New Shoes
I tend to be very frugal in most matters in my life. In terms of my running, I splurged last year when I started and bought what was an outrageously expensive running shoe.... they cost $85 dollars! I was embarrassed in some ways because they were so damn expensive. So, I made sure I got my use out of them. Most things I have read suggest runners get new shoes every 500 or so miles. I could not fathom spending that kind of money that often. So, I used those shoes through a bit more than 1500 miles. They really were shot to hell. The heels were ground down, the insides torn apart and basically gutted like a fish. I really did need a new pair. So, I grudgenly bought another pair. This pair again was outrageous.... $83 dollars. I hope they serve my feet well. Today was their virginal run, and I have to admit my feet felt good in them.
7 Comments:
It must be my age...I'm not into paying for a label...As a homecare worker when I take a client I get chance to glance though a magazine or so...Well I'm shock that someone is willing to pay upper of $80 for a top and thinking it a good deal.
Right now I have a pair shoes on I believe I paid around $20, socks let call it $1.00, shorts I bought off a clearence rack $7.00, and top I got at thrift store $3.00,panties $1.00 and the most expensive thing I have on is my bra for $50...minus the under garment. It cost $10 to be cover up so I can go out in public....Coffee is on
I agree with you whole heartedly. All of my other shoes are in the neighborhood of 20-30 dollars. And most all of my clothes are also very budget friendly too. I only paid the horrible price for these running shoes because everything I have been able to read suggests that to avoid injury, runners need to have very good quality footwear. And, from what I read, the style I bought was at the lower end of price for running shoes of this type.
I do admit to being damn embarased about the price.
I believe Richard Dawkins is a non-smoker, Professor. As science advances, so does the behaviour of scientists!
A very good point, indeed. Although, from my perspective, while I like the basics of his "Selfish Gene" concept, his persona is rather too confrontational and bombastic for me to admire him. I have a bit more of a brotherly affiliation with the late Stephen J. Gould. He seemed a more congenial sort.
I guess what I mean, is that folks I found admirable, past and present were more gentle and kind sorts in terms of personality. Even Hemingway, with all of his bravado, was really a bit on the shy, self deprecating side of the spectrum. Dawkins seemed to be more wholly all about Dawkins, and others be damned. Perhaps it is a lack of humility that is at the core of my lack of admiration for him (although I admit his ideas are very interesting). Vonnegut is another example of a great man, who still seemed a good, gentle sort, by and large.
I am not sure if this makes sense or not... It is more a free expression of ideas I have.
PipeTobacco
Yes, Dicky Dawkins can be a little too cocksure. I wonder if Carl Sagan smoked a pipe?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home