For the last 6 years or so, I have been a long distance runner.  I wouldn’t say it has been 6 years straight (there have been times of waxing and waning intensity and consistency) but ever since the 2006 Chicago Marathon, I’ve tried to be a runner.

Winter is by far the hardest time to run and to keep up consistency in a training program.  It’s dark more than it’s light, there can be snow and ice, and the cold is a definite deterrent to getting out there and covering some miles.  When you’re holed up in your warm bed at 5 in the morning, with the blankets piled high and a low fire smoldering in the fire place, the last place you want to be is on a snow covered path in the bitter dark.

The only real advantage of running in winter is that by the time spring rolls around, you won’t be totally physically compromised and need to start from square one.  If you train through the winter, you open up the possibility of a late spring race.  Even if you don’t run a spring race though, you’ll be much more prepared to hit the ground running (as it were) in the summer.  Running can be more of a chore than an enjoyment, and the winter weather has a tendency to draw you closer to the misery of the event.  If you insist on running and if you insist on running in winter, I have some tips on dressing for the occasion.

To get you started for your ill fated winter running, you’ll need a few provisions.
You’re going to need yourself a pair of these. Running tights are a non negotiable necessity for winter running. I use the Nike Pro tights and have been very pleased with them.

The second necessity is a long sleeved running shirt of the “dry fit” variety. In fact, you’ll need two of these babies.  Dry fit shirts wick away the sweat. This can be important in summer to keep you cool, but it’s even more important in the winter than you’d think. The reason for this is because if you run for a couple miles and then decide to walk for a while, you can get very cold very quickly.

My strategy for dress is this… I will arrange by temperature to make it easier for you.

less than 15 degrees: I don’t run.  It’s just too rough on my lungs.  But, if you are in the position where you are training and have to run, I’d wear:

on the bottom: running tights with workout pants on top.

on the top:  a dry fit long sleeved T shirt with a regular t shirt on top of that and a hoodie on the outside.  I also wear gloves and a hat and consider wearing a scarf or running mask over your face.  It’s really not the best idea to run when it’s that cold out.

15-35 degrees:

on the bottom:  running tights with running shorts on top of them (regular mesh shorts on top of running tights are fine).

on the top.  A dry fit long sleeved t shirt on the skin, a regular t shirt on top of the dry fit, and ANOTHER long sleeved dry fit on the regular t shirt.  Essentially it’s a sandwich with 2 dry fit long sleeved shirts as the bread and a regular cotton t shirt as the meat.  I also add light hat and gloves.

35-45 degrees:

on the bottom:  running tights with running shorts on top of them

on the top:  a long sleeved dry fit shirt with a t shirt on top of that.  I might also add gloves.

45-55 degrees:

on the bottom:  just shorts!  Don’t be afraid.

on the top:  just a long sleeved dry fit shirt.

One of the main mistakes in winter running is overdressing.  You don’t want to cause yourself to sweat even more than you would otherwise because that will cool you down considerably.  While you are running, it will feel like it’s about 20 degrees warmer than it actually is.  You’ll probably have to try out a few strategies.  Just be sure to avoid getting super sweaty far from home and then run the risk of getting worn out and having to walk in wet clothes…. that’s a recipe for disaster.  Avoid cotton clothes that touch the skin and bring your cell phone while you’re testing the waters.

Best of luck, my sweet sweet children.

Cheers.

Unless you’ve been living under a large rock or are snowed into your home with no internet, TV or phone, you have probably heard of the “mandate” President Obama and his Department of Health and Human Services have begun to institute.  This mandate demands that Catholic hospitals, universities and other institutions provide contraception, pharmacological abortions and sterilizations to their employees via their health plans.  This is one of the uncountable negative effects of Obamacare.  Effectively, this administration has declared war on the Church, forcing Catholic institutions to choose between violating their moral teaching or incurring insurmountable fines.  This is an attack on the Church herself, plain and simple.

Much has been said about this travesty already.  Nearly every US Bishop has spoken out in opposition to the new “mandate” and vowed disobedience to the unconstitutional and unconscionable rule.  Simply put, the US Bishops have said, “We can not – we will not – comply with this unjust law.”

