With this in mind, I savored this quote in a recent WSJ article surveying the Republican field:

Finally, there are the men not in the field: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour. This was the GOP A-Team, the guys who should have showed up to the first debate but didn’t because running for president is hard and the spouses were reluctant. Nothing commends them for it. If this election is as important as they all say it is, they had a duty to step up. Abraham Lincoln did not shy from the contest of 1860 because of Mary Todd. If Mr. Obama wins in November—or, rather, when he does—the failure will lie as heavily on their shoulders as it will with the nominee.

My guess is that the A-Team decided not to “step up” for two reasons, neither of them having anything to do with their spouses.

First, it’s actually not the most important election of all time. Hyperventilating aside, Obama is a relatively middle-of-the-road President pursuing a relatively middle-of-the-road policy platform. He wants to raise taxes slightly – to levels in line with those during the Clinton administration, which were already low in an historical context. He authored a Heritage Foundation-inspired health care plan well to the right of HilaryCare. He has pursued a militarily aggressive foreign policy, and has instituted a far tougher anti-illegal immigration policy than ever before. GOP candidates are campaigning against a version of Obama that wants to raise taxes to historically high levels, nationalize healthcare, is an “appeaser” when it comes to foreign policy, and has a lax immigration policy. That strawman doesn’t exist, the GOP A-Team knows it, and knew that their policy platform would actually not be much different than Obama’s.

Second, the Republican party has changed dramatically over the last decade, change that has accelerated over the last three years. What has changed? Well, the party has splintered, held together only by its hatred of all things Obama. As Matt Steinglass, writing in the Economist puts it:

Republicans’ disenchantment with their current presidential candidates is not an incidental characteristic of this crop of candidates. It’s a structural feature of a contemporary Republican Party whose pieces don’t hang together.

Steinglass  describes the different factions, then writes (with my emphasis):

These factions have been glued together over the past three years by the intensity of their partisan hatred for Barack Obama, and all of the underlying resentments that antipathy masks. Republicans have buried their differences by assaulting everything Mr Obama supports, and because Mr Obama is a pretty middle-of-the-road politician, that includes a whole lot of things that many Republicans used to support.

Only Romney and Gingrich have been willing to disavow their entire past in order to appeal to the current Republican base. And they are paying for it – everyone dislikes them. I think the Republican A-Team took one look at the current environment, one look at their records, and reasonably decided that running with their records in this environment would be political suicide. Gingrich was already politically dead, so he’s playing with house money (or Sheldon Adelson’s money). And Romney, already the presumed front runner, apparently decided several years ago to totally disown his previous persona. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are both consistent, but neither are serious contenders.

In the end, this is an important election year. But it’s only important because the Republican candidates are so extreme in their views, and the Republican base is so incoherent.

1. Special teams turnovers were the biggest factor this game. Their normal returner (Ginn) wasn’t in the game, and the replacement returner turned the ball over twice. A turnover on a kick-off is especially crushing, since you almost automatically give the opposing team amazing field position. In the end, each of these two critical turnovers led directly to scores, and were the largest reason we lost, but not the only reason.

2. Alex Smith. Our offense in general sucked. It couldn’t move the ball at all. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I’m pretty sure we were something like 1-10 on third down conversions. I think we have a number of offensive problems – mediocre receivers, a porous offensive line, but one of our glaring weaknesses is our quarterback. Against the Saints, Alex appeared to redeem himself somewhat, but I don’t think his performance was actually that impressive – he played well, but it’s only impressive because he so rarely plays well. Yes, he got us into the NFC Championship, but by making passes that Tony Romo, Eli Manning, and any number of other decent quarterbacks make every game. The Niners are making a mistake if they view a couple lucky fourth down drives against the Saints as evidence of Alex Smith’s transcendence as a quarterback, and against the Giants, he showed why.

3. The play calling. What was up with the play calling? I wasn’t there, I don’t know the field situation, but it sure seemed like we threw a lot of big passes, ran some, and didn’t throw many short-distance passes. I’m pretty sure we got where we were by running and throwing short passes. What happened? Did Harbaugh suddenly believe the hype that Smith was a good quarterback?

4. The offensive line. I noticed this against the Saints, as well as all season, but for all his faults, Smith gets hit an awful lot. Now, some of that has to lie on him – other QBs scramble around and make plays happen. When rushers are coming at him, Smith does scramble around, and will occasionally run for it (and he’s a decent runner), but rarely makes plays happen, rarely throws it away, and often gets sacked. However, it feels like he never has much time to do anything before the defense closes in. Really, where are his linemen?

The nice thing is that the defense is young, and will be back next year. Hopefully we can make some improvements in the off-season, and have another great season.

While we’re on that note, I’d like to make another note on comment moderation: please leave a comment, but if it’s not germaine, useful, helpful, or interesting, it’ll probably not get through moderation. Not that this matters, since I get about two non-spam comments a year, and they are from me. But the truth is that I’ve seen many other bloggers do this, and people cry out that this is against their free speech! What idiots. Really? Me not providing you a platform where you can spew hate or ignorance is abridging your freedom of speech? Sure, it’s abridging your free speech – that is, your ability to use platforms and tools to spread your ideas for free – but it’s not abridging your freedom of speech – your ability to spread your ideas without going to prison.

