I started up the Couch to 5K program again yesterday after almost a year's hiatus. I stopped last year because we moved and I was working extremely hard with that for a month or so. Then after the move, I was doing lots of work around the yard. For a while, I was also walking our property which has some very steep hills.

But I haven't been exercising much at all for the last 6 months or so and am probably 30 pounds overweight. We got an eliptical exercise walk/bike machine, so I'm going to start my C25K efforts on that machine.

Probably the best part of doing some exercise is it makes you more aware of what you're eating. I'm less likely to eat that pastry or pie slice when I've been doing work to keep the calories off.

I've seen a couple links for the program, the one I'm using is here: www.fromcouchto5k.com/articles/training/the-couch-to-5k-training-plan/

The more official version (the one linked from the facebook page) is: www.coolrunning.com/engine/2/2_3/181.shtml?cmp=18-1, but that one is quite a bit more convoluted, and they both end up in the same place.

I received this email today. Please note that the video in question starts with a spot borrowed from a Youtube video channel called obamasnippets.com, which is some joker who likes to pull different clips together to make it look like Obama said things he didn't. This guy even commented the following on this birther video:

• --- It was a JOKE, people. Just like my other videos:

  "Obama on ACID!"

  "Obama DRUNK!"

  "Obama Drunk Speech FAIL!"

  "Obama Loves to PARTY!"

  "Obama QUITTING in 2012!"

  ObamaSnippetsDotCom 5 hours ago

Personally I couldn't care less whether Obama was born in the U.S. or not. I think there's pretty strong evidence that he was, but there's bound to be some people who don't believe it. Schwarzenegger wasn't born in the U.S. -- what does it matter? It's an ancient part of the Constitution that needs to be amended anyway.

Of course, there's plenty of people who think he's Muslim as well. Again, not sure I care -- probably better a Muslim than an evangelical nutjob. One thing I think we can all agree on is that he's black. And truthfully, that's probably the reason so many people don't like him. That fact is shameful.



Here's the text of the email:

For all those who were inspired by my workout progress, I just wanted to say that I have not stopped working out. I am currently on Day 10 of the Couch to 5K program. Today's workout calls for:

5 minute walk
7 minute run
5 minute walk

which is the same as Day 9 which I did on Tuesday.

I've managed to keep to a strict program of doing the workouts every other day, except for 2 occasions where I slipped one day.

I am working out at the Y every time. I have added the 30-40 minute cardio lifting circuit to each workout. I have had to forego lifting which targets my trapezius and anterior delts because I have a persistent pain in my neck/shoulder from tweaking it. On Tuesday, I started doing a low weight for that area to try to get back into it slowly, but it still hurt a bit afterward.

As far as food, I have not been real good about sticking to any kind of diet. I've been eating desserts and extra helpings, probably at about 2000 calories or more per day. This is fine for maintaining weight, but it's not going to lose any pounds. I have lost about 5 or 6 pounds since I started but need to be more careful about the calories in order to lose more.

I'm a day ahead of schedule now.

Yesterday on the treadmill I did:
5 minute walk
5 minute jog
5 minute walk

That's actually the Day 5 schedule, and yesterday was Day 4.

I also did a full workout on the nautilus machines.

Yesterday it was too cold and rainy to run so I joined the local YMCA and did my exercise there.

Day 4 of the Couch to 5K program
5 minutes walk
4 minutes jog
5 minutes walk

but this time it was on a treadmill.

Then I followed it up with 45 minutes of cardio-lifting on the nautilus machines and some free weights. I have to do some research to remember all the dumbbell and free weight exercises I was doing when we had our own equipment in the garage. Those Nautilus machines just aren't the same.

I'm a little sore now but not too bad. I noticed a small difference in my triceps and biceps.

It's a nice little YMCA but EXPENSIVE. $87.00 a month for a family membership. Fortunately they waived the $99.00 one-time membership fee because they had a January special which I missed by one day, but they gave me a reprieve.

I love this picture from mongabay.com. It's a hut in Western China with a solar panel!



It's included in an article stating that this year, China has become the world's largest manufacturer of solar panels and wind turbines.

I suspected this to be the case. Having recently moved from California to Texas, I left a cell-phone ban state for a non-cell-phone ban state and can say from experience that I'd rather drive in a non-ban state.