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki has a stellar explanation of the rule and the Church’s opposition to it:

Bishop Paprocki’s January 29, 2012 Column from the Diocese of Springfield, IL

Hugh Hewitt also has an excellent chronicling of the attack on the Church, as does Fr. Z.  The USCCB had this information on their website to help explain the reasons the Church cannot and will not comply with this unjust policy.  Even Business Insider had useful comments on the debacle.

On Friday, the administration appeared to offer a middle ground of sorts, which was a joke.  It didn’t change the fact that the Church would still be forced to pay for contraception and abortion inducing drugs.

Here is what the Wall Street Journal had to say about the compromise:

Under the original Health and Human Services regulation, all religious institutions except for houses of worship would be required to cover birth control, including hospitals, schools and charities. Under the new rule, which the White House stresses is “an accommodation” and not a compromise, nonprofit religious organizations won’t have to directly cover birth control and can opt out. But the insurers they hire to cover their employees can’t opt out. If that sounds like a distinction without a difference, odds are you’re a rational person.

The US Bishops had this response to the “accommodation:”

“We note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions….The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is… to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.”

Mark Steyn, with his magnificent wit and enthusiasm, adds:

“The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: First, other pillars of civil society are crowded out of the public space; then, the individual gets crowded out, even in his most private, tooth-level space. President Obama, Commissar Sebelius and many others believe in one-size-fits all national government – uniformity, conformity, supremacy from Maine to Hawaii, for all but favored cronies. It is a doomed experiment – and on the morning after it will take a lot more than a morning-after pill to make it all go away.”

I have little to add to these voices who are more articulate than I.  But, I do have some simple thoughts.

1.  Of all the things a government could make war on the Church about, it’s telling that the most offensive, the most radical teaching of the Catholic Church that forced the government into conflict with it was the Church’s teaching on contraception.  The Church teaches that chemical contraceptives are harmful, for the individual, for one’s marriage and for society.  It wasn’t the Church’s teachings on Christ’s divinity – which the government in Saudi Arabia will persecute you for.  It wasn’t the Church’s teachings on the protection of the person and the freedom to express religious beliefs- which the government in China will persecute it for.  No, it was the Church’s teaching against contraception that Obama and the “progressives” found too offensive to stand.  It’s telling and damning for this culture.

2.  Catholics need to oppose this in all ways possible.  Through prayer and fasting, through sacrifice, through writing to representatives, through preparation, through forging alliances with other Christians and individuals who value religious freedom and liberty, through civil disobedience, we must use every method at our disposal.

3.  This is the first step in the war on religious liberty that will take place if progressives continue to be voted into office.  The Catholic Church will be the target and we will suffer for our Catholic faith.  The time of calm is over, prepare for the storm.  Thus it has been for our ancestors, our fathers in the faith, so too will it be for us, in our due time.

4.  Pray for your priests, pray for your Bishop, pray for Archbishop (now CARDINAL) Dolan, the president of the USCCB.

Archbishop Cardinal Dolan

Remember the words of Churchill, the defenders of liberty must always defend their native soil.

I’d highly suggest reading, “Render Unto Caesar,” Archbishop Charles Chaput’s wonderful work:

Here is the video of a very rousing speech from Senator Marco Rubio.  Among the cacophony coming out of our media and government, here is a voice that rings like a bell in a foggy swamp.

Beard

Please pardon, my dear readers, my absence these past weeks.  But, big things are afoot and now you get to be regaled with the tale.

In short, I’ve taken an official “leave of absence” from my graduate program and have taken a full time job at a prominent medical school in the Midwest.  The decision has been coming for some time and for a variety of reasons:

1.  We have a son coming in March!  As many of you may know, we are expecting our second child and they tell us he will be a boy.  This is, needless to say, extremely exciting for us.  But, as a result of this new blessing, it has become necessary to have a salary and health insurance.  I’ve written previously about how my graduate program did not provide a plan or even an option to buy a plan for a spouse and children of a grad student.  As a result, we invested in a high deductible plan for my wife and daughter that has a maximum out of pocket of $2,500 a year and a monthly payment of 400 dollars.  This absorbed much of my stipend and made things very thin.  When the prospect of fellowships dried up and my wife and I discovered that another child was on the way, it became very necessary to seek employment.

