I’m amazed at people’s generosity.
After deciding to ride the RAGBRAI this summer, we posted an ad on craigslist letting people know that we were doing a ride for charity, and spelled out our story in short (dialysis, transplant, etc.).
The first day the ad was up, we received several emails offering support, a few bikes for sale, and one generous person who offered to donate lots of equipment to us.

Our first step of course is to get a couple road bikes so we can start training.
I was able to make some progress on that front this week, when I purchased a used Cervelo 56cm steel frame, with carbon fork, seat post, and Ultegra components. It’s quite a bit lighter than my Specialized Stumpjumper I’m used to riding, and quite a bit faster as well.

Tomorrow we’ll go to look at a bike for Anna, and hopefully it is something that will work out for us – it seems to be a pretty fair deal so far, so hopefully it’s comfortable enough. My only worry with it, is that it’s an aluminum frame, and I know that can be less comfortable over long distances. We’ll probably want to invest in a carbon fork/seat post at some point prior to RAGBRAI, but we’ll see.

Another friend of ours, Michelle, offered us use of her indoor trainer, which I got setup this evening. Before someone complains about the Christmas tree, remember that Anna’s family is Russian – there are 12 days of Christmas, and it doesn’t end until Russian Christmas, so really, we’re only a day over the limit. Also – Anna took the tree down this evening, so it’s no longer up.

Put a few miles on the trainer tonight, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I also took a ride for a couple miles around outside, and this thing is fast. Must get stronger legs though… training tips appreciated.

So – that’s it, my ticket to 500 miles in 7 days. What should I name her?

Some of you may know that I have a slight infatuation with the Internet.
For years I was a member of an online group of piano enthusiasts, and industry pros (builders, retailers, and techs) called pianoworld.com.
Eventually, a group of us split off from that, and became a new forum known as “The Coffee Room.” We are all mostly still piano folks, but don’t talk pianos much anymore. Instead, this very diverse group of people get together daily at www.coffee-room.com and discuss all of the topics that aren’t supposed to come up in polite conversation.
Through the process many of us have become close, online friends – and one of those close friends, “Mark” began cycling about a year ago. I have sort of lived vicariously through him, watching him make extraordinary strides as he trains, and has gone from riding a hybrid around local bike paths, to completing centuries now.
About two weeks ago, he mentioned the RAGBRAI race, and joked that TNCR (The New Coffee Room) should assemble a team.
Now, just a couple weeks later, we officially have a team, and we’re all super excited to be riding this 500 mile journey in July.
That’s right, we’re training for, and riding in, the 7 day, 500 mile RAGBRAI (Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa). We will be joining close to 20,000 other cyclists in a somewhat casual (grueling for us) multi-day ride. Our team, will be riding to raise money for Taylor’s Gift Foundation (my amazing kidney donor), in order to raise awareness for Organ Donation. We’ll be looking for corporate sponsors who will get logo placement on our jerseys, and per-mile pledges from family/friends/individuals to help us raise some money. Please help us spread the word, and let us know if you, or someone you know would like to help support us, and in turn, this cause.
More than 100,000 people are waiting for life saving organ transplants in the U.S., and only about 30% of eligible donors are registered to do so – help us increase that number! Contact either Anna or I with any questions – I’ll be blogging/tweeting/facebooking throughout our training (my blog is located on my web site at tollidee.com), and will also keep up some sort of digital record of the ride itself.
You can also follow me on twitter (@jonathanFinger) if you want to keep up with this. Thanks in advance for your support, advice, and encouragement.

We hope to grow our team a bit, and our list of corporate sponsors. We’re still in the early stages, but pieces are rapidly falling into place, and it’s quickly becoming a very exciting adventure.

Bill Peckman tweeted this link earlier, and it’s a fantastic (quick read) post.
Not surprisingly the Denver Post’s take on this (I’m curious if DaVita was their only source, I haven’t looked into this personally yet) is flat out wrong.
Their explanation for higher mortality rates in in-center dialysis patients in the US is based on the higher incidence of kidney disease.
In fact, just the opposite is true:

As a group individuals who self identify as African American have better survival while using dialysis then non-African Americans. A 2007 paper in Seminars in Nephrology reported that “the risk of death is nearly 45% lower in African-Americans than Caucasians undergoing chronic hemodialysis.” Thus, the US does not have a comparatively higher death rate because of the higher proportion of blacks with kidney disease.

Thanks for bringing this to the ESRD community’s attention Bill.
I know I’ve been absent a long time from ESRD advocacy and involvement. Perhaps with your keen intellect and help, I can turn that around and begin contributing to your great effort once again, if in no other way, through awareness and exposure.

This political season we were all inundated with political ads designed to give uninformed, and ignorant voters something to latch on to.
This happened on both sides, and it occurs for a simple reason: if one side does it, the other side simply has to as well. It’s a sad but true reality. The massive failure of 60, 61, and 101 show what happens when one side doesn’t even defend their position against an onslaught of propaganda from the opposition.

One item that kept nagging at me though, was this “buyer’s remorse” comment from Ken Buck. I think this one single ad could’ve been responsible for him losing the election, as it alienated many women voters, and falsely created a premise that any reasonable person would agree with, namely that his statement was grossly uncalled for.

The problem is, the sound bite doesn’t contain the whole story. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find the real story anywhere online, as mostly what you’ll find are infuriated folks calling for the demise of Buck based on this remark, and blatantly biased articles from the Denver Post, Politico, Huffpo, and the like (yes, when I say “the like” I mean exactly what you think I mean).

