Archive for September, 2009

Can I get an invite?

Why, dear G-d, can’t I get invited to meetings like this one.  No, for me, it’s all health care, blah, blah, blah.

Roll Call

HOH’s One-Minute Recess: Double-Entendre

Sept. 17, 2009, 12 p.m.
By Emily Heil and Elizabeth Brotherton
Roll Call Staff

Updated: 5:10 p.m. Rep. Maxine Waters has had a (rather naughty) a-ha moment about the recent tea party protests — which she felt the need to share Thursday afternoon at a Democratic Caucus meeting.

According to an HOH tipster, Members were discussing the recent tea party protests when Waters got up to speak. The California Democrat relayed to her colleagues that her office received several calls about the “teabaggers” — and then asked if anybody else knew that there is a sexual connotation to the term.

Now, HOH isn’t going to explain the sexual connotation behind the term “teabagging.” (This is a family newspaper, after all.) But for those readers who aren’t aware of the dirty definition, here’s an informative link.

Yeah … awkward.

Most of the staffers under 40 in the room began laughing, our tipster said — while some of the older Members looked rather, well, puzzled by what Waters was even talking about.

More awkward.

After the meeting wrapped up, our tipster said Waters sat down with two of her fellow California Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman, to give what we can only imagine was a very scientific explanation of “teabagging.” Harman, according to our spy, had a look of horror on her face.

A Waters spokesman declined to comment.


Read Full Post »


Enough said.


Read Full Post »

I am thoroughly impressed by this.  Perhaps it is because I struggle to draw a straight line with a ruler.  Or perhaps it’s because I struggle to name all 50 states, let alone identify them on a map, you know, without the names of states on it.  And Lord, please let’s not even venture into the crazy world of capitals!  But this?  This is a feat.

I’m still unclear what kind of senator he’ll be.  But no one can ever accuse him of not knowing his geography.

Read Full Post »

Birth Order

I find birth order stuff interesting.  Sure, it’s not the end-all-be-all.  But it sure makes for interesting discussions about yourself, your family and friends, those you like, dislike, etc.  Almost everyone has a point of view and accompanying anecdotal evidence – which is, coincidentally, the best kind of evidence.  And I love a good story, especially when it’s about someone else’s crazy family, so you can see why I love this topic.

Anyway, there was an article in today’s Times about this, and I thought I’d share.

August, so sorry to see you go… September, at least it feels like fall…

September 8, 2009
18 and Under

Birth Order: Fun to Debate, but How Important?


The older girl was smart, neat and perfectly behaved in school; in her spare time, she won dance trophies. At every checkup, her mother would tell me what a good girl she was.

She is the oldest, her mother would say, so she gets lots of attention, and she works very hard. When her younger sister turned out to be an equally good student, the proud mother explained that naturally she wanted to be just like her older sister.

Then a long-looked-for baby boy was born. When he was a toddler, I began to worry that his speech seemed a little slow in coming. His mother was perfectly calm about it. He is the only boy, she said, so he gets lots of attention, and he doesn’t have to work very hard.

Everyone takes it personally when it comes to birth order. After all, everyone is an oldest or a middle or a youngest or an only child, and even as adults we revert almost inevitably to a joke or resentment or rivalry that we’ve never quite outgrown.

Children and parents alike are profoundly affected by the constellations of siblings; it is said that no two children grow up in the same family, because each sibling’s experience is so different.

But that doesn’t mean the effects of birth order are as clear or straightforward as we sometimes make them sound. Indeed, birth order can be used to explain every trait and its precise opposite. I’m competitive, driven — typical oldest child! My brother, two years younger, is even more competitive, more driven — typical second child, always trying to catch up!

I surveyed some experienced pediatricians about when parents are likely to bring up birth order. Many cited the issue of speech, especially when a second child doesn’t talk as well or as early as the first.

And parents are likely to talk about mistakes they think they made the first time around. This time, we’re going to solve the sleep thing good and early. This time, we’re going to get it right with potty training. This time, we’re going to sign the child up for soccer.

