The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial in today’s paper, called “The Audacity of Debt,” in which they discuss the impending vote by Congress to raise the national debt ceiling by almost $2 trillion. It got me thinking about the size of that number.

First, note how much easier it is to write and, more importantly, read “$2 trillion” rather than “$2,000,000,000,000.” There are so many zeros involved in the latter that one has to stop and count them to understand the figure.

Second, how much is $2,000,000,000,000? What’s the best way to visualize it? Is there a way to visualize it?

Here’s one way: imagine an airplane filled with $2,000,000,000,000 separated into bags of a million dollars each. Imagine that the pilot of this airplane takes off and heads due north at a speed of 300 miles per hour. The copilot’s job is to drop one of the bags containing a million dollars out of the airplane every time the plane travels a mile.

Before we go any further, think about how much money a million dollars is. How much difference would a million dollars make to you and your family? How much difference would a million dollars make to a small business or a local charity? Remember that impact.

Back to the airplane dropping a million dollars a minute, how far could the plane travel before the $2,000,000,000,000 ran out? Keep in mind that, at 300 miles per hour, the plane is dropping five million-dollar bags every minute.

A thousand miles? Five thousand miles? 10,000 miles? Around the entire Earth, a distance of 24,860 miles? I am afraid none of these is close. You have to think bigger.

You see, $2,000,000,000,000 is equal to 2,000,000 bags of $1,000,000 each. That right, the plane could travel 2,000,000 miles, or 80 times around the Earth, dropping a million dollars out every 12 seconds, before running out of money.

It would take the plane 6,667 hours to do so, equal to 278 days of continuous, 24/7 flying.

And that’s just the increase in the national debt that Congress will be approving shortly. Shall we talk about the total debt of $14,000,000,000,000?

You might think that, as much as I have written about climate change (click on the “climate change” tag to the left), I’d have been all over the scandal involving the East Anglia scientists who hid and changed data to fit the “consensus” and who tried to silence skeptics. The truth is that my reaction isn’t much more than a big sigh of relief.

Relief that my instincts regarding the global warming promoters were right.

Relief that skeptics, such as myself, were justified in their skepticism.

Relief that monstrous schemes like “cap and trade” are dead in the United States, or at least mortally wounded.

Relief that there will be (or should be) calls for a more open and critical look at the actual data, rather than a blind devotion to the global warming religion.

Relief that the scientific community might purge some of these charlatans.

I realize the scandal hasn’t gotten much attention in the liberal media, but I’m not sure that matters much. I was going to look through the last several Sarasota Herald-Tribune newspapers to see if they deigned to mention it, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t, at least not in a substantial way, and frankly, who cares? I long ago came to the conclusion that the principle weakness and distinguishing characteristic of today’s liberalism is its willingness to set aside facts, truth, and logic in favor of policy objectives. Inconvenient events are mentally discarded.

Global warming, as political scaffolding with which to construct an ever larger government, is thankfully collapsing. Climate change, as an actual physical phenomenon, will continue in its cycles of cooling and warming, as it has done for millions of years, oblivious to the affairs of man.

The New York Times published an article today that is entitled, in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune at least, “U.S. Debt Costs May Soon Soar.” I don’t have time for a long response today, so allow me this brief response.

The Herald-Tribune attached this subhead, “Does Uncle Sam basically have a $12 trillion adjustable rate mortgage?” The article and that subhead make it pretty clear that the national debt is a new discover for liberal newspapers.

Oh, by the way, NYT and Sarasota Herald-Tribune, welcome to the Tea Party movement.

The article is mostly a well-written essay on the frightening implications of having such a gargantuan (if there is a more appropriate adjective, I don’t know what it is) debt, but it falls down on three points.

First, it doesn’t mention the possibility that other nations (China, really) might decide to stop buying our debt, and the complete chaos that would ensue if they did.

Second, even though the deficit under the Obama administration is exploding to unprecedented levels, what with the trillion-dollar “stimulus” package, and now Obama’s government takeover of healthcare, not once is Obama’s name mentioned.

Third, it tries to make the case that the massive spending by the man-whose-name-shall-not-be-mentioned was “widely judged to have been a necessary response.” Yet, no one is quoted to support that claim, and the Obama Administration’s own estimates and data show it to be, without question, a miserable failure:

When a liberal newspaper uses the words, “widely judged” or “the science is settled” or “most experts agree,” you can be pretty sure that “widely judged” should be qualified with “in our newsroom,” that the science is anything but settled, and that “most experts” refers to either some sort of wishful abstraction or to the kind of “experts” that frequent the same cocktail parties as NYT editors.

