I especially love number four – that no contemporary writing about the Prophet exist. Really??? Of all groups, the Christians are using this as an argument against Islam? A group whose holy book was written piecemeal hundreds of years after any facts may have taken place has no business throwing stones on this topic. (let’s just ignore the fact that the book itself was assembled by committee)

From number five:

But in the second Medina period he was "corrupted by power and worldly ambitions." (Ibn Warraq) These are characteristics that God hates.

Bwahahaha!! Seriously, you guys, you make it too easy. This, from a church that has spent its entire history gathering worldy power.

Seriously, when you get past the nonsense about the book not being kept in heaven, you could just insert “Bible” for Koran and “Christianity” for Islam, and there would be literally no difference in logic. (well, that’s not entirely true. On number nine, you’d have to change “the West” to “Sex”)

Okay, I’m done for now. Sorry, this is just crazy-ass.

A man who pleaded guilty to killing his wife’s lover has been sentenced in Mount Vernon to 23 years in prison.

That’s the opening sentence in the Times article.  I’m down with that! Look, I don’t justify the affair that was happening. Clearly, Scully and the wife didn’t comport themselves appropriately, and clearly this guy reacted to it all with entirely too much violence. There’s being a jealous husband, and there’s being a murderer. But none of it has anything to do with swinging. The fact that they had multiple sexual partners, in fact, could not be further from the point.

“But the lifestyle led to the affair!” says you. No, says I. They could just as easily have met at a book club. These were people who, as part of their sexual life, included other people. None of those folks became involved in an affair with the wife. It just happened to be this one guy. “But this lifestyle always leads to jealousy!” Not any more than any other “lifestyle”. Jealousy is a normal, if unwanted, part of any relationship. Your wife becomes too friendly with the guy from work, your husband starts spending more long nights “working late”. Often, this is just a blip in a relationship, but sometimes there is an affair and relationships end as a result. Jealousy is love’s early warning system. Nobody likes the klaxon horn sound, but it serves a purpose.

The reality, that our prudish society is so loath to accept, is that people have different sexual desires. Some people desire monogamy very sincerely, and happily live that “lifestyle” out in peace and happiness. Some people desire multiple partners, while loving only one, and also happily live their “lifestyle” out in peace and happiness. Some people want it rough, some like sex involving knife play (a step too far for this blogger!), some are even capable of loving multiple people, and build long-lasting, loving relationships with others within that framework.  Society tells us that these “alternative lifestyles” are the easy way out – nothing could be further from the truth. The more people involved, the more rules, the more patience, the more work must be done to ensure everyone is comfortable and those early warning klaxon horns are kept silent.

Society tells us monogamy is normal, and is what we’re “designed” for. If this is so, why do studies on fidelity show that, at minimum, 50% of people engage in infidelity at some point, possibly as high as 85%? Because we’re not built for fidelity (I say this only to address the blanket claim that we are). The reality is, it’s normal to desire others. Some call it window-shopping and are happy to limit themselves to that guilty pleasure, but sexual desire outside the confines of a relationship is in fact very common – swingers are doing nothing more than accepting that desire and incorporating it into their relationship. And, like people in a non-swinging relationship, sometimes they break the rules and become emotionally involved with someone – when you break the agreed-upon rules, whether those rules include no sexual partners or many, you are in fact cheating once you cross that line.

And that’s all that happened here. A wife broke the rules of her marriage – they’d agreed to sex outside the marriage, but not emotional attachment – and unhappiness was the result. It’s a story that happens every day, around the world. A wife, a husband, a girlfriend or boyfriend…once they go outside the agreed-upon parameters of the relationship, harm is done. But it is never acceptable, no matter how befouled an agreement or arrangement, to kill another person as a result.  This is one thing all of society has agreed on, across the board. And that’s why the next sentence in this story upsets me almost as much as the headline.

Skagit County prosecutors say 36-year-old Kenneth McBride and his wife were in a swinging lifestyle with multiple sex partners, but he became jealous when his wife fell in love with Jeremy Scully.

Why can’t that sentence just leave out “and his wife were in a swinging lifestyle with multiple sex partners, but”? Why not “McBride became jealous when his wife fell in love with Jeremy Scully”? The sentence carries the same weight, and conveys the same message, does it not? And does so without adding an additional layer of shaming to all parties, as though an affair leading to a murder is somehow not ‘bad’ enough.