“Too many parents are haunted by experiences both good and bad that they identify with their birth order,” said Dr. Peter A. Gorski, a professor of pediatrics, public health and psychiatry at the University of South Florida. And that might lead them to classify their own children according to birth order, he went on, which in turn can lead to a sense of identification or even rejection and to “self-fulfilling prophecies.”

Frank J. Sulloway, a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of “Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics and Creative Lives” (Pantheon, 1996), points out that second-born children tend to be exposed to less language than eldest children. “The best environment to grow up in is basically two parents who are chattering away at you with fancy words,” Dr. Sulloway said.

He cited a huge and well-publicized Norwegian study, published in 2007, which found that eldest siblings’ I.Q.’s averaged about three points higher than their younger brothers’. (The study made use of Norwegian military records, so all the subjects were male.)

Those differences in verbal stimulation, like the differences in I.Q., are “relatively modest,” Dr. Sulloway continued, and unlikely to result in clinical speech delays. But in a child who is already vulnerable, a child who may be temperamentally less likely to evoke adults’ attention, or a child growing up in a less stimulating home — well, then, being the second child might be the added risk that makes the difference, he said.

“Birth order doesn’t cause anything,” Dr. Sulloway said. “It’s simply a proxy for the actual mechanisms that go on in family dynamics that shape character and personality.”

We can all cite examples and counterexamples, from our own families, our friends, history and literature. There are plenty of families where the younger child is brighter or more academic, and plenty of literary and historical examples (Jane and Elizabeth Bennet, Meg and Jo March, Dmitri and Ivan Karamazov — and you can think about those authors and their older siblings as well, and draw any comparisons you like). And then there are plenty of examples of brilliant eldest siblings, but given my own eldest status, I will refrain from citing any. (I told you this always gets personal.)

I.Q., though it does grab headlines, may shape family life less than personality and temperament. “It’s a part of a bigger picture that really involves family dynamics,” Dr. Sulloway said. “Child and family dynamics is like a chessboard; birth order is like a knight.”

Then there are all the other influences, from family size to socioeconomic status. “Typically firstborns tend to boss their younger siblings around, but what if you’re a very shy person?” Dr. Sulloway said. “Napoleon was a second-born and his older brother was a very shy guy, and he usurped the older-sibling niche because his older sibling didn’t occupy that niche.

“And why didn’t he occupy that niche? Temperament.”

Now, of course birth order played into my patients’ patterns, but so did gender and birth spacing and, above all, temperament. That little boy was more even-tempered, more placid than either of his sisters, easily soothed, and I think he would have shown that temperament no matter what.

But temperament also helped define his relationship to the four larger people in his immediate circle. “I wouldn’t discount the impact of birth order,” Dr. Gorski told me. “It sets up the structure of one’s place in relation to others from the beginning, as we learn how to react to people of different ages and different relationships.”

Pediatricians are always being warned not to let a speech delay slip past because of parents’ beliefs that boys talk later or that youngest children talk later. I did eventually insist on a hearing test and speech therapy for this little boy. As it turned out, his hearing was fine, and his sisters drilled him over and over with “use your words” exercises until his speech improved. That is one of the advantages of having hardworking older sisters.

Read Full Post »

I’m trying to get myself on a new health kick.  To do that, I have to commit to going to the gym at least five or more times per week for at least two weeks.  This might sound overly ambitious to you.  But trust me, the only way for me to get back into the habit again is to make working out a part of every day.  This is why I’ll never have a hobby.  But that’s for another day.

There are lots of weird rules about the gym.  For example, as a general rule, staring at the gym is not okay.  Unless you’re trying to pick someone up.  But that’s the slippery slope there.  If you stare at someone, even just as an absent-minded, I’m in the zone kind of way, the person you’re staring at could very well think that you are checking him/her out.  In my case, most of the time this is not what’s happening.  In fact, I’m conscious about not staring at people at the gym.  I mean, one lap around that locker room and you learn to keep to yourself.

But sometimes I can’t help myself.  Sometimes someone is doing something so interesting or strange that I have to stare.

Case in point.