While liberals may be just now discovering the national debt (actually, I should say, “rediscovering” since they had a similar awakening when it came to the cost of the Iraq war), I am pretty confident that they will forget all about it when it comes to reducing spending, but it will be front-and-center when it comes to the idea of raising taxes. In fact, my well-seasoned cynicism tells me that this is what the article is really about: pin no blame for the exploding deficit on Obama, but provide him cover when he raises taxes. Just wait.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote a column on November 17 entitled, “What They Really Believe.” Curiously, when the column appeared in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, a new, although far clumsier, title was created: “Climate-bill critic’s fantasy.”

To his credit, Friedman doesn’t even try to support the claim that the earth is still warming (it has actually cooled slightly over the last decade), nor does he assert that man is the principal cause of climate change, rather than the sun. In fact, he abandons the global warming argument (since he apparently knows it won’t stand up) in favor of a “green hawk” argument.

Friedman spends most of the column trying to construct rhetorical interest by “logically” deducing certain climate skeptics’ beliefs based on known beliefs. Despite the fact that these discovered beliefs are ridiculous and obviously untrue, it’s hard to tell whether he is being serious or not. After all the column is entitled, “What They Really Believe.” What do the climate-change skeptics believe, according to Friedman?

- The world is going to face a mass plague, like the Black Death, that will wipe out 2.5 billion people sometime between now and 2050.

- It is much better for America that the world be dependent on foreign oil for energy rather than on clean power.

- People in the developing world are very happy being poor.

If, on the other hand, he is merely trying to assert that skeptics are thinking illogically, well, I am afraid Friedman falls into the very trap he is projecting onto others. He finally gets to his point near the end:

So either the opponents of a serious energy/climate bill with a price on carbon don’t care about our being addicted to oil and dependent on petro-dictators forever or they really believe that we will not be adding 2.5 billion more people who want to live like us, so the price of oil won’t go up very far and, therefore, we shouldn’t raise taxes to stimulate clean, renewable alternatives and energy efficiency.

So, it’s:
A: Skeptics don’t care about oil dependency, or
B: Skeptics don’t think the price of oil will rise over time, therefore
C: We shouldn’t raise taxes.

Friedman is wearing intellectual blinders and doesn’t realize there are other possibilities, such as:

A: Beliefs about climate change are totally unrelated to thoughts about our dependence on hostile regimes for oil. I don’t know a single person, conservative or liberal, who is happy about such dependency.

B: Beliefs about climate change are totally unrelated to thoughts about what will happen to the price of oil in the future.

C. There is already an enormous profit incentive to develop alternative sources of energy. Can you imagine the money to be made from an invention or process that would provide an alternative source of energy at (and here’s the key) a price better than oil’s?

D. The government does not need to turn to a massive business tax to create alternative energy interest. The interest is already there. There is all kinds of research being conducted, much of it privately, and new developments are occurring rapidly.

E. A massive tax is simply a way to make energy more expensive today. Gee, just what our miserable economy needs. If the concern is the price of energy in the future, why make it more expensive now?

F. At the end, after advocating a massive cap-and-trade tax, he hilariously wants us to “let the free market and innovation do the rest.” In fact, the free market and innovation can occur without a job- and economy-killing tax.

G: In the meantime, yes, let’s drill oil domestically where we can, and yes, let’s build nuclear power plants that provide nearly limitless energy with no CO2 emissions. Both would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What do you say, Mr. Friedman?

You see, all the above are true, but the big-government liberals either can’t understand or address those possibilities effectlvely. So, they resort to constructing fantasies about those who can.

So, in his first nine months in office, Obama has played a whopping 24 rounds of golf. Bush didn't play 24 rounds of golf until he had been president for close to three years.

The economy is in dire straits with the unemployment rate is rising to 10%. The Afganistan war is a serious question mark and awaits presidential action. The national debt is climbing to unsustainable levels. Can you imagine what the press reaction would be if Bush were president now and was playing golf almost three times a month? It would be off-the-chart outrage, and I'd be mad too. Obama, the Most Holy, gets a pass as usual.

Every president needs a break, but golfing 24 times in nine months in times like this is unthinkable. Save the golf for times of peace and prosperity.

