The Power Meter

I bought a bicycle power meter a couple of weeks ago.

If you've already got one, tell me where you think I'm wrong or could use some advice.  But for those that haven't ridden with one:

• Prepare to be humbled.  At least I was.  Nothing like cold, hard, wattage numbers to put a reality check on how things are going.
• When you aren't humbled the first time, be prepared to be humbled when you don't believe the first numbers you're getting.  Think you're going to hold 20-30 more watts than your test shows for even a 20 minute interval?  Good luck with that one.  
• The power meter IS very satisfying for rides in varying conditions.  One of my recent rides was in a 30 mph (+ gusts) wind at a slight diagonal, relative to my squarish route.  As they say, a watt is a watt is a watt, regardless of wind and hills.  And it turned out to be interesting that I could achieve a bit more than I thought into the wind, just by holding the watts.
• I have sure learned what I am or am not doing on downhills.  I'm not sure I want to pedal hard when I'm already going 40 mph because of gravity, but it is interesting to see what's happening in less drastic conditions, like a 1-2% downhill grade.
• At least when fatigued, I was interested to learn that I don't put a heck of a lot more force on the pedals by standing up (unless of course, you yank on the bars).  It's different, and "easier" in a way because the muscles are different, and more adapted to slower rpms, but I'm surprised it's not a lot more torque.  Will keep an eye on this one.
• Intervals feel different.  I tended previously to use even HR, and (presumably) somewhat falling speed/watts.  Now trying to do them appropriately so that my power is constant.  Sometimes that means the HR goes up when it's pretty aggressive.  But that darn meter lets you know what you're doing.
  

 More to come...

Progress in New York

Paterson Unveils Same-Sex Marriage Bill


Another politician with a bit of courage on this. It's time for those who have played the "I don't want to discriminate but I'm not in favor of the world 'marriage'" game to get over it and stand up in favor of equality and civil rights for all. Can you hear me Barack?

Vermont, DC, a rock, and a hard place

A couple of days ago, the Vemont legislature overturned a veto of a same-sex marriage bill by their governor.  That is, the legislature affirmatively passed a pro gay marriage law, saw it vetoed, and then raised a 2/3 majority to override the veto.  This is a big deal, because it is the first time this has been done by vote of an elected group, rather than by the (common sense of the) courts.

Meanwhile, Washington DC's city council voted to recognize same-sex marriages that originate from the states.  That's the closest they can do.  (Hypothetically, congress can overturn this law.  We'll see.)

This is all fantastic, but it starts to put some of our weak-kneed Democratic politicians in an awkward spot.  Two among them are the governor of Iowa (Chet Culver) and our president (yeah, that one, Barack Obama).  These guys have historically wimped out on the issue (much like some do with the death penalty) saying something like, "I personally think marriage is between a man and a woman, but I'm for civil unions" or something to that effect.

Personally, I think most of these guys have been disingenuous.  I think they think there should be gay marriage, but can't be  "out" in that position.  Now, they are in an awkward position:  I don't think any of them wants to be against same sex marriage, but they're being called out by the very people they tried to reassure with their public "opposition" to it.

Time to get on board.  Full out.  "I was wrong."  Get right with the world and with common sense, people.  Read the Iowa decision to get some clarity and join us out of the closet on this one.

Iowa Court Gets It Right

The Iowa Supreme Court today ruled that laws that ban same-sex marriage violate the Constitution. (Varnum v Brien)

They ruled unanimously.

And they wrote an excellent explanation piece.

After spending some time explaining about protected classes, strict scrutiny, and an intermediate level of scrutiny, they address the "defenses" of the ban one by one and dismiss them as easily as they should be.  Here is a short excerpt:

Promotion of Procreation.  Next, the court addressed the County’s argument
that endorsement of traditional civil marriage will result in more procreation.  The
court concluded the County’s argument is flawed because it fails to address the
required analysis of the objective:  whether exclusion of gay and lesbian
individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation. 
The court found no argument to support the conclusion that a goal of additional
procreation would be substantially furthered by the exclusion of gays and
lesbians from civil marriage.

Promoting Stability in Opposite-Sex Relationships.  The County also
asserted that the statute promoted stability in opposite-sex relationships.  The
court acknowledged that, while the institution of civil marriage likely encourages
stability in opposite-sex relationships, there was no evidence to support that
excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage makes opposite-sex
marriage more stable. 

They got it right.  Congratulations.

Now we move on.  The opponents of same-sex marriage will undoubtedly cry about legislation from the bench.  There are even those who now argue that the court does not have the right to overturn laws (Marbury vs. Madison anyone?)  But the more serious callenge will surely be some effort to change the constitution, e.g., Prop 8 in California.  Let's hope a more serious resistance is put up.