I found a plugin for WordPress called “Really Static” that allows you to export your entire WP site to a different server as static files. I’ve tried it out here, and I’m adding this post in an effort to test it. For now (not sure how long this will be the case), http://josh.orum.com hosts a completely static version of this site.

Supporting files had to be copied over by hand (css, js, images), and interactive things like comments don’t work, but in general it worked as expected.

This may sound strange because odd shapes obviously don’t move around in real life, but I try to think about how they would move if they did. One of my first professional Flash videos was for Cisco (way back in 1999), and it included a bouncing ball. Getting that ball to bounce right  was a formative experience. It took absolutely forever, but made the movie “feel” right and the client loved it.

There are a few things I concentrate on to make sure things feel natural:

• When there is movement, I nearly always apply an easing effect – this gives the element a dynamic feel. In the natural world, things are either accelerating or decelerating; they are almost never moving at a constant speed from start to stop. I usually go with accelerating because it makes the video more dynamic.
• When objects in the real world stop quickly, they don’t just stop. They distort slightly and “bounce.” Usually, I’ll have the shape overshoot the destination by a hair, then rebound. If I’m really trying to make it perfect, the shape should distort slightly as well.
• When objects stop slowly, they also don’t just stop, but they slow down and then settle. As an object is in motion, gravity distorts it differently than when its stopped. It’s a two-step process, and it’s hard to get right.
• Objects don’t just appear; they fade in or blink in. Or at least there’s something that happens when they appear. This keeps things feeling subtle and natural. Things don’t just appear, but they do gradually appear.

While it’s not particularly natural, I like to make text move and pause – viewers shouldn’t have to read things while they are moving into a scene, but after they’ve arrived. In fact, I want viewers not to read things while they are moving because it’s difficult. One of my favorite things is to have text move quickly, too fast to be read, then slow waaay down for a few seconds as it’s read, and then fly quickly away.

That’s all for now!

One challenge I’ve always run into with this blog is the desire to write very long, comprehensive and considered posts. Almost articles. They are difficult for me to write. So I have a whole list of half-complete draft posts and very few completed posts. Things with titles like “Who make the decisions?” and “What I don’t like about DRM” and “A conservative argument for progressive taxes.” Maybe I’ll write them at some point. Maybe I’ll get better about writing long posts.

Regardless, Tumblr is more about quick funny posts. I’m trying to be better about updating it. At some point in the future, you will see it integrated into orum.com, or maybe even taking over orum.com. We will see. Until then, it’s over there.

Here’s the deal: some exercise is better than none, but if you think you’re going to get fit by riding a stationary bike or doing the elliptical for 45 minutes every day, you’re fooling yourself. If you do it because you enjoy it, more power to you, but if you’re doing it because you think it’s the key to health and fitness, you’re wasting your time.

You should do intervals. I like hill sprints, but there are all sorts of other things you can do. All you need to do is perform at your maximum level of effort for thirty seconds. Then rest for a while (two to four minutes). Then do it again. Then rest. Overall, you’ll spend maybe a half hour doing this, and then you can get on with your day.

Not only will you build a better cardio base, but because sprints are anaerobic, you’ll be building muscle and you’re going to burn more fat throughout the day.

Don’t use cardio to lose weight.

Most people do cardio to lose weight. This is stupid. Cardio is incredibly inefficient at burning calories: you have to do a ton of cardio in order to achieve the same effect as lifting weights.

Basically, you burn calories while you’re doing the cardio, but as soon as you stop, you stop burning calories. When you lift weights, you’re burning calories, and building muscle, which will allow your body to burn more calories throughout the day.

So why do cardio?

The main reason to do cardio is to strengthen your cardiovascular system. This will reduce your resting heartrate and increase your body’s ability to process oxygen efficiently (your VO2 level), and help you perform at higher levels during activity.

A secondary reason to do cardio is to strengthen your ligaments and other structural things: basically to get your body used to moving for long periods of time.

The two types of cardio training you should do.

With this in mind what sort of cardio workouts should you do?

Interval training. This is the foundation of a good cardio plan, and it’s intended to strengthen your cardiovascular system. Do thirty-second bursts at your maximum effort, then rest, then repeat. By maximum effort, I mean maximum effort, not almost maximum effort, or just hard. If you can keep going after 30 seconds, you’re taking it easy.

You should be completely spent. I like hill sprints. Swimming sprints would also be effective for me, since I’m bad at swimming, but I don’t have easy access to a pool. Do two to six intervals (or whatever you feel like) once a week, or twice a week if you’re hardcore. Don’t do it on your lifting days.

Long training. Occasionally do a long, easy workout. This will strengthen your body’s infrastructure–your ligaments and stuff–and get your body used to moving for longer periods. By long, I mean three or more hours – none of that wussy 45 minute stuff.

