Waterloo

The Battle of Waterloo

I solitaired the battle of Waterloo using VP Games’ Napoleon 20 system. On the afternoon of June 16, the French began the battle already in contact with the Prussian I and II Corps at Ligny. I decided to shift the II French Corps east to assist in the attack. To screen the Anglo-Dutch in front of Quatre-Bras, I marched I Corps north along the road from Gosselies and sent III Cavalry on a flanking march that put them on the rough terrain just west of the town.

Meanwhile, I decided to commit the Imperial Guard against the Prussians at Ligny. In fact, I pressed the attack hard, committing all available forces in the hope of ejecting the enemy from Ligny and surrounding the Prussian I Corps. The Prussians committed their reserves in both battles and managed to withdraw in good order, though remaining in contact as I advanced aggressively.

The Allied morale, already lowered by their commitment of reserves, sank lower. The Prussians engaged the advancing French line, pushing the II and III Corps back but choosing not to advance and maintain contact. Meanwhile, the French cavalry in Ligny held the town, forcing the Prussian III Corps to withdraw.

In the west, the Anglo-Dutch, satisfied that the French main effort was to the east, occupied Quatre-Bras, while the Reserve Corps countermarched to maneuver the French cavalry away from the town. The French disengaged.

Thus, as the day waned, French morale remains intact, and the Allied lines are still in good order.

Wow! As evening approached, I decided to press the attack against the Prussians while slowing reinforcing against the Anglo-Dutch. I committed the Imperial Guard again, and the resulting battles were bloodbaths. The Imperial Guard and French II Corps were broken, as were the Prussian I and II Corps. The shocked French survivors advanced, and there is now a huge hole in the Allied line…but at what a cost!

The Anglo-Dutch held Quatre-Bras with the I Corps in the town, and the Reserve Corps holding the high ground to the west. The Prussians attacked the French Cavalry that were engaging them, and the French disengaged. Night falls.

The French VI Corps received conflicting orders, with the result that it did not move. III Cavalry Corps moved into Nivelles. The French III and IV Corps advanced in an attempt to surround the remaining Prussian corps. Meanwhile, the French I Corps remained to the south of Quatre-Bras.

The Imperial Guard rallied at Fleurus.

The Prussians withdrew to the north, but the French IV Corps maintained contact with them. The Prussian II Corps rallied at Mont St. Guibert. The Uxbridge Cavalry Corps entered from the west and engaged the French cavalry in Nivelles. The Prussian IV Corps entered near Hamme.

The French force-marched. I and III Corps attacked the Anglo-Dutch at Quatre-Bras as the I Cavalry swung north to cut off any retreat. Meanwhile, VI Corps conducted a diversionary attack against the Reserve Corps. To the east the French IV Corps, along with the I and II Cavalry surrounded the Prussian III Corps and attacked it. The Imperial Guard force-marched four miles and is following the attack against the Prussians.

The Uxbridge Cavalry tried to countercharge the French III Cavalry at Nivelles but was repulsed and routed all the way back to Hougemont. The Prussian III Corps committed its reserves in a desperate defense against the French and managed to survive yet again, withdrawing in good order. The French attack against Quatre-Bras was handily repulsed, and the French VI Corps was routed and broken by the Anglo-Dutch Reserve Corps.

The Allied cause is looking good. The Prussians pushed back against the French cavalry in the east as the II Corps reached the front lines and joined the III Corps. Still, the French cavalry were able to avoid any losses and maneuvered in such a way as to imperil the Prussian II Corps again. Meanwhile, the Prussian IV Corps is moving to cover Wavre. In the west, the Anglo-Dutch II Corps appeared and attacked the French cavalry in Nivelles, forcing them to withdraw to the south. The Uxbridge Cavalry recovered.

At mid-day on the 17^th of June, Napoleon decided to hammer at the enemy again. He committed the Imperial Guard against the Prussian II Corps, and the resulting battle was another bloodbath—both the Prussians and the French IV Corps were broken. In the west, the French ejected the Anglo-Dutch out of Quatre-Bras but were able to advance into the town with a weak cavalry unit, due to the presence of the enemy Reserve Corps. The French are running out of units.

