter. You'd think that somewhere within the 4-5 hours of reading and writing I do every week that I'd eventually hit upon something worth writing or discussing, but I must sadly report that none of it is in the least bit interesting.
Actually, there is one thing (which, by the way came out anecdotaly during class and had nothing to do with the topic of the night) that I did find pretty interesting, and it concerns the country of Singapore. They have a pretty interesting idea of population control. I don't know all of the specifics, but the gist of it is that they try to encourage highly educated people to have more children and discourage those with lower educations from having kids. It works basically like this. Everybody is permitted to have 2 kids. After two kids, if the mother has been college educated she receives a tax credit for having additional children in addition to the normal tax deduction you are entitled to for having an additional dependent. Not to get too technical on the accounting side, but for those who don't know the difference between a credit and a deduction is that a deduction lowers your taxable income, while a credit directly offsets the amount of tax you owe (or directly increases your refund). If that doesn't make sense, just know that credits are much better than deductions. Anyway, if the mother has not been college educated not only is she not entitled to the credit, but she also does not even get to claim a deduction for the child as a dependent.
I have had to think a lot about how I feel about this. On the one hand, this is certainly better than China where they explicitly limit the number of children you can have. And wanting to populate your country with children born from people with college degrees (and thus presumably higher incomes) seems like it would be beneficial to your country in the long term. And I have caught myself looking at a large family walking around a state fair who look like they might not even be able to afford a trailer to live in and wanted to ask them "do you really think having 6 kids was a good decision?" Of course, on the other hand I don't like the idea that the government is in effect further stratifying the population; making it easier for the affluent to become more so while further burdening the lower class from ever being able to rise above their class level. In the end, I think that for a small island-country like Singapore that has essentially no natural resources, this kind of policy makes a certain amount of sense, and I can't really say I am against it. That being said, I also would not want to see this policy spread to this or any other developed Western country. Does that make me a hypocrite? Well, wouldn't be the first time.
OK, since I have no other original thoughts I will recycle one I previously had. A little over a month ago there was an e-mail circulating on a Friday afternoon discussing getting together for a Happy Hour. Someone suggested getting together at 5:00 and one of the responses was "we're too old to start drinking at 5:00". This led to a discussion about what time was acceptable to begin drinking. This was my contribution to the discussion:
I too have wondered about what time it is acceptable to drink and if it changes with age. I have conducted an exhaustive and highly scientific study on the matter and I refer you to the attached graph for my results.
As you can see, the acceptable drinking time begins to drop significantly from age 15 till 21. There are no data points for 21 and 22 because it is both acceptable and encouraged to be drunk and drinking for the duration of those 2 years. After that there is a distinct rise for the next 10 years until it levels off at 7:00 PM. It is always acceptable to drink from 7:00 PM onward. The curious thing is that after 50 it starts to come down again. This is mainly because you no longer give a shit what other people think is acceptable and they realize this and don't bother you anymore. Finally, once you crack 65 you figure you're lucky to have lived that long anyway and might as well spend the rest of your life shitcanned.
But more to the point, the last time it is still acceptable to be drinking at 5:00 is when you are 29. That is why turning 30 sucks. However, we are still safely within the margins. In fact, as it is now 3:51 I can safely begin drinking in 9 minutes, which is about how long it will take me to get to the bar. . .
Have a good weekend everyone and if you find yourself within the acceptable time range of drinking, go grab yourself a cold one!
Actually, there is one thing (which, by the way came out anecdotaly during class and had nothing to do with the topic of the night) that I did find pretty interesting, and it concerns the country of Singapore. They have a pretty interesting idea of population control. I don't know all of the specifics, but the gist of it is that they try to encourage highly educated people to have more children and discourage those with lower educations from having kids. It works basically like this. Everybody is permitted to have 2 kids. After two kids, if the mother has been college educated she receives a tax credit for having additional children in addition to the normal tax deduction you are entitled to for having an additional dependent. Not to get too technical on the accounting side, but for those who don't know the difference between a credit and a deduction is that a deduction lowers your taxable income, while a credit directly offsets the amount of tax you owe (or directly increases your refund). If that doesn't make sense, just know that credits are much better than deductions. Anyway, if the mother has not been college educated not only is she not entitled to the credit, but she also does not even get to claim a deduction for the child as a dependent.