I crave the day when the private sex lives of our fellow travelers in this world are truly private. When we won’t care who’s sleeping with whom, who’s gay, who’s got multiple partners, who likes it kinky. I long for a time when we’ll care about how we actually treat one another, as people. When murder is the salacious part of a sad story like this, rather than the sexual partners of the killer and the killed. There is no one alive who doesn’t understand the idea that we all have private sexual kinks – whether it’s just different positions, wild throw-down orgies, or wearing diapers – just different things that trip our trigger. Yet we all pretend to be outraged when the kinks of another are needlessly exposed. Not outraged that their private predilections have been made our business, but “outraged” that someone could be such a deviant (all the while thinking ‘there but for the grace of god go I’…). It’s unnecessary, and this false outrage, not the sexual preferences of private individuals, is what is truly shameful.

Jeremy Scully, otherwise by all accounts a good person, simply fell in love with someone he shouldn’t have – certainly nothing to be proud of – and was murdered for it. Can we not mourn his loss? Can we not mourn the loss of a good teacher and coach, rather than shaming his memory by making his personal lifestyle the “story”? It seems not. Ask yourself this: if they were in a book club and she met Jeremy Scully there, would the headlines read “23-year prison term in Mount Vernon for reader”? The answer, of course, is no, and the same rules should have applied to the story as it stands. A sad story is made sadder because of it.

Cleverest spam I’ve gotten today: "Mary Bale the cat lady reminds me of one of Bladerunner’s replicants – right after the ‘entre of boiled dog’ query in the Voight-Kampff test; “You find a cat alone in the street. You pet it, and then what?”"

Thank you, clever spammer. Well played. You are still denied!

I look like this. Sue me.

Then Tuesday comes and you have to get up, but you DIDN’T do everything. You’re tired, and you need a break. But Friday is FOREVER AWAY. You’re all “omg this is teh suck and i didn’t do all the things and friday is never”.

Oh noes. Friday is nevar.

Suddenly it’s Wednesday, and you’re like, “You know what I could do…I could go out for a drink. It’s a school night, but I could be naughty once.”

This ends badly.

Thursday is when you really learn your lesson. You feel like warmed over poop, but you know the weekend’s just a day away. If I can just survive this incredibly awful feeling…

Why did I do that to myself? OWMYHEAD

Friday!! Screw accomplishment, we’re just coasting until Saturday and we forget we have jobs!

Hell to the yeah!

In chart form, this is represented thusly:

But now we get to the real problems. Lily thinks I’m cheating on her with Tracy, but I was cheating on her with Suzanne, too. But maybe it was just my evil twin who’d hacked my account!  Either way, now I’m faced with the quandary of the dude who’s just been called out AND smacked down with a “I’m at happy hour with my real friends” hit. What to do? Solution? PIECHARTS!!

It’s important to understand that I respect all y’all too much to, technically, “cheat”. Per se.

See? It's pretty even, right?

But I’ve still got the problem of Lily’s apparent capacity for public shaming and, potentially, punishment.

Note the skew here. This is not good.

Solution: Learn my lesson!

Some people just deserve it.

That resolved, I must still say…Lily, Suzanne tweeted for me while she was on the air, and I have little choice but to honor my agreement with her.

Although I was hoping she'd say "booger"

You could begin by asking about the eReader itself: Does the person like it? Does he like using it better than reading from conventional books? What’s he reading, anyway? Does he like that? What does he usually read? Why? And why is he reading what he’s currently reading? Oh, because it helps him relax after a long day at work? What kind of work does he do?

And suddenly, you’re off and running. Let’s just hope one of you asks for a phone number before somebody’s stop comes up. 

I don’t know about you guys, but usually when I’m reading something, I’m doing it because I want to read. I mean, I’m single, and god knows I could use some action, but there’s a time and place. I don’t mind a little “Hey, do you like your Kindle?” convo, but the third degree doesn’t set me off and running so much as wondering when you’re gonna shut it and let me read. I tend to assume women are the same way, which is exactly why I’ve never flirted with a woman who was reading. It seems rude.

Am I just way off base here? Is this a normal thing? Tell ya what, let’s try something new: a Switzerpoll!

Reading this article, I was struck less by the opposition to a mosque being built – I’ve come to expect knee-jerk opposition from these folks – than on the sheer inability to hear and understand any view of Muslims that doesn’t involve terrorism.

Some opponents have cited traffic and parking concerns. But the objections have focused overwhelmingly on more intangible and volatile issues: fear of terrorism, distrust of Islam and a linkage of the two in opponents’ minds.

“Wouldn’t you agree that every terrorist, past and present, has come out of a mosque?” asked one woman who stood up Wednesday night during a civic association meeting on Staten Island to address representatives of a group that wants to convert a Roman Catholic convent into a mosque in the Midland Beach neighborhood.

“No,” began Ayman Hammous, president of the Staten Island branch of the group, the Muslim American Society — though the rest of his answer was drowned out by catcalls and boos from among the 400 people who packed the gymnasium of a community center.

