i knew that was going to be tough. i haven't run 4 miles in such a long time. but i walked when i had to, stopped & stretched, and just took it easy. as Hal Higdon says about the early long training runs (which occur on Saturday), the goal is to complete 4 miles, not to run 4 miles. walking, he says, is a fine strategy. i did ok, too. at about the 2.5mile mark, i tripped on a busted sidewalk slab, and that tweaked my left achilles pretty good. but i was already taking it easy, so it was ok soon.

the start was a bit rough, esp my left calf which my prove to be an on-going issue. but that released in about half-a-mile, so i think that once i get enough miles under my feet so that i can run more smoothly and efficiently, little things like that won't be such a problem.

i iced my achilles & right knee thoroughly when i got home, so i should be ok.

it was so nice to run in the beautiful sunshine. may not happen again for a while; rain is on the way back.

the stretching is paying off: no leg/knee issues today. i've been stretching thru the day, not just after running. and even after just 3 days, the breathing is getting less of an effort. i can keep up the cadence, the yoga breathing a bit more steadily. perhaps because i was thinking about things other than micro-focussing on my body. paid just enough attention, let my body do its thing. only marginally faster than yesterday's pace, but it felt so much better.

didn't want to repeat yesterday's problem with my knee, so took extra care to stretch legs. left calf was still tight, and right knee squeaked at me a bit. the trouble with re-starting running is that nothing is smooth. breathing is hard, which makes my stride rough, and that makes all the body parts problematic. but i noticed that when i stopped paying attention to my body and just listened to the music, focused on breathing and kept my head clear of nagging thoughts, i was fine. i was able to add the extra half-mile without any problem. i just have to be careful to keep the pace slow enough to keep the breathing even, which will get easier when i get into shape.

1 mile in, my left knee started seizing a bit, and i ended up walking most of the 2nd mile. i think the real problem was left calf: it was tight, and i think that gave the knee problems. i don't have gimpy knees, but i did not stretch the calf properly. i iced the knee down after & it's been fine; the calf is still tight.

Jack Bogdanski probably can't help himself. He is a lawyer, and that takes a certain personality. And while not all lawyers are arrogant to the degree he is, it seems to be an occupational hazard of the job.

In this case, it's his speaking for a "we" he intends to mean the right-thinking people of Portland that troubles me. In his (typically) brief post, he uses "we" as if it's, well, everyone. Who he is really referring to, I think, since I doubt even he believes every single person in Portland agrees with him, is the "we" of those who agree with him. In his mind, as indicated by the tone of the post, there is a wrong way and a right way to think about the matter. For people like Jack Bog — and it's not just lawyers who hold the belief that what they think is Truth, although for lawyers it is often their job to convince others that their Truth is The Truth — the idea of "difference of opinion" is a sick old dog that needs to be put down, buried in a vacant lot and replace with a compliant lap dog. No matter how yippy.

Speaking of the passing of a man he accused of helping to change "Portland from a special place that we liked a lot to a fake New York that we don't like nearly as well," Bogdanski's use of "we" is the clear definition of arrogant. With no actual clarification of who is "we" is, the inference, of course, is that "we" are those who are correct in our thinking on such matters. That is, those who agree with Bogdanski.

I'm a native Oregonian, I've lived in Portland (off and on) since 1981, and I have seen the city improve so much over the years. Not in every way (TriMet seems determined to destroy bus service) but in many ways. The growth of light rail and trolleys, the East Side Esplanade, the growing inclusion of bicycles in "regular" transportation, the ability of neighborhoods (especially on the east side) to retain their character despite growth, the containment of growth (go visit Houston), the openness of the city to people of "otherness", the civility of our civic life — no, it's not perfect, but visit any other city in America of a similar or larger size, and it's hard (in my opinion) to imagine doing a lot better than Portland has done. Most cities, in fact, have done much worse. There is no comparison, in my opinion, of the livability between Portland and Seattle; we win that one hands down.

There will always be those who decry the loss of a place's charm and character — as they see it. This is a dangerous way to think. For every person who misses how more town-like Portland once felt, there's another who longs for the time when the queers kept quiet in their closets. Those of us who enjoy seeing the growth of diverse ethnicities in the city (and hope to see that reflected more in our governments) are matched by those who fear the loss of "real American values".

Using a word like "we" as indiscriminately as Bog does is never wise. Absolutism tends to cause problems, whether it's in deciding what a correct view of a city's character should be or who the right people to live in, or govern, that city should be. After all, the Founders used the same word — "We, the people..." — while excluding many of the people of the nation from sharing in the rights and liberties they were proclaiming.

I believe that one of them major reasons so many people have so little to do with politics is that they feel overwhelmed. Not merely challenged; overwhelmed. Deer-in-the-headlights overwhelmed. Better to stay at home safely than get mowed down on the road.