I have had to think a lot about how I feel about this. On the one hand, this is certainly better than China where they explicitly limit the number of children you can have. And wanting to populate your country with children born from people with college degrees (and thus presumably higher incomes) seems like it would be beneficial to your country in the long term. And I have caught myself looking at a large family walking around a state fair who look like they might not even be able to afford a trailer to live in and wanted to ask them "do you really think having 6 kids was a good decision?" Of course, on the other hand I don't like the idea that the government is in effect further stratifying the population; making it easier for the affluent to become more so while further burdening the lower class from ever being able to rise above their class level. In the end, I think that for a small island-country like Singapore that has essentially no natural resources, this kind of policy makes a certain amount of sense, and I can't really say I am against it. That being said, I also would not want to see this policy spread to this or any other developed Western country. Does that make me a hypocrite? Well, wouldn't be the first time.
OK, since I have no other original thoughts I will recycle one I previously had. A little over a month ago there was an e-mail circulating on a Friday afternoon discussing getting together for a Happy Hour. Someone suggested getting together at 5:00 and one of the responses was "we're too old to start drinking at 5:00". This led to a discussion about what time was acceptable to begin drinking. This was my contribution to the discussion:
I too have wondered about what time it is acceptable to drink and if it changes with age. I have conducted an exhaustive and highly scientific study on the matter and I refer you to the attached graph for my results.
As you can see, the acceptable drinking time begins to drop significantly from age 15 till 21. There are no data points for 21 and 22 because it is both acceptable and encouraged to be drunk and drinking for the duration of those 2 years. After that there is a distinct rise for the next 10 years until it levels off at 7:00 PM. It is always acceptable to drink from 7:00 PM onward. The curious thing is that after 50 it starts to come down again. This is mainly because you no longer give a shit what other people think is acceptable and they realize this and don't bother you anymore. Finally, once you crack 65 you figure you're lucky to have lived that long anyway and might as well spend the rest of your life shitcanned.
But more to the point, the last time it is still acceptable to be drinking at 5:00 is when you are 29. That is why turning 30 sucks. However, we are still safely within the margins. In fact, as it is now 3:51 I can safely begin drinking in 9 minutes, which is about how long it will take me to get to the bar. . .
Have a good weekend everyone and if you find yourself within the acceptable time range of drinking, go grab yourself a cold one!
Thursday, February 01, 2007
FYI, the opposite of gay is safe . . .
Who knew? Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a link to this site (http://www.lovegodsway.org/). On it, among other propaganda they are spouting, is a list of "gay bands" and a list of "safe bands". Now, if you actually take these people seriously (which, by the way, they would like you to) you could find yourself getting pretty pissed at having to share the same hemisphere with freaks like this. However, taken from a purely comedic standpoint, it is absolutely hilarious. If you have time, scroll through some of the "gay bands" and see which ones jump out at you. These are some that I thought were particularly amusing:
Eminem - Yes; clearly Eminem is advocating a gay lifestyle and all his lyrics really support this. It confirms my theory that groups like this will look at the headline "Eminem under fire from gay rights groups" and just see the words "Eminem" and "gay".
Boy George* - I just love that it has an asterisk next to it, and absolutely no explanation for it.
Elton John (really gay) - I can't tell if they are using this to mean that he's "actually" gay or to mean that he is "extremely" gay. Either way it's hilarious.
Cole Porter - Can't say I'm surprised by this one; you write a song called "Anything Goes" and you're gonna make this list. But here's a newsflash for parents: if your child finds himself drawn to Cole Porter tunes, he's probably already gay.