So what’s the truth then?
Well, as I find anytime I take the time to research an issue, there are reasonable stances on both sides. The words quoted were in fact said, and as such weren’t incredibly sensitive. That being said, the context in which they were said makes the quote not as horrible as it seems sitting there on its own.

To start, here’s how the case is portrayed by the left: Politico article outlining facts of the case with lots of “he said this, but really *meant* this.”

While the woman did meet with Buck and secretly tape the conversation he had with her, the only facts we get beyond the recording are her assertions that when saying one thing, he meant something else.
An example of this is this quote from the Politico piece:

“The offender admitted he did it, but Ken Buck said I was to blame. Had he [Buck] not attacked me, I might have let it go. But he put the blame on me, and I was furious. I still am furious,” she said.

He said you were to blame? Really? “You know sweeetheart *wink* you’re really to blame … wearing those short shorts ‘n all.” I mean – was something like that actually said, or do you mean to say that you *felt* as though he was pointing the blame at you? There’s a very important difference between the two, namely that one is inference, and one is fact.

Buck’s choice not to address this issue has hurt his cause, as he has had the chance to make the very reasonable case as to why he refused to take the case.
He did however grant an interview to the Tribune in Greeley.
The Colorado Independent has a great article on how this particular quote of Buck’s was taken out of context. For the record, it’s written by Jason Salzman who is hardly a partisan Republican pulling for the right. In fact, he agrees that Buck’s views on birth control are too extreme (I personally disagree, given what Buck’s actually said, but that’s a separate post), and he typically writes with a fairly left-leaning slant.

I won’t dissect the article and add my own commentary on every sentence – it’s a balanced, fair take on the subject in my opinion, and is reasonably well written. Not to mention, it’s a quick read, so do yourself a favor (even if you think I’m totally crazy at this point) and read it. It may give you a slightly different perspective on this.
Basically it comes down to Buck dismissing the case for valid reasons – the main one being his *job* (yes, he has a boss, and a directive) to take only cases he can win. I would cite his landmark hate-crime conviction involving a transgendered victim which was the first of its kind in the country for any who think he’s devoid of character and compassion.
The “buyer’s remorse” comment was first and foremost made about the jury’s perception of her, it wasn’t directed at her, by him. His comment to her was that he feared the jury would see it as a case of “buyer’s remorse.” He didn’t accuse her of having buyer’s remorse as so many misprints allude. Furthermore, as he himself says:

“I listed five or six reasons why I thought a jury would not convict in this case,” Buck told the Tribune. “She said she was passed out during the sexual act, so I wasn’t referring to whether she had buyer’s remorse for the act that they engaged in, but rather for the prior relationship they had.”

Was it insensitive to make the remarks? It definitely could’ve been worded better, being said in the woman’s presence – but put in context it isn’t nearly as horrible as the media has made it out to be. I’m not apologizing for him either – I’m trying to give a valid, and balanced perspective that seeks to find the truth behind the issue, rather than the highly sensationalized demonizing that both sides seem so keen on these days.

I guess what amazes me about all of this is people’s inability (in general) to seek these answers out on their own.
It’s like anthropogenic climate change science – the perpetrators head out with a specific agenda in mind, and don’t stop until they find corroborating evidence.
It’s inaccurate at best, and at worst, is downright dishonest.

I’m not sure what is so difficult about driving, but apparently there is some mystery to the art of not being an idiot whilst driving a car.

Here are a few pro-tips that will help you, help me, make my commute a tad easier.

1) Please stop text messaging. We both know that talking is more efficient if you have something important to say, and we both know that *nobody* thinks you texting is a good idea (including you I’m sure). Just to be clear, text isn’t significantly more dangerous than you talking on the phone. Texting isn’t a bad idea because it’s texting – it’s a bad idea because you’re an idiot, and incapable of mitigating any level of distraction whilst you drive. You should not only be prohibited from texting while driving, but also from driving while driving.

2) The speed limit isn’t a recommendation.
It really isn’t – it’s a posted speed that you should be adhering to. I understand that I’m trying to go much, much faster and that’s probably annoying you – but going slower isn’t making either of us any less stressed. Also – I hate to be the rules-police here, but your’e sitting in the left lane. My speed should really be of zero concern to you, especially while you’ve got 500 feet of clear road in front of you. Stop checking me out in your rear view and acting so miffed at my close proximity and move over to the right lane where you (by law) are supposed to be driving.

3) Woops, please turn on your blinker before making that lane change.
Thanks for finally getting out of the left lane, but you’ve failed to turn on your blinker while you do this. Your blinker is your only means of communication with the other drivers on the road. Those of us paying attention to everything up to 1/2 mile away on the road are looking for this, and are (surprisingly to you I’m sure) upset when you make erratic adjustments to your route without using this marvel.

4) Oh, you’re exiting here too… Well, Dry Creek has NO yield – please don’t slow d…. never mind, you’re now stopped in the *continuous* lane that is my turn lane at the next light, while you wait for a 1/4 mile break in traffic to allow you to cross 5 lanes of traffic to make a left at the next light. Not sure if you got the memo or not (it was plastered on a large road sign at that last turn you weren’t paying attention to … the one you thought was a yield), but you can’t turn left at the next light from this lane – for this very reason. Thank you though, for finally putting on your blinker (you’ve made 3 lane changes, an exit, and a turn now without this device – I’m not sure what in your brain thought it should go on now).

This is by no means a comprehensive list of pro-tips, so it may grow in the future. This should however be a good jumping-off point for those of you who only look at the bumper in front of you, and are completely unaware of what is going on 1000 feet ahead of you, to the right of you, to the left of you, behind you, in front of you, and everywhere else.