Americans are not trained in politics. We learn about Washington, the Revolution, Lincoln and a few other facts; we watch election results and listen to pundits talk out their asses. We do not learn what politics really is and how vital it is that each citizen do more than vote. We are not educated to the fact that we are not the deer; we are the driver of our own vehicle.

And everyone knows how to drive. We know how to go 70 mph on a 3-lane freeway while fiddling with the cd player, talking to the people in the car and sipping a latté. Politics is the same thing: a complicated act made simple by practice, familiarity and learning the easy parts first. Many of us begin to drive by rolling around an empty parking lot; we learn politics by registering to vote and filling in our ballot. The rest is just a matter of time and participation.

If we stopped before getting in our car and thought about all the different ways we could die, all the cars and trucks and bad drivers and drunks and maniacs — we'd head back inside and call in sick. Forever. But we don't think about that because we know we are only facing one road full of drivers at a time. We know that we have the ability to stop or accelerate, to get out of the way if we have to; we know we'll be looking around and keeping ourselves from getting into trouble. And we're pretty sure almost every driver that comes near us is doing the same and we should be ok.

In politics, it's not much different. A letter to the editor, a call to the Senator's office, an evening making phone calls to fellow citizens. Small acts, done in the safety of your home, your office, a campaign run by professionals who know what's going on. The secret to politics, and to progressive politics, is that we each only need to do a little bit. I don't have to drive I5 from Seattle to San Diego; I just get on downtown and exit a few miles later. That's all I have to do for the job I'm doing: a short drive, one that I know I can handle. One I know I can do well.

We need to begin training our kids in real politics. Not the history few remember once high school is done; not the freakshow that elections have become. Real politics. People becoming educated on issues (what exactly is public option?), becoming engaged (dammit, I want that option) and then doing one small thing to make it happen (Senator, you vote for the public option or I'm not voting for you). I've simplified the hell out of this, but that's the point. Politics can be simple. Learn a little and do a little. No one has to fix it all, no matter how huge and important the issue. No one can fix it all. So fix the little you can.

And drive safely.

50 million Americans with no health care; tens of millions with coverage they can barely afford; most insured Americans one health crisis away from disaster.

Yes, this is why we should trust the Republicans and Blue Dogs and do nothing. Because the "world's greatest health care system" is just shiny.

But what really pisses me off is that Obama has always said, and the Democrats continue to say: If you have health care coverage now, and you are happy with it, you can keep it. Period. Of course, the opponents of reform (who place political power and profit far, far above the health and well-being of the American people) are spreading the fear that this is a lie. They are telling people the government will take over their heath care, make decisions for them (Sorry, Bob and Sue, but Grandma's rheumatism is a bit costly; she's got to go), that the coloreds will move in next door.....

Oops sorry. Wrong scare tactics. But the same philosophy: Play upon fear with lies and let people's worst instincts do the dirty work. Anything to keep the money flowing.

There is, as they like to say, a power struggle occurring in Iraq. The people we always figured were going to duke it out are doing just that, and some of them know no limit on what they are willing to do. So today bombs were exploded in a village and in Mosul, killing at least 43, destroying lives, homes and the opportunity to step a bit closer towards a peaceful, democratic society.

Meanwhile, on the home front, we have our own power struggles to contend with. No one has blown up a truck full of explosives in many years, but people are using guns to kill individuals: sometimes singly (Dr Tiller) and sometimes in groups (the women at the health club). And when violence is not being used in an overwhelming manner, near-violent disruptions of democratic activity are being targeted as a means of prevailing in the current struggle over whether or not a far right corporatist minority will resume the tyrannical control of American government it enjoyed under Bush/Cheney.

People screaming down elected officials.
People murdering fellow citizens.

What do these actions have in common? That's easy: A refusal to participate in an open, democratic dialog about the future of a nation. Those who scream and those who murder share a common trait: They refuse to be the losers in a political struggle. And since they are fanatic in their goals, to lose means to not have total control. The various groups in Iraq want to have power, and they don't want to share it. If they have to slaughter hundreds, even thousands, of fellow citizens, many of them are willing to do exactly that.

And our fanatics? We know a few are willing to kill, but how far will the movements — the tea-baggers et al — go to ensure their views are the only ones recognized by our government? In 2000 and 2004, those at the top of this movement were able to steal the presidential elections. With a restoration of democracy in 2006 and 2008, others are deciding they need to take more extreme steps to keep Obama and his ilk from securing their position. So far their violence has been directed at disrupting the process of enacting legislation and conversing with the American people. At what point will they decide, as has been decided in Iraq, that their enemies cannot be allowed to participate at all? When will murder become a tool they use to win the power struggle?

This is not an absurd or extreme question. It's a recognition that the distance from hatred and shouting to murder is very small. Timothy McVeigh showed how easily that distance can be travelled. How can we doubt that others are not planning to follow his example?

Dr Tiller's family knows too well there can be no doubt.