Wow. The first paragraph is fairly obvious – sort of a “some people aren’t very smart” thing. And the ignorance of the question asked is upsetting but not terribly shocking (and easily shot down – I’d argue that the Christian Crusaders didn’t come out of a mosque, nor did, for example, Timothy McVeigh). What leaps out at me is the booing and catcalling drowning out an answer that doesn’t agree with the pre-determined conclusion. These people are not just ignorant, but made furious by any information that doesn’t agree with their ignorance. There is no possibility of coherent debate with them.

“I was on the phone this morning with the F.B.I., and all I want to know from you is why MAS is on the terrorist watch list,” said Joan Moriello, using the acronym for the Muslim American Society. Her question produced a loud, angry noise from the audience.

…

“Your information is incorrect, madam,” he replied. “We are not on any watch list.” The other men, Mohamed Sadeia and Abdel Hafid Djamil, shook their heads in agreement.

The State Department maintains a terrorist watch list for foreign organizations, and the Justice Department has identified domestic groups it considers unindicted co-conspirators in various terror-related prosecutions. The Muslim American Society is on neither of those lists.

Here we have someone simply making something up – probably assuming she was right because hey, all Muslims are on the terrorist watch list. (Consider, for a moment, the likelihood of a random woman from Staten Island calling the FBI and getting an update on who’s on the “terrorist watch list”) Nonetheless, the audience defaulted to believing her and became angry. This is not just ignorance, this is a willed group delusion.  They are designing a worldview for themselves to simplify a complex, confusing, not-easily-resolved issue. Doesn’t solve anything, but hey, at least they can just be angry and feel like they’re right!

Here’s a question from the audience that I liked: “Can you point to any single statement in the Koran that you would consider to be incorrect?” Let’s change the word “Koran” to “Bible”, and imagine the response. What’s that you say? The bible doesn’t teach violence, but the Koran does, so it’s not a fair comparison? Not so fast, buster.  Finally, let’s see how the patriotic crowd responded to a US military veteran taking a stand for his beliefs:

The tenor of the inquiry became so fraught that the meeting eventually collapsed in shouting around 11 p.m., prompting the police and security guards to ask everyone to leave.

But just 20 minutes earlier, as Bill Finnegan stood at the microphone, came the meeting’s single moment of hushed silence. Mr. Finnegan said he was a Marine lance corporal, home from Afghanistan, where he had worked as a mediator with warring tribes.

After the sustained standing ovation that followed his introduction, he turned to the Muslims on the panel: “My question to you is, will you work to form a cohesive bond with the people of this community?” The men said yes.

Then he turned to the crowd. “And will you work to form a cohesive bond with these people — your new neighbors?”

The crowd erupted in boos. “No!” someone shouted.

Knee-jerk jingoistic response to military service, knee-jerk anger to just the idea of working to better understand Muslims who already live in their city.

Jack Cafferty from CNN jumps on the anti-mosque bandwagon today, arguing that this isn’t about freedom of religion, it’s about insensitivity.

This is not about freedom of religion – no one is suggesting Muslims can’t practice their religion. This is about insensitivity to what happened on September 11 and an affront to this city and country. The murders of 3,000 people were committed by muslim extremists.

Did you catch that? In one short paragraph he suggests that Muslims are free to practice their religion AND manages to conflate Islam with the crazy zealots that used Islam as a precept to commit murder. Brings to mind this great cartoon by Ed Stein.  Jack closes his article by asking his readers to share what they believe is the “real reason” the Muslim community doesn’t want to relocate the community center. Because it couldn’t possibly be that they’ve already spent several million dollars purchasing the property and have every right to use it and not lose their money. I think it’s pretty clear that Jack believes this is an intentional attack against 9/11 victims.

Look. Freedom of religion is part of the issue – absolutely no doubt about this. Many of the people arguing against this community center (and mosques proposed in Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio, California, and Kentucky) are indeed arguing that these people shouldn’t be allowed to practice Islam in our country while we’re at war with “terror”.  And fundamentally, the conflation of all brands of Islam with radical Islamic terrorists is the root of all the opposition, despite this being akin to conflating Methodists with the IRA.

But this goes much deeper. This is about a quickly growing anger at the idea of having to understand something outside oneself, and a grasping need to preserve ignorance at all costs. The people fighting this most vehemently are also the people most often quoting the founders and the constitution, yet arguing angrily to repeal portions of that same document. In the past 20 years, the right has cultivated a sneering disdain for education and knowledge, labeling an educated person who disagrees with them ‘elite’. But with the rise of the Tea Party and Palin brigades, that disdain has become open hostility bordering on rage.