I was at the gym yesterday and was entering the stretching out part of my workout.  I headed over to the stretching out section of the gym where there are some mats, a stretching machine, which I don’t use, and a large cable machine.  Because I was there in the evening, a time I am very unaccustomed to being at the gym – I’m a morning workout kind of person… again, goes to the whole needing it to be a part of each day and I know that I have more determination to hit the gym in the morning as opposed to the evening when I could be doing something else like, you know, drinking.

As I’m walking over toward the stretching area, I notice this ultra sweaty guy on the cable machine.  I need to walk right past him to get where I’m going, so it’s not like I could have avoided him.  He had on a white sweatband, which was being worked to death, and headphones.  The ultra sweaty-ness and sweatband-ing of the situation was not, on their own, unique.  I mean, I’m a sweaty mess at the gym, and I guess some people enjoy the sweatband, even tho to me it’s very Olivia Newton-John, circa 1985, but not in a good way.  But whatever, he was just working out and I should be the last to judge folks at the gym.

Then I looked down.

And saw this.

What the hell?!

What the hell?!

Now I’ve seen gloves, certainly.  And I’ve seen those little sock numbers that have separate compartments for each toe, a la a glove for the foot.  But I always thought they were pretty lame and refused to get a pair.

But to see this ultra sweaty, sweatbanded guy with these absurd looking part sock, part aqua shoe (another footwear craze I never ventured into) shoes on was too much for  me.  I couldn’t look away.  I kept staring.  I mean, what the hell are those things and why, for goodness sake, are you wearing them at the gym?!  I mean, you are a grown man, not a child building sand castles at the beach, for the love of Pete!

Today I decided that I couldn’t stand to not know more about these crazy looking socks.  Or were they shoes?  I don’t know.  And this is what I needed to figure out.

And thank G-d that Google is up and running today because there they were – the Vibram FiveFingers website.

First, these are not socks.  They are, in fact, shoes.  Here’s how the website, which I’m sure wouldn’t lie to get us to buy something that looks so ridiculous, describes these shoes:

Remember going barefoot as a child? It’s the way you first discovered and conquered your world—without the constraint of shoes. Or the sense of duty you acquired later on.

Now you can experience that same physical and visceral sensation in Vibram FiveFingers—the only footwear to offer the exhilarating joy of going barefoot with the protection and sure-footed grip of a Vibram® sole.

FiveFingers footwear connects you to the earth and your surroundings in a way that is simply not possible in conventional shoes. It puts you in touch with the earth beneath your feet and liberates you to move in a more natural, healthy way. FiveFingers stimulate the muscles in your feet and lower legs to build strength and improve range of motion. Our customers report an increased sense of balance, greater agility, and visibly improved posture.

Choose from a variety of designs to cover the wide range of activities you would rather do barefoot—everything from fitness training and yoga, to running and trekking, to kayaking and sailing. Discover a level of performance and a connection to your environment that is positively without peer.

A little more perusing, I learn that, in 2007, Times Magazine named these shoes among the year’s inventions of the year.  And just this past Sunday – a mere one day before my FiveFinger sighting – the NYTimes ran an article about these little babies.

August 30, 2009

Wiggling Their Toes at the Shoe Giants


TODD BYERS was among more than 20,000 people running the San Francisco Marathon last month. Dressed in shorts and a T-shirt, he might have blended in with the other runners, except for one glaring difference: he was barefoot.

Even in anything-goes San Francisco, his lack of footwear prompted curious stares. His photo was snapped, and he heard one runner grumble, “I just don’t want the guy without shoes to beat me.”

Mr. Byers, 46, a running coach and event manager from Long Beach, Calif., who clocked in at 4 hours 48 minutes, has run 75 marathons since 2004 in bare feet. “People are kind of weird about it,” he shrugs.

Maybe they shouldn’t be. Recent research suggests that for all their high-tech features, modern running shoes may not actually do much to improve a runner’s performance or prevent injuries. Some runners are convinced that they are better off with shoes that are little more than thin gloves for the feet — or with no shoes at all.

Plenty of medical experts disagree with this notion. The result has been a raging debate in running circles, pitting a quirky band of barefoot runners and researchers against the running-shoe and sports-medicine establishments.