I've always believed that cell-phone bans might actually increase accidents for the following reasons:

• drivers still have to dial numbers and look up information; in ban states, they have to do so secretly, hiding the phone in their lap, looking away from the road; in non-ban states, you are free to hold the phone up at eye level and keep traffic in your peripheral vision,
• in ban states, you can't tell if someone's talking on a cell phone; in general, drivers talking on the phone are paying less attention than those who aren't so I'd rather know who's talking on the phone and drive defensively around them, and
  
• in ban states, drivers who don't have the proper bluetooth equipment often have to deal with poor speaker quality, so they end up holding the phone halfway up to their ear, or trying to conceal it; they also spend more time with their eyes on their rear-view mirror looking for police; all this sneaky activity makes them far more dangerous than if they could just hold the phone up to their ear.

If you are going to have a ban on cell phones, it needs to be complete: no talking on any cell phones, hands-free or not. Of course, that's tough to monitor, perhaps law enforcement could carry electronic cellular detectors (I'm sure they exist) to monitor for violators. And why stop at cell phones? My personal experience is that eating certain fast food while driving is far more dangerous than talking on the phone. Ever try to eat a salad or a messy taco while driving? It's an accident waiting to happen.



Source: Christian Science Monitor
Cell phone bans do little to reduce crashes, study finds

New data from the Highway Loss Data Institute finds that laws requiring hands-free devices for cell phones don't change accident rates.

By Andrew Heining / January 29, 2010

You're a safe driver, right? You signal before changing lanes, never (gasp) text-and-drive, and always use a cyborg-chic hands-free device to talk on the phone. A model mobile citizen.

Here's a shocker: That Bluetooth appendage in your ear isn't doing anything to make you safer. This comes from the Highway Loss Data Institute, which studies such things. More precisely, its study found that crash rates in places with bans in place – California, Connecticut, New York, and Washington D.C. – stayed the same when those bans were implemented.

"The laws aren’t reducing crashes, even though we know that such laws have reduced hand-held phone use, and several studies have established that phoning while driving increases crash risk," said Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and HLDI president Adrian Lund in a press briefing.

The National Safety Council earlier this month found that one in four US car crashes involves cell phone distraction. At the start of this year, Illinois joined the list of states that have banned texting behind the wheel, but with these new findings, are such laws enough? Digital distraction behind the wheel has been called a safety epidemic – should bans go all the way and ban all in-car cell phone use?

Some of the study's data confused the researchers, such as a finding in New York that a decline in crashes had occurred, but that it started before a cell phone ban was implemented – and then leveled out afterward. "Whatever the reason," Lund said, "the key finding is that crashes aren’t going down where hand-held phone use has been banned. This finding doesn’t auger well for any safety payoff from all the new laws that ban phone use and texting while driving."

On this study, PC World's Brennon Slattery reminds:

As always, studies need to be taken with two whopping fistfuls of salt. Notice that this particular study only looked at 100 cars -- hardly enough to gather substantial data leading beyond a flimsy hypothesis. And, for you conspiracy theory types, it's worth reiterating that this study was funded by insurance companies, suits that profit off this kind of stuff.

The institute's full report is available here.

After reading about the 2011 proposed budget of $3.83 trillion, it seems like an appropriate time to re-post this:

3.6 TRILLION?

I did the math: the 2010 U.S. budget ($3,600,000,000,000.00) isapproximately $12,000 per person. So, for a family of five like mine,the U.S. government will spend $60,000 in 2010. So, the question is, ifthe government weren't around, could I get the services they provide(the ones I use) for less than $60,000? I know this is a simplifiedview of things because some services are provided by state, city, andlocal governments, but let's assume it all comes from one place.Private school tuition (for grade school) is between $9000 and $15000per child per year. SoI'd have to pay $10K or so for each of my two youngest daughters to goto school. My older daughter's at a public University, so let's figure$20,000 for that. That's roughly $40,000 I'd have to pay for educationalone. Now, figure in the cost of roads. Based on what you pay to driveon a toll road, I'd say if roads were all privatized, you might end uppaying about 50 cents per mile. I only drive about 15,000 miles a year,so lets be liberal and say $10,000 for roads, which should also coverthe costs of railroads, airports, seaports, and interstates requiredfor bringing me food and merchandise.

I guess I'd have to pay alittle extra for mail. I suppose I'd have to chip in some money forsome sort of armed forces to protect my home and family from foreignerswho want to take my land and kill me, and more still for some basicpolice, fire, and paramedic services.. I guess I'd pay at least as muchfor that as I pay for health or auto insurance, so add in another $5000a year. I suppose that without the government I might have to help outpeople without jobs if I didn't want them dying in the streets. I'dalso want to pay someone to protect the environment from those whomight wish to harm it, and I'd pay someone else to make sure my foodand medicine is safe. I'm a big fan of parks and open spaces, so I'dpay some more to make sure I had plenty of that in my area, and that itwas well-maintained, etc. I guess I'd also want to pay someone to keepan eye on the banks and other financial institutions to make sure theydidn't steal my money.