The Anglo-Dutch counterattacked against Quatre-Bras, and the French cavalry disengaged, leaving the town vacant as the two armies faced off. The British II Corp chased the French cavalry facing them off the wooded ridge west of the town, and the Uxbridge Cavalry raced toward the fight along the main road from Waterloo.

In the east the Prussian III Corps withdrew to Mont St. Gibert, keeping out of range of the French Imperial Guard. The IV Corps marched to try to join them. It doesn’t seem likely, however, that the French will make much more headway toward Wavre.

French morale is very low. In the east, the Imperial Guard trudged north with the two French cavalry corps covering the movement. In the west, the French infantry advanced into Quatre-Bras and engaged the Anglo-Dutch I Corps, pushing them back. But when the two French cavalry corps conducted a diversionary attack on the Reserve Corps, the enemy committed their reserves and broke both cavalry corps, ending the battle.

I flubbed the attack with the French. They have to press the attack, but in this battle, three exchanges sapped French strength. I should have selected a main effort and moved it quickly against either the Prussians or Anglo-Dutch. Instead, I attacked both simultaneously. I do feel that luck went against the French—not only the exchanges, but also the Prussians kept surviving their hazardous retreats. I tended to be pretty liberal with my use of morale points, and in the end it caught up with me.

The Eschatology of Philemon

We don't often associate Paul's letter to Philemon with eschatology, but I've come to see a potent lesson about it in this very short letter. Paul wrote to Philemon--a wealthy Christian probably based in Colossae--in order to urge him to be merciful and kind to his former slave, Onesimus, whom Paul was returning to his master.

Paul appeals to the Christian virtue in Philemon, reminding him that Onesimus is not just his slave anymore, but his brother in Christ. He praises the slave's usefulness to Paul while the apostle was in prison and asks that Philemon charge Paul with any expenses Onesimus might have caused him. It's a beautiful letter, not least because Paul is not only seeking to develop Philemon's character, but also that of Onesimus. Imagine the trepidation the slave would have felt at the prospect of returning to Philemon, whom he presumably deserted (perhaps even stealing from him)! Yet, Paul convinces him to return home and face the music--like a good Christian.

One interesting aspect to the letter is the complete absence of commentary by Paul concerning the institution of slavery. A common condition within the Roman Empire, slavery was certainly not anything shocking, as we would consider it today. Paul does not protest the practice, condemn anyone who engaged in it, or call for political movements to eradicate it. Instead, he solves the inherent problems of slavery by appealing TO CHRISTIANS and sees the virtue of the mature believer as the solution.

This, to me, has eschatological implications. The postmillennial and amillennial positions suffer from a proclivity for Christian social action. Liberation theology and its tangential ideologies (including socialism) plague our world today. Too many who label themselves Christians view our belief as essentially a call for equality, freedom, peace, and universal brotherhood. They see the proper role of the Christian as one that aims at solving social problems--fixing the devil's world. This is decidedly NOT the point of Christianity.

Biblical Christianity is all about Jesus Christ--his Person, his work at the Cross. It is about propagating the message of God's gracious program of salvation to the world. It is about leading people to a saving knowledge of Christ, and then discipling them to become mature, virtuous believers. Does Biblical Christianity care about world problems? Most certainly. But it seeks temporary solutions through the cultivation of character and virtue IN CHRISTIANS, not in the unbelieving world.

Premillennialism correctly interprets prophecy by anticipating the return of Jesus Christ, who will reign on the earth as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Postmillennialism and amillennialism pervert and dismiss these prophecies by insisting that Christ will fix the devil's world through the agency of the Church. Thus--he will NOT return to rule, and we are already in the Millennium...or there will be no Millennium at all.

All three schools of interpretation claim to be faithful to Paul's writings. But what did Paul really think and preach? Did he insist that Philemon abandon the practice of slavery? By no means. Instead, knowing that such issues cannot be solved sufficiently in our age, he focused on the personal behavior of the individual believer. That is clearly a premillennial position!

Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit

I love the beautiful integrity, the depth, and richness of the Bible. I had such an enjoyable evening searching and searching into the Scriptures.

After over three decades of teaching the Bible, one of my favorite adventures is to wrestle with a passage that troubles me or confuses me. I've been taking on the Synoptic Gospels' accounts of Jesus' teaching about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and it has led me on such a rewarding journey as I study the words of my majestic King!