Victor Davis Hanson and Charles Krauthammer are two of my favorite commentators. Each has a special ability to cut through the periphery of an issue and get straight to the heart of it.

Mr. Hanson wields his scalpel on the perfect storm that enabled President Obama's election and the bitter truths that have followed in which realities are trumping illusions. Regarding the Obama Administration's reaction to opposition, he writes:

His opposition is no longer ossified, but decentralized and grass roots. One of the oddest proofs of that statement is the sudden leftist furor at tea parties, town halls, the media, dissent, and free speech. As long as Obama was opposed by calcified Republicans in Congress, there was no real danger to him. But once the opposition proved populist, panicked liberal elites started demonizing populism — and Obama now finds himself opposed to the popular grievance-mongering that was once the mother’s milk of our Chicago organizer’s existence.

Mr. Krauthammer dissects the almost unbelievable effort by Obama and his minions to marginalize Fox News, which has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined, and which has a more evenly spread viewership (roughly split among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) than either. After all, says Mr. Krauthammer:

Fox News is no monopoly. It is a singular minority in a sea of liberal media. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC vs. Fox. The lineup is so unbalanced as to be comical — and that doesn’t even include the other commanding heights of the culture that are firmly, flagrantly liberal: Hollywood, the foundations, the universities, the elite newspapers.

Fox and its viewers (numbering more than CNN’s and MSNBC’s combined) need no defense. Defend Fox compared to whom? To CNN — which recently unleashed its fact-checkers on a Saturday Night Live skit mildly critical of President Obama, but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh?

It's tempting, at this point early in Obama's term, to extrapolate out and predict that his presidency will continue to be such a failure. Heck, as the days pass and the outrages mount, it seems like he might even make it to the end of his term. I'm not talking in concrete terms about impeachment or assassination, I am talking about the feeling that the trajectory he is on is simply unsustainable. At some point, even the liberal media will have to turn on him. When that happens, look out. He'll be labeled the most colossal disappointment in presidential history.

Will he wise up and order a course change? I believe he will, eventually. Like many politicians, I believe what he wants most of all is power. When it finally dawns on him that the majority of Americans no longer see him as the Messiah (I admit it might take awhile for that realization to come), and that a second term is in jeopardy, and that demonizing his opponents and George Bush and pushing a far-left agenda aren't working, he will become pragmatic and reactivate his campaign's "centrist" and "uniter" themes. Will the public buy it a second time? I doubt it.

I've added this quote to my Favorite Quotes page. I think it would particularly resonate with and amuse those who, like me, have found mid-life to be more challenging than they expected.

“Sometimes I lie awake at night, and ask, 'Where have I gone wrong?' Then a voice says to me, 'This is going to take more than one night.'”- Charles M. Schulz

This just in from Norway: President Barack Obama has been awarded this year's Nobel Liberal Prize!

What an outstanding achievement! Here's what the Nobel Committee had to say:

The Nobel Committee, after careful consideration, is pleased to announce that the winner of the Nobel Liberal Prize is awarded to President Barack Obama, long may He reign. The Committee was swayed by His outstanding and dedicated efforts to denigrate the history of the United States while speaking abroad. We are continually impressed by His tireless efforts to transform America from an evil, capitalistic, strong, free society into a good, socialistic, weak, and dependent society. President Obama simply won't rest until the U.S. government is as big as His ego, and America is no better than any other country. In fact, if it were a little worse than most, that would be great.

But what clinched the award was the amazing extent to which President Obama is not President Bush the Horrible. We can't get over it. It's like Obama is the anti-Bush. That, by itself, is reason enough for us to award the Nobel Liberal Prize to the One.

Yes, we're serious.

What a great day! I, for one, am having a hard time describing the new level of respect I have for the Nobel Committee. I am not alone.

First, I am rather proud of myself: I competed in the Siesta Key Triathlon yesterday (0.5 mile swim, 13 mile bike, 3.1 mile run) and, while I wasn't near getting a medal, I did finish 12th out of 35 in my age group.

More than the decent finish (I had a better finish in the Venice Triathlon, 3rd, although it was against a smaller and weaker field), however, I am pleased with how fresh I felt at the end. Yes, I was breathing very heavy for the first minute or two after finishing the run, but I recovered quickly and felt great. I'm just better now at managing the race and myself. Nice feeling.

All right, this is old, old news by internet standards (> 30 days), but I still want to comment. This picture is the world's first image of an actual molecule, a million times smaller than a grain of sand. Mind blowing.