I guess it looks like $60,000 might justbe a bargain. Of course, I'm not paying $60,000 -- the government is --which is to say, the taxpayers are. Anyhow, $3,600,000,000,000.00 is areal big number, but so is 300,000,000 which is the number of people inthis country. Personally I'm glad the government is doing all thisstuff for me. If the government wasn't doing it, someone else would be,and guess what? they'd probably be more corrupt than politicians.

A frog recently discovered near New Guinea drastically alters its appearance from the time it is young until it matures to adulthood. Such a transformation has never been seen in another frog. The new species is called Oreophryne ezra. It begins life a shiny black with bright yellow spots. As it ages, it becomes rose-colored and its eyes change from black to blue.

At this point, the only known habitat of the frog is a small patch of cloud forest on the highest peak of Sudest Island, also known as Vanatinai or Tagula.



A young Oreophryne ezra frog is shown above. Below is the adult version of the same species.


See Mongabay Bay for more information.

Somehow I ended up watching CSPAN's coverage of Congressional Hearings regarding Tareq and Michaele Salahi's gatecrashing of a November 21 State Dinner attended by the Prime Minister of India, and the President and Vice President of the United States. I hadn't followed the story so was surprised to learn that the event was apparently filmed as part of Mrs. Salahi's appearance on the Bravo Network's reality TV show: Real Housewifes of Washington, D.C.

The Congressmen and women on the Committee were unanimously aggravated and offended by the Salahi's refusal to answer any questions related to the event, asserting their Fifth Amendment Constitutional right to remain silent. Their counsel had advised them that until the grand jury legal proceedings surrounding the event were completed, any answers they gave to this Committee might incriminate them. So, 98% of the questions asked of the Salahis were answered with "On advice of counsel, I respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question." Occasionally, Mr. Salahi would turn and consult with his counsel before answering "On advice of counsel, I respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question."

Only about 10% of the questions were addressed to Mrs. Salahi, so she wasn't as practiced with the answer. For each question posed to her, she methodically, but elegantly, read her answer off a card on her podium: "On advice of counsel, I respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question."

Mrs. Salahi did answer "Yes" to one question, which was something like: "Mrs. Salahi, when your legal proceedings regarding the events of the night of November 21 are complete, will you be willing to return and answer the questions posed by this committee?"

Mr. Salahi answered about three questions directly.

When first asked by the committee Chair whether his actions on the night of November 21 were influenced or coordinated in any way by a reality television show, he stated haltingly "I am under a non-disclosure agreement and so I don't think I can answer you."

When the Chair responded, "Well, that doesn't really answer my question ...", Salahi turned to his counsel and then said "On advice of counsel, I respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question."

Prior to the opening of questioning, the Salahis were given five minutes to read a prepared statement. Mr. Salahi dispassionately read the statement, which finished with an avowal of their fervent patriotism and their admiration and respect for all federal law enforcement officers, including those with the Secret Service.

While this strategy may have seemed like a good idea when conceived, it had the undesired affect of rousing the Committee members and resulted in several harsh scoldings about the Salahi's obvious lack of patriotism in participating in the event, and their blatant disrespect for the Secret Service in refusing to assist the Committee in determining if there had been any wrongdoing by officers responsible for Security at the event.

Dan Lundren, a Representative from California actually raised his voice and angrily admonished the Salahis for about a minute and a half. Other Committee members took a harsh tone but none quite so passionate.

Bill Pascrell, a Representative from New Jersey, showed the most frustration with the proceedings. He asked Mr. Salahi a series of questions with easier and easier answers, finally asking "Were you there that night?" to which Salahi began to assert his right to silence, but was interrupted by Pascrell asking "ARE YOU HERE RIGHT NOW?" to which Salahi responded with a silent and obviously humiliated stare.

Apparently prior to when I started watching these Hearings, the Committee had interviewed a Secret Service Officer who was in charge of the event. Unlike the Salahis, he was very forthcoming in taking responsibility for the faux pas, and attempted to divert all blame from the Salahis and the White House onto the Secret Service. His gallantry made the Salahi's cowardice even more despicable to the gathered Congressional members.

The Hearings depicted a patriotic intensity that I was not aware existed in Washington. The Committee members, regardless of party, age, gender or race, showed emotion and passion in their questioning and admonishment of the Salahis. The Hearings, for the most part, were untainted by the partisanship so evident in today's national politics. My wife and I were almost immediately drawn into the drama of the event and were both riveted for almost an hour to what might not otherwise appear to be must-see TV.

In summary, I was pleased by the attitude of these elected public officials and it made a stark contrast to the impression of Congressional stalemate and stagnation implied by the President's State of the Union address.