No longer content to mock those who would debate with information gained through education, they now angrily bully and shout down any facts which don’t fit their opinions. And opinions, in their world, rule all. If they believe it to be true, it is true.

So a community center, in their world, cannot be built two blocks from Ground Zero, because terrorists will be trained there. In their world, the mosque already standing four blocks away simply doesn’t exist. The chapel which conducts Muslim prayers inside the Pentagon simply doesn’t exist.

Make no mistake, many Republican leaders know better and are cravenly using this issue for political gain, despite the obvious fallacy of their arguments. And some Democrats are caving because…well, that appears to be what they do, too often. But on the ground, the right is abandoning reason and replacing it with rage and ideologically-grounded ignorance. And that, my friends, is a scary proposition indeed.

A quick clue: The existence of something you’re opposed to does not mean your freedom to be opposed to it has been stolen.  I have the liberty to be deeply opposed to stupidity, but nonetheless, people have every right to freely be as stupid as they wish.

Anyhoo, let’s follow Judge Walker’s lead and take a look at some of the facts behind the decision, the fallout, and the future of this case.

Claim: This is some sort of judicial fiat/tyranny/activisim.

Reality: This is what judges do. He didn’t create the case, he just has to rule on it, and his job is to look at what the constitution says about the case.  Sometimes you lose when you’re taken to court…especially when one of your experts claims that “America will fall into Satan’s hand” because of Prop 8. 

Claim: This ignores the will of the people, or overrules democracy.

Reality: The will of the people is applicable only inasmuch as it is constitutional.  It wouldn’t matter if every single voter in California had voted for Prop 8, it would still violate the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution.  If every voter in Vermont voted to ban all guns, guess what? It would be thrown out by courts as unconstitutional, regardless of the will of the people.

Claim: This will ignite a culture war.

Reality: Ignite a culture war? Uhhhh…we’re already in one, and have been for decades.

Claim: This will cause children of gay couples to grow up gay/damaged/raped, children will be indoctrinated, OMG WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!

Reality: There has never been any study that showed children of gay couples grow up to be damaged or gay or abused in any greater percentage than children of straight couples. The defendants in this case actually used a false paradigm to try and make their case – using studies which showed children with a mother and a father grew up to be more well-adjusted than children with only a mother or a father.  But this study only compared two-parent homes to single-parent homes, which is relevant by itself, but not germane to this case. Now, if you had a study that compared two-parent opposite sex homes with two-parent same sex homes, then you’d have something. But the reality is, no study is needed to show us what we can see.  There are already millions of children being raised in two-parent same sex homes – they’re attending school like all the other kids, their folks attend PTA meetings, and they succeed and occasionally fail, just like all the other kids. 

Claim: We’re redefining marriage, an institution that has been unchanged for thousands of years! In effect, this is the end of traditional marriage.

Reality: Marriage has been redefined many, many times throughout history, and doesn’t even mean the same thing today that it meant in the 1950’s.  Marriage was redefined when arranged marriages ceased to be the norm.  It was redefined when it was no longer a matter of property and inheritance. It was redefined when we imposed age limits on marriage. It was redefined when the courts ruled that interracial marriages could not be blocked (using the same reasoning as this case, btw). 

Of course, this is when the Prop 8 supporters begin the race-card hue and cry.  But you’re trying to compare this to the civil rights movement!  Blacks can’t change their skin color!  A: no I’m not – this is a prime and relevant example of the public’s understanding of marriage being forcibly changed by the courts – and B: skin color is not the relevant issue here.  The relevant issue is that courts decided that two consenting adults, of whatever race, had a constitutionally protected right to marry. And as for bringing race into it…Loving v Virginia will absolutely be called out as a precedent when this is before the Supreme Court. So get used to answering this distinction.

Note that I’ve ignored the basic and obvious refutation, that sexual orientation is no more changeable than skin color.  I ignore it not because it is untrue, but because it’s pointless to even pursue that line of argument with Prop 8 supporters – nothing will change their mind, and it remains fully irrelevant.

Claim: The religious liberty of those opposed to same-sex marriage is being infringed.

Reality: Multiple layers of disingenuous argument here, so it takes some deconstructing. The first layer is simple – the implication (and sometimes outright claim) that churches will be forced to accept, recognize and perform same-sex marriage is simply false.  The First Amendment explicitly prevents this, it couldn’t be more clear.  The government cannot compel any church to perform, accept, recognize or even “tolerate” any marriage they don’t choose to. So you Baptists out there will remain fag-free.