The passages in question: Matthew 12:22-32 and the parallel Mark 3:22-30. In response to Jesus casting out a demon, thus enabling a blind and mute man to both see and speak (typological connection to Israel...), the Pharisees and teachers of the law (Greek: GRAMMATEUS) concluded officially that Jesus cast out demons because he himself was possessed by Beelzebuul. In other words, Jesus was possessed by Satan.

Jesus refutes this idiotic claim by first revealing the inherent logical fallacy: "A house divided cannot stand..." But then he goes on to state categorically that although all manner of sin and blasphemies will be forgiven, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come. It is an eternal sin.

What a remarkable and powerful statement! Unfortunately, Christian theologians and Bible teachers (myself included) have obsessed about this statement, mainly because we secretly wish he hadn't said it! It bothers us, because it appears to interfere with our much-vaunted doctrines of expiation, unlimited atonement, and our other clever soteriological calculations! In our attempts to EXPLAIN this statement, we come close to instead DISMISSING it, because it makes us uncomfortable.

So here's what I've learned after 30+ years of Bible study: when a passage troubles you, rejoice! Because you're about to experience the awesome power of God's Word! You'd better get used to it: our God is unfathomably deep, and his message to us is beautiful, terrible, joyous, gracious and frequently ironic. What then is this passage about?

To find out, we should rely on probably the very best and first principle of good hermeneutics: let the Bible explain the Bible. Specifically, we must remember that the Gospels are in essence Old Testament books, in that (1) the Law of Moses was still in effect; and (2) Jesus dealt primarily with Israel during his life. It is to Israel that he speaks. He is constantly challenging their knowledge of and obedience to the Old Testament.

Hence, when Jesus speaks so dramatically about the Holy Spirit--and specifically about Israel's blasphemy against him--we should look in the Old Testament for parallels. In the book of Isaiah, we find exactly that. Read the exciting chapter of Isaiah 63. What a thrilling depiction of Israel's Savior! Drenched in the blood of his enemies, he arrives. What is the theme of his message and of Isaiah's remonstrance? Several key points are made: (1) the Savior had to work alone because no one (i.e., Israel) was there to help him; (2) he was obsessed with helping his beloved people; (3) through this and many other instances God has demonstrated his abiding love for Israel; (4) GOD HIMSELF is their Savior!; (5) GOD HIMSELF feels distress when they are in distress and therefore works to save them.

Now look at their response in verse 10: they rebelled against his Holy Spirit. The emphasis throughout this passage is God's extraordinary efforts to save Israel. In contrast to his faithfulness, they rebel against his Holy Spirit--the agent who energizes the plan of salvation. The parallel to Matthew 12/Mark 3 is inescapable. But let's go deeper.

One of the most remarkable things that Jesus says in this passage is that blasphemy against the Son of Man (i.e., himself) will be forgiven! If the apostles had merely concocted the gospel accounts in order to propagate some "Jesus cult", they would not have written this. But their accounts are true records of what our majestic King actually said: that blasphemy against the God-Man would be forgiven! Why?

For the answer, go to Philippians 2:5-11. This passage--a beautiful and poetic piece that has inspired many songs--is the basis for the doctrine of Kenosis. Kenosis derives from a Greek word meaning "to empty". In verse 7, Paul states that Jesus, literally, "emptied" himself--i.e., he sovereignly chose to forgo the prerogatives associated with his divinity. This is right in line with his remarkable statement that blasphemy against the Son of Man would be forgiven. What a surprising and powerful statement of God's grace!!

Think about this: if Christ had instead insisted that BLASPHEMY against his person would NOT be forgiven, how then will he make his way to the Cross? His purpose in coming to this planet was to die the substitutionary death on the Cross. Inflicting such an unthinkable torture and crime on the body of the God-Man was a far worse crime than speaking against him. Hence, his gracious statement that blasphemy against him will be forgiven points the way to the Cross. Our Lord is AWESOME!

What are we left with? Linking Isaiah 63, Matthew 12/Mark 3, and Philippians 2, we have a thrilling picture of our God who goes to unfathomable lengths to save us. He must work alone, because none of us have been faithful or able to help ourselves. In the end, in order to accomplish our salvation, he goes to the most extraordinary measure of all: he sends the God-Man to earth! And when Jesus accepts this task, he does the unthinkable: he empties himself of his divine prerogatives, so as to make himself accessible to us and to Israel. In this condition, he makes his way to the Cross and wins the great strategic victory over sin and Satan on our behalf. On his tortured path to that horrible nightmare he chose to face, he graciously forgave us even for the blasphemies that we leveled at him.