There is more evidence that global warming is non-event, and Jonah Goldberg discusses the matter quite reasonably. It all shows how legislation such as the proposed "cap and trade" bill are not really about the environment, but about the expansion of government at the expense of capitalism and sound science.

Rich Lowry has Obama the Arrogant nailed in An Obama Speech in 13 Easy Steps. If there was every a president that was actually the complete opposite of what he claimed to be during his campaign (in Obama's case, a "uniter"), it's Obama.

I haven't quite made up my mind about Sarah Palin. My horse sense tells me that she is what she appears to be: a plain-spoken, honest, corruption-fighting conservative who is not afraid to speak her mind. Her message and language aren't focused-grouped and slickly packaged to move polls, thank God. She's more like the people of America than she is like the people in Washington. She "gets it," so to speak.

No, she's not perfect human being, and yes, she needs experience, but there is no denying that she has one quality that conservative politicians (as distinct from conservative pundits or voters), at least on the national stage, have recently lacked: she's very, very attractive. I hate symbolism over substance, but the harsh reality is that more attractive people have a distinct edge over less attractive people, in a number of situations, most especially including politics.

Let's face it, she's hot. She's as far from the stereotypical old-white-man GOP politician as you can get.

Victor Davis Hanson writes brilliantly, as usual, about where we stand, eight years later.

Last November, fresh off the election, I made a number of predictions about the Obama administration. I was right about some of them, and feel comfortable standing by others that haven't been decided yet. However, I was wrong about two things.

First, I predicted that the economy was poised to strengthen at the beginning of the year and that a moderate recovery would be underway by now. Interest rates were low, oil prices were low, the inventory of unsold houses was declining, and the worst of the credit crunch seemed to be over. Instead of a recovery, we've had severe job losses and the unemployment rate has reached about 10%. There might be some glimmers of improvement, but it's dicey.

A significant factor in the lingering recession, I believe, the Obama Admininstration's "stimulus" and its other massive spending plans. The American people have been shaken by the arrogance and wrong-headedness of the administration's efforts to spend far, far beyond its means while citizens have been cutting back and getting their financial houses in order. I believe the irresponsible and ineffective spending has hurt consumer and, perhaps more importantly, business confidence. I talk to business people from various sectors frequently, and they are all nervous about the future. There is a sense of deep foreboding that we are heading down a dark road from which there is no return. Business men and women are apprehensive, and it is affecting the recovery. While leads me to my second erroneous prediction.

I thought Obama's honeymoon period would last a good year. The press is so deeply in love with and committed to His Holiness that I figured they'd cover for his misteps and the sheer volume of positive press coverage he would receive would keep the average, working, not-much-interested-in-politics American from realizing how far to the left President Obama actually is.

Thankfully, and my eyes are practically getting misty as I write this, I was wrong. The honeymoon is over (via Rasmussen Reports):

Obama's overall approval rating has slipped below 50%, and there is majority opposition to some of his signature items: government-run healthcare, cap and trade, and tax increases. Just when I start to lose hope in America (see the last election), the citizenry always comes through and bucks me up.

If Obama were smart, he'd stop pushing 1,000-page massive government bills. He'd scale back, let the economy recover, take (undeserved) credit for it, and watch his poll numbers increase. It's really pretty simple: the citizens want prosperity, security, and minimal conflict. The prosperity will come, if The One would just get out of the way. We have security, thanks to the Bush Administration, and the conflict in Afghanistan seems far more remote and abstract than the Iraq liberation did (what exactly is the end-game in Afghanistan anyway? Can anybody be bothered to ask? Where are all the war protesters now?).

If Obama isn't smart enough to scale back his far-left agenda, hopefully his sinking approval ratings will prevent him from enacting it.

The Sharks Olympic Distance Classic is tomorrow, a combination triathlon/duathlon event. I'll be competing in the duathlon, which is a 5K run, a 40K bike, and then a 10K run. It's 34 miles overall.

I've trained about as hard as I reasonably can, but I am a little nervous. The race, including the transitions from run to bike and vice-versa, will take me about 2 hours and 37 minutes. I'd be thrilled to beat that time, but there is a far chance it will take a bit longer. It's just such a long duration. During training, my legs have been turning to lifeless hunks of meat at around the 2 hour mark. Frankly, I'm counting on good, old-fashioned race-day energy to carry me through.