It has also inspired some innovative footwear. Upstart companies like Vibram, Feelmax and Terra Plana are challenging the running-shoe status quo with thin-sole designs meant to combine the benefits of going barefoot with a layer of protection. This move toward minimalism could have a significant impact on not only running shoes but also on the broader $17 billion sports shoe market.

The shoe industry giants defend their products, saying they help athletes perform better and protect feet from stress and strain — not to mention the modern world’s concrete and broken glass.

But for all the technological advances promoted by the industry — the roll bars, the computer chips and the memory foam — experts say the injury rate among runners is virtually unchanged since the 1970s, when the modern running shoe was introduced. Some ailments, like those involving the knee and Achilles’ tendon, have increased.

“There’s not a lot of evidence that running shoes have made people better off,” said Daniel E. Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard, who has researched the role of running in human evolution.

Makers of athletic shoes have grown and prospered by selling a steady stream of new and improved models designed to cushion, coddle and correct the feet.

In October, for example, the Japanese athletic-shoe maker Asics will introduce the latest version of its Gel-Kinsei, a $180 marvel of engineering that boasts its “Impact Guidance System” and a heel unit with multiple shock absorbers. Already offered by Adidas is the Porsche Design Sport Bounce:S running shoe, with metallic springs inspired by a car’s suspension system. It costs as much as $500.

Some question the benefit of all that technology. Dr. Craig Richards, a researcher at the School of Medicine and Public Health at the University of Newcastle in Australia — and, it should be noted, a designer of minimalist shoes — surveyed the published literature and could not find a single clinical study showing that cushioned or corrective running shoes prevented injury or improved performance. His findings were published last year in The British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Other experts say that there is little research showing that the minimalist approach is any better, and some say it can be flat-out dangerous.

“In 95 percent of the population or higher, running barefoot will land you in my office,” said Dr. Lewis G. Maharam, medical director for the New York Road Runners, the group that organizes the New York City Marathon. “A very small number of people are biomechanically perfect,” he said, so most need some sort of supportive or corrective footwear.

Nevertheless, a growing number of people now believe in running as nature intended — and if not barefoot, then as close to it as possible. They remain a tiny segment of the population — some would say fringe. But popular training methods like ChiRunning and the Pose Method that promote a more “natural” gait, as well as “Born to Run,” a best-selling new book about long-distance running by Christopher McDougall, have helped spur interest.

Proponents of this approach contend that naked feet are perfectly capable of running long distances, and that encasing them in the fortress of modern footwear weakens foot muscles and ligaments and blocks vital sensory input about terrain.

“The shoe arguably got in the way of evolution,” said Galahad Clark, a seventh-generation shoemaker and chief executive of the shoemaker Terra Plana, based in London. “They’re like little foot coffins that stopped the foot from working the way it’s supposed to work.”

The big shoe companies are clearly paying attention to the trend. Nike was first to market with the Nike Free, a flexible shoe for “barefootlike running” with less padding than the company’s typical offerings. It was introduced in 2005 after Nike representatives discovered that a prominent track coach to whom they supplied shoes had his team train barefoot.

But some in the industry are critical of the barefoot push. Simon Bartold, an international research consultant for Asics, said advocates of barefoot running “are propagating a campaign of misinformation.”

SPEND some time in Concord, Mass., and you might catch a glimpse of a fit 51-year-old man in a pair of funny-looking socks running down the bucolic streets.

That would be Tony Post, the president and C.E.O. of Vibram USA, on a lunchtime run. And those socks? They’re actually thin rubber “shoes” with individual toe pockets. Called Vibram FiveFingers, they’ve been selling briskly to runners and athletes looking to strengthen their feet and sharpen their game.

When Vibram, an Italian company known for its rugged rubber soles, designed the FiveFingers a few years ago, company officials figured that they would appeal to boaters, kayakers and yogis. Instead, the shoes, which sell for $75 to $85, caught on with runners, fitness buffs and even professional athletes: David Diehl, the New York Giants tackle, trains in them.

Mr. Post, a shoe industry veteran, said he believed that the business was poised for a shakeup. “It used to be all about adding more,” he said. “Now, we’re trying to strip a lot of that away.”

