New York Times endorsement

Disclaimer: I am a Klobuchar supporter.

I saw that the New York Times endorsed both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for the Democratic nomination.

American voters must choose between three sharply divergent visions of the future.

The incumbent president, Donald Trump, is clear about where he is guiding the Republican Party — white nativism at home and America First unilateralism abroad, brazen corruption, escalating culture wars, a judiciary stacked with ideologues and the veneration of a mythological past where the hierarchy in American society was defined and unchallenged.

On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation. Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced.

[Watch the endorsement process on “The Weekly,” streaming on Hulu.]

The Democratic primary contest is often portrayed as a tussle between moderates and progressives. To some extent that’s true. But when we spent significant time with the leading candidates, the similarity of their platforms on fundamental issues became striking.

Nearly any of them would be the most progressive president in decades on issues like health care, the economy and government’s allocations of resources. Where they differ most significantly is not the what but the how, in whether they believe the country’s institutions and norms are up to the challenge of the moment.

Emphasis mine.

Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.

That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.

In the “radical division”, they list Sanders and Warren. In the “realist division” they list: Buttigieg, Yang, Bloomberg, Biden and Klobuchar.

So, it appears as if they are treating the current Democratic party as really a coalition of two parties: kind of like Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the UK, with the radicals being in Labour and the realists being the Liberal Democrats.

Now, I know that there will be a mixed reaction. Some of the “woke” crowd read this as “vote for a woman.” And one could view this as a realistic take on the state of US politics.
Personally, at least intellectually, I see this as reasonable as, to me, Warren is better than Sanders, and Klobuchar, in my view, is the best choice.

My concerns with Warren is that I find her to be a very awkward, untalented campaigner; someone who really isn’t “likable” (in terms of being a likable politician).
Check out the Morning Consult Senator approval poll (per constituent approval)

Now one might note that Sanders is from a tiny state and it is easier to get high approval ratings in a small state. But note the contrast between Warren and Klobuchar.

Interestingly, my emotional reaction is that I felt the need to stress that my backing Klobuchar has absolutely NOTHING to do with her being female; it has to do with her record as a Senator, her working with others and her being able to win over swing voters.

Step back day..kind of

Weights only. The gym opened at 7 so I did deadlifts at home first:

I started mixing sets of front squats (these felt good) with hex bar dead lifts..though I am listing them separately:

front squat (sets of 6)
20 (empty bar) Note: the non-olympic bar weighs 25 with collars; the weights I have a are 20 kg, 8 kg, 4 kg, and 1.5 kg.
41 (25 + 16)
51 (25 + 26)
67 (25 + 26 + 16)

Hex dead: (sets of 6)

Romanian dead (straight Olympic bar)

Weight room:
pull ups (5 sets of 10: ok)
rotator cuff
bench 10 x 135, 3 x 185
incline: 4 x 150 (weak)
decline: 10 x 165
clean and press: 7 x 100, 10 x 95
dumbbell shoulder press: 10 x 45, 10 x 45 (each arm)
rows: 2 sets of dumbbell rows: 10 x 60, 1 sets of 10 x 110 machine
head stand and 2:30 plank.

Note: I felt the side tug on the pressing movements and pull ups more than on the deadlifts. I did feel it..though I wouldn’t call it “pain.” It did make me cautious.

Bradley loses to a strong Northern Iowa team

Bradley put up a good fight until late in the game, but eventually, being short handed at the forward position hurt and, well, let’s face it, Northern Iowa is just better.
Final: 86-71.

There was decent crowd (6700 or so) but, well, the better team won. There is a reason UNI has only lost 2 games, and lost narrowly (5 points) to a ranked West Virginia team.

Still, I am happy with the men’s team (and the women’s team too! they’ve won a couple of road games and are first place in the MVC). This was the first home loss since February of last season; the team has improved steadily throughout the coach’s tenure.

Nearing the final phase of my life as a “runner”

Super slow (1:24) sort of 10K shuffle (walked gingerly past a few ice patches here and there) along a plowed part of the trail behind the Riverplex; it was about 1.5 miles long (not quite) and I did two out and backs, with a spur from the Riverplex to the start and back again.

It WAS cold.

But sunny (started about 8:20 am).

Gear: I weighed 204 in all of it (198 is more typical for “shoes and shorts”): leggings, shorts, sweatpants, two shirts, high tech jacket with a sweatshirt over it, hat, heavy duty mittens..and of course wallet and phone and car key.

But all of the sweats ..reminded me a bit of this cartoon, which reminded me of an older one:

Many years ago; 1981-1983 or so, a cartoon appeared in a running magazine; I think it was Running Times. It described the various phases of a runner’s life.
Phase 1: once around the block in gray sweats.
Phase 2: enter a race; finish..get annoyed when you get passed at the end.
Phase 3: expensive (remember this was the pre spandex, pre GPS era)..races, gear (nylon in those days), sweatband, expensive shoes and socks…
Phase 4: competitive (aim for 70 minutes in a 10 miler..try to place ..) family starts to worry…boss starts to worry.
Phase 5: obsessive..try to qualify for Boston (2:50 in those days), run yourself into a family separation, get fired, get injured …
Phase 6: quit altogether
phase 7: returns, job comes back…gray sweats come back…running is now 4 times around the block, 4 times a week, smiling all the way..

My phase 5 was the quest to walk 100 miles in under 24 hours, phase 6 was brief (knee operation) and now I am firmly in phase 7…gear is old and antiquated (no Garmin, leggings are 20 years old and worn under shorts and sweats, and I wear old race hoodies.

And yea, runs tend to be between 4 and 8 miles; walks tend to be between 2 and 10, which a longer build up during marathon build up season and, well, however fast I go is what I do.
I mostly enjoy it, though sometimes the first 10 minutes feel like death; then the body warms and it feels good to keep going and I have to stop myself before I get injured.

And I’d rather not mention pace but…these paces are pretty accurate for me. My “easy run” pace is slower than my “walk hard pace” (about 13 min. per mile for today’s “run”; right around a 12 minute pace for yesterday’s 5 mile treadmill walk.