The next layer is a little more sneaky. The idea is “My religious beliefs prevent me from accepting gays, and therefore I can’t accept gay marriage. If I provide some good or service that married people use, I might be forced to provide that good or service to them despite my beliefs.” This is along the lines of the pharmacists who refuse to sell certain forms (or all forms) of birth control. It’s certainly an invigorating argument in itself, but has no bearing on the issue of marriage.  Gays are already protected in many states from discrimination, and in those where they aren’t, marital status certainly wouldn’t change the outcome of their interactions.

The third layer is a little deeper, and actually circles back around to what about the kids…the idea here is “you are going to teach my kids to accept gays, which my religion teaches is wrong, and therefore you’re violating my freedom of religion.” Dudes. Teach your kids what you believe at home, just as parents have always done. Sometimes what they’re taught at school will be counter to your beliefs – that’s okay, and adults know how to handle it.  Also, as a reminder…public schools don’t teach religion…that’s what parents, churches, and private schools are for. (it’s the law!)

So be scared, if you must, change can be scary.  But equality is a pretty basic thing.  No one’s marriage will be invalidated by Dan and John having the right to get married. Nobody’s church will be invaded and forced to change their morals, your views won’t have to change, and as long as you have the tiniest skill in parenting, you can handle any questions your children might have about their classmates two mommies…and let’s be honest, these couples already exist, the questions are already being asked.

The future is already here. What we’re arguing about is what to call it.

Updated – see below

You guys! My track geekery is going to explode from my chest like one of those weird alien babies except it’ll be all lean and complaining about lane draws and probably have personalized spikes and try to drag my burst chest along for a 4 x 800 workout.  My geekery is an asshole, you guys.  Anyway, I don’t usually blog about track here, but nobody reads my track blog, so the hell with it.  I’ll do it here. 

On Saturday, I’ll be in Eugene for the Pre Classic, a Diamond League track meet in its 36th year (first as a Diamond League event, essentially joining it to what used to be the European circuit), and named in honor of Steve Prefontaine – read about my track hero here.  And you can see the Pre Classic live on NBC at 1:00pm PDT (look for me near the finish line!)

So here’s how this works: I’m a track geek, but I’m not all professional like my friend Ann, who puts up real previews with all sorts of useful info.  I just write about stuff I like and what I think, so my predictions are often pure shit.  And I know fuckall about discus and javelin, so sue me.  But I’ll do my best to provide some useful info, and maybe a grown-up track person will link to me and I’ll be famous.

Here’s the (provisional) start list.  I’m just going to stick with the format for the most part (with a couple exceptions).

Men’s 200 Meters:

Loaded, but any sprint without Usain Bolt these days feels oddly anti-climactic.  Tyson Gay is scheduled to appear, but he’s had a balky hamstring lately, so we’ll see what happens.  If he comes, and the hammy holds up, he’s a clear favorite.  The man’s capable of a 19.5.  Besides him, though, at least two others who’ve run sub-20 are on the board, and both Shawn Crawford and Walter Dix are capable of producing 19.7 if things go right, so we’ll see a fast race no matter what!  I predict Gay/Dix/Crawford if Tyson makes it, Dix/Crawford/Thompson if not.

Men’s 110 Meter Hurdles:

Again, WOW!  David Oliver, Ryan Wilson, Ronnie Ash, David Payne, Ryan Brathwaite, Terrence Trammell – let’s see, a guy who’s run sub-13 three times this year including a 12.93 into a headwind last week (Oliver), the reigning World Champion (Trammell), and four other guys who can threaten 13?  Yeah, this should be a good race.  Smart money’s on Oliver, and he looks primed to pop something big this summer.  Could it be Saturday?

Men’s 1000 Meters:

Here’s where it gets good. Eugene, Hayward Field, and the Pre Classic are really about distance and middle-distance events.  This one could be a doozy.  Khadevis Robinson is going to pace them through 800m in 1:45 (!!), in Abubaker Kaki’s attempt at the world record of 2:11.96.  Nick Symmonds is also along, as are Boaz Lalang and Alfred Yego, sub 1:44 guys all, and all with a shot at that record.  I’d say the fastest 1000 on US soil (2:15.97) is going down for certain, and Nick has a really good shot at the American Record at a minimum (2:13.9).  I think 2:11 may be a tough one, but it should be in the 2:13 range, for sure.

Men’s 5000 Meters:

Are you kidding me???  Kipchoge, Merga, Ebuya, Tegenkamp, Solinsky, Salel, Bekele, Mutahi…yeah, my geekery is starting to pound on my chest wall now. Ten guys in the starting field have run sub-13:00 either this year or last year, including two Americans.  Yeah. Read that again. The weather will be sunny and 70, so the first sub-13:00 on US soil will happen.  Mark it on your calendar.  And it’s realistic to say Tegenkamp or Solinsky could be in the money here.  This race is truly wide open, although I’m going to lean on Kipchoge or Merga for the win.  With Tegenkamp and Solinsky living in Oregon, I’ll definitely be pulling for the guys with home cooking in their bellies, though!