Strange as they look, the FiveFingers shoes hark back to a simpler time. Humans have long run barefoot or in flat soles. Professor Lieberman’s research suggests that two million years ago, our ancestors’ ability to run long distances helped them outlast their prey, providing a steady diet of protein long before spears and arrows. More recently, at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome, Abebe Bikila, an Ethiopian runner, caused a stir when he ran the marathon barefoot and won.

Things changed in the early 1970s, when Bill Bowerman, a track coach turned entrepreneur, created a cushioned running shoe that allowed runners to take longer strides and land on their heels, rather than a more natural mid- or forefoot strike. Mr. Bowerman and his business partner, Phil Knight, marketed the new shoes under the Nike brand, and the rest is history.

At the same time, millions of Americans began taking up running as a pastime. Those twin trends ushered in a golden age of biomechanics research. “There was a lot of concern about injuries because of the boom,” said Trampas TenBroek, manager of sports research at New Balance. The logic, he said, was that “if you build a heel lift and make it thicker, you take stress off the Achilles’ tendon.”

Walk into a sports store today and you’ll see the results: shoes with inch-thick heels and orthotics designed to correct overpronation, supination and a host of other ills.

Mr. McDougall, the “Born to Run” author, ” said manufacturers, doctors and retailers were doing runners a disservice by pushing such shoes. “People are buying it thinking it’s going to do something for them, and it’s not,” he said.

Mr. McDougall’s book is centered on the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico, known for epic 100-mile runs with nothing on their feet but strips of rubber. The book has become something of a manifesto for barefoot runners.

After suffering chronic foot pain and being advised by sports medicine doctors to give up running, Mr. McDougall tried thin-soled shoes. Now, he said, he runs long distances without shoes — or pain.

THAT seems to be a common experience among barefoot converts. “When people get it, it’s almost biblical,” said Mr. Clark at Terra Plana. His initial line of minimal shoes, the Vivo Barefoot, is intended for walking; a performance model, the $150 Evo, is due at year-end.

Sales of minimalist shoes, while still tiny, are growing at a rapid clip. Mr. Clark figures that he will sell 70,000 pairs of minimal shoes this year, double last year’s volume. The shoes have sold mostly online and through 10 Terra Plana stores worldwide.

Vibram says sales of its FiveFingers have tripled every year since they were introduced in 2006, and Mr. Post said he expects revenue of $10 million this year in North America alone.

Many professionals agree that while barefoot running may have some benefits, those who are tempted to try running barefoot — or nearly so — should proceed slowly, as they should with any other significant change to their running habits. They also say that more research is needed.

Sean Murphy, engineering manager for advanced products at New Balance, says that there have been many studies suggesting “that shoes can correct biomechanical abnormalities and risk factors, therefore minimizing the likelihood of injury.”

When asked for an example, Mr. Murphy pointed to a 2006 study by three doctoral students that found that wearing the appropriate type of running shoe for one’s foot could reduce the shock of impact or unwanted rotation of leg bones. The study did not address injury rates.

AMID all the controversy, barefoot running and natural gaits are the subject of intensive research across the shoe industry. Companies don’t want to miss out if it turns out to be more than just a fad.

At New Balance’s sports research lab in Lawrence, Mass., Mr. TenBroek and Mr. Murphy are studying the biomechanics of running barefoot and in soles of varying thickness, while designing a “lower profile” shoe.

Asics, too, sees promise in this area. “As technology improves, we will definitely go to a more minimal style,” Mr. Bartold said.

Those big companies could end up profiting from the movement — or they could have trouble getting on board.

Danny Dreyer, the founder of ChiRunning, which uses the tai chi principles of harnessing energy and core muscles to promote a more effortless way of running, said he had worked with a few shoe companies to help design minimalist shoes. In each case, he said, marketing and profit concerns trumped design: “Their profit and direction is based on ‘More shoe is better,’ ” said Mr. Dreyer, who is also a long-distance runner.

Mr. Bartold of Asics, which has not worked with Mr. Dreyer, said the industry had runners’ best interests in mind. “It’s all about trying to protect the athlete,” he said.