Race day is such an interesting combination of the early-morning happy beehive of check-in activity, the nervous and careful preparation of bikes and transition equipment, the race-start thrill, the carefully gauging of the "right" race pace and adjusting it as the race wears on, the inevitable fatigue turning to exhaustion, the dizzy, exciting feeling of seeing the finish line ahead, the satisfying relief of the finish, and the internal joy that grows during the post-race recovery and activities. Then, once home, a big, long nap.

There's no question that there's a growing sense among many, myself included, that government is headed in the wrong direction. It is far too big, spends far too much of our money (and spends it poorly), and it's far too obtrusive and burdensome to the citizens. Here's a chart that sums up the spending problem and, by extension, the size problem:

Go here for more details.

Our liberal friends like to talk about "sustainability." The government's enormous spending and gargantuan debt are nothing if not unsustainable, and it's a bipartisan phenomenon. The national debt under President Bush increased by a whopping $2.5 trillion dollars. It is projected to increase under President Obama by a mind-blowing $4.9 trillion. That's $4,900,000,000,000. That's $16,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. If my back-of-an-envelope math is correct, if you were to place that amount of cash in one dollar bills end-to-end, it would stretch from Washington, D.C. all the way to the sun -- five times.

And that's just the increase in the debt.

I will attend the Tea Party today in downtown Sarasota. I don't know if all the Tea Parties around the country will have a big impact or lasting effect on the course of our government, but I suspect they might. I believe there's a large, normally-quiet-but-now-fed-up segment of the citizenry that is finally ready to have their voices heard. They aren't happy with either political party. They know (and love) enough about our country's founding to realize how far we have strayed from its principles. They are afraid the United States is turning toward socialism. They are tired of taxes, taxes, and more taxes. They are repulsed by the very idea of a 60,000 page tax code. They hate wealth-transferring policies. They don't like the feeling that we are working for the government, not the other way around. They don't like how incredibly out-of-touch most of our politicians are.

At a time when almost all Americans are tightening their financial belts and streamlining their spending, the government is spending like never before. The Tea Partiers are looking for change... real change (not campaign fluff "change")... concrete change... fundamental change... For the sake of our nation, I hope today will be the beginning.

A number of new stories stuck me today as being incredible. Taken together, they represent the disturbing extent to which people and society have lost their bearings. You be the judge.

Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism. That absolutely blows my mind, and it's the scariest statistic I've read in a long time. The survey concludes that Democrats, naturally, are far more inclined to favor socialism. I suppose the silver lining is that at least the Democrats are now being honest about it.

The White House is denying that Obama bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Look, no sane person can say that Obama didn't bow, so this denial shows that the Obama Administration is willing lie to the American people. And if they are willing to lie about such a minor incident (thus risking the the often-repeated PR blunder of turning a small incident into a large incident), they surely will be willing to lie when the political stakes are higher.

Oh, and if you don't believe that much of the media is just a mouthpiece for liberal organizations, see this: The curious case of 200 nearly identical MSM headlines.

A Democrat delegation to Fidel Castro ends up praising him. I have nothing to add.

Obama's "science advisor" is considering shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Can you imagine how the Bush Administration would have been mocked had it proposed such insanity?

As of Tuesday, I started training in earnest for the Sharks Olympic Distance Classic. It's combination triathlon/duathlon event. I'll be competing in the duathlon, which is a 5K run, a 40K bike, and then a 10K run. It's 34 miles overall, and since it's not until May 9, it'll probably be getting pretty warm by then. It'll be a challenge.

My running is reasonably good right now. I just competed in the SpringFest 12K (~ 7.4 miles) and finished in 62:41, which is an average pace of 8:24/mile. That's not bad, at least for me. I finished in the top half of my age group, so that was a small milestone.

I still feel new to cycling, although I have been at it for a few months. I am embarrassed to admit that today I took my first ride with actual clip-in cycling shoes. What a difference -- I should have gotten them sooner. Yes, it's going to take a little time to get used to clipping in and out, but it's not as bad as I thought it might be.

While the idea of cycling 40K in the race doesn't bother me, I need to be able to do it at a fast pace, and still have energy left for a decent 10K run. What's fast enough? I don't know. I think I might be able to average 20 mph, and perhaps a little better, by the time the race rolls around. I'm not going to be in the 24+ mph club like some of the animals that will be in the race.