Update: Alistair Craig has been added to the field – don’t know how much he’ll be in the mix, but he was smoking it during the indoor season.

Men’s Shot Put:

C’mon.  Christian Cantwell is unbeatable this year, and he loves throwing in Eugene.  I’m only mentioning this event because I look forward to making fun of Tomasz Majewski’s hair in person.  Cantwell wins, Majewski, Hoffa and Nelson fight it out for 2nd and 3rd, with Ryan Whiting being an interesting dark horse.

Women’s 100 Meters:

Possibly more star power here than in the men’s 200. Carmelita Jeter, Shelly-Ann Fraser, Veronica Campbell Brown, LaShauntea Moore and Kelly-Ann Baptiste headline – this race could fly.  Jeter and Fraser most likely duke it out for 1st, but any of these women could pop a fast time.  I expect sub-11 by at least two.

Women’s 800 Meters:

Ohboyohboyohboyohboy!!  Yeah, this and the steeple are where I get excited! (Okay, and the men’s 5000 and mile)  Sub-2:00 seems very possible, as everyone in this race has run under 2:00 this season or last, including last year’s surprise winner (and my current track crush) Maggie Vessey, who dropped a 1:57 on the world last year.  Janeth Jepkosgei looks to be in 2007 form, meaning really tough to beat, but she’ll be pushed hard by Anna Pierce, Mariya Savinova (the best 800 runner in the world when she runs in Russia), Maryam Jamal, Alysia Johnson, Kenia Sinclair and Shannon Rowbury.  Pamela Jelimo is in the field and is rounding back into form, but is nowhere near her 2008 self yet, and I don’t see her challenging. 

And yeah, that’s me and my atrocious haircut from earlier this spring, looming awkwardly over poor Shannon Rowbury after she ran a season-opening 800 at the UW Indoor Preview.

Update: Nancy Langat!  She’s been added to the field – I’m pulling hard for Maggie, and this made a super exciting race even more super exciting!

Women’s Steeplechase:

So I’m totally biased here.  I’m a Lisa Aguilera groupie, and you should be too.  But this race, like a lot of women’s steeples in the last couple years, is loaded.  The top three, Marta Dominguez, Yuliya Zarudneva and Milcah Chemos, have all run under 9:10, Assefa and Aguilera have run in the 9:20s, while Bridget Franek and Nicole Bush are just on the cusp of some breakout times.  Expect this to be quick, as Chemos likes to push the pace, and Dominguez and Zarudneva won’t let her get away.  My only gripe here is that Chemos’ form over the hurdles makes my brain hurt, and I contend puts other runners at risk in close quarters (she pulls both legs over sideways at the same time, rather than using traditional hurdle form – it takes up at least 18 inches to her right, and causes her to stop all momentum when she lands. It’s a testament to how fast she’s running between hurdles, but it’s a matter of time before she causes a crash).  My new friend Shayla Houlihan is very excited to be running in this race in her fancy Brooks gear.  Team Houlihan! 

Women’s 400m Hurdles and 400 Meters:

I don’t have a start list for these yet, but I know we’ll see Lashinda Demus, Sheena Tosta and Josanne Lucas square off.  Demus is HOT this year, so we’ll see what she can roll. 

I haven’t seen a start list for the women’s javelin, either, but you know Kara Patterson will be there, fresh off her unexpected American Record in Des Moines next week, so the crowd should be juiced for her!

Bowerman Mile:

This race traditionally closes the meet out, and it’s going to be a doozy this year.  Seven of the top 10 milers from last year.  Two World Champions, an Olympic Champion, two sub 1:44 800m guys.  Think they’ll get it going?  I’d love to see them get under 3:48 for the first time at Hayward, but that’s a rare event; we’ll see.  One thing I know, this is never a tactical race, it’s all about time.  Asbel Kiprop, Youssef Kamel, Haron Keitany, Bernard Lagat, Mohammed Moustaoui, Nicholas Kemboi, Amine Laalou, Daniel Komen, Gebremedhin Mekonnen – good lord!  Throw in Leo Manzano and Lopez Lomong to round out the US group, and this is definitely going to put an exclamation point on the meet.  The question for me is not if we’ll see a sub 3:50, but how many guys will go sub 3:50. 

Update: Andrew Wheating, after skipping the US Championships last week (boo, Andrew!), has been added to this.  With all the talk of Andrew being the next great American miler, is this his first shot at the big time?

