Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Runner's Pride?

Pretentious: self-important and affected: acting as though more important or special than is warranted, or appearing to have an unrealistically high self-image.

So, it appears, that after a lifetime of avoiding exercise, and specifically of mocking the “sport” of running, I was wrong.

Yep, I said it. I was wrong.

Because it turns out that I love running.

I’m a newbie, can barely handle running 3 miles without stopping to catch a breath at some point, can’t even begin to imagine running much further than that just yet.

But I do love to run. There’s just something inexplicable about the way running makes me feel.

I’d heard of a “runner’s high” but until I began running myself, I had no idea what that meant. I get it now.

Running is the only exercise I can think of that I actually crave. That I miss. That I can spend an entire day looking forward to doing.

I love it.

But again, I’m a newbie. I’m quite sure, therefore, that I’m probably not doing it all “right”. Maybe my form isn’t quite perfect. Maybe my breathing technique needs work. Perhaps I’m wearing he wrong running gear. My pace is too fast, too slow…I’m certain to be breaking some running rules somewhere along the way.

If you’re asking, what rules? What are you talking about? Who cares? Then welcome to my frustration with some “serious runners”.

Because here’s the thing, for the most part, I find the running community to be this wonderful, warm, inviting, friendly bunch.

Since I’ve started running, I’ve made new friends who run and love to talk about running. I meet strangers on the street, running past one another, and a friendly, courteous head nod or smile of acknowledgement is almost always exchanged.

From folks who’ve just started running themselves, to experienced marathoners, I’ve been given advice, encouragement, and congratulations on my progress.

It’s a beautiful thing.

And then there’s the other side.

The pretentious side.

The “I’m a runner and you’re merely a jogger” side.

I’ll be honest, I don’t get the difference, because to me, if you’re going any faster pace than walking, you are running. Jogging, sprinting, whatever…it’s still all running.

When I see things like this:


Iq_ad_p2



my blood boils. (By the way, google that company, and you'll find a whole bunch of other ads and stories about this same topic).

When I hear things like “You know you’re a runner when you see someone else run and think to yourself “that’s not running” as I did the other day on my twitter stream, it makes me cranky.

That pretentiousness? That holier than thou attitude? That “my running is better than your running” nonsense? Is there really any need for that? Shouldn’t we be encouraging everyone who’s out there trying to get/be healthy?

When I run past someone who is walking, I don’t think “pffft, that’s not exercise, you should try running”. I think “good for you, being active”.

What is it that makes you so much better than anyone else?

Why is it okay to make someone else feel badly about their efforts? Because they don’t match yours? Well, how would you like Olympic runners to tell you that unless you have a gold medal, you’re not really a runner either?

Where does it stop?


By the way, I have no idea whether I'd be considered a runner or a jogger by "that type" of runner's standards...and I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not walking...so I'm running.

A little competition is healthy. Racing and trying to have the best time is fine.

But putting someone down because what they consider running is not good enough for you? That’s just unnecessary!

Focus on the pavement in front of you, stop looking around…or you might just trip over something, break an ankle, and then, you wouldn’t be much of a runner, would you?

Monday, November 15, 2010

Santa's On A Diet

Uh oh! Looks like Santa's not fitting down the chimney this year!

Driving home the other day, listening to the radio, one of the local disc jockeys was talking about some news report or another, where someone (I don't know who), has said that Santa should lose weight because he's a bad influence for kids.

I'll let you digest that for a minute before I go on.


SO...Santa's fat.

We all know that.

He had a broad face and a little round belly,

That shook, when he laughed like a bowlful of jelly.

He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,


(Twas the night before Christmas - Clement Clark Moore)

But isn't that part of his charm? I mean, come on, it's Santa! He's not supposed to be fit and healthy, he's not meant to be a role model either. I mean, I don't know about you, but I don't know many kids aspiring to be Santa. They want the gifts he's bringing, they want to be on his "nice" list, they don't want to be Santa.

What's next? I mean...is PETA going to get in on the action next? After all:

He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,


uh oh...did I just give someone an idea here?

Look, I'm all for being healthy. I'm all for teaching our children healthy habits and giving them positive role models. But Santa? Really?


Actually, on second thought...Never mind.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Popinjay - Extravagant

This week's #Popinjay prompt is "Extravagant".