It's hard to describe the combination of pleasure and pain inherent in endurance events. Like all participants who try to do their absolute best, I reach a point in every event where my body is pleading with me to stop. My legs feel like anchors. My lungs are working so hard it seems impossible to go on. My heart is ready to burst. I have to play mind games with myself, and recall every cheesy inspirational slogan ever written, to overcome the instinct to quit.

Yet... it's fun. It's rewarding and satisfying. Making the last turn to the finish line, realizing that I am going to make my goal of whatever time, hearing the clapping and exhortations of bystanders (even one person on a corner cheering is ridiculously energizing)... it's all so great.

Why did I wait until I was 42 to start running? Why did I wait until I was 43 to start cycling? I know that, given my late start, in any given race I'll likely never finish first in my age group, much less overall, but it doesn't matter. I am competing against myself... and winning.

I can hardly describe how stunned and horrified I am with the Obama administration. He and his cronies have already broken numerous campaign promises; they've sent the stock market spiraling downward; they're spending such a massive amount of our money that it's hard to comprehend; they're off on the wrong foot diplomatically; they continue to embarrass themselves with cabinet appointees; they're wasting their time and displaying their worst political tendencies by attacking conservatives like Rush; and they are addressing issues like universal health care and carbon trading that should be put on the back-burner, if not dismissed altogether.

Worse of all is the undeniable lurch toward socialism and massive government, as if government weren't already enormous. As Hillary said recently, "Never waste a good crisis." Team Obama is using the worsening financial crisis as an excuse for the implementation for a thoroughly destructive and sweeping liberal agenda.

If the Obama keeps this up, he may well be not only the worst president of my lifetime, but the president that put America on a downward path from which it may never recover. Please, Mr. President, step away from your omnipresent TelePrompTer, take a deep breath, slow down, and realize how you are wasting the opportunity you have been given. Realize that doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.

More and more, I appreciate Ronald Reagan's observation: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

I raced in the Chilly Willy Duathlon yesterday. It's a 5K run, then a 10-mile bike, then another 5K run. It's held at beautiful Fort DeSoto Park, which is an island just off St. Petersburg. It's a perfect location for the race.

Here's a summary of my experience: it was awesome. I loved every minute of it.

Supposedly, the Chilly Willy is one of the biggest duathlons in the country. They cap it at 500 entries, which isn't a lot by running race standards, but apparently that's big by duathlon standards.

I got there nice and early to make sure I had plenty of time to get through the packet pickup / timing chip / bike setup stuff. It was pretty chilly. I warmed up with some jogging and stretching and felt really good.

Next thing I know, we're lining up, the gun goes off, and it's time to rock. I could see the front guys/girls making the first turn up ahead. Sweet Jesus, were they flying (~ 5:30/mile pace)!

The running course was great. It goes along a wide nature-type path for half of it, and then on the beach for the return half. Most of the sand was fairly firm, but there were some soft areas too. I am used to that, so it wasn't a big deal.

I kept myself in check during the first run, since I was concerned about saving energy. In hindsight, I should have pushed it harder. My pace was 8:28/mile. Should have been closer to 8:00 or 8:15. Still, I had a grin the whole way. Great fun.

The great thing about just wearing running shoes throughout the race, instead of changing into cycling shoes, is that my transitions were lightning fast. Just buckle/unbuckle my helmet, get/put my bike on the rack, and I was off.

Cycling, at least at first, was sweet relief. Since it uses some different muscles, it sounds crazy, but I was able to rest and get something to drink. I was up to about 20-21 mph without any difficulty. I was passing people and being passed left and right. I am very, very pleased with my bike. I saw a lot of nice bikes, but even though mine is not top-o'-the-line, I am really digging it. The road was nice and smooth and cars were blocked from entering the island, so it was wide open. We had to deal with a headwind for miles 2-5, and that started to take a toll on me and my speed. But once I made the turn at mile 5, the wind was behind us, I was up to about 23-24 mph, although I had to slow down due to wind, fatigue, and bike traffic near the end.

I had a pretty smooth ride, but my forearms got achy on the pads. Not sure why, but I will have to experiment with pad positions. Also, I almost got into an accident when the cat ahead of me decide to move to the left in the last turn as I was moving inside him. It was close. Note to self: be on defense mode in the turns, and stop acting like you're driving a race car and trying to make a pass.

I tried to eat my fruit bar during the bike, but I was breathing pretty hard, and it was difficult to swallow. I think for this length event (or shorter), I will just stick to Gatorade. One of those bottle that fits between the aero bars would have been nice too. Just lean down and drink.