Okay, that’s it. I’ll post pics and try to blog from Eugene, and if you want from-the-track updates, be sure to follow me at Switzerblog!

Would You Break Up via Facebook? http://bit.ly/aqGcyL

Following the link, I found the Mashable article by Jolie O’Dell (@JolieODell) – and holy shit, y’all!  25% of people who responded to a poll had found out they’d been dumped by seeing it on Facebook.  It’s like the most passive-aggressive thing ever.  21% said they would break up with someone by changing their status to single, and nearly half update their status so people think they have plans, whether they do or not!

It brought to mind a tweet I saw earlier today, from @singlegirlie, about the pain of finding out via Facebook that the “one that got away” had gotten married.  She was crushed by this.

And of course, all of this brought to mind the drama of the last year or so in my life, and the role Facebook has played in that. There was some, um, tension between the ex and I concerning her Facebook activity towards the end of our marriage. No, she didn’t break up with me via Facebook – I mean, I was right there all the time, so no need of that!  But there was a lot of commenting back and forth between someone that, let’s say, I wasn’t a fan of. So, seeing that while I was also very aware that my marriage was crumbling was pretty painful. Once we formally split, we stayed Facebook friends.  We definitely put in the effort to stay friends, and I’m sure neither of us wanted to hurt the other (or start an unnecessary fight) by unfriending during what was already a difficult time. But her new life was quite different from mine, at least as reported via status updates.  It was all “OMG can’t wait for the concert with my super duper amazing friends of which I have millionz!! ” all the time.  Sitting alone in my studio apartment, that was a big ol’ dagger!  By the way, she does not write like that. That was for your lulz.

Eventually, I just blocked her so I couldn’t see her status updates in my feed.  But ye gods, I could still see her photos!  Most of the time, that was no big deal…until she posted the first photos of her and her current boyfriend.  It was tough, I’ll admit it.  I mentioned it to her (she knew I’d blocked her status updates), mostly conversationally, and to her credit she offered to pull them down, but hell, she has a right to put pictures of her and her boyfriend up there.  All I’ll say is thank goodness Facebook changed the UI so you don’t have to see those photos anymore!

After a while, she asked if we could change our relationship statuses to single.  I’d held off, but eventually it became obvious that that’s what we were; there was no avoiding it. We agreed to change at the same time-ish, but she beat me by a few minutes.  Seeing that “Mrs. Switzer is now single” pop up in the feed…OW.  Didn’t like that.  It took me a couple days to manage that, I have to be honest.  Luckily, tons of friends came out of the woodwork to wish me well and offer kind words and thoughts, and oh my was that needed! 

I rarely visit her page now, but once in a while the pull is too great.  You know, 13 years of being together doesn’t just go poof overnight; sometimes curiosity just gets the better of you.  And yeah.  It hurts.  It probably will surprise me with pangs like this for a long time.  90% of the time, I’m happier without her; we’d run our course and it just wasn’t working anymore.  But it isn’t like I was married to some horrible bitch; she’s funny and can be a dear friend – it’d be easier if she was some psycho twat!  Anyway, that isn’t the point here…we’re talking about Facebook.  Would I avoid those pangs if I unfriended her?  Yeah.  I’d also lose the phantom wedding ring that I can STILL feel sometimes if I cut off my ring finger.  But what would I gain?  It doesn’t hurt anything to be Facebook friends.  I’ve set up the filter so I only see what I want to see, and she can keep track of my foibles.  We’ll never be as close as we were, but we do still care about each other, and I don’t mind her having a way to know what I’m up to.

There’s no one right answer.  Singlegirlie still looked at the one that got away, and was crushed, but you know what? It also reminded her of those good times that they had.  The pain can surprise you for a long time, but it will eventually stop, and you’ll still have those memories, and Facebook provides you, if you want it, a way to reach out later and reconnect. For others, that pain may be too sharp and the right thing to do is unfriend and block. But you know what? I can say that neither I nor the ex ever posted anything intended to hurt the other.  And when we changed our relationship statuses, it was done in agreement and as coordinated as possible, so no one would be any more surprised or hurt than necessary.  And as for me, I changed my page so relationship status is off the table.  I decided I don’t need to advertise that shit anymore! 

All social media has the potential to be a sword that cuts swift and deep, and can be at its worst when wielded by a coward.  Some of us – me included – have decided the risk of a sharp cut is worth the tradeoff in new, unexpected friendships that can be found in this strange and unique world.  It’s just a chance you take.  Breaking up hurts, no matter how you do it or how you find out.  Face to face, over the phone, via email or text, Twitter or Facebook.  A coward will be cruel, a friend will be as kind as they can, but it’s always going to hurt.  Be careful with yourself, and try to avoid those cowards.  And if you’re cut by one, remember that this new world has given you many, many other friends who can be reached to help salve that wound, more quickly and effectively than ever before.  We’re all together in this now.