Severe financial constraints are part of the nature of being a graduate student really.  The grad student system is set up for single people who are willing to devote their lives totally to the program.  That’s not to say married individuals can’t succeed in the grad school setting, its just to say that the system is designed for people with a total devotion to the program and who are willing to let other areas of their life decay.

2.  This leads me to my next point:  family life.  Most professors I met as a grad student were either 1. divorced or 2. childless.  The only professor I have ever known who has more than 2 kids is in my own family and is an outstanding man.  The academy either does not attract people who have children or it hinders its members from having children.  At any rate, I was spending upwards of 80 hours out of the home on a weekly basis and didn’t have much to show for it.  This does not set up an environment wherein a family can thrive.

On the other hand, countless great men have spent a lot of time out of the house.  I once read that Edison spent over 100 hours a week in his lab, often sleeping only 4 hours a night under his desk.  Truly the world would be worse off if he hadn’t but I can’t imagine how it affected his life otherwise.

3.  Academia is not a place for conservatives.  Not too long ago, in 2008 at the annual JPSP conference of social psychologists, a speaker asked a crowd of several hundred if any among them would be voting for John McCain.  3 hands went up.  Now, John McCain did not draw praise from many but this is a very representative sample of the political leanings of the “social sciences.”  I had one professor blatantly state that, “psychology is a professional for liberals,” and the others supported this axiom subversively in class and overtly out of class.  It didn’t bother me too much and I expected it.  But, it was annoying.  It’s also ironic because in theory academics should be more “tolerant” and “open-minded” than the average citizen…. at least that’s what they’re always professing.  Those in the field target conservatives and eliminate them from their ranks in the process of tenure.  So, those happy few conservatives that do exist in the social sciences are systematically eliminated.

4.  My passion was not in psychology.  Despite the challenges previously mentioned, I feel we could’ve endured had I been truly passionate about psychology.  If I was fueled by the fire of intense desire to achieve greatness in psychology…. I chuckle at the phrase… I think I could’ve done it.  But, I don’t believe in therapy.  I’m not convinced it actually is effective and through many hours of study of the literature, I have concluded that the evidence is non conclusive.  What’s more alarming is that the majority of psychological research is of no use to humanity.  Think of the hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone to psychology researchers over the last 50 years.  What do we have to show for it?  What are the greatest accomplishments of psychology in the past 50 years?  Some people have bridges to show for their work, others great works of art, others novels, others the Salk vaccine.  What does psychology have to show for the decades and the millions of dollars and millions of man hours?  Not too much.

5.  I didn’t enjoy what I was doing.  Even if I was passionate about psychology and I believed it could better humanity, I wasn’t happy.  The actual daily tasks were monotonous and dull.  I was reading a lot about things I had no interest in and it dulled my mind.  In the past, when I was employed at the winery and at a med school and even as a volunteer at CAP, I was cultivating an inquisitive mind.  I enjoyed working and thinking about new things and let my curiosity foster learning.  In grad school, you are forced to read the dullest drivel written by psychologists just trying to keep their jobs.  You read volumes of unsubstantiated theory and musings of mad liberals.  It killed my curiosity and dulled my sense of wonder.

So, are things better?

Things are phenomenally better.  We’ve actually moved back into the old folks home where we previously resided.  Well, it’s not technically an old folks home.  It’s an apartment that used to be an old folks home but still has several elderly residents.  Nothing wrong at all.  The real question is:  if we’re not living in an old folks home… why does it smell like an old folks home?  In other news, all of our doors are 4.5 feet wide for easy wheelchair access.  But it’s home.

What’s even more phenomenal is having a salary and benefits again.  We aren’t afraid to splurge on the nice kind of toilet paper now, let me tell you.  Yesterday was the first day in 1.5 years that my employer helped me pay for insurance for my family.  It was a proud moment.  As Doc Watson said, “the Lord’s been good to me, son.”

More updates to follow including how I get the funky smell out of the apartment, selling a condo in a horrible market, and (of course) the birth of our second child.