Some ones that are just really strange are:
DMX
Kansas
Frank Sinatra
Barry Manilow
Phish
I personally think DMX is on here because some dude felt attracted to him with his shirt off in a video and therefore decided that DMX must be gay.
I also love at the end of the page they have this:
"The response is overwhelming. You guys know of a lot more Gay Bands than I do. I can't keep up. Hopefully soon we'll have it so you can add them by yourself."
Now, what is perhaps even more amusing is that on the list of "safe" bands they have Cindi Lauper. Now, I know that she's not gay but with her "punk" image (albeit a very watered-down, poppy punk) in the 80s this seemed a strange choice. So, I looked her up on wikipedia and found this:
"Her fifth album, Sisters of Avalon (released in Japan in 1996 and everywhere else in 1997) brought her back into the limelight. With subject matter even more adult than before, it was quickly embraced by the gay community everywhere for its dance and club stylings. The topical themes of the album also contributed to its "pink" appeal: the song "Ballad of Cleo and Joe" addressed the complications of a drag queen's double life, "Brimstone and Fire" painted a portrait of a lesbian relationship, and "You Don't Know" tackled the thorny issue of coming out. The album's singles were remixed to great acclaim, and Lauper began performing as a featured artist at gay pride events around the world"
So not only do they completely miss the boat on labeling a bunch of people as being gay and having gay message that aren't and don't, they also mislabel someone who actually does. At least they are equal opportunity jackasses.
I reminded of an expression I once heard from author Elbert Hubbard (not to be confused with L. Ron Hubbard): "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped."
Eminem - Yes; clearly Eminem is advocating a gay lifestyle and all his lyrics really support this. It confirms my theory that groups like this will look at the headline "Eminem under fire from gay rights groups" and just see the words "Eminem" and "gay".
Boy George* - I just love that it has an asterisk next to it, and absolutely no explanation for it.
Elton John (really gay) - I can't tell if they are using this to mean that he's "actually" gay or to mean that he is "extremely" gay. Either way it's hilarious.
Cole Porter - Can't say I'm surprised by this one; you write a song called "Anything Goes" and you're gonna make this list. But here's a newsflash for parents: if your child finds himself drawn to Cole Porter tunes, he's probably already gay.
Some ones that are just really strange are:
DMX
Kansas
Frank Sinatra
Barry Manilow
Phish
I personally think DMX is on here because some dude felt attracted to him with his shirt off in a video and therefore decided that DMX must be gay.
I also love at the end of the page they have this:
"The response is overwhelming. You guys know of a lot more Gay Bands than I do. I can't keep up. Hopefully soon we'll have it so you can add them by yourself."
Now, what is perhaps even more amusing is that on the list of "safe" bands they have Cindi Lauper. Now, I know that she's not gay but with her "punk" image (albeit a very watered-down, poppy punk) in the 80s this seemed a strange choice. So, I looked her up on wikipedia and found this:
"Her fifth album, Sisters of Avalon (released in Japan in 1996 and everywhere else in 1997) brought her back into the limelight. With subject matter even more adult than before, it was quickly embraced by the gay community everywhere for its dance and club stylings. The topical themes of the album also contributed to its "pink" appeal: the song "Ballad of Cleo and Joe" addressed the complications of a drag queen's double life, "Brimstone and Fire" painted a portrait of a lesbian relationship, and "You Don't Know" tackled the thorny issue of coming out. The album's singles were remixed to great acclaim, and Lauper began performing as a featured artist at gay pride events around the world"
So not only do they completely miss the boat on labeling a bunch of people as being gay and having gay message that aren't and don't, they also mislabel someone who actually does. At least they are equal opportunity jackasses.
I reminded of an expression I once heard from author Elbert Hubbard (not to be confused with L. Ron Hubbard): "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