Had a clean transition to the second run but, as expected, the legs felt like anchors for the first half mile or so. Doubts crept in my mind. Then, I checked my pace and saw that I was actually running faster than I had in the first run! That juiced me. Then, this older guy (65-ish) slowly caught up to me and passed me. I was a little discouraged until I saw an Ironman tattoo on his calf. OK, respect granted.

I picked up my pace a little and drafted him as best I could. When we hit the beach section, I was feeling in semi-control, so I pushed past him. He picked up his pace, and I could hear him just behind me until about a half-mile to go. I decided to start my kick and was hoping his kick wasn't better. I beat him to the line by a few seconds. He came up to me afterwards, shook my hand, and told me he didn't have enough left in the tank.

My pace for the second run was 8:19/mile. I was pleased. Other stats: I finished 19th out of 37 in my age group. I finished 96th overall (not counting relay teams). I finished 65th in the bike leg, which I am really happy about. It's weird: even though I am new to cycling, I was a better biker than runner, compared to the rest of the field. I don't have a clean measurement of my bike pace, since the listed times include both transitions, but I think I averaged pretty close to 20 mph. I'm sure there is a lot of room for improvement there.

My total time was 1:23:00. The male overall winner was 0:59:48. Yikes. The overall female winner was 1:07:07. She is from Sarasota and I've finished well behind her at several running races. I was hoping that an elite triathlete (Ironman winner) from Sarasota named Heather Gollnick would be in the race, but she wasn't. She might have beat the male winner.

So, that's it in a large nutshell. I plan on entering again next year. There is a duathlon in Sarasota on April 5 that I will enter. I'd like to do a 5K or 10K run race sometime in March. I'm addicted!

As part of the annual reassessment that inevitably occurs, to a greater or lesser extent, each new year, I reviewed many of the 96 posts I have made to this blog. Strikingly, the negative topics (politics, news bias, ...) far outnumber the positive topics (sports, humor, ...). It has been nice, in a way, to editorialize about politics and get frustrations off my chest. I hesitate to bring up those discussions with family or friends, so this has been a ready outlet.

Still, I can't help but wonder about the site's negativity. I think it reflects what has been a year or two long change where I have grown sick of politics in general. Politics and government in this country are, I believe, largely broken.

Both parties are broken. The Democrats' every action is politically calculated. If you take the politics out of the Democrat party, you have nothing left. They deceive, lie, and pander as easily as you and I walk down the street.

The Republicans, by contrast, are bumbling amateurs at politics and always will be. They are too trusting that the truth of their principles will be recognized by the American people. They don't have the killer instinct to play the game that, unfortunately, must be played in order to "win." When they finally do gain power, they squander it through timidity or the abandonment of the very principles that got them there.

There are individual exceptions to my characterizations, of course, but there is no escaping the conclusion that the country is on the wrong path.

So, what do I do about it? In some cases, such frustration with the system will cause one to jump in the fray and attempt to be an agent of positive change. I took that approach for many years. I was a member of the Sarasota Republican Party Executive Committee for years. I created and ran its website. I attended dinners and rallies. I pollwatched. In short, although I never ran for office, I was active.

I can't do it any longer. I'll still support the party financially, but I'm withdrawing my time. To those people who are engaged and fighting the good fight, I say, thank God for you. I, however, am leaving the battle. Now that I am not part of the "solution," have I become part of the problem? I say perhaps, and shrug my shoulders.

Over the last year, I've been gradually pulling back. I watch and read less political news. I am more involved in positive activities (family, running, sailing, and so on). I have also grown more interested in philosophical (for lack of a better word) topics such as living more simply, staying organized, avoiding consumerism, paying down debt, and so on.

After initially seeing little purpose in social networking sites, I have grown fond of Facebook. More than just a way to reconnect with friends, it's an amazingly positive environment. I have yet to see a comment or post that wasn't friendly, humorous, supportive, or perhaps all three. It's refreshing.

Life is too short to dwell on the negative. That doesn't mean I will bury my head in the sand, but instead of having a strong, ready-to-go opinion about the news of the day, I'll increasingly have only an opinion about the news of the month or year. In other words, I'm not going to worry any longer about the day-to-day machinations of grisly politics.

As for this site, I'm undecided. Should I post more, or perhaps exclusively, about positive topics? Should I simply discontinue it and move on? I am leaning toward the former, but I don't know yet. Stay tuned.