But in the end he warns us and Israel: If you persist even after all this to deny the divine program that has been offered to you through the agency and energy of the Holy Spirit, you are facing eternal perdition. This passage tells us that Jesus is so gracious that he will forgive even our personal sins against him. But in the end, we are free to choose for or against God's program of salvation. If, like Israel in Isaiah 63, we rebel against his Holy Spirit, then we make God our enemy.

Rather than seeing this passage as some troubling piece that has to be explained away in order to tidy up our carefully prepared theology, we should instead see it in the greater context of God's incredible love for Israel. The part of this passage that should amaze us is not the warning about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Instead, when you lie in your bed tonight, meditate on this: that man's blasphemy against the Son of Man will be forgiven! That's grace!

Quran Burning

The proposed Quran burning by the Florida church leaves me with decidedly mixed feelings. It is a complicated issue for me, because I view it from several different angles: as a Christian, as a nationalist, as an American ideologue, and both from an individual perspective and a civilizational perspective. With a few other tangential, emotional issues, too.

As a Christian I feel it is my obligation to reach out in love to all unbelievers with the good news about Jesus Christ. I Peter 3:15 urges us to engage the unbelieving world with gentleness and respect and a clear conscience. Burning someone's holy book is hardly respectful and gentle. It is provocative and mean-spirited...thus a violation of God's command.

I'm also a nationalist. I love my country--its history, its successes, its unique place in the world. I tend to be chauvinistic about America (please look the word up--it has nothing to do with the feminist debate...). From this perspective, I don't like Islam. I've never respected Islamic culture, since long before 9/11, but since then I'm very angry and suspicious toward Muslims. I think their religion is nonsense, and that it leads to violence wherever it is prominent. And I think that one of the most dangerous things you can do as a country is pussyfoot with Muslims. It only encourages them toward violence. Since 9/11 Muslims have flocked to this country to enjoy and abuse our hard-won freedoms, and they expect to be coddled as they hide behind our Bill of Rights. From this perspective, I feel it is important to burn those Qurans, because Muslims must be taught (collectively, as a culture) that freedom doesn't mean special treatment. It means freedom--to live, to speak, to work, to enjoy the fruits of your labor, AND to be subjected to criticism. Muslims in this country tend to wear their cultural snobbery on their sleeves, daring anyone to criticize them, their beliefs, or their bearded holy men. As of today, they have even gone so far as to threaten attack if we don't let them build their victory mosque in NYC. When someone threatens us like this, it is urgent that we IMMEDIATELY strike back and cross the line they draw in the sand. We MUST show them that they can and will suffer insult when appropriate. Burn those Qurans!

From the perspective of an American ideologue, I don't favor burning the Qurans. The Bill of Rights protects both freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and so it is technically okay to burn the books. But the cultural ideology behind the Bill of Rights is one of peace and respect. The point of the Bill of Rights is to create a violence-free society of free men and women. Burning each others' holy books is at cross-purposes with that cultural ideal, and it is certain that if we burn the Qurans, the "Islam and Christianity are Equivalent" Myth will kick in, and people will start burning Bibles. When we have a choice, as we do here, it is most often the better choice to opt for peace, respect, and gentleness.

When I think of Muslims as individuals, I can see them with sympathy and kindness. When I think of them collectively as a culture, I loathe them. Islam, for most of its existence, has been a cancer in human history. I find little of redeeming value in its constantly shifting morals. I hate the way they bump their heads. I despise the elevation of Mohammed into some sort of holy man. In reality he was a violent idol-worshipper who chose his favorite idol (named Allah), and decided to promote it to the "only true god." I hate the way the culture abuses women. And I don't want to ally with any culture that is anti-Semitic, because that's a violation of the Abrahamic covenant. Collectively, I feel that Islam needs to be subdued and exposed for all its many crimes.