1. Spending money excessively or immoderately
2. going beyond usual bounds
3. ostentatious; showy
4. exorbitant in price; overpriced

I don't live a very extravagant life. In fact, for the most part, I live a pretty simple life, and although I like nice things, I'm a bargain hunter by nature, so I don't spend much money on things. If it's not on sale, odds are, it's not coming home with me.

That's just the way I was brought up by my mom, and it just makes sense to me. Why spend a fortune on something when I can find it for half price if I just bide my time?

It's common sense, no?

So, for this prompt, I've decided to go with the 3rd definition above: ostentatious, showy.

Earlier this year, I attended a masquerade ball with friends. These are two of the masks we used:


Be sure to stop by Michelle's to see what other extravagances the other participants have to show you.


Friday, November 12, 2010

How The Other Half Lives - Hollywood Standards

Things have been a little bit serious here at Candid Karina's...so I think it's time for some lighter fare.


I think I’m going to start a weekly series here. Seeing as I’ve decided to revive the ol’ blog and post more regularly, and seeing as I’m a bit of a celebrity gossip enthusiast, I think it’s only proper that I should devote one day a week to vent about (ahem, I mean discuss) celebrity news.

So, without further ado, this week’s topic:

Taylor Swift & Jake Gyllenhall v. Taylor Swift & John Mayer


If you read my blog or follow me on Twitter (@candidk), then you know that I’m a fan of John Mayer. Here's a little bit more on that. And here. I know he’s the guy everyone loves to hate, much like, for some reason unknown to me, everyone loves to hate Jenifer Aniston and Jessica Simpson (but that may be a story for another day).

But I like John Mayer. To sum it up, I am madly deeply in love with his musical talent, I think he’s nothing short of sheer genius, and that’s enough for me, personality isn’t really that important. That being said, I actually find him to be funny (albeit sarcastic), super intelligent, and surprisingly humble. He also has a knack for sticking his foot in his mouth, which is something he himself is aware of, he even has a song titled “My Stupid Mouth” on one of his earlier cds.

But this isn’t a post about John Mayer.

This is a post about the double standards Hollywood likes to place on people they dislike.

Because a while back, the whole world was A-Twitter about how gross it was that there was a rumored romance between 33 year old John Mayer and 19 year old Taylor Swift.

I’m not going to really comment on my feelings on these age-gap romances. I think to each his/her own, and I’m not the one in the relationship, so I have no idea whether there is poor judgment on either of their parts there or not. It’s not mine to say.

I also don’t know if there was an actual romance, or just a crush/flirtation, but again, not mine to say.

Taylor Swift, however, appears to have something to say, as one of her songs on her new CD is entitled Dear John, and appears to take a pretty undisguised sucker punch right at Mr. Mayer.

From reading the lyrics, I’m still not quite sure if this was a romance, or a misunderstanding, but it seems to be pretty clear that Ms. Swift got her feelings hurt, and John probably screwed up somewhere along the line.


Here's a quick peak at the lyrics if you're interested: http://www.metrolyrics.com/dear-john-lyrics-taylor-swift.html

However, once again, that’s not what this post is about.

Before this so called romance went sour (or whatever happened), the world, and Hollywood specifically were already crucifying Mr. Mayer for supposedly being involved with Taylor at her young age. Even Taylor, in her song says "don't you think I was too young"...

Okay. Fine.

Enter Jake Gyllenghall. 29 years old. Supposedly, Ms. Swifts new love interest.

Now, before anyone gets their panties all in a bunch, I like Jake Gyllenhall. I think he’s adorable, and talented, and have nothing negative to say about the guy.

And obviously, neither does Hollywood. Hollywood loves Jake. And Hollywood seems to love the idea of Jake and Taylor.

Nobody seems to find this union gross or inappropriate for the age difference.

AT ALL.

Let’s recap, shall we?

John Mayer = 33

Taylor Swift = 19

Jake Gyllenhall = 29

Am I missing something or is the age gap quite similar here? Now, again, I understand that most of the hoopla is over the fact that nobody likes John Mayer, but then, let's call a spade a spade, and not use the age thing as the reason you don't approve of the relationship, and then champion this new one with quite the similar age gap.


I'm just sayin'...