Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
What is this article really about? Is it about how unpleasant over all was the impact of Oprah onto mass culture, or what? Oprah is a celebrity, who was made by the top federal politicians (I credit her (Oprah's) fascinating career mainly to Hillary Clinton) to promote what these top politicians at any moment need to be urgently promoted. So, she (Oprah) is doing it. When she-herself a short while ago, already being the biggest celebrity, decided to pick up Obama's candidacy for the incoming presidency over Mrs. Clinton's, her (Oprah's) name immediately disappeared from the title of the richest people, and even from the title of the richest females. She then, I think, changed her mind; at least, she changed her intentions to act, as the biggest Obama's fundraiser and promoter. It was the brightest confirmation that she is a kind of artificially made celebrity with the purpose, which I have explained herewith above. She, however, is certainly cute, persistent and physically strong. These qualities, unfortunately, are not becoming better with age, but, I think, that she still possesses all of them. Being strong physically, and having the good stamina, she, of course, was able to run marathon. Why not? She does not have, however, real qualities and talents to be such huge celebrity (or even celebrity at all) naturally. This is also true, and, therefore, she is, though gold plated, but still the puppet of our top federal politicians, like Bushes or Clintons.
Human beings most likely have a gene or gene combination for the purpose of judging. And we probably also have a shame switch that judging inevitably throws, regardless of how well or badly we might measure up or fail to in the eyes of the particular judge of the moment. Hence the responses to McClelland's article read like a kind of Rorschach test on which side of the judgment-shame bed we woke up on this morning.
We live in an age of "do your own thing," "whatever makes your boat float," etc., etc. And I know that my first reaction to this article was, Ed, just get over yourself. Whatever your version of the "right way to run" is, if it is that important to you, then find a sponsor, and make it happen.
I also know that we have probably gone overboard in our everybody can play world. Perhaps that attitude is in part responsible for at least one half of the American electorate mistaking a brilliant PR campaign for legitimate leadership.
That's why I felt like chiming in on this particular post and engaging in a little judging of my own. So, Ed. The next time you feel the urge to indulge in finger pointing, remember that every gratuitous throwing of the shame trigger degrades the value of the humiliation card for instances in which it truly needs to be played.
I am not sure, though.... Maybe, this article, which has a kind of the obvious racist flavor, appeared just because Oprah is still doing what her conscience and common sense require her to do, trying to promote Obama over Mrs. Clinton. If it is so, I would like, personally, to cheer her up with, "You go, girl!"
Actually, I *do* know who Ryan Hall is, and I have no idea who that guy is who wrote that book.
I think your attitude about marathon runners is appalling. I'm set to run my first marathon this month, and I'm betting my fastest time is going to be 4:30:00. But I'll get faster. I am in it to compete. That's what training is for.
Running didn't exist until Oprah blessed it? What kind of trophies line your shelves, "Nice Try, Retard" awards?
Anyway you know what pussified it? The fact that in any High School in America they make the kids run a mile, but they give them 12 minutes to do it. You need to just give up, light up a smoke and quit, at that point. I'm 48, had two coronary 'events', 2 bouts with cancer, suffered 2 broken bones in both feet last year, am 6ft tall and 180lbs and can run a 6 min mile on the street w/o breathing through my mouth. It's called being normally healthy. And I work out mostly with weights and light cardio maybe 5 days a week and hour per. You huffers who work all year to finish 26.2 are doing it wrong. And any personal trainer would tell you that that's not the path to health or endurance. Joint injury, inflammation and a lot of time down the drain, yeah. But not those other things.
And if Oprah is such a devotee of the running, why does she have a lifelong problem with see-saw weight, which, as any doctor will tell you, is worse for you than being chronically overweight. None of the 'groundpounders' who run the USMC marathon every year (31 years) are what you would call rail thin whippet distance runner body types. The equation between weight, health and endurance are much more complex than simply run=lose bulk=get fit.
I am afraid, Nulla Sallus, that having two "coronary events" does not really qualify you as normally healthy.
There are plenty of people who might not necessarily be able to run a mile in 6 minutes but are perfectly physically healthy. And will probably never have any kind of coronary event.
I haven't run since I was in the military, a nice brisk walk is good enough for me, thank you very much.
This article wouldn't seem as ridiculous if the author wasn't lambasting an out of shape woman for running it, and she virtually tied his best time. As it is, he just sounds like a fool, even more of a fool than someone that wants to spend an afternoon running a marathon in the first place.
This fool looks at Oprah, and sees himself, that's the problem, he's a self hating marathoner wannabe.
Amusing enough article, but with a lot of points that don't add up (particularly the assertion in the title).
First, Oprah's 4:29 certainly was respectable, given that she was a not particularly athletic woman, let formerly obese. My first marathon was similarly respectable (4:10, male), and I later ran a sub-3:00. Her marathon was a transformative experience for her, as mine was for me. So what if we aren't elite athletes.
There are various other confused points, i.e. "sophisticated equipment". You know that's all hype, right? That salted wonder bread would work about as well as Gu, and that "shockproof" (not really) running shoes not only don't help, but are better left at home on race day in favor of a lighter weight pair.
As for why there are fewer elite marathoners in the US now than at one point in the past, I don't know, but it surely has nothing to do with the throngs of people out there doing 5- and 6-hour marathons. The slow ones aren't would-be elites, they're would-be couch potatoes: Good for them for trying to do their best!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