Other thoughts about the proposed Quran-burning. I don't like stupidity--especially public stupidity--in Christianity, because it makes us all look bad. The pastor comes across like a moronic bigot, which I don't like. On the other hand, the public reaction against him and his little flock also makes me mad. My own president has surrendered completely to the Muslims and is the captain of Mohammed's cheerleading team. This is in keeping with his dismissive view of American sovereignty. Rather than defending our borders--one of his most basic constitutional duties--he spends his time and my tax money suing Arizona. He got elected by assuring us all that his middle name is as American as Chevrolet, but it seems that Hussein spends most of his time promoting Islamo-fascism at every opportunity. That makes me want to burn a Quran.

One final thought on all this. We should burn the Quran because it's the most boring, tedious book ever written. Have you ever read it? Drink coffee first.

So my conclusion? Don't burn the Qurans. The Scriptures assure us that God will take care of that at the end of the millennial reign of Christ. Whenever we can, we should restrain our own violent tendencies (I have plenty of them) and opt for peace. I don't like it, but there it is.

Borodino

Been studying the Battle of Borodino, 5-7 September, 1812 between Napoleon's Grande Armee and Kutuzov's Russians. Played the battle out using VPG's Napoleon 20 system. During the first two days, the French beat their heads against the wall, eventually taking Shevardino and pushing on to the Russian main defenses around the Fleches and the Great Redoubt. Lots of back and forth, and French morale kept going down while the Russians went up.

Finally on the last day of the fight, things started to happen for Napoleon. After two key Russian units routed from the vicinity of Semenovskaya, the French committed the Imperial Guard and smashed the Russian line, gaining attack frontage against the Redoubt. Late in the day the French V Corps occupied the Redoubt and the Russians fell back to Gorki. By nightfall, the French were on the outskirts of the town, but it was too late. As the battle ended, French morale was still low, and the Russians were doing fine.

In retrospect, I think I wasted the first two days on ineffective French attacks that contributed to the low morale. A better approach would be to maneuver, use the lulls to rest the troops, and begin a strong push late on the 6th with the coup de grace the next morning.

30 Pounds--I did it; you can do it.

Having reached my target weight (well, almost...) of 185, I have successfully shed 30 pounds since December, 2008. I will provide my conclusions and insights for those interested in losing weight.

1. Get serious. For years I played around with weight loss--losing a little, gaining back more, and deluding myself that I was basically in good shape and that some day soon I would lose it. Finally, I looked at myself realistically, didn't like what I saw, and asked myself: If not now, when? Time for a life change. For us middle-aged folks, I think it's important to realize that weight loss requires dramatic changes and deadly serious commitment.

2. Calories in, calories out. This is the best advice I ever read. It's really simple: if the calories you burn exceed the calories you take in, you will lose weight. The fat, protein, carb calculations are fine if you're into that, but I'm not, and you don't need to be. But you MUST count calories--what you eat and what you burn. If you don't, you will not lose weight. The good news is that counting calories is easier than ever. Iphone apps like "Tap and Track" provide excellent tools for tracking your calories. If you don't track your calories, you will underestimate what you eat and drink, and overestimate what you burn at the gym.

3. Eating right. I eat 2 eggs (fried or soft-boiled) and 2 slices of turkey bacon every morning for breakfast after returning from the gym. Delicious, very healthy, and a total of 230 calories. For lunch, I eat a 6 inch Subway sandwich--roast beef is one of the best and least calories--for about 350 calories. Alternately I have a Lean Cuisine (anywhere from 200 to 350 calories.) So far, so good. I can do breakfast and lunch easy. My problem is dinner and evening. I have had to learn discipline--not to take more than one helping. (I occasionally fail at this and take 3.) Then comes the hard part: stop eating at night! I like to watch a movie with Zanne and snack and drink wine. This is a diet killer. Learn the power of not eating after six each night. Eat absolutely NOTHING. Drink only water or seltzer. Go to bed slightly hungry. You will lose weight overnight. It's painful, but it's necessary if you are serious about weight loss.

