My Heart Defect Is Too Much Awesome

I like the question of, if your parent is diagnosed with a fatal hereditary condition with no known cure and you have a 50 percent chance of also having the condition, do you get tested to find out. I mean, it's a shitty situation, but it's so intriguing. The decision probably says a lot about the person, though I don't know what.

The last time I was in a cardiologist's office, I was instructed to get a physical before attempting any sort extreme physical undertaking. I ran a marathon in 2:49:40 last fall, and never took that doctor's visit. The prospect of running 26 miles, let alone at under 6:30/mile, may have the potential to destroy my heart. I think the odds are low though. Either way, I'd rather die living life the way I want than live a timid existence. I admire those that would forgo treatments like chemotherapy when they're not given a high chance to live, and choose to get the most bang out of their last few months on earth.

I would in no way, shape, or form compare my experience to that. It's just a fun thought experiment I was lucky enough to experience to a small degree.

5 on/5 off

This is an entry about the best idea I had training for the marathon last year. If you want to hear this excellent workout idea, continue reading. If you do not, I would suggest you close this window. Or give JugofSnyder.com a visit (more clicks = more money!).

I didn't do this workout many times, but wish I would have. I went through every song in my iTunes library between 4:50 and 5:10 long and added the ones that would be worthy of a running mix to a '5 on/5 off' playlist (uptempo stuff like Brother Ali, Jay Z, Mudvayne, Fear Factory). I'd listen to it on hour-long runs, doing five tempo minutes followed by a five minute job.

I'd shoot for 5:30 mile pace, although the clip is obviously adjustable to your needs and abilities. So I'd run five minutes, then jog five minutes, until the watch hit an hour. It was great b/c you knew you were hitting five minutes each time - once the music switched, you were either able to catch your breath or knew you'd have to start running hard. Seriously perfect for developing speed over distance.

Great speed workout.

To Hell With The Jury Selection Process

So, jury duty today. It was just the selection process and I was found wanting, so now I don't have to spend the rest of the week determining whether or not someone REDACTION!!! and their frame of mind in the process. Primary takeaway: the jury selection process is the most awful thing ever. Well, maybe not ever, but I certainly didn't appreciate it.

Before I attack anyone else, this was my facebook status yesterday - just to get it out there that my lead up to the whole proceedings were just as flippant as the next person, and probably more so; particularly in the face of the George Zimmerman verdict just being released and the emotional racial wounds that whole thing generated.

True to form, sitting on the first floor of the courthouse at 8:30 this morning I was joking with the people around me about bad excuses to get out of serving, which is normal. Nobody wants jury duty (unless you're unemployed. Apparently then you're entitled to $40/day). And when I got to the selection process and saw that the defendant was black, the first thought in my mind when asked what I do was to reply I handle public protection budgets for the Senate Majority (while having the advantage of being mostly true, it also implicitly identifies me as a law-and-order Republican that, justifiably or not, carries enough connotation to scare off a public defender). 

End of the day, I didn't. I was part of the second group of potential jurors interviewed, and the attorneys pretty much gave away the case and the defense during the selection process with the first group, so I knew that when asked to how judge when someone's being truthful, replying "someone's reputation and the consistency of a story" would automatically cross me off both the prosecutor's and defense attorney's list - any other discussion re: my family in law enforcement and any family being in trouble with the law was unnecessary to get released (I probably should have admitted to my knowledge of the McDonald's on Pearl as well).

So nobody's perfect, I didn't really do anything to get out of jury duty that was inappropriate, and for the most part everyone treated the process responsibly while recognizing that, despite their desire to not be there, it was their civic duty to not be an ass about the process. And I just wasted five rambling paragraphs justifying whatever, but now it's time to bash the experience.

I think it's ok, and even expected, to joke about not wanting to be there. Be honest - you don't want to be there. But I was sitting about ten feet from the defendant while a judge and two lawyers joked with the jury and trivialized the proceedings. All the while, a guy whose future is about to be decided sits right there listening to people joke about knowing a certain employer and how duty might interfere with their kids' day camp.

I get why it happens. The lawyer that fails to connect with the jury loses, because people base decisions not on facts but how something makes them feel (see: Anthony Weiner's mayoral run, etc, etc.). You have an obligation to your client to joke throughout the very serious and consequential proceedings in order to give them the best chance of winning. Likewise, the judge has every right to make the courtroom feel safe so that people are the most open about their thoughts and experiences. That's how you best select a jury. So I don't fault the players; just the game. And it seems like the best remedy is to not have the defendant in the room at the time (for the record, in 1984 the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a public trial also extends to pretrial hearings. It's definitely part of the process and the defendant should be there. There have aso been a couple interesting and cases this century affirming the public's right to view pretrial hearings if you're interested in that sort of thing.)

So the dude needed to be there. But at the same time, his future was joked and bandied about for about six hours today. A necessary part of the process, sure. Still offensive enough to make my stomach churn. And for the record, although several quips were made, once I sat down in seat #4 I struggled to find my sense of humor while those sitting next to me laughed at how funny kids stealing from the cookie jar are.

The West Wing Is Disingenuous; Blargh!

The Supreme Court struck down DOMA today (hooray for State's Rights) and the Facebook newsfeed is full of cheers. It reminded me of this clip from the West Wing - one of the greatest moments from one of my favorite shows ever:



The thing we need to remember about the clip is that it represents a fictionalized speech from a politician. I love the West Wing because of its idealism - it's The News Room with politics. Yet Aaron Sorkin (a very politically involved liberal) portrays the Democratic administration railing against crazy Republicans over and over again in the series. Real-life Dems then get to watch and cheer, imagining their Democratic politicians doing the same in whatever office they occupy.

The problem is that this isn't the way it works. There are a lot of crazy Republicans out there, sure. It doesn't mean that the other side is chock-full of selfless Democratics beating back these crazy policies. President Bartlett can rail against people who hate gays all day long, but where is President Obama's gay marriage bill? Sure, he finally moved to cancel Don't Ask Don't Tell, but recognizing equality isn't quite the same as eliminating one aspect of discrimination - he took a step, but never jumped.

The show is rife with similar examples. Sorkin did an excellent job of creating a President we can all love, because he's more concerned with doing the right thing than whatever's politically expedient. I'm waiting for the day Democratics actually do this. And because we know they won't, it's important we continue separating fact from fiction.

Intro To Stats

Statistics is about association. Causation? Correlation? How likely is one v. the other? Since adopting a puppy last week, two correlations are locked in a vicious battle. From my standpoint: the dog just peed. I'll give a stern verbal and then immediately take him outside. He'll soon realize that he shouldn't be pissing on the carpet, and should be taking that business outdoors. From his standpoint: I love going outside, and every time I piss on Dave's carpet, I get to go out. Peeing on the carpet leads to positive outcomes. I should do this often.