Nike describes the Free, its minimalist shoe, as a “training tool.” It offers models with varying degrees of cushioning; they are priced at $55 to $110.

“The key is to offer a range of options, because every runner has different needs,” said Derek Kent, a Nike spokesman. “If you want that sensation of barefoot running, there is the Free, but if you want a product with a little more cushioning and support, we have that, too.”

While Nike would not disclose detailed sales information, Mr. Kent said sales of the Free grew at double-digit rates in the last two fiscal years, with sales in Japan and China especially strong.

Curt Munson, co-owner of Playmakers, a running shop in Okemos, Mich., said that in his conversations with major shoe companies lately, “they see that they need to address this” but “they’re just not sure how much.” But, he said, they must be thinking, “If we say this is the best, then are we saying that what we’ve done before is not good?”

The back-to-basics movement is more than a fad, said Mr. Munson, who runs in FiveFingers. “Most people are not ready to run barefoot,” he said, “but I do think they are ready to go back to ‘less is more.’ ”

Hmmmm… maybe I want to try these out.  Sure, they look super weird.  But maybe they will be as comfortable as these running freaks say.  And they are only $75.  That’s less than the cost of my regular running shoes.  I’ll have to think about this and get back to you.

Btw, I can hear HC now – “Maybe you should try on a pair and see how they feel before you buy them.  Besides, they look ridiculous.”

I hate it when he rains on my parade.

Read Full Post »

Bye-bye now!

Yesterday, I sent AM an email.  As a sign off to the email, I went with “Hope you’re well.”  Seems like a nice sign off, right?  Apparently, it’s not.  AM accused me of being a weirdo and overly formal.

Okay, so I can see how “Hope you’re well” might sound a little formal, especially to a close friend or someone you speak to regularly.  But, to be fair, I haven’t seen AM in a while.  So inquiring about her well being shouldn’t be too strange, right?  Wrong, says AM.

This got me to thinking about the handful of sign offs I tend to use.

There’s “See ya.”  Some like the informality of this one.  Others find it to be a blow off.

Then there’s “Take care.”  Most people seem to like this one as well.  But, as with “See ya”, I’ve been told that it sounds like I may never speak to the person again.  Like “Take care of yourself because, B.T.W., we are breaking up.”  Or that “Take care” is actually code for “Have a nice life… and don’t ever email me again.”  I can assure you that, almost always, that’s not the intention.

I also really like “Talk soon,” a sign off that first came to me from GT and one I use often.  I’ve not received any complaints about this one, and I think that makes sense.  It’s light but engaging, connected but breezy, pushy but not pushy, all at the same time.

There’s also the occasional “Thinking of you,” the very occasional “Miss you,” or the even more elusive “Love you.”  These sign offs are always genuine.  I am a terrible liar, be it in real time or virtually.  I would guess that some like this while others find these sign offs creepy and stalker-ish.  Luckily, no one has complained either way, so I will continue to use as needed.

I have also done “Thanks.”  “Thanks” is usually an indication of either 1) my appreciation for something, or 2) my complete lack of interest in what I’m writing to you.  I suppose it also could mean 3) that you are bothering me.  But if you get a “Thanks” from me, assume I’m grateful for something.  Even if you don’t know what it is.

I’ve decided that, since it seems that I have surrounded myself with people at least as sensitive as I, I should change my approach all together.  Instead of going with something, you know, thoughtful, I am going to try something unexpected.  Here are some of my initial thoughts, but it’s by no means exhaustive:

  • Smoke ’em if you got ’em.
  • Hope you’re not bleeding to death.
  • Watch out for that…
  • Don’t make out with strangers… I mean, unless you want to.
  • Buy me a present.
  • You can drink your way through anything.
  • Cocaine is one hell of a drug.
  • I know your secrets and will write a tell-all book someday.
  • Your mom’s a liar.
  • It’s not stealing if you say thank you.
  • Trying NOT to think of your parents’ making out.
  • Honey, there’s a pill for that.
  • Good luck with that whole syphilis of the throat thing.

So look out for a “It’s you, not me” sign off from me in the near future.

Read Full Post »