I like to watch a movie while I sit on the bike or do the elliptical machine, or go for a long hike. Don’t push it – your goal with this workout isn’t to burn calories or anything, it’s just to get your body moving for a long time. I like to keep my heartrate under 150. Plan to do this at least once a month and you’ll be fine.

Other things. I try to get something interesting in on weekends – whether it’s one of those long hikes I talked about, a run out a jetty, doing some stairs, or just going for a run. These often aren’t in either category, and they aren’t my primary cardio workout; I do them for other reasons, just to mix it up, or just because they are fun.

A note about long-distance sports.

If you want to run a marathon, I’m not advocating skipping on long-distance training. Anyone who’s looked at doing some long-distance sport (biking, running, whatever), knows that long-distance training is a big part of it. Long-distance training doesn’t really help with the cardio, though – it helps get the rest of your body prepared to do whatever you’re planning to do.

If you plan to run a marathon and only do interval training, you’ll have the lung capacity to pull it off. But the rest of your body won’t be able to handle it. It’s just not used to taking 3-4 hours of pounding.

Conclusions

Anyone can get in shape. It’s really simple, and actually isn’t that time-consuming. But it does take hard work, discipline, and a willingness to suffer through some pain. Effective cardio routines fit within this – when most people think about getting into cardio shape, they think about doing long sessions at the gym. These may be boring, but they’re actually pretty easy.

Getting in real shape isn’t boring, doesn’t take a long time, but sure isn’t easy.

Disclaimer. I live in the heart of San Francisco, a fairly dense urban environment (not Manhattan-dense, but still pretty dense). I own a car and a motorcycle and park them both in my building. Clearly, I’m far from carless, but I have a lots of friends who are.

The key to understanding the appeal of ZipCar is understanding its market. Anyone who lives in the suburbs, exurbs, or even outskirts of a city, is going to have a hard time relating to the appeal of ZipCar. ZipCar is not an attempt to provide a surburban-type car experience to city dwellers – this is impossible. Relative to owning a car in the ‘burbs, it’s inconvenient, expensive, and requires a lot of effort. Relative to owning a car in a dense urban environment, however, it’s none of the above.

If you own a car in the city, you don’t use it the same as you do if you live outside the city. The main problem with owning a car in a city is parking, which is at a premium in a dense environment. You have two choices: pay for a parking space, or park on the street. Neither is attractive.

Parking spaces are expensive (where I live in San Francisco, they are $250-300/mo.), and often aren’t in your building, but a couple blocks (or more) away. If you aren’t among the lucky few to get in-building parking, you can forget just parking in your garage and carrying in your groceries: you pull up outside your building, put your hazard lights on, quickly carry in everything and run back to your car (you’re blocking a lane of traffic), go put it in your garage than walk back to your apartment.

So why pay so much for an inconvenient parking space? Because the alternative is worse: not only do you have all the annoyances of the garage, but you also get to spend 20-45 minutes driving around looking for a space that’s at least a couple blocks away. There’s nothing worse than a long day at work followed by a half-hour of driving around in circles looking for a spot. If you’re parking on the street and choose not to use your car, you still have to move it every couple days to avoid tickets.

Hopefully, this clarifies that owning a car in the city sucks. But what about renting a car from a normal car-rental place like Hertz or Avis? They seem to offer a much better value ($8.50 an hour versus $60.00 a day, or $2.50 an hour). But this is misleading on two sides: actual price and convenience. Price-wise, how much of that 24-hour day are you going to use? Maybe 12 hours? The price goes up to $5.00 per hour. And, really, how often do you need a car for 12 hours? If you’re just running errands, you might need it for five hours, in which case the car is actually costing $12.00 per hour, not factoring in the time cost of the inconvenience of renting it.

What inconvenience?

Rental cars are far away, while ZipCars are nearby – the ZipCar model calls for a bunch of rental areas with just a few cars each, so they are always somewhat close. The classic rental car model has large, centralized lots with lots of cars. These are convenient when you’re at an airport, but less convenient when you’re in the city. For example, I have 25 ZipCars available within a few blocks of my office. The nearest Hertz is a half-hour walk or a twenty minute bus ride away.

Rental cars require paperwork, while ZipCars are fast to rent. Even if I chose to hike over to the Hertz, I wouldn’t be done. I still have to stand in line, fill out reams of paperwork, and then find my car. With ZipCar, I just walk up, wave my card, and drive away (yes, they also require paperwork, but I completed it two years ago).

Rental cars require advanced reservations; ZipCars are immediately available. Of the 25 cars around my office, 7 are available right now (I just checked). Both Hertz and Avis are sold out until next week.

Rental cars require me to still deal with the parking problems when I get home. I just return the ZipCar to its lot.

Except for multi-day rentals, ZipCars are clearly a better option than a typical rental car. This gets back to ZipCars target market: people who live in the dense urban environments and are just looking for something to make their carless lifestyle more feasible.

ZipCars aren’t supposed to duplicate the experience of having a car in the suburbs; they are supposed to be better than owning a car in the city. And in many ways, they’ve accomplished this.