Also, if you think I complained too much about grad school in this post, consider this amazing blog a friend recommended to me.  I agree with pretty much all of it… pretty much.

Cheers.

As a devout Catholic, it can be difficult (some might say impossible) to be able to enjoy in good conscience popular movies, TV and music.  We have deliberately chosen not to have a television in our home for this exact reason.  It’s nearly impossible to stop harmful influences from coming into the home from the TV and for this reason, it’s more of an invader than an entertainer.  I think you only need to have BRAVO, We TV, or FX on for about 15 minutes to realize this.

Over the past couple months though, I’ve come across three movies that are outstanding in their own right but also won’t put your mind and soul into a place you don’t want them to go.  All three are totally void of vile language and weird sex stuff but none-the-less retain their status as outstanding movies.  Amazing isn’t it?

1.     Moneyball, staring Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill and Philip Seymour Hoffman, chronicles the story of Billy Beane, the A’s General Manager during the team’s fated run to the playoffs in 2002.  If you are a baseball fan, you will enjoy this movie.  If you play fantasy baseball, you will LOVE this movie.  More than being a movie about baseball, this movie is more about what happens when you take a risk and the psychological turmoil and thrill that come along with it.

The term “moneyball” refers to the process by which small market teams (baseball teams with low payrolls) compete with big market teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Cubs… White Sox?).  Small market teams use statistics (regression mostly) to comprise their teams rather than conventional wisdom or scouting.  A team can be chosen entirely by algorithms and regression equations.  When Billy Beane implemented this plan for the A’s, he encountered a great deal of conflict and opposition but also achieved some success too…

Brad Pitt plays the role of the GM well and Jonah Hill plays his portly assistant, a Yale grad with statistical expertise, brilliantly.

I highly recommend it but I do not recommend that players in my fantasy league try to use Beane’s methods in our fantasy league, least they be trounced by my superior baseball statistics skills!

2.     True Grit, a Coen Brothers remake of the 1969 John Wayne film, chronicles the man hunt for murderer Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) by Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), a Texas Ranger name LeBeouf (pronounced Le -Beef and played by Matt Damon) and 14 year old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld).  Mattie isn’t afraid to speak her mind and serves as the instigator and driving force behind the search.  Mattie’s father was killed by Tom Chaney and she organizes the pursuit to get justice for her father … because no one else will.

Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon play their characters brilliantly.  Bridges plays Rooster Cogburn, a rough and often drunk marshal who isn’t afraid to use his 6 shooters.  His common interactions and thoughts are somewhat muddled and rough around the edges but his moral compass seems a bit more clear despite his frequent use of his guns.  Though, Cogburn is also quick to point out that he only draws down when he needs to defend himself.  Damon plays LeBoef, a sweet talking Texas Ranger.  He is proud to be a Ranger and lets everyone know it.  His grandiose and pompousness endear him to the viewer after a while though this process takes a little while.  Watching he and Rooster try to one up each other is hilarious.

3.  The King’s Speech takes place circa World War 2 and depicts the friendship between George VI (Colin Firth), or Bertie to his friends and family, and Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), his speech therapist.  Bertie had  a speech stammer since he was 5 years old.  As he begins to rise in power in the royal family, the necessity to make public speeches causes a great deal of stress and anguish.  So, Bertie and his wife enlist the help of Lionel Logue to treat his speech empediment.

The underlying storyline here is the great friendship that develops between Bertie and Lionel.  The prince had led a sheltered royal life an never had a friend throughout his childhood.  He also had experienced a few psychological traumas throughout his childhood without having the luxury of a friendly ear to share them with.

The acting in this film is superb, as is the dialogue and character development.  This is a true story of friendship.  Friendships are often wrought in struggle and in mutually experienced pain.  But, this film does not let us forget the great joys in friendship and the help and glory we can receive when we dare to be a friend.

These are 3 examples of movies that are enjoyable, moving and morally acceptable for a Catholic.  So, I suppose my position on movies can be summarized as such:  Not every modern movie is intrinsically horrid and soul corrupting… though finding movies that are both artistically good and morally good can be a challenging task indeed.