4. Working out. Join a family-friendly gym. I have good fitness equipment at home, and I use it often, but I finally got over the hump by joining our local Gold's Gym with Zanne. We have gone to the gym every morning without fail six days a week for the past several months, and it works. I remember reading a long time ago some fitness guy saying that you can't build muscle while you are losing weight. This is totally false. The exact opposite is true. You MUST build muscle, because it boosts your weight loss. As I dropped my 30 pounds, I gained muscle and strength big time. Now my belly is gone, and my arms are iron. When you go to the gym, start by working out with weights/machines. I work a different body part every day: chest, back, shoulders, arms, legs. I do abs twice a week. If you don't know how to work out, then invest in a personal trainer and learn. After exhausting yourself, then it's time for aerobics. If you're out of shape, you'll have to build up. Your goal should be to push yourself further, faster, and longer everytime, and soon you will become addicted to it. My daily routine now is to run or use the arc-trainer for 40 minutes on a high level. I burn 700 calories that way, plus what I burn with the weights (about 250).

5. Some other stuff. Don't deny yourself anything. Those chocolate donuts or pizza or fried chicken. If you deny yourself, you will become obsessed with what you can't have...like Eve in the garden. Instead of denying yourself, simply DELAY. I tell myself all the time: I can have a chocolate glazed donut anytime I want. Furthermore, I'm sure that I will have one at some point. But...not right now. Not today. Why? Because I don't want it right now. I'll have one later. You'd be amazed at how powerful that is.

6. When you screw up or gain back some weight, discipline yourself not to let it de-rail you. Just do what you know is right: calories in, calories out. Keep at it. Over the past two years, I've had sudden, dramatic weight loss followed by months of plateaus. It was almost always because I lost control eating or drinking. I just rededicated myself and went back at it.

7. Aerobic machines: don't lean on them or even touch them with your hands at all. One of the biggest wastes of time I see every day at the gym is people on treadmills or stair-steppers leaning their entire upper body on the machine! Or holding on to the machine. This is self-delusion. If you rest your body weight on the machine, you are not achieving the burn you think you are. Further, you are missing the opportunity to strengthen your core. Hands off!

8. Learn to avoid injury, but don't wimp out. If you're like me, your temptation is to work out with too much weight and bad form, resulting in injury. Stop it! When you reach middle-age, you have to become an expert in not hurting yourself. Injuries are for the young. At the same time, too many people (especially women) don't push themselves hard enough. Don't ever tell yourself that you can't do something. Yes, you can. It's painful to push yourself, but you need to get used to that pain if you're going to achieve weight loss. I don't mean pain in your joints, tendons, or muscles. I mean the pain of moving your butt when you feel like stopping. Get some good music for your aerobic exercise. Makes all the difference in the world. Suddenly, you find yourself running, but it feels more like dancing.

9. Think of yourself as an athlete. Tell yourself that you are an athlete, because you are. If you go to the gym and later feel depressed because the weight isn't coming off as fast as you wish, remind yourself of this: there are two kinds of people in the world--those who worked out today, and those who didn't. You did. You're an athlete. When you're on the treadmill running, and your tired old body is telling you that it's too hard, tell yourself: I'm an athlete. It's normal for me to be running. It doesn't hurt. I'm fine.

10. Finally...physical exercise profits little! So says the apostle Paul. Don't take weight loss so seriously that you lose perspective. Your spiritual health is far more important and long-lasting than anything your can achieve at the gym. Paul didn't mean that physical exercise is worthless. In fact, when he wrote that to the Corinthians, he was using irony. In the context of ancient Greece, physical exercise was VERY profitable. Olympic champions won great rewards, including exemption from taxes and public honors. But what Paul was saying was that compared to the riches we find in Christ, those physical rewards are nothing. After all, some day soon I will have a slim, powerful, good-looking resurrection body (with knees of steel!). In the mean time, weight loss here on earth is just a fun thing to do. Enjoy!

Running on Empty

That's the name of one of my running songs. Anyways, I've been running 40 minutes per day, increasing the speed and distance each time. Today I started at incline of 2.0 and a speed of 6.0. After 20 minutes, I increased to 6.5. After another 10 minutes I increased to 7.0, and for the last minute I went to 8.0. Distance was about 4.3 miles.

My philosophy has been to gradually increase speed and distance, but I'm getting impatient. The worst part of each run is the first ten minutes, because 6.0 is way too slow. I need to experiment with a brief warm-up and then a jump to 7.0, which feels much more comfortable. I might try to do 8.0 for the last five minutes next time and see how that goes down. Knees and heels are fair--not great, but not bad either.

Bottom line: I love running. I really look forward to it every day. I forgot how much I enjoyed it in my youth, but my body is quickly adapting to it again, and I love it.