So for those of you who don’t already hate me, I’m an atheist.  It’s important to note that atheist means “without god” (not God – the word references any god, it’s neutral as to which one).  It does not mean “antagonistic to god”.  That’s a very important distinction to make – believers often assume that since I’m an atheist, that I “hate” god or am “opposed” to god – or even that I “refuse” to believe.  None of those things are true.  I’m not opposed, I don’t hate, nor do I refuse to believe in any particular god.  It just doesn’t make any sense to me.  A world without a god makes more sense.  To me.  This boggles believers, and that’s okay – I totally get that from that worldview, mine is confusing.  I don’t expect everyone to share my views; some folks are more agnostic on the whole thing, some folks just get more sense from a world with a god.  That’s cool.  But here’s where I get pissed…(okay, there are more, but this is today’s)

This sad story is about an idiotic douchebag whose girlfriend was either having an affair with, or just had a friendship that he didn’t approve of with, another man.  He saw a text from the guy, flipped out, and killed her.  Up to the killing her part, this happens all the time.  When arrested, he told the police that she had made a “Wiccan blood oath” to end the relationship.  Okay, so they’re Wiccan.  Whatever.  Ignoring the idea that this particular religion apparently had him believing that a “blood oath” could be sworn and met with death if broken (this is more a sign that he’s immensely stupid than that religion is evil), what got me is in the comments.  (Okay, no.  It does piss me off.  This evil prick tried to hide behind his particular religion to rationalize murdering his girlfriend.  Fucker.)

Here are the comments that led to today’s post:

Great_Teabagger 29p · 46 minutes ago

This is what happens when liberal religions induce folk to stray from the Cross.

Reply

al_wa 99p · 37 minutes ago

I am having trouble grasping that concept.
Definition of Liberal Religion
"What does it mean to be a religious liberal? To be a liberal according to my favorite scripture, Merriam-Webster, is be open minded, is to be free from the constraints of dogmatism and authority, is to be generous and to believe in the basic goodness of humankind. Religion is defined as that which binds us back or reconnects us to that which is ultimately important. Thus religious liberals are those that are connected, through generosity and openness, to the most important aspects of life."
–Rev. Kimi Riegel, Minister, Northwest UU Church, Southfield, MI

Reply

Great_Teabagger 29p · 18 minutes ago

Fancy talk, but the fact remains that the follower of this liberal-flavored religion dismembered a woman.
Witches, Wiccans, or however they choose to call themselves are bloodthirsty devil-worshippers and this grisly act proves it.

‘al_wa’ is engaging in the time-honored practice of answering religious insult with religious quote, which I think was unneccessary as it’s way off the point, but hey – it’s the internet, and people do it.  But ‘Great_Teabagger’ really captures the worst side of religion. And then prints it on a flag and waves it around.  The suggestion he makes here is that “the Cross”, obviously he means a specific brand of Christianity, is separate and apart from “liberal religions”.  And I think we can safely assume that all non-Christian religions will be lumped in that group.

This is lunacy.  The stupidity of reading the story of this woman’s death and jumping to “liberal religion” and implying that somehow being a Christian would’ve prevented this guy from doing this…it boggles the mind.  Focus, people.  Christianity is not the answer to the world’s evils.  This had nothing to do with “devil-worshippers” (wow, btw. The 16th century called, they miss you.  They want you to come home).  It’s about a crazy guy who did crazy shit.  And should be punished accordingly. 

You see, Wicca is the polar opposite of devil-worship – it’s about respect for the natural forces of the world.  It’s about not causing harm.  I don’t say this to refute Great_Teabagger – I say this to underscore how far from his religion this murderer strayed.  Had be been a Christian, he would’ve strayed just as far.  Religion simply is not a magical panacea that cures all ills. 

Religion has much to recommend it.  It gives some people hope.  It gives others answers to scary questions.  It gives some people a home, or a family, or peace.  But ultimately, religions are filled with people, and all religions recognize that people are flawed – and none claim to fix that.  They just give you a set of guidelines to strive for.  Too many believers fail to see this distinction, and think they’ve not just been absolved of their sins, but are magically prevented from committing (or at least being found out for) others.  No.  You are still, no matter how pious or genuinely righteous, responsible for you, until the day you die and go to find out if you or I were right all along.

Liberal religion didn’t lead this man to kill his girlfriend.  It can’t be blamed, and when he inevitably turns to “the Cross” in prison, it won’t change what he’s done.  He alone bears that responsibility.  Focus, people.